"The Shack": What God Should Have Said?
If no one has handed you a tear-stained copy yet, The Shack is a work of Christian fiction penned by first-time novelist William P. Young. The story centers on family man Mack Phillips, whose seven-year-old daughter is kidnapped and murdered in the opening chapters. After three and a half years of understandably “Great Sadness,” a mysterious note invites Mack to the site of her murder, a shack in the woods. There he spends a healing weekend with the three persons of the Trinity, who manifest primarily as an African-American woman called Papa, a middle-aged Jewish Jesus, and a wispy Asian woman named Sarayu. Literary criticism aside, give the brother credit for guts: Young attempts to answer the problem of evil and the nature of the Trinity in 248 pages.
Sales of The Shack have skyrocketed since it was first published in May 2007, garnering rapturous praise from readers (“life-changing,” “joyfully giving away copies by the case”) and glowing endorsements by the likes of Eugene Peterson—who, inexplicably, compares it to Pilgrim’s Progress.
Writing an unfavorable review of The Shack, then, is like criticizing your Aunt Martha’s macaroni casserole. Sure, it’s fattening, but everyone else in the family loves it, so why not just shut up and eat your Waldorf salad? Any critic risks stumbling directly into the book’s own well-worn stereotype: a strident religious nitpick. God the Father, as portrayed in The Shack, oughta cluck her tongue and give you a talkin’ to.
Of course, not every detail is worth dissecting; a novel is not systematic theology. Yet it’s clearly more than just fiction. Mack’s conversations with Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu make up the bulk of the book, with his questions serving as little more than prompts for their extended divine speeches. Though never citing Scripture directly, the characters make enough allusions to biblical content to imply fidelity to orthodox Christianity. Combined with chapter-heading quotes by thoughtful Christians like C.S. Lewis and Marilynne Robinson, the effect is prophet-like: not quite “Thus saith the Lord,” but not far from it.
And therein hides the book’s gravest, and most subtle, problem. Though some parts roughly align with biblical teaching (and many others explicitly contradict it), the book’s overall attitude toward Scripture is persistently dismissive. Mack’s own disdain is conveyed early on: “God’s voice had been reduced to paper. … Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” (p. 65-67).
More significant, when Mack mentions biblical events or concepts (often in gross caricature), “God” promptly brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is. Unlike the biblical Jesus, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and spent many post-resurrection hours “opening their minds to understand the scriptures,” The Shack’s Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu turn Mack’s attention away from Scripture, coaxing him to trust instead their simplistic lessons set in idyllic, Thomas Kinkade-like scenes and delivered in the familiar therapeutic language of our age.
That’s not to say it’s all bad. Positively, The Shack’s God-figures emphasize the full divinity of each person of the Trinity, the superiority of divine wisdom over human understanding, and the absolute necessity of grace over the illusion of human merit. Those are great points to emphasize, and there are a few pithy insights on lesser matters as well.
Negatively, however—that is, in clear opposition to Scripture—they explicitly teach that there is no authority or hierarchy within the Trinity, and that God is never willing to violate human free will. There’s also a paragraph that seems to imply universal salvation, and a chapter about judgment that stubbornly avoids pronouncement about the fate of the wicked. In fact, there’s little reason to believe that The Shack’s God ever judges anyone. By the end of the book, even the daughter’s serial killer appears to be, conveniently, on the road to redemption.
Despite regular jabs at organized religion, there is something systematic about Young’s theology. Apparently, the essence of sin is our fearful desire to control God’s messy-by-design world, and thus all rules, expectations, hierarchies, or positions of authority are merely human inventions servicing this vain desire. Salvation, then—or healing, at least—is found by surrendering these misguided ideas and embracing the mystery of relationship. As Papa explains to Mack: “Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way… we want you to join us in our circle of relationship” (p. 145-146).
Young’s diagnosis of sin as “control” has some merit, but his prescription of an entirely flat, circular relationship between us and God ultimately violates a fundamental truth of biblical anthropology: God is the Creator, and we are His creatures. Even after we have been redeemed by Christ, our relationship to God is rightly characterized by obedience and one-way submission to Him.
The result? To the extent that you trust The Shack, you will distrust your Bible—including huge chunks of the Old Testament and at least half of the red letters. Few errors are more corrosive to vigorous Christian faith. Some will plead that there is enough meat for careful readers to spit out the bones, but sadly, this yeast leavens the whole loaf.
In the end, The Shack is spiritual comfort food loaded with theological trans fat. Though not without some nutritional value, its effect on the body of Christ is more harmful than healthy. Even if you love it, and even if it makes you cry. Junk food and bad movies can do the same.
Good fiction has the potential to illuminate biblical truth, but not when it effectively supplants it. We need the Bible, not The Shack. The true Word takes more work to understand, and it won’t always tell us what we want to hear, but we can trust it to reveal a greater, wiser, more loving, and more gloriously Triune God than any novelist could conceive.
Comments
Victoria
Orono, Maine
Thank you so much for this review. My book club read it and agree whole-heartedly with you. We could not understand why it would have the impact it appears to be having. It is good to know that we are not alone in our opinion.
Christine
Baltimore, MD
Walter, I understand why it has such a powerful impact.
As you rightly acknowledge, this is not a book on systematic theology. The author's position is also not reformed as you have noted.
What it is ...is....engaging...thought provoking...powerful...life changing.
Why? Because it makes God real...present... next to you in a new and fresh way. Because it challenges us to see ourselves as we really are...judgemental, self-righteous, bitter, unforgiving, unwilling to humble ourselves and be real in relationships being able to fully experience the healing and reconciliation available to us through the power of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection from the grave.
Sadly, many are bored and numbed to the gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation in churches which are theologically correct yet practically mired in judgementalism, programs, focused on itself, preserving its own traditions and half heartedly proclaiming the gospel to a lost world, locally and globally....majoring on the minors and grieving the Holy Spirit with self-righteousness and self-interest.
Let me give you some examples. Knowing this is fiction...the scenes about heaven are very descriptive. I joyfully went back to scripture to get a fuller view of the details. I haven't done that for years.
Several significant relationships which have been disintegrating due to my inability to own my stuff and ask for forgiveness have been dramatically healed and restored...real reconciliation.
I have been a believer for 54 years. Raised in a wonderful Bible believing church...long time member of PCA churches...
I unashamedly recommend this book, not as a theological primer or text book, not as a defense of the faith...but as a very out-of -the-box, serendipitous, yet practical call to experience God, to embrace him anew, to seek reconciliation, renewal and joy in knowing God, being especially loved by Him.
I feel comfortable giving this book to my unbelieving acquaintances who have no "church" experience or very little, who dismiss religion and church as irrelevant to their deepest longings. This book breaks through those impasses and gives them a glimpse of the God-head, the eternal...the compelling love of God.
Theologians and pastors can continue to help us defend the faith and build a Biblically correct systematic theology.
But let us not be critical of authors like William Young who can revive the chosen frozen out of their unrepentant sins and calloused exteriors and engage and entice the unchurched who are lost with gripping fiction that points us to Christ.
As you rightly acknowledge, this is not a book on systematic theology. The author's position is also not reformed as you have noted.
What it is ...is....engaging...thought provoking...powerful...life changing.
Why? Because it makes God real...present... next to you in a new and fresh way. Because it challenges us to see ourselves as we really are...judgemental, self-righteous, bitter, unforgiving, unwilling to humble ourselves and be real in relationships being able to fully experience the healing and reconciliation available to us through the power of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection from the grave.
Sadly, many are bored and numbed to the gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation in churches which are theologically correct yet practically mired in judgementalism, programs, focused on itself, preserving its own traditions and half heartedly proclaiming the gospel to a lost world, locally and globally....majoring on the minors and grieving the Holy Spirit with self-righteousness and self-interest.
Let me give you some examples. Knowing this is fiction...the scenes about heaven are very descriptive. I joyfully went back to scripture to get a fuller view of the details. I haven't done that for years.
Several significant relationships which have been disintegrating due to my inability to own my stuff and ask for forgiveness have been dramatically healed and restored...real reconciliation.
I have been a believer for 54 years. Raised in a wonderful Bible believing church...long time member of PCA churches...
I unashamedly recommend this book, not as a theological primer or text book, not as a defense of the faith...but as a very out-of -the-box, serendipitous, yet practical call to experience God, to embrace him anew, to seek reconciliation, renewal and joy in knowing God, being especially loved by Him.
I feel comfortable giving this book to my unbelieving acquaintances who have no "church" experience or very little, who dismiss religion and church as irrelevant to their deepest longings. This book breaks through those impasses and gives them a glimpse of the God-head, the eternal...the compelling love of God.
Theologians and pastors can continue to help us defend the faith and build a Biblically correct systematic theology.
But let us not be critical of authors like William Young who can revive the chosen frozen out of their unrepentant sins and calloused exteriors and engage and entice the unchurched who are lost with gripping fiction that points us to Christ.
Robyn Perry
Richmond, VA
Amen. I wholeheartedly concur with your comments. There are so many Christians stuck in the "to do" and "not to do" of the churches, and they don't really know God's nature. This book was a breath of fresh air.
Mark Nabholz
Augusta, GA
Emphasizing God's eminence at the expense of His transcendence...classic liberalism.
Sand Price
Birmingham, Alabama
Christine I totally agree with you. You said it best so I will not add to it.
Walter Henegar
Atlanta, GA
As the author of this article, I'm grateful to see a few comments so far. I think a book like this needs this kind of open discussion, and I’d like to take the opportunity to say a few more things myself.
A bit of background: Before I read The Shack myself, I came across a popular review by Tim Chailles which critiqued it in a way that I thought overly harsh in places. By contrast, I hoped to validate the fact that some readers with warm piety and evangelical convictions found it beneficial, while also highlighting its serious problems. As a pastor, I wanted to warn the sheep not to graze in it, without making them feel stupid for being drawn to its green grasses.
In respect to this charitable goal I have certainly failed, and I now realize why: Personally, the experience of reading the book was far more unpleasant than I anticipated. I found the story contrived, the characters clichéd, the dialogue corny, and the lessons maddeningly simplistic. Nobody made me read it, but I had decided to write a review, and so I resented wasting precious reading hours on its pages. I felt little sympathy for its admirers – and even, frankly, some disdain.
These are subjective reactions, of course, and thoroughly tainted by my own sinful pride. A few not-so-subtle jabs in my article are surely evidence of this. So it is from personal experience that I agree with both Christine (above) and The Shack’s author William Young (and Scripture!), that we human beings are judgmental, self-righteous, bitter, unforgiving, etc. For those who loved the book and were chafed by my dismissal of it, I may have only bolstered their faith in the depravity of man.
But that would be a shame, since I still believe my central critique is substantial enough to be taken seriously: that The Shack undermines the Bible. To put it another way: A god who resembles the Trinity of Scripture but who ignores, distorts and at times contradicts Scripture itself can be nothing less than an alternate god. The Shack, then, is this god’s alternate bible.
While most fans of the book would surely affirm the superior authority of scripture, I suspect they underestimate the extent to which Young's words have effectively trumped God's Words in their thinking. Otherwise, why would The Shack have such a dramatic, "life-changing" influence on people who have had the Bible all along?
