About "the Shack"...

I read the book The Shack twice when it first came out. The book has a great emotional impact, and I certainly felt that, but I also had then and have now grave concerns about the theological errors in the story.

Many readers argued "Hey, it's just a story, not a theology textbook." Since then, William Paul Young, author of The Shack, wrote another book called Lies We Believe About God.  This book is not a story, but a clear presentation of his beliefs making it explicitly clear what he believes about God, free will, eternal judgement, etc., and that those beliefs are embodied in the story of  The Shack.  his beliefs and teachings are most definitely not orthodox. I have no plans to see the movie, although I reserve the right to change my mind. However, I most definitely cannot recommend either the book or the movie as accurate theology, or as good things for anyone to read or watch.

 Tim Challies said it better than I could. I encourage you to read his post  What Does the Shack Really Teach. which covers the relevant parts of the new book mentioned above.

The god presented in the book and movie is not the God of the Bible, and not the God revealed by Jesus. It is a god who is not sovereign, does not punish evil, and whose "love" is a limited generic feeling of benevolence.

If you felt power from the story of the Shack, please know that the God of the Bible is more powerful, more loving, but also more Holy.

Keller Does Shack

Tim Keller finally got around to reading and reviewing The Shack (see Redeemer City to City)

Here's one comment to wet your appetite -

"Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible"

Read the whole thing.

(Some of my earlier posts about "The Shack" Here, here, here and here.)

More Thoughts on “The Shack”

By now most evangelical believers have read or at least heard of the book The Shack. I have posted some reviews of the book and some of my thoughts on it here, here, here and here.

Trevin Wax published Some Thoughts on “The Shack” at his blog Kingdom People. This is one of the better balanced reviews that I have seen. I think I can totally agree with what he says about the book, both positively and negatively.

"I have heard people rave about this book (in a good way), and I have heard others rave about this book (in a bad way). Some described it as the best book in the past 50 years. Others described it as the worst heresy to ever hit the Christian bookstore.

In the end, I found that The Shack wasn’t nearly as good as some had said, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as others had charged. It has everything positive about contemporary evangelicalism, and yet it has all the drawbacks of current evangelical expression too."

I commend this review for your consideration.

The Resurgence Review of The Shack

Below are some excerpts from a lengthy and well-written review of The Shack by Scott Lindsey at TheResurgence

First, let me say that I think there is good in The Shack. It has helped many people see the warmth within the triune God, and God’s warmth toward them as well. For that I am grateful.
----------------
The Shack raises the problem of evil and offers hope to those who have been overwhelmed by tragedies they can’t reconcile with God’s sovereignty and goodness. I appreciate the fact that Paul Young doesn’t resort to openness theology, to arguing that God doesn’t know about the evils that are going to happen and therefore can’t prevent them. He sees God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. And he certainly gets in touch with human need, weakness, and grief. One of the most memorable phrases from the book is “The Great Sadness,” an expression that connects to many people’s deepest hurts, regrets, and longings.
----------------

I believe that those who are well-grounded in the Word won’t be harmed by the weaknesses and deficiencies of the book. Unfortunately, few people these days are well-grounded in the Word.

I think this book would have better served the church thirty years ago, when there was so much more legalism and too little talk of God’s grace and forgiveness. Ironically, though there is still some legalism, there is also significantly less knowledge of Scripture and spiritual discernment and concern for orthodoxy. Which means that some people, perhaps many, will fail to recognize and filter out the book’s theological errors, and therefore be vulnerable to embracing them, even if unconsciously.
------------------
I truly rejoice for the many people who feel a greater closeness to God from reading The Shack. In that sense, I think God’s hand is on the book. I only wish His holiness and our need to come to him in awe, and a high regard for the local community of believers were as apparent in the book as God’s grace and love and warmth. However, for those who need to sense more of the latter, and who can blow away the chaff and stick with the grain, I pray God will use the book to help them.

The Shaq?

