The Shack Reviewed
40 comments | Permalink
Tim Challies offers a more in-depth review of the self-published bestselling book, The Shack. As Tim writes:
Despite the book’s popularity among Christians, believers are divided on whether this book is biblically sound. Where Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, says it “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim Progress did for his,” Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, “This book includes undiluted heresy.” While singer and songwriter Michael W. Smith says “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God,” Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, says, “Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical.”You can access the 17-page review (nicely formatted if you want to share it with others) here.
posted by JT at Tuesday, May 20, 2008
40 Comments:
Also, if anyone is interested. Steve Brown, a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando interviewed William P. Young on his radio show this week. I don't know how to do links in html so just go to www.stevebrownetc.com and you should be able to find it easily enough since it's the most recent interview.
I haven't read Challies' full review yet, but I have watched Driscoll's clip and read Challies' amazon review and I found the Brown interview to be quite helpful. (Haven't read the book yet.)
This post has been removed by the author.
I haven't read the book yet, but as I read all the different takes on it (from "genius" to "heresy!") I started to wonder: is this book any more heretical than Chronicles of Narnia? I mean, of course there are theological inconsistencies and even some falsehoods is the Chronicles, but did the author of The Shack intend his book to be read in a way that would force us to take his theological missteps (or sidesteps) more seriously than those in Chronicles?
That's an honest question, and I'm hoping that someone who's read the book could offer up an answer.
I put a bunch of links to people who have reviewed it at my post:
Batterton, Peterson, Jones, Lomenick, Driscoll and Mohler Review the Shack
Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
www.andyrowell.net
Its take on the Trinity bothered me less than the total absence of any kind of ecclesiology.
It essentially steals its picture of God from (certain traditions of) the Church, but never mentions anything like baptism or communion. Hmm... And yes Reggie, it presents itself as a fictional depiction of theological truths. The fact that the author is not involved in any kind of 'organized religion' seems problematic to me...
Peace,
-Daniel-
I am about half way through the "The Shack." So far my conclusion would be this: As fiction, the book probably does not fall into the category of "heretical." I also suspect that it does make a powerful point about forgiveness, bitterness, etc. However, I think the book reflects a very weak view of Scripture, a very distorted picture of God, a very shallow understanding of the work of Christ and (I agree with Daniel) a totally inadequate ecclesiology. In short, what is wrong with "The Shack" is pretty much what is wrong with 21st century American evangelicalism. It is no surprise the American Christians write books like this, nor is it a surprise the many buy and read them. "The Shack" is a symptom of much bigger problem.
I don't read any fiction. Why would you bother? Is fiction going to give you truth? Is your mindset going to arrive at truth from reading fiction? Does the Holy Ghost use fiction? Is your heightened understanding (though it be puffed) enhanced by reading fiction? Do you plant "sperma" in your head or in your heart?
m,
I actually hadn't read any fiction today until I read your comment.
That is, if I assume your definition of fiction...i.e. writing that is unable to convey truth.
I can think of multiple works of fiction that helped me to understand truth's of scripture and edified me.
MW
M - I suppose you could argue that fiction and narrative are different, but in that they're both telling a story, I think they're similar. And, in that case, 75% of the scriptures are narrative. And 15% is poetry. Only 10% is propositional, didactic writing. Additionally, much of Jesus' teaching is in the form of story. That's not to say systematics are unimportant or that we dismiss propositional truth. Certainly, those are essential too.
So to answer your questions about fiction, I'd say, "yes" to every one of them.
OK, I suppose there's some validity to reading about Santa Claus. :)
There are some form of fiction that can be instructional, but it's fiction, necessitating a need to ferret what is not true from what is. The Shack is a case in point.
M,
Read "Gilead" by Marilynne Robinson if you want fiction that reveals truth. I've also learned a lot from "The Great Divorce", "Hamlet", and even "Frankenstein". Or you could try any of the parables of Jesus for fiction that teaches.