There’s much more to say, and I might add more if others weigh in. Until then, it’s worth noting that I’m not alone in my concern about The Shack; In addition to Victoria and her reading group (above), sound thinkers including Chuck Colson, Al Mohler, and Mark Driscoll have issued strong warnings about the book, the latter two applying the word heresy to some of its teachings. I stopped short of that because I didn’t think the genre provided enough precision for such judgments. Nevertheless, I still believe The Shack is an unexceptionally written, theologically dangerous book. Unless you are compelled to read it in order to interact with enthusiastic friends, I would discourage you from reading it.
A bit of background: Before I read The Shack myself, I came across a popular review by Tim Chailles which critiqued it in a way that I thought overly harsh in places. By contrast, I hoped to validate the fact that some readers with warm piety and evangelical convictions found it beneficial, while also highlighting its serious problems. As a pastor, I wanted to warn the sheep not to graze in it, without making them feel stupid for being drawn to its green grasses.
In respect to this charitable goal I have certainly failed, and I now realize why: Personally, the experience of reading the book was far more unpleasant than I anticipated. I found the story contrived, the characters clichéd, the dialogue corny, and the lessons maddeningly simplistic. Nobody made me read it, but I had decided to write a review, and so I resented wasting precious reading hours on its pages. I felt little sympathy for its admirers – and even, frankly, some disdain.
These are subjective reactions, of course, and thoroughly tainted by my own sinful pride. A few not-so-subtle jabs in my article are surely evidence of this. So it is from personal experience that I agree with both Christine (above) and The Shack’s author William Young (and Scripture!), that we human beings are judgmental, self-righteous, bitter, unforgiving, etc. For those who loved the book and were chafed by my dismissal of it, I may have only bolstered their faith in the depravity of man.
But that would be a shame, since I still believe my central critique is substantial enough to be taken seriously: that The Shack undermines the Bible. To put it another way: A god who resembles the Trinity of Scripture but who ignores, distorts and at times contradicts Scripture itself can be nothing less than an alternate god. The Shack, then, is this god’s alternate bible.
While most fans of the book would surely affirm the superior authority of scripture, I suspect they underestimate the extent to which Young's words have effectively trumped God's Words in their thinking. Otherwise, why would The Shack have such a dramatic, "life-changing" influence on people who have had the Bible all along?
There’s much more to say, and I might add more if others weigh in. Until then, it’s worth noting that I’m not alone in my concern about The Shack; In addition to Victoria and her reading group (above), sound thinkers including Chuck Colson, Al Mohler, and Mark Driscoll have issued strong warnings about the book, the latter two applying the word heresy to some of its teachings. I stopped short of that because I didn’t think the genre provided enough precision for such judgments. Nevertheless, I still believe The Shack is an unexceptionally written, theologically dangerous book. Unless you are compelled to read it in order to interact with enthusiastic friends, I would discourage you from reading it.
Patrick Berger
Franklin, TN
Those who read The Shack who are not doctors of theology will only be attracted to the God presented within those pages and hopefully find a church where He is worshipped in spirit and in truth and in faith. That is my prayer. It's a shame that y'all self impressed Dr. types are in positions of leadership.........the kind of in the (small) box, rigid care that you foist on your sheep is really just a reflection of your own need to be something big (pride), and in the process YOU have made God small. People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. The Shack is a gourmet meal served up by a humble peasant chef and I'd rather dine at his house than yours any day.
Ken
New York, NY
What was the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions?
While I'm not here to knock you Patrick, a wrong understanding of God and Scripture is no better than a person who never sets foot in a church.
Jesus did warn about false prophets and wrong teaching. While I'm not accusing Mr. Young of doing this on purpose, it still doesn't excuse what a lot of us believe is a false view of Christianity.
No matter how well intentioned it is.
While I'm not here to knock you Patrick, a wrong understanding of God and Scripture is no better than a person who never sets foot in a church.
Jesus did warn about false prophets and wrong teaching. While I'm not accusing Mr. Young of doing this on purpose, it still doesn't excuse what a lot of us believe is a false view of Christianity.
No matter how well intentioned it is.
Bruce
Lake Mary, FL
Patrick,
People study the things that are important to them, so all those doctors of theology are doctors because they believe God is big enough and valuable enough to be worth understanding. The god of The Shack is the small god who is so unspecific, unprovidential, undemanding that there's little reason to study or worship *her*. Is anyone going to read The Shack and decide to dedicate his or her life to knowing that god?
Doctors of theology have been wrestling with the Scriptures for thousands of years in their effort to know God and be in relationship with him. You call these people prideful, but fail to see the pride in The Shack's writer who comes along and claims he can tell you the truth about God, apart from Scripture, apart from anything but his own mind. That is pride. Looking to the Scriptures is humility.
People study the things that are important to them, so all those doctors of theology are doctors because they believe God is big enough and valuable enough to be worth understanding. The god of The Shack is the small god who is so unspecific, unprovidential, undemanding that there's little reason to study or worship *her*. Is anyone going to read The Shack and decide to dedicate his or her life to knowing that god?
Doctors of theology have been wrestling with the Scriptures for thousands of years in their effort to know God and be in relationship with him. You call these people prideful, but fail to see the pride in The Shack's writer who comes along and claims he can tell you the truth about God, apart from Scripture, apart from anything but his own mind. That is pride. Looking to the Scriptures is humility.
Christine
Baltimore, MD
"Why would THE SHACK have such a dramatic, "life-changing" influence on people who have had the Bible all along?"
I'll answer that with a few questions of my own.
Can any means God uses to change a person's life, other than scripture, be dismissed so categorically? Have we not seen God use many things in addition to Scripture to effect life changing influences in others? What about the unconditional love of a friend or being the recipient of forgiveness from someone we have deeply wounded or movies like THE SPEAR, THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, and conuntless others or an example like Joni Eareckson Tada who inspires us to press on in the face of suffering and adversity and choose life rather than death? Cannot our God also use these things to change a life?
Our God is not limited or narrow in his approach to transforming lives. Yes, we stand on scripture...it gives us authoriy to proclaim His truth within the limitations of our humanness. Who among us can claim to fully comprehend the Trinity?
Yet, God amazingly chooses to use our human hands and feet...our human words and actions...our brokenness and failures and all creation to point the lost and broken to Himself.
And yes, even a book like THE SHACK, that may miss the theological and doctrinal high mark of those who feel obliged to measure it, may hit the bulls eye of wounded hearts seeking a loving and just God for redemption and reconciliation.
We cannot be so hesitant to peer outside our doctrinal boxes that we never reap the benefits of others who have....or miss the blessing God has for us from sources other than divine revelation.
Young's words have not trumped God's words in my thinking. They point me back to the Source in a new, refreshing way for clarification and enrichment.
I'll answer that with a few questions of my own.
Can any means God uses to change a person's life, other than scripture, be dismissed so categorically? Have we not seen God use many things in addition to Scripture to effect life changing influences in others? What about the unconditional love of a friend or being the recipient of forgiveness from someone we have deeply wounded or movies like THE SPEAR, THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, and conuntless others or an example like Joni Eareckson Tada who inspires us to press on in the face of suffering and adversity and choose life rather than death? Cannot our God also use these things to change a life?
Our God is not limited or narrow in his approach to transforming lives. Yes, we stand on scripture...it gives us authoriy to proclaim His truth within the limitations of our humanness. Who among us can claim to fully comprehend the Trinity?
Yet, God amazingly chooses to use our human hands and feet...our human words and actions...our brokenness and failures and all creation to point the lost and broken to Himself.
And yes, even a book like THE SHACK, that may miss the theological and doctrinal high mark of those who feel obliged to measure it, may hit the bulls eye of wounded hearts seeking a loving and just God for redemption and reconciliation.
We cannot be so hesitant to peer outside our doctrinal boxes that we never reap the benefits of others who have....or miss the blessing God has for us from sources other than divine revelation.
Young's words have not trumped God's words in my thinking. They point me back to the Source in a new, refreshing way for clarification and enrichment.
TE Brian Carpenter
Sturgis, SD
What you say is correct, as far as it goes, but you do not go far enough in identifying and condemning this book's errors. They are legion and they are dangerous.
I'm a graduate of a liberal seminary. As I was reading this book, I was mystified to find the thinly disguised theological thinking of Karl Barth, Soren Kierkegaard, Schliermacher, and the Niebuhrs. I couldn't figure out how this guy, who seemed like sort of a low watt bulb in his writings on his blog, had digested this much liberal and neo-Orthodox theology.
I went to his website and found out that his favorite author is Jacques Ellul, a French theologian who made it his life's work to reconcile Marxism and Christianity, and who was, in turn, heavily influenced by Barth. Then it all made sense. Barth was a closet universalist. Ellul was an explicit one. The theology behind Mack's conversation with Sophia in the cave is pretty much straight from Ellul. The funny thing is that Young claims not to be a universalist. He's either a liar, or he doesn't understand his favorite author.
This is actually the only book I've ever preached against from the pulpit. It made its way into my congregation, and when I spoke with people about the book, I was taken aback at how angry they got. People have an emotional attachment to this thing that is very disconcerting.
I counted 19 major theological problems with this book, when viewed from a Reformed and evangelical perspective. Young has done in one fell swoop what liberal theology has been trying to do unsuccessfully for 200 years. Couple that fact with the fact that he wrote it for his children and never intended it for publication, and yet it has taken off like wildfire, and I can only see the hand of the Devil at work. This book is Jim Jone's poisoned Kool Aid. Sweet and deadly. Stay very far away.
I'm glad to make copies of my sermon available on CD to anyone who asks. My email is BouleTheou@hotmail.com
I'm a graduate of a liberal seminary. As I was reading this book, I was mystified to find the thinly disguised theological thinking of Karl Barth, Soren Kierkegaard, Schliermacher, and the Niebuhrs. I couldn't figure out how this guy, who seemed like sort of a low watt bulb in his writings on his blog, had digested this much liberal and neo-Orthodox theology.
I went to his website and found out that his favorite author is Jacques Ellul, a French theologian who made it his life's work to reconcile Marxism and Christianity, and who was, in turn, heavily influenced by Barth. Then it all made sense. Barth was a closet universalist. Ellul was an explicit one. The theology behind Mack's conversation with Sophia in the cave is pretty much straight from Ellul. The funny thing is that Young claims not to be a universalist. He's either a liar, or he doesn't understand his favorite author.
This is actually the only book I've ever preached against from the pulpit. It made its way into my congregation, and when I spoke with people about the book, I was taken aback at how angry they got. People have an emotional attachment to this thing that is very disconcerting.
I counted 19 major theological problems with this book, when viewed from a Reformed and evangelical perspective. Young has done in one fell swoop what liberal theology has been trying to do unsuccessfully for 200 years. Couple that fact with the fact that he wrote it for his children and never intended it for publication, and yet it has taken off like wildfire, and I can only see the hand of the Devil at work. This book is Jim Jone's poisoned Kool Aid. Sweet and deadly. Stay very far away.
I'm glad to make copies of my sermon available on CD to anyone who asks. My email is BouleTheou@hotmail.com
John Jones
Austin, TX
You seem to be relying pretty strongly on the "liberal" nametag to tar and feather Young. Do you really think that no one could be a Marxist--for example--and a Christian at the same time?