Everyone's read The Shack, but have you read The Shaq?

A new book is causing controversy among evangelicals. “The Shaq” tells the story of a grieving L.A. Laker’s fan who is visited by a 7ft 300 lbs African American basketball player and an aging zen-master head coach who use the triangle offense to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t know what the problem is, sounds good to me.

Thanks to purgatorio for the laugh - I needed one today!

Another Perspective on The Shack

I've read lots of reviews and comments on William Young's The Shack, both positive and negative. From my usual sources the reviews are mostly negative. However, Gerald Hiestand at "Straight Up" has a perspective that I have not heard anywhere else - the "anti-power" motif. See -Straight Up » William Young’s The Shack

Young’s decision to portray God in mostly feminine categories has relevance to a wider “anti-power” motif woven throughout the book. Young, in casting God in female terms, attempts to distance God from a sense of tyranny and dominance—a sense more often associated with males than females. Young’s agenda is not unique. Those toward the theological left (and our postmodern milieu in general) tend to be suspicious of power, viewing it as oppressive and brutalizing. The emergence of egalitarianism within the church and home, and the movement toward decentralized church leadership structures are symptomatic of this shift. Hierarchy, we are often told, leads to oppression. At one point in the book, Mac asks God which of the three members of the Trinity is in charge of the others. The three are aghast at the thought. “What you are seeing here,” the Holy Spirit informs him, “is a relationship without any overlay of power…Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong uses to make others conform to what they want.” Power, Young argues at various points, is inherently corrupting and oppressive.

The net result is a God who rejects—indeed is repulsed by—the use of power. (In one scene God picks up a gun between two fingers, holding it at arms lengths as though it were a dead mouse). Young’s God never coerces, never forces; He believes the best in everyone, is enduringly patient, and invincibly good-natured. For Young, love cannot be love if it is not freely offered and freely received. Power equals dominance, and if God dominates us he cannot love us, nor can we freely love him.

There are two fundamental difficulties I have with Young’s “anti-power” motif. First, Young’s portrayal of God is out of step with much of the way God is portrayed in Scripture. It’s difficult to square Young’s pacifistic Trinitarian portrayal with the God of Genesis 6, the Christ of Revelation 19, and the Holy Spirit of Acts 5. And it’s at this point that Young’s theodicy falls short. The Scripture doesn’t allow us to distance God from violence and coercion. The deeper question of theodicy is not simply how a good God can allow death and destruction, but how a good God can cause death and destruction. Young’s book assumes the happiness of humanity is the highest good. The Bible does not affirm this. Simply put, God is not “for” everyone to the same degree, or in the same way. (Aquinas called this the “principle of predilection—the idea that “no created being would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.”) Those committed to the biblical narrative must wrestle with the (unsettling) reality of a God who does not love everyone equally, and who has personally brought about the death of women and children. On this question, Young’s book is silent.

Secondly, Young’s conflation of power and abuse is not accurate. The former does not automatically equate to the latter. The answer to the abuse of power is not the elimination of power, but rather the proper use of power. God is unquestionably a God of power. Young would agree with this, I’m sure, but Young seems to chafe against any idea that God would actually use his power to bring about his ends. But God does, and often. Further, the love of God is only as meaningful as the power that animates it. A God neutered of power is a God who lacks the capacity to love. Or again, the warmth of God’s imminence is only as meaningful as the height of his transcendence. Young’s portrayal of God, unlike the Biblical God of the whirlwind, lacks any sense of transcendence.

The Shack: A Story of a Journey

Since yesterday I posted a review critical of The Shack, here's a more positive one from Michael Spencer: Difficult Concept Workshop: Repeat After Me…”The Shack Is A Story”

...I’m going to start and finish this post with the same encouragement: TELL YOUR STORY. WRITE YOUR STORIES. TELL THEM YOUR WAY. IN YOUR WORDS. Don’t be afraid or intimidated. The story matters. Some will NEVER see it, but it’s no less true. Keep putting your journey into a story. Keep writing. Be an artist. Be a creator. Mess up some lines. Mix up some colors. Offend some know it alls. Don’t stop until your story is out there.
...............
.....It seems that a willingness to denounce The Shack has become the latest indicator of orthodoxy among those evangelicals who are keeping an eye on the rest of us. It’s a lot less trouble than checking out someone’s views on limited atonement, that’s for sure.