Justin,
So the good guys (Mohler and Driscoll) says it's bad, and the bad guys (Peterson and Smith) say it's good. I think each individual is smart enough to read the book for themselves and decided, heresy or not, whether they want to agree with the author. Also, I think it's strange to say some book is heretical because of what it leaves out of a fictional story. I'd like to see of the listing of the heretical things actually said by the protagonist of the book.
I have been a Christian for more than 38 years, and have never been so impacted by a book in my life, let alone a fictious book. Oh, some of you are thinking, "how about the Bible?" The Bible is the written word of God--so true. But "The Shack" moved my heart towards the God of the Bible telling me in a non-theological way how fond He is of me, not based on how well I'm doing or performing at the moment. Paul Young skillfully circumvents theological presuppositions and drives home the incredible care Papa has for me—a huge loser saved by incredible grace—by using FICTION—good grief!!!!!
I am truly saddened by some of our anti-shack heresy hunters. It reminds me of some who lived 2000 years ago who were "men of the Book" who missed the WORD made flesh and dwelt among us when He was right in front of their faces.
I used to be so arrogant with my superior knowledge of theology, now I am heads over heels in love with the Lord Jesus and Abba who loves me more than any human being is capable of. That is the God of the Shack!!!!
Calling or implying that William P Young is a heretic exhibits the same attitude that our friends, the Puritans, had in Salem Massachusetts in June through September of 1692.
William P Young and the two other men (both former pastors) who helped him with the final refinement of the Shack are brothers in Christ. I am ashamed to read what some of our "superior" minds are writing. All under the guise of being true to the “word” when they miss the WORD right in their midst.
Dave
I am also halfway through "The Shack".
Dan - I agree with what you are saying.
M - I don't like to read fictional books very much either, but I feel as if it is important to do so when many people from our churches are doing so. If I am a leader in the church, or ministering to people on any level, and half of my church is reading this book, I should know how to respond.
And let no one forget what Dave has said here, this book has made an impact on him. I know many people who were impacted positively by the book, and many people who did not enjoy it. The Holy Spirit lives within us and can speak to us through many different things. We shouldn't be so harsh with our words in regards to people being impacted by something (that I don't believe to be heretical, because it is a fictional book).
BTW, by way of introduction, Michael is my name... Hence the M.
Alex,
OK, I'll look "Gilead" up... but I say! Are Jesus' parables fiction?
Are Jesus' parables fiction? It isn't fiction that he told them, but the stories/parables are stories that didn't actually happen to illustrate a Kingdom truth. So aren't stories that never actually happened ficticious? Doesn't the Shack present some wonderful truth? It is fiction. It isn't competing with graduate level systematic theology works. Can't we cease with the dividing and the "us and them" language. No wonder the world isn't moved by our lives and our testimonies like they were when the early church spoke and lived and died, much before the new testament was even available
Wow.
We don't know the literary definition of "fiction" -- as in the difference between "account of historical events" vs. "something invented by the imagination"?
Dude: no wonder the emerg***s think we're mean-spirited and ignorant.
Wow!
We don't know the Wikipedia definition of "fiction" as stated:
"Fiction is the telling of stories which are not entirely based upon facts. More specifically, fiction is an imaginative form of narrative, one of the four basic rhetorical modes. Although the word fiction is derived from the Latin fingo, fingere, finxi, fictum, "to form, create", works of fiction need not be entirely imaginary and may include real people, places, and events. Fiction may be either written or oral. Although not all fiction is necessarily artistic, fiction is largely perceived as a form of art or entertainment. The ability to create fiction and other artistic works is considered to be a fundamental aspect of human culture, one of the defining characteristics of humanity."
Dude: It's easy to dismiss others and marginalize them by labeling them as emergent or whatever when they don't fit into the box we're in, isn't it? Then it becomes us and them; and of course the "us" is always right and the "them," well they just don't quite get it like "we" do. Or worse yet, what they think is heretical.
Tim Challies is a blessing to the Body of Christ.