Also, if liberal theology has been as "unsuccessful" as you claim here, how can you say in your post below that it "all but killed the mainline churches"? These statements seem contradictory.
Also, if liberal theology has been as "unsuccessful" as you claim here, how can you say in your post below that it "all but killed the mainline churches"? These statements seem contradictory.
Esther
Valdosta,Georgia
What bothers me about the book, and I have not read it, I'll openly admit, is how many Christians I have heard referring to this work of fiction as if it were a work of non-fiction.
Sort of like the hoopla over the DaVinci Code, in which I heard more than one Christian say, "I'm not sure if I believe it yet."
Huh? Its a made up story! There is nothing to believe in! But apparently many people get their lines muddled and start to think they are reading something true.
If readers could enjoy the book as the work of fiction that it clearly is, and leave it at that, then fine. But for some reason, some people have a hard time doing that.
And letting fictional works bleed into our understanding of real God-breathed truth, is frightening.
But, like I said, I haven't read The Shack, so dismiss my opinion if you like!
Thanks so much for the review, by the way. I'm not interested in reading the book, so this helps me to understand a bit more about what my neighbors are talking about. And believe me, they ARE talking.
Sort of like the hoopla over the DaVinci Code, in which I heard more than one Christian say, "I'm not sure if I believe it yet."
Huh? Its a made up story! There is nothing to believe in! But apparently many people get their lines muddled and start to think they are reading something true.
If readers could enjoy the book as the work of fiction that it clearly is, and leave it at that, then fine. But for some reason, some people have a hard time doing that.
And letting fictional works bleed into our understanding of real God-breathed truth, is frightening.
But, like I said, I haven't read The Shack, so dismiss my opinion if you like!
Thanks so much for the review, by the way. I'm not interested in reading the book, so this helps me to understand a bit more about what my neighbors are talking about. And believe me, they ARE talking.
gloria
philadephia, Mississippi
Esther, I agree with you !!!! I appreciate the review that was written. But,it just made me more confident in my initial deicision not to ever read the book. I have enough problems struggling against my normal everyday sins without having to add to them by getting sucked into brain washing literature like this. I will just stick with the Bible to help me understand God's truths and leave man's understandings alone. I would be afraid to recommend this book to an unbeliever.
Tracy Bunch
Atlanta, GA
Walter, thanks for your great review of The Shack. I read The Shack some months ago after it was recommended in a newsletter I receive. After reading other reviews, I had high hopes that this would be a great book to share with my non-beliving friends. Instead, after reading it, I came away with very mixed feelings, many of which you have articulated (and much better than I ever could, by the way). While there are many positive points in this book, the areas that trouble me most are serious enough to keep me from my original plan of sharing this with non-believers.
Thanks again for your insight.
Thanks again for your insight.
Dan Porter
Atlanta, GA
Christine,
It is obvious that you have been deeply moved by this book. But have you thought of this: is God an idea that we can cast according to how we feel? Christ is a real person, whose real death and resurrection at a specific date in history in a specific place in Palestine put the lie to God being an idea. We are left with dealing with the real God, not a contrived one, such as Mack's Papa, Jesus and Sarayu. Only a real God can comfort, save, guide us in real life. Although many things in life can help us see ourselves or to recall old hurts and weaknesses, how can we say that any other author can help us find Him?
It is obvious that you have been deeply moved by this book. But have you thought of this: is God an idea that we can cast according to how we feel? Christ is a real person, whose real death and resurrection at a specific date in history in a specific place in Palestine put the lie to God being an idea. We are left with dealing with the real God, not a contrived one, such as Mack's Papa, Jesus and Sarayu. Only a real God can comfort, save, guide us in real life. Although many things in life can help us see ourselves or to recall old hurts and weaknesses, how can we say that any other author can help us find Him?
Rev. Brian Carpenter
Sturgis, SD
If I may be so bold as to reply to some of the observations and questions of other posts:
1. Christine, the idea of forming ideas or opinions about who God is or what he wants from places other than the scriptures is exactly the issue behind the issue of the Protestant Reformation. Rome simply made up a God and a gospel to suit them by the end, and it has led millions to hell. Liberal theology, which has all but killed the mainline churches, starts with the same premise. "The Bible is not what God has shown us, but what we have pasted up onto heaven. Therefore we may tear down what we've pasted up and substitute new ideas when it suits us." What's most important is how God has revealed himself, and he's done that authoritatively and savingly only in Jesus Christ and the scriptures that bear him witness. Therefore it's quite dangerous (and sinful) to go outside of them as the basis for understanding who God is. Any human works that you would truly benefit from (like the works of Lewis, a great hero of mine, though a man whose writings also have many problems) must be based on the scriptures. To the extent that they are, they can be helpful in a way. To the extent that they're not, they are harmful. The well-being of souls is on the line, which is more important even than the well being of bodies.
2. Esther, about the fiction/non fiction issue. I have two observations. First of all, fiction (or let's say literature) like all art, is an extremely powerful means of promoting ideas. It does so by wrapping them in realistic situations and enfleshing them and making them available to people who would never dream of picking up a dry and dusty book on philosophy or theology. That's why we tell good stories to our children. That's why Jesus used it. Every parable is, strictly speaking, "fiction." The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son never existed in history, and yet their example has been powerful for 2000 years and is a part of our cultural narrative.
Secondly, I find it rather disingenuous for those who love "The Shack" to talk breathlessly about what it's meant to them and how it's changed their lives one moment, and then when they hear my criticisms of it, to say, "Well, c'mon. It's just fiction!" You can't have it both ways.
3. To all: One thing I failed to mention in my post above is that there are actually good and biblical ideas in the book. But there's nothing good in there that's not better expressed elsewhere, and what's bad in there negates the usefulness of the good. Once again, C.S. Lewis is helpful: In "The Last Battle" he writes,
"And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."
1. Christine, the idea of forming ideas or opinions about who God is or what he wants from places other than the scriptures is exactly the issue behind the issue of the Protestant Reformation. Rome simply made up a God and a gospel to suit them by the end, and it has led millions to hell. Liberal theology, which has all but killed the mainline churches, starts with the same premise. "The Bible is not what God has shown us, but what we have pasted up onto heaven. Therefore we may tear down what we've pasted up and substitute new ideas when it suits us." What's most important is how God has revealed himself, and he's done that authoritatively and savingly only in Jesus Christ and the scriptures that bear him witness. Therefore it's quite dangerous (and sinful) to go outside of them as the basis for understanding who God is. Any human works that you would truly benefit from (like the works of Lewis, a great hero of mine, though a man whose writings also have many problems) must be based on the scriptures. To the extent that they are, they can be helpful in a way. To the extent that they're not, they are harmful. The well-being of souls is on the line, which is more important even than the well being of bodies.
2. Esther, about the fiction/non fiction issue. I have two observations. First of all, fiction (or let's say literature) like all art, is an extremely powerful means of promoting ideas. It does so by wrapping them in realistic situations and enfleshing them and making them available to people who would never dream of picking up a dry and dusty book on philosophy or theology. That's why we tell good stories to our children. That's why Jesus used it. Every parable is, strictly speaking, "fiction." The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son never existed in history, and yet their example has been powerful for 2000 years and is a part of our cultural narrative.
Secondly, I find it rather disingenuous for those who love "The Shack" to talk breathlessly about what it's meant to them and how it's changed their lives one moment, and then when they hear my criticisms of it, to say, "Well, c'mon. It's just fiction!" You can't have it both ways.
3. To all: One thing I failed to mention in my post above is that there are actually good and biblical ideas in the book. But there's nothing good in there that's not better expressed elsewhere, and what's bad in there negates the usefulness of the good. Once again, C.S. Lewis is helpful: In "The Last Battle" he writes,
"And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."
Jerry Stutzman
Grand Rapids, MI
While fiction is not biographical or historical, a fictional text may still be trying to persuade or inform people about the real world. Books like Uncle Tom's Cabin, while fiction, had a huge impact in informing people about the evils of slavery and aided the abolition movement. The Da Vinci code while fiction, provided a platform for Dan Brown to present his actual beliefs about Jesus. Fiction, is often a platform for presenting one's philosophy or beliefs, whether subtly (sometimes the author is not even aware that they are doing it) or more obviously, such as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. While I have not read the Shack, it seems that the author is presenting his own theological beliefs, some more subtly then others, and that they need to be examined.
Walter Henegar
Atlanta, GA
I see the debate is off and running now, and it's already making me blog-tired. I still think it's a discussion worth having, though, especially thinking through the relationship between scripture and fiction (or any extrabiblical writing), and more broadly, between doctrine and experience. I've done a poor job trying to affirm the significance of both (while obviously giving priority to scripture and doctrine), so perhaps wiser commenters will do better on this page.
For those who fear this is simply an intramural debate, I've just learned that the book and the growing controversy surrounding it are getting national press now, including these stories in USA Today and Christianity Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-05-28-the-shack_N.htm
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/05/the_shack_built.html
For those who fear this is simply an intramural debate, I've just learned that the book and the growing controversy surrounding it are getting national press now, including these stories in USA Today and Christianity Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-05-28-the-shack_N.htm
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/05/the_shack_built.html
Nathan Clendenin
Durham, NC
All things are lawful, not all things are beneficial.
Bonnie
Marietta, GA
A note to Ester---I encourage you to read the book so you can talk from your own firsthand experience with your neighbors and friends who are "gushing" about the book. Your informed, intelligent responses can be conveyed with heartfelt warmth and concern since their responses reflect "where they're at"! They're probably curious about what you think of the book.
Christine
Baltimore
Bonnie, Ester and Dan, et al.......
I consider myself very informed about reformed theology...having read and studied the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechism, Berkhoff's Systematic Theology and Calvin's Institutes beginning as a 14 year old. I embrace our reformed position in all it's aspects without reservation. I have taught this system of doctrine for decades and have discipled many people over the years, young and old, new believers and old timers.
I know "where I'm at"...where I've been and where I'm going.
So, I submit that those of us who are reformed and also enthusiastic about this book are not all uninformed or immature in our faith.
Is it so hard to conceive that believer's like myself can be blessed by such a book, in spite of it's short comings?
I understand that pastor and professor types may feel compelled to shepherd their flocks by steering them away from something they consider dangerous.
But, I struggle to see the need to imply that those of us who are enthusiastic about the book are somehow misguided or duped by the author and in need of heartfelt warmth and concern... as if we fell off some hazardous cliff into a confused theological abyss. Not so.
Let's listen to each other and open our minds and hearts as we dialogue about our faith and how we live it out by God's grace. Let us practice how to clearly articulate our faith to those who are lost and in desperate need of the Savior.
May we all continue to respond in truth and love as we challenge one another in our faith walk...blessings to all....."God is especially fond of you."
I consider myself very informed about reformed theology...having read and studied the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechism, Berkhoff's Systematic Theology and Calvin's Institutes beginning as a 14 year old. I embrace our reformed position in all it's aspects without reservation. I have taught this system of doctrine for decades and have discipled many people over the years, young and old, new believers and old timers.
I know "where I'm at"...where I've been and where I'm going.
So, I submit that those of us who are reformed and also enthusiastic about this book are not all uninformed or immature in our faith.