Hear me loud and clear: it’s every pastor and Christian’s duty to speak up if they feel The Shack is spiritually harmful. I’d only add one point: it’s equally the right of those who find The Shack helpful to say so.

Obviously, The Shack isn’t for everyone. Like a lot of Christian fiction, it has a certain amount of gawky awkwardness. No one will ever call William Young a skilled wordsmith. I wouldn’t teach The Shack in a theology class, even though I find Young’s willingness to explore the Trinity commendable and personally helpful.
............
It’s the presentation of God in The Shack that creates the controversy with the critics and the buzz with the fans, but the longer I’ve talked about this story with other Christians, I have to wonder if all the focus on Young’s “Trinity” isn’t missing the larger point of the book- a point that many theological watchblogs don’t seem to see at all.

The Shack is a pilgrimage. It’s an allegorical account of one person’s history with God; a history deeply affected by the theme of “The Great Sadness.” It’s a journey, and overlooking what’s going on in Mack’s journey is a certain prescription of seeing The Shack as a failed critique of Knowing God.

These are excerpts only - read the whole thing to see the I-Monk's full argument.

Subversive Shack?

Thinking Out Loud has a guest blog by Dr. David Fowler with a slightly different perspective on The Shack. He says it is not so much the book's approach to the Trinity that is a concern, but its subversive attitude toward the local church.

...There are several statements in the book that give the clear impression that “God is good”, “organized church……not necessary and not so good”. I said this to my wife the moment I was finished reading it. While we both enjoyed it and found it moving….we read it from a perspective of being in the church and understanding the short comings of the local church but still committed to work in the world of human limitations as we find it in the visible local church which is the visible body of Christ.

Many people will read The Shack and say to themselves,

* “I knew it….God is interested in my life and me personally”
* “I don’t need that organized, institutionalized, politicized, narrowly focused, guilt inducing association called the church”.
* “I can have all the rich relationship with God without any of the guilt, hassle, inconvenience, obligation, of that time and money demanding association.”
* “God is so much bigger than that so why grovel around in the lesser when I can ‘free myself’ to enjoy the joys of the more fuller relationship with Him.”

Why do I say this? Because my unchurched, unsaved neighbors who read it and loved it and who bought more copies to share with their friends….came to exactly this conclusion. So while I love the book….it will ultimately make the job of convincing anyone who is exploring Christianity by reading The Shack about the need to be in a local church and having a relationship with other believers — that they will actually spend eternity with — that much more difficult. In fact the book sort of makes it sound like Jesus wouldn’t want to be in a local church either. I guess if that gets them into the Kingdom….in some form….I can live with it….but somehow it leaves me with a little bit of “pain”. I guess I also have to ask myself if that is the case, then maybe I don’t want to share it with anyone and in fact, anything that bereft of some balancing ecclesiology is in fact really somewhat heretical. I mean we all struggle with local churches… and we know they are not perfect, or in some cases even good….but we simply don’t have anything better or different to replace them with that “works” in some way that is enduring.

In some ways I think The Shack has potential to do much more damage to the local church than did the Da Vinci Code. That was a frontal assault on the church which most Christians vigorously rejected. This is somewhat of an unintentional attack on the necessity of the church as an institution and basically gets an arguably theologically “sort of correct” version of God saying, “You don’t really need the church”. What is likely to happen the next time someone gets disappointed with a local church is that they will remember The Shack and say passionately to God…..”I love you”….. and then just skip going to church….and probably not come back.

My previous writings on The Shack are here.