"Just don’t look for
rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of
coming to be with us”-Sarayu
This is extremely misleading. The Word of God has rules and principles, and they are not grievous to the child of the Lord.
Very disturbing book. I'm sorry to hear people are elated by it.
This shows how shallow the Church is concerning the truth of Scripture.
People are always seeking happiness, and not holiness. God wants to conform us into the image of His Son. And He shall.
M(ichael),
If you think fiction has no value at all, except for making an occasional didactic point, I would urge you to re-think this seriously. Fiction and the arts can in general be used for the glory of God. I won't recount arguments for the value of fiction here, but I suggest picking up Gene Veith's Reading Between the Lines, Leland Ryken's edited anthology The Christian Imagination, or perhaps as a starting point, Philip Ryken's little book Art for God's Sake. Each of these authors state the case better than I can anyway.
As for the Shack, never heard of it so will not pass any comment.
Wow...
see here and compare the "parable" definition with that of "fiction."
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T3319
Dude: parable <> fiction. Strongest suggestion that this maxim is true is in Mark 4:13. Let God be true, and all men liars.
This text body structure is just a play of words... I have nothing against anyone :)
Donsands... I'm with you on that. You're comparing it against scripture. Kudos.
bk-
OK, I'll consider the first one you listed. Thanks.
Don,
That was a great comment. Thanks. It was very sober and very sound. I appreciate the distinction you've made. I think you've effectively served all those who will listen.
Donsands' comment is exactly the reason I don't like to read fiction.
That book seems to have some very weird theology and i don't want to condone its odd views about revelation and sin etc. i also think using any sort of human metaphor to describe the trinity is very unwise (but everyone is guilty here!).
But i find it incredibly rich that its criticised for not teaching the eternal subordination of the son, and accused of being heretical in terms of its trinitarian teaching. Eternal subordination of the son was clearly viewed as heresy as early as athanatius, and has been revived by reformed chaps like the Sydney Anglicans and some of you nice reformed folk to justify heirchical gender relationships. i have no problem with people be complimentarian on the basis of scripture (Ephesians 5, 1 timothy 2etc, even though i have some disagreements with such positions), i have real problems with people redefining the historic doctrine of the trinity on the basis of what Charles Hodge said in the 1850's (and now wayne grudem!) and one verse in 1 Corinthians 15 which is a very complex argument and i don't think should be viewed as a trinatarian construction (the whole passage concerns Jesus being the second adam, unlike other Pauline passages which talk much more clearly about Jesus being the prexistant one who is the embodiment of YHWH ie 1 Corinthians 8:6, Phillipians 2:5-11).
I think eternal subordination of the son is a heresy that has the potential for consequences far beyond male-female gender relationships. Extremely similar arguments were used to justify slavery from a christian perspective in the antebellum south, and are even used by some like Grudem in combination with a very weird view of biblical anthropology and imago-dei to justify unjust economic orders and authoritarian leadership in governments etc.
there is as much problems with alot of reformed theology is there is with post liberalism, emerging church and n.t wright esque stuff. i wish people would be less stuck enough to realise this.
Hello dear brothers and sisters,
I'm really not sure what "reformed" means - it seems to come up a lot in your posts - and I guess my reading of the Bible hasn't found that word there. So forgive me if I misunderstand. BTW I HAVE read The Shack. I read it as a work of fiction, so I didn't leave my brain switched off ;-) and I found God forcefully reminded me of many scriptures about the way he sees me and my sin, the way he wants me to respond to him, and the immeasurable love of God (Ephesians 3) that empowers me to be made more into the likeness of beloved Jesus. That's for starters. And the Holy Spirit is restoring my joy and peace in that relationship with Father God. I guess you have to test things by their fruit - rather than by NOT reading something and trading other people's views and your own.