Is it so hard to conceive that believer's like myself can be blessed by such a book, in spite of it's short comings?
I understand that pastor and professor types may feel compelled to shepherd their flocks by steering them away from something they consider dangerous.
But, I struggle to see the need to imply that those of us who are enthusiastic about the book are somehow misguided or duped by the author and in need of heartfelt warmth and concern... as if we fell off some hazardous cliff into a confused theological abyss. Not so.
Let's listen to each other and open our minds and hearts as we dialogue about our faith and how we live it out by God's grace. Let us practice how to clearly articulate our faith to those who are lost and in desperate need of the Savior.
May we all continue to respond in truth and love as we challenge one another in our faith walk...blessings to all....."God is especially fond of you."
Susie
USA
To Christine -
I hate to see you be the only Reformed voice (or person with a Reformed background) expressing appreciation for the book. All books outside the Bible have weaknesses and strengths. The strength of the book (and I've read it) is that it portrays God as intimately concerned about the small details of life. When the story line includes a character who is suffering interacting with a God who really cares - how powerful! Who wouldn't appreciate such a reminder? As I read, I kept recalling Scripture that reinforced certain points contained in the book. I also raised my eyebrows at a few points, thinking it wasn't Biblical. The bottom line, the emphasis on relationships corresponds strongly to what God is teaching me through prayer and Bible study - so I see this book and my experience of reading it in pretty close alignment to what's happening in my walk with God right now.
I actually work as a missionary in a location other than the USA. I grew up with Reformed roots, I'm still quite Reformed in my thinking. However, I've been privileged to learn from other brothers and sisters around the world who are not always in full agreement with Reformed theology. No, I'm not a universalist - Jesus is the only way to receive salvation. But I've learned to desire and pursue the fullness of God and I don't believe the Reformed tradition can yet claim to have a monopoly on understanding God (not than anyone really claims this but I fear outsiders to the Reformed tradition believe we claim this).
As a missionary seeking to see souls saved, I'm not afraid to use materials outside of the Bible to try and have a common reference point for spiritual discussions. When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently. I believe God can use things outside of the Bible to move people closer to himself either pre-conversion or post-conversion. I've heard numerous stories of people coming to Christ after seeing him in dreams - mostly in countries were having a Bible or being a Christian is close to a death sentence.
As for all the criticism - other Christian fiction writers (CS Lewis even) were initially criticized, or banned. We'll see what happens to this book.
Christine, please know that what you've shared makes perfect sense to me.
I hate to see you be the only Reformed voice (or person with a Reformed background) expressing appreciation for the book. All books outside the Bible have weaknesses and strengths. The strength of the book (and I've read it) is that it portrays God as intimately concerned about the small details of life. When the story line includes a character who is suffering interacting with a God who really cares - how powerful! Who wouldn't appreciate such a reminder? As I read, I kept recalling Scripture that reinforced certain points contained in the book. I also raised my eyebrows at a few points, thinking it wasn't Biblical. The bottom line, the emphasis on relationships corresponds strongly to what God is teaching me through prayer and Bible study - so I see this book and my experience of reading it in pretty close alignment to what's happening in my walk with God right now.
I actually work as a missionary in a location other than the USA. I grew up with Reformed roots, I'm still quite Reformed in my thinking. However, I've been privileged to learn from other brothers and sisters around the world who are not always in full agreement with Reformed theology. No, I'm not a universalist - Jesus is the only way to receive salvation. But I've learned to desire and pursue the fullness of God and I don't believe the Reformed tradition can yet claim to have a monopoly on understanding God (not than anyone really claims this but I fear outsiders to the Reformed tradition believe we claim this).
As a missionary seeking to see souls saved, I'm not afraid to use materials outside of the Bible to try and have a common reference point for spiritual discussions. When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently. I believe God can use things outside of the Bible to move people closer to himself either pre-conversion or post-conversion. I've heard numerous stories of people coming to Christ after seeing him in dreams - mostly in countries were having a Bible or being a Christian is close to a death sentence.
As for all the criticism - other Christian fiction writers (CS Lewis even) were initially criticized, or banned. We'll see what happens to this book.
Christine, please know that what you've shared makes perfect sense to me.
Thomas May
Gainesville GA
As a TE I've enjoyed the discussion. I must admit that I’ve now only read several reviews, but not the book. It has been recommended by some church members and family members.
Based on the reviews I’d agree that there are problems with the book, but it could be interesting for discussion.
Here are some general ideas…
There are any number of books and even religious teachers on the scene today who would fall under the following category:
The biblically informed reader / hearer will take the biblical content s/he already knows and use it to fill in the gaps or cover over the errors so that content might come across as being “uplifting or enlightening” in some way; it might seem like a fresh approach. This is really only because the reader / hearer already knows enough good biblical content. He/she reads the new material from a biblically informed perspective and the new material might then even be helpful in getting a new appreciation for the “old content”. Some will come away thinking, “That was allegorical; it caused me to see some old truth in a new way”. Others will come away thinking, “That obscured the biblical truth in a way that wasn’t helpful or it tried to teach new ideas that are false.”
The biblically uninformed (or marginally informed) reader or hearer will take in the material and may find it interesting but won’t be biblically informed by it. The reader might think about god or spiritual things in a different way but not in a more biblical way. It may not seem to do any harm, but it likely won’t really do any significant spiritual good. This person is more likely to take the content as “just one of any number of views that all get at the same thing”. There isn’t much discernment about opposing views, but everything tends to run together into one melting pot. Those lacking clarity before reading such material won’t come away with much, if any, more clarity after reading it.
Some issues for any book that should be kept in mind: (especially for religious books)
- does it square with Scripture?
- does it affirm the distinctives of biblical Christianity?
- does it promote in the reader a greater desire to read and submit to the Bible as God’s authoritative word?
- does it promote a deeper sense of gratefulness for the great salvation that God the Father has accomplished in Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit?
- Does it promote biblical thinking about the nature and character of God?
That’s enough for now,
Based on the reviews I’d agree that there are problems with the book, but it could be interesting for discussion.
Here are some general ideas…
There are any number of books and even religious teachers on the scene today who would fall under the following category:
The biblically informed reader / hearer will take the biblical content s/he already knows and use it to fill in the gaps or cover over the errors so that content might come across as being “uplifting or enlightening” in some way; it might seem like a fresh approach. This is really only because the reader / hearer already knows enough good biblical content. He/she reads the new material from a biblically informed perspective and the new material might then even be helpful in getting a new appreciation for the “old content”. Some will come away thinking, “That was allegorical; it caused me to see some old truth in a new way”. Others will come away thinking, “That obscured the biblical truth in a way that wasn’t helpful or it tried to teach new ideas that are false.”
The biblically uninformed (or marginally informed) reader or hearer will take in the material and may find it interesting but won’t be biblically informed by it. The reader might think about god or spiritual things in a different way but not in a more biblical way. It may not seem to do any harm, but it likely won’t really do any significant spiritual good. This person is more likely to take the content as “just one of any number of views that all get at the same thing”. There isn’t much discernment about opposing views, but everything tends to run together into one melting pot. Those lacking clarity before reading such material won’t come away with much, if any, more clarity after reading it.
Some issues for any book that should be kept in mind: (especially for religious books)
- does it square with Scripture?
- does it affirm the distinctives of biblical Christianity?
- does it promote in the reader a greater desire to read and submit to the Bible as God’s authoritative word?
- does it promote a deeper sense of gratefulness for the great salvation that God the Father has accomplished in Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit?
- Does it promote biblical thinking about the nature and character of God?
That’s enough for now,
EdSlo
Central Texas
I found the book very disturbing in its misrepresentation of God by its omission.
First, the god of The Shack lacked any dimension of holiness and the man any awareness of sin.
As a result, the god present 'wasn't so mad' and the sin of man 'wasn't so bad'. Similar to the conclusion by the pastor in Polyanna.
Second, the god of The Shack was approachable without the need of an intermediary or a savior.
All encounters of the presence of God by humans in scripture result in the human recognizing their utter sinfulness and even plead for God to leave.
The god of The Shack is just a good, 'good ol' boy'.
I see no redeeming value in reading a book which so distorts the very basic nature of God and minimizes the rebellion of sin.
First, the god of The Shack lacked any dimension of holiness and the man any awareness of sin.
As a result, the god present 'wasn't so mad' and the sin of man 'wasn't so bad'. Similar to the conclusion by the pastor in Polyanna.
Second, the god of The Shack was approachable without the need of an intermediary or a savior.
All encounters of the presence of God by humans in scripture result in the human recognizing their utter sinfulness and even plead for God to leave.
The god of The Shack is just a good, 'good ol' boy'.
I see no redeeming value in reading a book which so distorts the very basic nature of God and minimizes the rebellion of sin.
Cedric
Atlanta
EdSlo:
You must have read a different book than the one I read.
You must have read a different book than the one I read.
Darren
California
Cedric, it might have been called the Bible? ;b
Another concern I have, hearing the description, is that it seems to mess with the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Calvin (partially quoting Gregory of Nazianzus): "'I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one.' Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words, Father, Son and Spirit imply a real distinction--let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty--but a distinction, not a division." (Institutes I.13.17) Does this book go beyond distinction to create division? Are we led back to the unity of the essence?
Does Father speak through the Son, effectuating and completing his work through the Spirit? Is every work and testimony the joint action of the three persons? Or are we left with a community of independent beings who happen to hang out and cooperate?
This is not just a Reformed concern. This is a catholic issue.
Another concern I have, hearing the description, is that it seems to mess with the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Calvin (partially quoting Gregory of Nazianzus): "'I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one.' Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words, Father, Son and Spirit imply a real distinction--let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty--but a distinction, not a division." (Institutes I.13.17) Does this book go beyond distinction to create division? Are we led back to the unity of the essence?
Does Father speak through the Son, effectuating and completing his work through the Spirit? Is every work and testimony the joint action of the three persons? Or are we left with a community of independent beings who happen to hang out and cooperate?
This is not just a Reformed concern. This is a catholic issue.
Rev. Karl Dahlfred
Thailand
Thanks, Walter, for a very helpful review of a popular book. I'm a church planting missionary, working in Thailand, and I've just come back to the U.S. for a short time and it is helpful to catch up on the popular (and dangerous) "Christian" books that people are reading these days.
I agree with your concerns and that of Brian Carpenter and the others who express grave concern over this book. It sounds like it is having damaging effects on people's understading of the truth of Scripture, like the Da Vinci code did a few years ago.
As a missionary in Thailand, I see all sorts of Christian literature get translated and circulated in the small Christian community there, some of it very poor. I fear that the Shack will also get translated by someone who was deeply touched by it but not alarmed (or aware)of the devastating impact of bad theology in such work of popular fiction. So few believers and churches want to see good solid Christian literature translated (like "The Reformed Pastor" for example, which I have yet to see in Thai). Instead, we get other touchy feely drivel and seeker sensitive human centered garbage that doesn't do much for a fledgling church. I don't deny that there may be much good Biblical truth wheat in with the chaff, but can't we do much better than a book that clearly undercuts the authority of Scripture?
In any case though, thank you for the helpful review and to interesting discussion which has followed.
I agree with your concerns and that of Brian Carpenter and the others who express grave concern over this book. It sounds like it is having damaging effects on people's understading of the truth of Scripture, like the Da Vinci code did a few years ago.
As a missionary in Thailand, I see all sorts of Christian literature get translated and circulated in the small Christian community there, some of it very poor. I fear that the Shack will also get translated by someone who was deeply touched by it but not alarmed (or aware)of the devastating impact of bad theology in such work of popular fiction. So few believers and churches want to see good solid Christian literature translated (like "The Reformed Pastor" for example, which I have yet to see in Thai). Instead, we get other touchy feely drivel and seeker sensitive human centered garbage that doesn't do much for a fledgling church. I don't deny that there may be much good Biblical truth wheat in with the chaff, but can't we do much better than a book that clearly undercuts the authority of Scripture?
In any case though, thank you for the helpful review and to interesting discussion which has followed.
sally apokedak
marietta, GA
Interesting comments--one thing I don't think anyone has addressed: I read the prologue and part of the first chapter online and decided not to continue because I felt like the book would have a strong "anti-organized religion" stance.
Was that the case? I went to the "publisher's" site and it seemed like both of the books he's published had anti-church agendas. If so I think it's worth discussing. This current hatred of the church is disturbing. I believe when you separate yourself from Jesus' Body, you separate yourself from Jesus. You cut yourself off from the blessings and the gifts God has given to his church at the very least.
Secondly, Susie, you say:
>>>>>When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently.
Was that the case? I went to the "publisher's" site and it seemed like both of the books he's published had anti-church agendas. If so I think it's worth discussing. This current hatred of the church is disturbing. I believe when you separate yourself from Jesus' Body, you separate yourself from Jesus. You cut yourself off from the blessings and the gifts God has given to his church at the very least.
Secondly, Susie, you say:
>>>>>When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently.
Drew
Tennessee
I just finished reading The Shack, and I found it refreshing, but also not literature--it has its fair share of corny dialogue and melodrama. I certainly rolled my eyes a few times, but I also admired the gutsiness of this book. It certainly made me think and prayerfully look at how I relate to others and God, much like an interesting essay or devotional can. I feel as though it's been a read that has deepened my faith. That said, it certainly isn't scripture, but that's so obvious it seems silly to bring it up. Perhaps we can celebrate the good things that conversations about this story will bring about and trust in the powerful authority of scripture? As I read it, I never felt like this was any sort of replacement or "update" to the Bible. It raised a lot of questions worth considering, and the perspective is unique and uplifting.
Diane
one question -- is it totally fiction (even the murder of Missy and existence of Mack?)
sally apokedak
marietta, GA
The arrows must have messed up my post because it got cut off. I meant to say:
Secondly, Susie, you say, "When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently."
I'm not sure I understand your point. This book might help people think about God differently than the Bible would have us think about him?
I guess since you say the book can be a bridge you mean it is between the man and the Bible. But I don't understand your use of the word "differently." Different from what?
Secondly, Susie, you say, "When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently."
I'm not sure I understand your point. This book might help people think about God differently than the Bible would have us think about him?
I guess since you say the book can be a bridge you mean it is between the man and the Bible. But I don't understand your use of the word "differently." Different from what?
TE Brian Carpenter
Sturgis, SD
Susie,
You are right in noticing the "anti-organized religion stance," but it is actually more pervasive than that. Since Young is taking his cues from Jacque Ellul, who was a Christian Anarchist (i.e. Marxist) he is mouthing Marx's analysis of power relationships.
To wit, anytime somebody in a power structure asserts power, it is necessarily and in its essence an exploitative act which is done for reasons of furthering the interests of the individuals or groups in power at the expense of the less powerful.
So, for instance, Marx took the example of the 19th C. pastor speaking to his flock of poor, working class people about the fact that this world is not our home, that we shouldn't expect too much comfort here, and we have a true home and true riches after we die. On Marx's analysis, all that pastor is doing is simply trying to keep these poor people poor so that he and his class (the bourgeoisie) can exploit them. That's why Marx labeled religion "the opiate of the masses."
Therefore, if hierarchical social structures are inherently exploitative, then they're inherently sinful as well. If they're inherently sinful, then God must be against them. Therefore, we have to downplay, ignore, or contradict any biblical passages which prescribe or describe a hierarchical power structure. Like the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, for example, whereby the Son submits to the Father and the Father and the Son send the Spirit who "speaks not his own word, but only what he hears from the Father." And, of course, the relationships between husband and wife and pastor and flock and parent and child must be flattened and made non-hierarchical as well. Ultimately even the relationship between creator and creature must be non-hierarchical. God may no longer command. That would be exploitative.
So Young has his god saying that she has no expectations of Mack when he leaves the shack for the real world, and even saying that keeping the Ten Commandments would break relationship with her because trying to keep expectations and rules breaks fellowship and relationship. So Elousia doesn't want her children to keep the Law of God. All she wants is relationship.
I've written some on this on my blog, which I pay scant attention to these days. Here's the post on hierarchy:
http://thehappytr.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-praise-of-hierarchy.html
Blessings,
TE Brian Carpenter
Bourgeois theological exploiter of the proletariat
PS, Diane, it's fiction. Young says on his blog that people keep coming up to him and asking him if he's REALLY Mack and what Pappa was like. Sort of like those folks who send birthday and Christmas presents to their favorite characters on soap operas. Not to the actors who portray those characters... the characters themselves. We're scary stupid in this country.
You are right in noticing the "anti-organized religion stance," but it is actually more pervasive than that. Since Young is taking his cues from Jacque Ellul, who was a Christian Anarchist (i.e. Marxist) he is mouthing Marx's analysis of power relationships.
To wit, anytime somebody in a power structure asserts power, it is necessarily and in its essence an exploitative act which is done for reasons of furthering the interests of the individuals or groups in power at the expense of the less powerful.
So, for instance, Marx took the example of the 19th C. pastor speaking to his flock of poor, working class people about the fact that this world is not our home, that we shouldn't expect too much comfort here, and we have a true home and true riches after we die. On Marx's analysis, all that pastor is doing is simply trying to keep these poor people poor so that he and his class (the bourgeoisie) can exploit them. That's why Marx labeled religion "the opiate of the masses."
Therefore, if hierarchical social structures are inherently exploitative, then they're inherently sinful as well. If they're inherently sinful, then God must be against them. Therefore, we have to downplay, ignore, or contradict any biblical passages which prescribe or describe a hierarchical power structure. Like the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, for example, whereby the Son submits to the Father and the Father and the Son send the Spirit who "speaks not his own word, but only what he hears from the Father." And, of course, the relationships between husband and wife and pastor and flock and parent and child must be flattened and made non-hierarchical as well. Ultimately even the relationship between creator and creature must be non-hierarchical. God may no longer command. That would be exploitative.
So Young has his god saying that she has no expectations of Mack when he leaves the shack for the real world, and even saying that keeping the Ten Commandments would break relationship with her because trying to keep expectations and rules breaks fellowship and relationship. So Elousia doesn't want her children to keep the Law of God. All she wants is relationship.
I've written some on this on my blog, which I pay scant attention to these days. Here's the post on hierarchy:
http://thehappytr.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-praise-of-hierarchy.html
Blessings,
TE Brian Carpenter
Bourgeois theological exploiter of the proletariat
PS, Diane, it's fiction. Young says on his blog that people keep coming up to him and asking him if he's REALLY Mack and what Pappa was like. Sort of like those folks who send birthday and Christmas presents to their favorite characters on soap operas. Not to the actors who portray those characters... the characters themselves. We're scary stupid in this country.
TE Brian Carpenter
Sturgis, SD
Susie,
You write:
"When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently."
But surely you see how that very idea has departed from, not only the Reformed faith, but from the historic Protestant faith?
Sola Scriptura not only asserts that the scriptures alone are our source of knowledge about who God is and what he wants, but that the Word of God itself is living and active and sharper than any two edges sword, and that it goes forth infallibly to accomplish all God has purposed for it to do.
What you are saying, whether you realize it or not, is that the scriptures aren't working for your purposes, so you'll try substituting something else, something which I and others have said is manifestly unscriptural and even anti-scriptural.
If a man doesn't like brussells sprouts and it's somehow important that he come to like brussells sprouts, how will it help your case to feed him rat poison instead? Either some higher power will intervene and cause him to like them, or else he'll have to accept the consequences of not liking them. Either way, the rat poison will do him only harm, however much you sweeten it to make it palatable.
Blessings,
TE Brian Carpenter
You write:
"When a person immediately starts to shut down when the Bible is mentioned, a book of this type might serve as a bridge to thinking about God differently."
But surely you see how that very idea has departed from, not only the Reformed faith, but from the historic Protestant faith?
Sola Scriptura not only asserts that the scriptures alone are our source of knowledge about who God is and what he wants, but that the Word of God itself is living and active and sharper than any two edges sword, and that it goes forth infallibly to accomplish all God has purposed for it to do.
What you are saying, whether you realize it or not, is that the scriptures aren't working for your purposes, so you'll try substituting something else, something which I and others have said is manifestly unscriptural and even anti-scriptural.
If a man doesn't like brussells sprouts and it's somehow important that he come to like brussells sprouts, how will it help your case to feed him rat poison instead? Either some higher power will intervene and cause him to like them, or else he'll have to accept the consequences of not liking them. Either way, the rat poison will do him only harm, however much you sweeten it to make it palatable.
Blessings,
TE Brian Carpenter
Charles Hooper, Jr.
Johns Creek, GA
The book was recommended to me by a friend who has a good instinct about spiritual formation. Another friend read it also, so I bought before vacation to the beach and was excited to read this fictional novel. Eugene Peterson's endorsement got me more excited because I have appreciated his works.
The first read was enjoyable as I followed the story and appreciated the writing style. I overlooked some of the theologically questionable aspects because it is a fictional novel and not meant to be a systematic theology on the person and nature of God. The highlights for me include the power of forgiveness and how God longs for an intimate relationship with us like the three persons of the Trinity have with each other. "Good fun read" was what I said after finishing it then I read "The Missy Project" and my attitude about the book changed.
There is an appeal for this book to be widely distributed because "It offers one the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity that has ever been written in our time". Apart from the arrogance of that statement, now I realized this is not simply a fictional novel but Emergent theology presented in pomo-friendly story form. Another statement was disturbing when it said the book gives "a magnificent glimpse into the nature of God that is not often presented in our culture." There is a good reason this view of God's nature is not often presented because it is an imbalanced and incomplete view of God. I don't have a problem with the story itself but when The Missy Project declares The Shack presents "the most poignant view of God" it ceases to be a fictional novel.
Although there are parts which many could find agreement with and even comfort in their own suffering, there are aspects of the book which should be highlighted as concerns or conflicts with what Scripture teaches clearly. Rather than giving a full defense, I will simply mention the main seven which stood out to me.
1. View of Scripture is weak by saying that people have put God in a box by keeping him in a book [Bible]. Also the view that God speaks in other means for revelation is misleading.
2. View of the church is expressed in a cultural reaction to people's bad experiences with the local church rather than Scripture actually teaches about church.