Good point about Narnia - not a brilliant theological exposition of ALL Christian belief... and also Jesus's parables - clearly completely fictional but bearing the weight of God-spoken truth to his heares. So... who's up for criticising the Son of God today? Would anyone care to cast a stone... the first stone? Love you all. Alex, Winchester, England
Despite being a guy spoon-fed on Reformed and Baptistic doctrine for over twenty years, I really liked the book...and feel that it could go a long way towards healing the hurt and dis-service done by those who favor a more "intellectual" form of Christianity rather than the heart-felt one presented by "The Shack."
I agree that some of the writing could use some tweaking...as could those awful chapter titles! As a whole, the book touches the emotions and produces a response...which is what a good book is supposed to do.
"The way that mixture works is this: it causes confusion and then division. Because some of what is provided is good, some is bad. Some is truth and some is error.
This means there are two ways people can respond: some people will focus on the error and reject the truth; others will focus on the truth and accept the error. And therefore there comes confusion - and out of the confusion, division. People become aggressively committed to one or other of the alternatives. What causes it? Mixture. We cannot afford to tolerate mixture.
What is the answer to mixture? Truth! The pure, undiluted truth of God's Word! "
The above quote is from Derek Prince. He says it better than I can. God is all powerful and mighty, Maker of heaven and earth. God , Our Father does not need a mixture of truth and error to spread His gospel. His Holy Word will suffice.
I'm not sure if anyone reads this anymore, but I can say that I'm about 3/4 of the way through "The Shack". I was first exposed to it, through a friend of a friend. The enthusiasm over the book intrigued me, as well as a lot of the concepts I heard it espoused.
I spent most of my Christian life in a non-denominational church which ran the median of US Christianity. I wouldn't really say that it was a postmodern church. However, I've recently been exposed to "reformed" theology...and its the best way I've ever seen God painted. I suppose it would be valuable to say that it also seems to be the best way I've ever heard the God of the BIBLE represented. Ironically, one of the first things I valued about the reformed theology was that it got my eyes off of me and onto God Almighty.
I like the Scripture, and I was immensely offended by the "guilt edges" comment in the Shack. You see, the Shack is a piece of false doctrine. It's not an allegory like the Chronicles of Narnia. It isn't even a allegorical work of fiction like The Lord of the Rings. It certainly is nothing like Pilgrim's Progress...much to the chagrin of E. Peterson.
The Shack uses narrative and fiction as a vector for the transmission of false doctrine. It does this by putting words in the mouth of God (which is scary!). It isn't that Young misstates some things or is well intentioned. Young vehemently dismantles biblical Christianity, and replaces it with Shack Christianity. That is the heresy of the work.
The following are some extra-biblical claims that the Shack makes:
1. God does not punish sin
2. Jesus is not divine.
3. We "can" have the same power that Jesus does.
4. God submits himself to man.
5. The Trinity has no hierarchy
The Shack presents a refreshing look at God's unfathomable love for hurting humanity. Clearly devoid of scriptural accuracy and poorly written with bogged down sentences, it is yet riveting in its creative concepts of forgiveness, reconciliation, hope and purpose. Along with all this it is FICTION. That should clear up the heresy charge. Is God mad that such a work has stirred so many hearts pro and con? Only heaven knows.
ray stone,
Along with all this it is FICTION. That should clear up the heresy charge.
Would an idol be a work of fiction?
How about a sexually charged novel?
Stan, I'm not sure what you're are referring to. But you can make any situation a piece of fiction.
Ray,
My point being that being a piece of fiction does not excuse sin, be it heresy, idolatry, or pornography.
While I'm no Young fan, neither am I opposed to him or his work. I do believe that he makes reference to sin but not from a Biblical standpoint. He says that sin punishes itself or something like that. We know that it has both temporal and eternal consequences. This is why it is not fact but fictional just like Shakespeare, Greek mythology, The Wizard of Oz. Young chose a touchy subject, gave it a scent of truth and embellished it with his own philosophical theories in desperate need of resolving his own interpersonal conflicts with life and God. Had he tried to pass it off as truth, I'd be in uproar. But because it is FICTION and possess some universal truths about facing our tragedies head on, forgiveness, seeking God, etc., I give it a thumbs sideways, neither up nor down, and would selectively recommend it to perhaps people who are hurting deeply, mad with God and the Bible, passed through great tragedies or losses. I don't agree with many points but I wouldn't scrap it as piece of trash and place it in the furnace. For those who vehemently opposes the work I say, "Amen" for the first Amendment of the Constitution.