3. View of authority that it is man made for his control of others is not taught in Scripture.
4. View of the Law acknowledges the first use (tutor to bring us to Christ) and the second use (mirror to show our sin) but denies the third use of the law (guide to holy living). An antinomian view of the law is presented in the book which falls short of the message of the true gospel which says we are saved by grace to be free to do good works.
5. View of the nature of God is one sided emphasizing his love and mercy but neglecting and even denying his justice, wrath and holiness. This partial view of God is idolatrous.
6. View of motivation in Christian living is reduced to "do the things you want to". Few of us would actually grow or obey if we waited till we wanted to obey.
7. View of Jesus' humanity that he never drew on his nature as God to do anything is a misunderstanding of what Philippians 2 teaches. This view can imply that Christians can do the exact same things that Jesus did if they only believe God enough. This is the "if you just had more faith" error which is popular in Charismatic-Pentecostal teachings.
I will stop there but I could go on. Some people may say, "give me a break it is just a novel, chill out". I would challenge them to be more honest and discerning. Hey if "The Missy Project" didn't say what it did, I would not write this review. This book presents a view of God which is not consistent with biblical and historical Christianity therefore giving it to as many family and friends would be a most unloving thing to do. Eugene Peterson, what were you thinking?
The first read was enjoyable as I followed the story and appreciated the writing style. I overlooked some of the theologically questionable aspects because it is a fictional novel and not meant to be a systematic theology on the person and nature of God. The highlights for me include the power of forgiveness and how God longs for an intimate relationship with us like the three persons of the Trinity have with each other. "Good fun read" was what I said after finishing it then I read "The Missy Project" and my attitude about the book changed.
There is an appeal for this book to be widely distributed because "It offers one the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity that has ever been written in our time". Apart from the arrogance of that statement, now I realized this is not simply a fictional novel but Emergent theology presented in pomo-friendly story form. Another statement was disturbing when it said the book gives "a magnificent glimpse into the nature of God that is not often presented in our culture." There is a good reason this view of God's nature is not often presented because it is an imbalanced and incomplete view of God. I don't have a problem with the story itself but when The Missy Project declares The Shack presents "the most poignant view of God" it ceases to be a fictional novel.
Although there are parts which many could find agreement with and even comfort in their own suffering, there are aspects of the book which should be highlighted as concerns or conflicts with what Scripture teaches clearly. Rather than giving a full defense, I will simply mention the main seven which stood out to me.
1. View of Scripture is weak by saying that people have put God in a box by keeping him in a book [Bible]. Also the view that God speaks in other means for revelation is misleading.
2. View of the church is expressed in a cultural reaction to people's bad experiences with the local church rather than Scripture actually teaches about church.
3. View of authority that it is man made for his control of others is not taught in Scripture.
4. View of the Law acknowledges the first use (tutor to bring us to Christ) and the second use (mirror to show our sin) but denies the third use of the law (guide to holy living). An antinomian view of the law is presented in the book which falls short of the message of the true gospel which says we are saved by grace to be free to do good works.
5. View of the nature of God is one sided emphasizing his love and mercy but neglecting and even denying his justice, wrath and holiness. This partial view of God is idolatrous.
6. View of motivation in Christian living is reduced to "do the things you want to". Few of us would actually grow or obey if we waited till we wanted to obey.
7. View of Jesus' humanity that he never drew on his nature as God to do anything is a misunderstanding of what Philippians 2 teaches. This view can imply that Christians can do the exact same things that Jesus did if they only believe God enough. This is the "if you just had more faith" error which is popular in Charismatic-Pentecostal teachings.
I will stop there but I could go on. Some people may say, "give me a break it is just a novel, chill out". I would challenge them to be more honest and discerning. Hey if "The Missy Project" didn't say what it did, I would not write this review. This book presents a view of God which is not consistent with biblical and historical Christianity therefore giving it to as many family and friends would be a most unloving thing to do. Eugene Peterson, what were you thinking?
Jim Moon, Jr.
Smyrna/Atlanta
I haven't and probably won't read the book, but I may have to later on. Thankfully no one in my circle of friends seems to know or care about the Shack (or the DaVinci Code) - they are too busy conquering the world or getting run over by it. Isn't it great that lots of people are so busy that they are functionally illiterate?
One buddy of my sent me a link to Steve Brown's radio show where he interviewed the author. I have to say I liked the author's honesty and I did ache with him in hearing him tell of being sexually abused as a child on the mission field and at boarding school. He had or has a lot of baggage strapped to him. No doubt at all that this book is part of his personal experience of getting freer. I hope and pray that he and all of us do experience real freedom in Christ.
One buddy of my sent me a link to Steve Brown's radio show where he interviewed the author. I have to say I liked the author's honesty and I did ache with him in hearing him tell of being sexually abused as a child on the mission field and at boarding school. He had or has a lot of baggage strapped to him. No doubt at all that this book is part of his personal experience of getting freer. I hope and pray that he and all of us do experience real freedom in Christ.
Jackie Tolford
Atlanta, GA
The Shack took me for a ride, which was fun in parts. I admire the author's creativeness and 'guts', as Walter put it. But in the end the warm fuzzy message of just hang'in with Jesus or God made me wonder what the unaware person might think. For example, Why read the Word? In the story Mack asks why there is food served and learns it's only there for his human need. But when Mack snidely asks about 'devotions', the idea is waved off as foolishness. Later, when Mack is begging God for advice on how to carry on this newfound relationship, the author again had the perfect opportunity to inject the critical role of the Word, but he never does. That, to me, is scarry.
Let's pray that light may shine in cerebral darkness before the film rights are sold.
Let's pray that light may shine in cerebral darkness before the film rights are sold.
CW
Maryland
Does reformed theology stifle God-honoring creativity, or are there contemporary examples of doctrinally sound, aesthetically pleasing literature? Or is that type of art even possible or necessary to any degree? Thanks...
TE Brian Carpenter
Sturgis, SD
CW,
That's not an easy question to answer for a number of reasons. First of all, the rise of literature as we know it today is really a late 18th and early 19th century phenomenon, beginning specifically the Romantic Movement. By then, Reformed Orthodoxy was waning in its cultural influence. It could be rightly said therefore that the jury is still out, since there haven't been very many Reformed literary writers. I'm tempted to say "no Reformed literary writers" because I can think of none. But sure as I do, somebody will correct me.
But wait, yes I can! Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" and Isaac Walton's "The Compleat Angler" and "The Marrow of Modern Divinity were some of the most influential in history. These works are considerably earlier and "Pilgrim's Progress" is an intentional allegory or "similitude," rather than a modern novel. But it is a work of literature that blazed new trails and astonished the whole world.
Still, the weight of history is against us, I think for several reasons. Because the human heart is an idol factory, there is a kind of distrust of its imaginative products among the Reformed. Also, artists have tended to be subversives. The Reformed faith is only now re-emerging as a subversive force in culture, hence the future is bright if we will but read our Bibles carefully understand our theology thoroughly. The enthusiasm with which Reformed Evangelicals embrace CS Lewis and Tolkein, even though we have profound disagreements with their theological positions is, to my mind, a very good thing. The emergence of Reformed poetry (i.e. in the music of Caedmon's Call, et al) is also a good thing.
If I could write fiction, I'd start something myself. But alas, I cannot. It falls to some other soul who is called to do it.
That's not an easy question to answer for a number of reasons. First of all, the rise of literature as we know it today is really a late 18th and early 19th century phenomenon, beginning specifically the Romantic Movement. By then, Reformed Orthodoxy was waning in its cultural influence. It could be rightly said therefore that the jury is still out, since there haven't been very many Reformed literary writers. I'm tempted to say "no Reformed literary writers" because I can think of none. But sure as I do, somebody will correct me.
But wait, yes I can! Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" and Isaac Walton's "The Compleat Angler" and "The Marrow of Modern Divinity were some of the most influential in history. These works are considerably earlier and "Pilgrim's Progress" is an intentional allegory or "similitude," rather than a modern novel. But it is a work of literature that blazed new trails and astonished the whole world.
Still, the weight of history is against us, I think for several reasons. Because the human heart is an idol factory, there is a kind of distrust of its imaginative products among the Reformed. Also, artists have tended to be subversives. The Reformed faith is only now re-emerging as a subversive force in culture, hence the future is bright if we will but read our Bibles carefully understand our theology thoroughly. The enthusiasm with which Reformed Evangelicals embrace CS Lewis and Tolkein, even though we have profound disagreements with their theological positions is, to my mind, a very good thing. The emergence of Reformed poetry (i.e. in the music of Caedmon's Call, et al) is also a good thing.
If I could write fiction, I'd start something myself. But alas, I cannot. It falls to some other soul who is called to do it.
Susie
USA
Brian,
I think you misunderstood my comment. I will try to clarify. If I mention the word Bible, some people start to shut down. If I can introduce Biblical ideas (supported by Scripture) prior to showing someone particular Bible verses through conversation about different subject matters... I might gain the right to share more about what I believe.
In using this book, I would likely want to start discussion on just how God is portrayed as so caring, especially concerning the rough stuff in life. Even if I disagree with certain theological points within the book, I can embrace the idea of God caring about humanity. I can embrace the idea that it's ok to express doubt and even anger at God - the Psalms do, (but it's never good to remain in a state of anger or doubt).
I don't think my desire is outside of Protestantism at all.
A question for you: surely Sola Scriptura cannot be the only source of our knowledge about God. What about general relevation? What about Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". Does not this very Scripture point to the idea that knowledge about God can come from creation? And doesn't Psalm 19 begin with a description of how the heavens show forth the glory of the Lord - and such language is understood everywhere?
Blessings.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I will try to clarify. If I mention the word Bible, some people start to shut down. If I can introduce Biblical ideas (supported by Scripture) prior to showing someone particular Bible verses through conversation about different subject matters... I might gain the right to share more about what I believe.
In using this book, I would likely want to start discussion on just how God is portrayed as so caring, especially concerning the rough stuff in life. Even if I disagree with certain theological points within the book, I can embrace the idea of God caring about humanity. I can embrace the idea that it's ok to express doubt and even anger at God - the Psalms do, (but it's never good to remain in a state of anger or doubt).
I don't think my desire is outside of Protestantism at all.
A question for you: surely Sola Scriptura cannot be the only source of our knowledge about God. What about general relevation? What about Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". Does not this very Scripture point to the idea that knowledge about God can come from creation? And doesn't Psalm 19 begin with a description of how the heavens show forth the glory of the Lord - and such language is understood everywhere?
Blessings.
Amy
Texas
Why is this book a threat to some? God is our security. God is everything we need. If you are in a relationship with God,nothing outside of God can threaten you. If reading The Shack deepens one's relationship with God, that's awesome and Godly.
Austin
Southern US
Having grown up in the PCA, I am very thankful that I have been able to escape religion and find relationship with Jesus. Reading these previous comments my heart breaks because I see people who have put God in a box that they can understand instead of realizing that we will never come close to understanding God. Young paints a very clear picture of who God is and that God loves us deeply. If you look at the book with the purpose of trying to pick it apart, sure, you are going to find things to twist and turn and make into what you want them to be so that it supports your viewpoint. Denominations are guilty of this too...with SCRIPTURE. So before you try to remove the speck out of someone's eye, maybe try removing the log in yours.
Rachel
Northern US.
I love the review. You got the right point, but what about the fact that is breaking 1\2 commadment? (exodus 20) And it shows God as a female.
mike
portland
I don't get it. What could this book possibly tell me? Can God's love shine greater than in the truth that an innocent man died in the most cruel fashion ever conceived for me, one who directly disobeyed his commands? No greater love has no man than he lay down his life for his friends. I tear up just writing this.
Why, why would he do that for me? But he did. He called me to his family. He calmed our fears by telling us that he had to go away, but he would send The Comforter.
He cried over Jerusalem, how he wanted to gather his people like a hen gathers her chicks.
I'm not a big fan of Chuck Swindoll, but he said something I'll never forget. If someone came into your home and murdered you son and you get out a gun and shoot the murderer, that’s revenge.
If someone came into your home and murdered you son and the murderer is arrested, brought to trial and receives the death penalty or life in prison, that’s justice.
But if that person came into your home and murdered you son and you not only forgave them, but asked them to live with you and you provided for their every need, that’s grace.
Is there anything that speaks the love of God better, or in a more complete way than the Gospel?
It doesn’t get any better than that.
Why, why would he do that for me? But he did. He called me to his family. He calmed our fears by telling us that he had to go away, but he would send The Comforter.
He cried over Jerusalem, how he wanted to gather his people like a hen gathers her chicks.
I'm not a big fan of Chuck Swindoll, but he said something I'll never forget. If someone came into your home and murdered you son and you get out a gun and shoot the murderer, that’s revenge.
If someone came into your home and murdered you son and the murderer is arrested, brought to trial and receives the death penalty or life in prison, that’s justice.
But if that person came into your home and murdered you son and you not only forgave them, but asked them to live with you and you provided for their every need, that’s grace.
Is there anything that speaks the love of God better, or in a more complete way than the Gospel?
It doesn’t get any better than that.
Karen
Iowa
A dear saint recommended this book highly to me. I immediately went on-line and ordered it. i read the first part enthusiastically. After the 'god-heads' entered my spirit seemed to close down. I have been a Christian for over 30 yrs and constantly in the word in private and in classes. I believe I have a good handle on what the word says about the true God-head. I simply wasn't recognizing what I was reading. I put it down and haven't picked it up again. Now I know why. Thanks for explaining what was putting me off.
I'm afraid the Body of Christ is dumbing down with current fiction and I agree we need to know the word to refute current teachings.
I'm afraid the Body of Christ is dumbing down with current fiction and I agree we need to know the word to refute current teachings.
David Williams
http://www.belovedspear.org
Sure, Jesus put what he was doing in the context of the Tanakh. But that wasn't the basis of his authority, now, was it? That, I think, is ultimately the difference between "teaching as the scribes teach" and Christ's saving grace.
And Sweet Mary and Joseph, it's just a book.
And Sweet Mary and Joseph, it's just a book.
Jean
NC
The Shack causes one to connect with and worship a god who has been made in someone, other than the great "I AM"'s image. Though he may bear resemblance, he exihibits, forgive me, the calling card of our enemy since the garden. Remember 666 is just short of perfection 777....almost the Trinity, but not quite. Remember, Satan suggested that God was just a little different from what they had been told....much nicer and more accomodating than they had been told. Let's face it, the God of the Bible and certainly the Name of Jesus, are not all that popular today. Apparently this author thought he would do God a favor and clean up His image. This is a very old and subtle trick. The blending of the worship of the true God with the false gods of surrounding nations didn't suddenly happen in Israel...it happened gradually. I would suggest this book sets us on that path. Not a jot or a tittle is to be messed with when it comes to the description of the King of Kings. HE said "I AM WHO I AM". I think that means no more and no less. If you want to know Him, His Mind and His Heart, read His God-breathed Word and do not trust the well-meaning, but seriously inaccurate portrayal by this author.
Stan McCullars
Orlando, FL
Patrick,
You stated:
"Those who read The Shack...will only be attracted to the God presented within those pages and hopefully find a church where He is worshipped in spirit and in truth and in faith. That is my prayer."
The problem is that "the God presented within those pages" is NOT the God of the Bible. It is a false god which is no god at all. God should be "worshipped in spirit and in truth." Shouldn't we use the truth, rather than a lie, to introduce people to God?
You stated:
"Those who read The Shack...will only be attracted to the God presented within those pages and hopefully find a church where He is worshipped in spirit and in truth and in faith. That is my prayer."
The problem is that "the God presented within those pages" is NOT the God of the Bible. It is a false god which is no god at all. God should be "worshipped in spirit and in truth." Shouldn't we use the truth, rather than a lie, to introduce people to God?
Stan Tarbox
Los Angeles, CA
Yet another Evangelical fad. Never satisfied with the God Who has revealed Himself in Scripture, we continually create idols of our own making. Ironically, while Young believes he's letting God out of a biblical box, he's actually domesticating the almighty, sovereign Lord of the universe. As the White Horse Inn guys like to say, this is simply "moralistic, therapeutic deism." "My God," says the new breed of Christian, "isn't like that judgmental deity of the Bible, with election, exclusivism, hell, and all that. My God is LOVE." But this definition of love is, again, not the biblical one, but a reflection of postmodern, subjectivistic age in which we live.
Pilgrim's Progress, indeed!
Pilgrim's Progress, indeed!
Mary B
Medford, OR
The Shack touched my heart, as I've always had a lot of fear of not "measuring up" spiritually. It has a beautiful picture of grace. The main problem I had with the book was the picture of the Trinity - all equal, especially since Jesus said He only does what the Father says to do, and the Holy Spirit is His Servant. By the time I was finished reading I had added a lot of tabs to pages where there were clear Biblical discrepancies. Still, it made me wonder if God's grace is a lot bigger than I was taught.
Reg Schofield
New Minas , NS
I have refused to pay money for a this book and have tried to read it through numerous sites that offer portions of it. Having said that , what I have read has not compelled me to read anymore. My problem is unlike Lewis or Bunyan , this author has no regard for the word of God and plays footloose and fancy free with God's nature and character . In a way he has lowered God to his level . The sad fact many Christian's have embraced this book is troubling and tells me how ignorant of doctrine many are within even so call orthodox fellowships. I will stick with Pilgrims Progress and Screwtape Letters , thank you very much!
c
ca
i really appreciate this review for its balance. i have read a few too many reviews demeaning the entire endeavor as trash and heresy, and i think that is too simple - it will do some people some bit of good. at the same time, i think there - regretfully, in my view - are serious reservations we should have about promoting it. it's also a shame, but no surprise, that those who read the book uncritically and loved it are going to feel that "the elite" are raining on their parade.
Terrance
Portland, Oregon
Walter,
I too had a tough time getting through it. The first 80 pages went well, but the final 160 pages of didactic and sometimes preachy dialog made up of more counselor wisdom than divine wisdom was a tough slog.
I get from the reaction that people are so hungry for painless acceptance, as opposed to "it is the kindness of God that leads you to repentance," that the thought of spending a weekend with three persons who claim to be God and take your coat, cook for you, clean up after you, and help you tie up painful loose ends in your life fulfills a deeply felt need.
Mack's changes are rapid and relatively painless. And there is no timeline or expectation of growing progress. Don't we all wish spiritual reality was like that?
A God who doesn't judge or threaten punishment and wants to be our best friend and serve us sounds good. But that isn't God and it isn't reality.
I'm not so surprised that average readers like the book as I am that seminary profs and spiritual leaders like it. But, the church has always had leaders with discernment problems (and worse).
That the church survives and prospers is the work of its Founder. The miracle of the continuing existence of the church in spite of rabbit trails, poor teaching and dull leaders should give comfort.
I too had a tough time getting through it. The first 80 pages went well, but the final 160 pages of didactic and sometimes preachy dialog made up of more counselor wisdom than divine wisdom was a tough slog.
I get from the reaction that people are so hungry for painless acceptance, as opposed to "it is the kindness of God that leads you to repentance," that the thought of spending a weekend with three persons who claim to be God and take your coat, cook for you, clean up after you, and help you tie up painful loose ends in your life fulfills a deeply felt need.
Mack's changes are rapid and relatively painless. And there is no timeline or expectation of growing progress. Don't we all wish spiritual reality was like that?
A God who doesn't judge or threaten punishment and wants to be our best friend and serve us sounds good. But that isn't God and it isn't reality.
I'm not so surprised that average readers like the book as I am that seminary profs and spiritual leaders like it. But, the church has always had leaders with discernment problems (and worse).
That the church survives and prospers is the work of its Founder. The miracle of the continuing existence of the church in spite of rabbit trails, poor teaching and dull leaders should give comfort.
Dave McGowan
Ohio
I enjoyed the review, I enjoyed the review of the review even more. One could spend more time reading the reviews of The Shack on the net than you would to read the book.
This book has become a sort of litmus test for many, and Walter has hit the nail on the head by using scripture as the pivot point that the whole controversy swings around.
Pastors are telling their congregations to read it for their summer assignment. Small groups are using it for their subject. It is becoming a sort of bible for some, as Walter has pointed out. This is unsettling.
Derek Keefe wrote a carefully neutral review of the book in the August issue of Christianity Today. He correctly points out that the book was not designed to be used as a theological tool, but was simply a distilling of ideas about God designed for his child. And, it does a decent job doing that. To go beyond that, to use it as a study guide to eternal truth as presented in the scriptures, is to misuse it and (hopefully) to distort all three of the authors' original intent.
Having said that, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. But, it's performed a valuable work in revealing a lot of the thinking that is presently going on in some of the emergent congregations.
This book has become a sort of litmus test for many, and Walter has hit the nail on the head by using scripture as the pivot point that the whole controversy swings around.
Pastors are telling their congregations to read it for their summer assignment. Small groups are using it for their subject. It is becoming a sort of bible for some, as Walter has pointed out. This is unsettling.
Derek Keefe wrote a carefully neutral review of the book in the August issue of Christianity Today. He correctly points out that the book was not designed to be used as a theological tool, but was simply a distilling of ideas about God designed for his child. And, it does a decent job doing that. To go beyond that, to use it as a study guide to eternal truth as presented in the scriptures, is to misuse it and (hopefully) to distort all three of the authors' original intent.
Having said that, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. But, it's performed a valuable work in revealing a lot of the thinking that is presently going on in some of the emergent congregations.
Judy
Texas
Thanks to all of you for taking time to share your thoughts and feelings on this book.
"The Shack," was enthusiastically recommended to me by a much respected dear friend and fellow Christian, but I'd previously read some reviews and decided not to read it.
While reading all the comments offered, I'm ashamed to say my initial decision swayed from one direction to the other.
The power of the written word!
I'm uncomfortably aware of the chinks in my own armor and try to avoid anything I perceive as threatening to my relationship with God.
I will not read this book and thanks again for your caring and insightful observations.
"The Shack," was enthusiastically recommended to me by a much respected dear friend and fellow Christian, but I'd previously read some reviews and decided not to read it.
While reading all the comments offered, I'm ashamed to say my initial decision swayed from one direction to the other.
The power of the written word!
I'm uncomfortably aware of the chinks in my own armor and try to avoid anything I perceive as threatening to my relationship with God.
I will not read this book and thanks again for your caring and insightful observations.