I think I understand what you mean now Stan. The word heresy from the Greek text means: opinion; an opinion which strongly opposes the power of the truth and has the ability to bring division, factions, and create sects. It's a strong word by definition and is used too loosely by believers along with "false prophet". I don't personally believe that The Shack is heresy (of course I may change my mind)-meaning that I don't believe people will say I believe in Young's God "Papa" over the God in the Bible. True enough, Young's God is misrepresented and a distortion, but we get that each and every Sunday across the pulpits of America which is why so many as so messed up. As fiction, however, you get a chance to someone elses take on God which is not altogether false, chew the meat-spit out the bones and move on.
Ray,
My wife and I went shopping on Saturday and picked some ground beef among other items. On the way home I was anxiously awaiting burgers (without buns as I have celiac sprue) and potatoes.
My wife was preparing the potatoes in the kitchen when I heard some sort of noise from her that indicated something was wrong. The meat was bad.
I put The Shack in the same category. There may be meat there. However, the meat appears to be spoiled.
Why settle for spoiled meat when there is plenty of prime meat available? For instance, William Gurnall's The Christian in Complete Armor.
Stan, the fact is-not all the meat is spoiled in the shack. There are some riveting truths that can bring great healing to scores who have been bruised, rejected, abused, abandoned, seriously hurt especially in the church but not exclusively and somehow hold God responsible. Our tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water is all too common. There are wine and beer bottles in that grocery store you and your wife just left. Do you burn the entire store down because of the number of DUI cases? Or do you select what you need to survive. While I respect the Word of God as the highest authority on earth, it in the hands of cruel or ignorant men, can and has been just as rancid and damaging as you accuse The Shack as being.
Ray,
The Bible is altogether true.
The Shack is not.
Regarding the scores who have been bruised, rejected, abused, abandoned, seriously hurt especially in the church but not exclusively and somehow hold God responsible, I guess I prefer to give them 100% Grade A beef rather than a mixture of good and spoiled. Makes sense to me.
Our grocery store happens to have a fine selection of beer and wine both of which are affordably priced. Why would that bother me?
We agree. The Shack is fiction. So is the Wizard of Oz, The Color Purple, Oedipus Rex,Snow White and Lord of the Rings. It is entertainment with elements that are universally true. Just because witches open up the first scene in MacBeth doesn't mean that the whole play is rotten. I hope you get my point. If not, let's not belabor it.
William P. Young’s much discussed book, “The Shack”, is interesting for a reason that does not seem to have been discussed so far: It turns into exactly the opposite direction of former attempts at dealing with an age-old question (called “Theodizee” by philosophers since Leibniz, 1710, but discussed already by Greek philosophers): how the idea of a personal, almighty, all-knowing, merciful, loving, and just GOD can be reconciled with the random, undeserved suffering of innocents in this world.
One could say, that this question has acquired new relevance with the development of world-wide news-media that keep us informed daily about wars, “ethnic cleansings”, natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis), slowly starving children … and – on the other hand - the unpunished demise of people like Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot, who died peacefully in their beds.
But an observant and compassionate person does not really need the news-media to ask questions: Each day, all around us there are children being born … with very unequal gifts and equipment for life: Some intelligent or gifted in some special field … others outright stupid from the very beginning, some beautiful and attractive … others ugly and unattractive, some attractive and intelligent … others ugly and stupid (some doubly blessed and some doubly cursed), some into loving and supportive families … others into broken homes or no homes at all. Where is God’s “justice” in that? (Just watch at a children’s fair a group of child-cripples - some of them blind - with pale and distorted little faces being pushed in wheelchairs by constantly changing “volunteers”. They might never find love, will never date, never compete, always depend on others…) In other words: It’s not only what we do to each other, that causes undeserved misery. The injustice starts right at our birth!