Lynn
manhattan, KS
I really appreciated this review, this has really clarified for me some serious reservations I have about this book, I really do think it is dangerous, the most dangerous things are those that seem true, but are just a little off, they suck so many people in, but in reality they are not THE TRUTH, I have really struggled with understanding why so many believers are endorsing something that contradicts scripture?
Mandy
St. Louis
It is so tempting to reiterate the comments that resonate with my convictions and challenge the ones that do not, but a comment may only be helpful at this point if it brings up a new thought.
To that end...one concern I had as I read the comments of those who have been touched by the book is where this book leads and leaves you - in a devotional and Christian growth sense.
I have read the book and nervously appreciated the ways in which it "put skin on" my perception of God. I am a sensory learner and this book appeals to the senses and emotions (also a bit dangerous). I was very aware, however that what I might have been appreciating was not God at all but a god that made me feel good - that gently rubbed salve on all my wounds and warmly comforted me. Not that God does not do this, but he also allowed Job's wounds to boil without justifying himself to Job or offering comfort for a really long time.
Young's presentation of God is so appealing - especially to those like Young who have serious heartache from past wounds. But it is deceptive. Young clearly has issues with organized religion (I do not say that critically - he says this as others have pointed out.) Also, as has already been commented on, there are dangerous interpretations of Scripture and an impression that you need more than Scripture to really understand God - you need an encounter with God - God the way Young has interpretted him to be. So (to my real point), where does that leave one at the end of the book? You can't seek God in church and if you read the Bible you ought to be aware that you are only getting part of the picture and you certainly shouldn't read it devotionally on any sort of regular basis because that has the potential to lead to rote religious practice. And most people aren't likely to encounter the trinity in a shack in the woods. So in the end all you have is the book - no community, no inerrant Word of God, just his book.
To that end...one concern I had as I read the comments of those who have been touched by the book is where this book leads and leaves you - in a devotional and Christian growth sense.
I have read the book and nervously appreciated the ways in which it "put skin on" my perception of God. I am a sensory learner and this book appeals to the senses and emotions (also a bit dangerous). I was very aware, however that what I might have been appreciating was not God at all but a god that made me feel good - that gently rubbed salve on all my wounds and warmly comforted me. Not that God does not do this, but he also allowed Job's wounds to boil without justifying himself to Job or offering comfort for a really long time.
Young's presentation of God is so appealing - especially to those like Young who have serious heartache from past wounds. But it is deceptive. Young clearly has issues with organized religion (I do not say that critically - he says this as others have pointed out.) Also, as has already been commented on, there are dangerous interpretations of Scripture and an impression that you need more than Scripture to really understand God - you need an encounter with God - God the way Young has interpretted him to be. So (to my real point), where does that leave one at the end of the book? You can't seek God in church and if you read the Bible you ought to be aware that you are only getting part of the picture and you certainly shouldn't read it devotionally on any sort of regular basis because that has the potential to lead to rote religious practice. And most people aren't likely to encounter the trinity in a shack in the woods. So in the end all you have is the book - no community, no inerrant Word of God, just his book.
Chuck Stroup
Fort Myers, FL
I would be interested to listen to (or read) some of you scholars dissect "The Shack."
I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but I did graduate from Bible College.
If you are dissecting the book because its metaphors and word pictures aren't perfect, shame on you. How can you expect any book (apart from the Bible) to be God-breathed? I found the books ideals simplistic, and enjoyed it. God is infinitely more complex than any of us will ever understand, and to try to wrap our minds around Him at any point in time makes Him finite.
We will never understand God.
I enjoyed the way the book described the relationship between Father, Son, & Spirit, as well as their interaction with a being of finite brain.
As for those who say this book is not a theological treatise, I would disagree. Anytime we write anything about God or religion it is saying something about His nature (see: theological treatise). So we need to be careful about what we write.
And Bruce (directly above this comment),
Do you honestly believe this guy just wrote from his own brain with not even a glance toward the Scriptures? I would beg to differ (in conjecture only, since neither you nor I know William Young).
By your own admission, "Doctors of theology have been wrestling with the Scriptures for thousands of years in their effort to know God and be in relationship with him..." And how many of those have differing opinions in theological matters? QUITE A FEW. So will you tout your favorites as absolutely correct?
The book was not perfect, but I really don't think the wholehearted disdain it is receiving is deserved. If this book helps one person better understand even a single thing about God that is correct, wasn't it worth it?
(And yes, I do understand that some people, in parts where its theology isn't perfect, may be misled. But doesn't some [see: most of it] responsibility to search God's Word fall on those individual people? As shepherds/ministers/pastors/etc. we can only "lead the horse to water; we can't make it drink.")
I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but I did graduate from Bible College.
If you are dissecting the book because its metaphors and word pictures aren't perfect, shame on you. How can you expect any book (apart from the Bible) to be God-breathed? I found the books ideals simplistic, and enjoyed it. God is infinitely more complex than any of us will ever understand, and to try to wrap our minds around Him at any point in time makes Him finite.
We will never understand God.
I enjoyed the way the book described the relationship between Father, Son, & Spirit, as well as their interaction with a being of finite brain.
As for those who say this book is not a theological treatise, I would disagree. Anytime we write anything about God or religion it is saying something about His nature (see: theological treatise). So we need to be careful about what we write.
And Bruce (directly above this comment),
Do you honestly believe this guy just wrote from his own brain with not even a glance toward the Scriptures? I would beg to differ (in conjecture only, since neither you nor I know William Young).
By your own admission, "Doctors of theology have been wrestling with the Scriptures for thousands of years in their effort to know God and be in relationship with him..." And how many of those have differing opinions in theological matters? QUITE A FEW. So will you tout your favorites as absolutely correct?
The book was not perfect, but I really don't think the wholehearted disdain it is receiving is deserved. If this book helps one person better understand even a single thing about God that is correct, wasn't it worth it?
(And yes, I do understand that some people, in parts where its theology isn't perfect, may be misled. But doesn't some [see: most of it] responsibility to search God's Word fall on those individual people? As shepherds/ministers/pastors/etc. we can only "lead the horse to water; we can't make it drink.")
H.D. Shively
Pensacola
I minister to Muslims and Jews. Young's concept of the Trinity is at best Tritheism. A Muslim or a Jew would view it as pure polytheism. At a time when we need a Scriptural portrait of the "Three", Young's book is nothing short of a disaster.
Linda Olmsted
Atlanta, Ga.
Isn't "Christian fiction" an oxymoron?
Also, see John 1:14; John 1:17; John 3:33; John 8:45; John 14:6; Ps. 86:15; Ps. 91:4; Ps. 96:13; Ps. 100:5; Ps. 119:160; Heb. 6:18; Ps. 51:6; Pr. 3:3; .... and even more in your concordance.
Christ, God's Word..... these are TRUTH.
Why would I read 'fiction' to 'discover and/or grow close to and/or have an encounter' with God?
Also, see John 1:14; John 1:17; John 3:33; John 8:45; John 14:6; Ps. 86:15; Ps. 91:4; Ps. 96:13; Ps. 100:5; Ps. 119:160; Heb. 6:18; Ps. 51:6; Pr. 3:3; .... and even more in your concordance.
Christ, God's Word..... these are TRUTH.
Why would I read 'fiction' to 'discover and/or grow close to and/or have an encounter' with God?
Sheila
Florida
I'm about halfway through this book and am having difficulty with the characterization of Jesus and God. I appreciate the love and friendship, but it seems overdone - too much side-splitting laughter, too much joking, too much of everything happy. Yes, God is forgiving, but He's also holy and just. The portrayal that people are not going to be judged is explicit contradiction to the Word of God. Wide is the road, right? Praise God for healing - especially of the deep, emotional, painful type and if this book can be a healing balm for people suffering from tremendous loss, then wonderful, but if this changes someone's POV and makes them reduce God/Jesus to a joke-around, not serious, non-judgmental diety then there's a problem. Perhaps that's my biggest issue with the book - I feel it peels away several layers of His sovereignty and makes Him appear as a buddy. I don't want a buddy - I want a God who doesn't giggle when I ask a tough question, one whom I can't help but fall down and worship, you know - like the One written about in the Bible.
mike
beaverton, or
From our pastor's blog...
Nathan is currently writing a sequel to “The Shack,” called “The Shed,” to fill out the divine character and works a bit.
Nathan is currently writing a sequel to “The Shack,” called “The Shed,” to fill out the divine character and works a bit.
Mike Anderson
Wake Forest, NC
Several of the replies above touch on some key points the author overlooks.
First, incomplete theology can reach people with the Gospel. What about Lord of the Rings, Lewis Space Trilogy and Miracles or the Great Divorce? What about the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe? Are they inspired work? Are they Seminary teaching? Obviously not, but effective none the less. To re-quote the famous line "God draws straight lines with crooked sticks." Each of us is a crooked stick to be used by God for His Glory.
Several key points that are good reformed theology are emphasized well in the book. Not all but several.
Second causes seems well presented to me.
Sovereignty and "otherness" of God is well presented in the story.
The relational desire of God comes across well.
The description of sin as a heart issue, not a behavior issue is certainly in line with the "red letter" text in the New Testament.
I disagree with Mr.Henager that the murderer is treated too lightly. Is God through with him yet? Not in this story. The point made is that God is the one to decide the man's fate, not man. And God does love ALL mankind. Does that mean all are pardoned? I do not read that in the book.
Can this book be misused? Of course, it is being read by sinful humans in a fallen world. But, even the one perfect book, God's Word, is misused every day by sinful people in a fallen world.
This is not inspirational work. It is more like a hymn sung in worship, an imperfect attempt that can be used by God to bring Glory to Himself.
First, incomplete theology can reach people with the Gospel. What about Lord of the Rings, Lewis Space Trilogy and Miracles or the Great Divorce? What about the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe? Are they inspired work? Are they Seminary teaching? Obviously not, but effective none the less. To re-quote the famous line "God draws straight lines with crooked sticks." Each of us is a crooked stick to be used by God for His Glory.
Several key points that are good reformed theology are emphasized well in the book. Not all but several.
Second causes seems well presented to me.
Sovereignty and "otherness" of God is well presented in the story.
The relational desire of God comes across well.
The description of sin as a heart issue, not a behavior issue is certainly in line with the "red letter" text in the New Testament.
I disagree with Mr.Henager that the murderer is treated too lightly. Is God through with him yet? Not in this story. The point made is that God is the one to decide the man's fate, not man. And God does love ALL mankind. Does that mean all are pardoned? I do not read that in the book.
Can this book be misused? Of course, it is being read by sinful humans in a fallen world. But, even the one perfect book, God's Word, is misused every day by sinful people in a fallen world.
This is not inspirational work. It is more like a hymn sung in worship, an imperfect attempt that can be used by God to bring Glory to Himself.
April
Ohio
Before I read The Shack I feared God more than I loved Him. I was stuck on that roller coaster, God is good - I am bad - I've got to do better...I was stuck in a performance based relationship trying to be good enough. That only takes away from what Jesus accomplished on the cross.Guilt no longer keeps me from relating to God in a personal way. I will forever be greatful for Gods saving grace, the Word and the Shack.
Leave a Comment
Subscribe here to get full access to the latest articles and best resources
Boyce
Alabama