Or look on your way to work under the bridges where the homeless live! Why them? Why not you? Who would choose that lifestyle? …
You end up asking yourself: How is it possible, that - even nowadays! – a majority of the somewhat well-to-do (in the American Bible-belt supposedly over 80 %!) manages to “look the other way” and still believe in a just and loving God?! And most of these “believers” often quote the Bible and claim that they know it. Do they not see, that the Bible – especially the Old Testament – is full of cruelty, random killings, a primitive, tribal mentality that led us into wars and still causes human misery?
I can only think of two reasons for this kind of “blind belief”, that capacity of ignoring facts that anyone can observe, refusing to acknowledge and integrate it into their “Weltbild”:
One is mental conditioning: It is interesting to observe how many people – struck by disaster and really having no reason any longer to believe in a merciful and just God – hold on to their religious upbringing … just feeling helpless and desperate but not having enough energy left to rebel and question God’s “kindness” …
The other – and more important - one is our psychological need to believe in something that gives meaning to our lives and relieves us of the fear of death and its uncertainty. Exactly this need is being addressed by religion, any religion. And in combination with the first factor it makes us hold on desperately to those religions we happen to be brought up in … even in the face of contradicting observations.
Now – to return to what was stated in the first paragraph above – somewhat sophisticated Christian thinkers (and many theologians amongst them) tried to alleviate the dilemma outlined above by “depersonalizing” God, away from the threatening father-image (mainly of the Old Testament) to a more and more abstract concept of “creative power” and focusing on the figure of Jesus, who is supposed to symbolize love and forgiveness.
This, however, did not really solve the problem, how the cruelties and injustices in this world could be reconciled with an almighty, loving and JUST God, be it the father or the son (the Holy Ghost always remained kind of abstract). When asked, most theologians prefer not to comment on this. If pushed, they will answer, that it is the freedom of choice, misused, since Adam and Eve ate the apple, which created this horrible world. In other words: It is not God, who caused it to go so wrong, but US. HE only allowed it to happen … knowing very well how limited our capacities for the right insights and actions were/are …
This idea, in my mind, is almost as grotesquely wrong as entrusting a crocodile with building a computer … and simply does not fit with the idea of an all-knowing God.
W. P. Young does not seem to find a better answer in his book. But he completely differs from the lately prevailing depictions of God by transplanting the trinity into a US lower-middle-class horizon: God-father becomes a comfortable, friendly Afro-American woman (called “papa”), Jesus a somewhat Jewish looking wood-worker, and the Holy Ghost an Asian woman. They talk and act like a warm-hearted, down-to-earth American family (they cook and eat a lot and never fail to wash dishes … ;-). They definitely display a sense of humor. Only sometimes, when core-questions are touched on in their conversations with the narrator, they suddenly sound abstract, which often makes the meaning of their pronouncements difficult to understand.
But do they solve the main question of this book: Why God allowed the abduction, (most likely sexual) mistreatment, and finally murder of the narrator’s beloved little daughter to happen? I DON’T THINK SO!
The narrator is helped somewhat by his lengthy conversations with the “trinity” and in the end even “forgives” the killer of his daughter, though not very convincingly. The latter, most likely a deranged pervert beyond help, is caught in the end. But the basic question of this (otherwise well-written) book, the problem of Theodizee, is not being answered. It is rather washed away in a lot of talk about the love of God for us and us loving God and each other. It is basically sentimental, but its sentimentality is cleverly disguised behind common sense humor and the ordinariness of its protagonists.
Did we really expect an answer to the question that has tormented generations of believers (and especially non-believers)? I doubt it. The great echo this book has found is only indicative of our despair.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home