The Shack
Posted by: Paul
If I handed you a theology book that spelled out the following points, I would hope you would want nothing to do with it:
- God is referred to as “She” and that our referring to God as “Father” is merely the product of religious conditioning
- Quotes people who have universalist theology (that all people will be saved, whether they trusted in Jesus as Savior or not)
- Jesus is the best way to relate to God, but not necessarily the only way
- God dwells IN all things (pantheism)
- God has no desire to see people become Christians
- God winks at sin and sees sinners as nothing more than “kids being kids”
- Jesus makes mistakes
- God did not create the concept of authority
- God the Father is submitted to you
- Uses profanity and crude language to make its points
How would you feel about such a book? Sadly, millions of people (especially Christians) are cherishing such a book and using it to redefine their relationship with God. This theology book comes in a unique package – a work of fiction titled, The Shack, by William Paul Young.
Before I comment further, I will freely confess that this review is a bit incomplete. The book is 248 pages. As I got to page 150, I realized I could go further. Does it seem unfair to critique a book I did not finish? Not in this case. What I saw in 150 pages was consistent with what I saw in reviews by people who stuck it out for the full 248 pages.
To be fair, Young has a unique and powerful ability to tell a story. He is a master at emotionally drawing his readers into the story. On his web site, he refers to himself as someone who has always been a writer. The basic premise of The Shack is a father, “Mack,” who has had a falling out with God after his young daughter is kidnapped by a serial killer during a family camping trip. Mack falls into depression until one day he receives a note in his mail box from God, inviting him to return to the place where he first realized his daughter had been killed – an abandoned shack – to spend a weekend talking to the Trinity. There, his pain would be healed. Any parent is immediately drawn into the emotions Mack endures.
When he arrives at the shack, he meets the Trinity. God the Father is presented as a large, African-American woman named “Elousia” which is presented to mean “God the Creator.” He also meets Jesus, presented as a middle eastern handyman. Then, the Holy Spirit, “Sarayu,” a small Asian woman. The story shows these three interacting playfully, jokingly and affectionately with one another. In one scene, as dinner is being prepared, Jesus drops a bowl of batter and makes a large mess. Then, when talking about how clumsy humans are, Jesus is referred to by Elousia (also called “Papa”) as “greasy fingers.” Another scene, this time at breakfast, shows “Papa” teasing Mack about getting diarrhea. All three are constantly toying with and teasing Mack, and sometimes each other.
At one point, Mack comments to Jesus how he is more comfortable with him than the other two. In response, Jesus states, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa.” It is hard to tell what Young intends to communicate here. The implication is that his being human provides the best way for people to know God, as if that’s the reason he became human. But now, we get into the incarnation. Jesus came as the ONLY way that a person can relate to God.
And yes, the humanity of Jesus is highly emphasized in this story. So much so, that Jesus is said to have never done anything to draw on His power as God. He did everything that any human can do if they are close enough to “Papa.” That even includes, as Mack discovers, the ability to walk on water. So, the ability to walk on water, raise the dead, rise from the dead, feed the masses with 5 loaves and 2 fish, calm the storms, pronounce a curse upon a fig tree, know the thoughts of a person, etc., are all powers that can be exercised by all believers at any time if they would just be close enough to God.
Mack is troubled by much of what he sees and hears. He is even taken off guard to find that God likes all music by all artists. In reference to the angry music that is out today, Papa says, “They’re just some of my kids, showin’ and spoutin’ off. I am especially fond of those boys, you know.” All people are constantly referred to as being God’s children (despite Biblical teaching to the contrary).
In fact, Papa is clear that she has no desire to make anyone a Christian. Papa states, “In Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some chose relationship.” She goes on to say that she does not punish people for their sins because sin is punishment in itself. The major problem presented for humanity is not sin and the impending Judgment, but rather not living in the fullness of a relationship with God. And choosing to not be in a relationship is not frowned upon other than the fact that they are missing out on a better life.
This fits well with what appears to be a universalist theology held by Young. I do not know this for certain, apart from what he portrays in this book. Not only is this presented in the above issues, but in the philosophers Young quotes. At the start of each chapter, he inserts quotes by different people. Some names are solid – A.W. Tozer, Oswald Chambers, C.S. Lewis. However, he also quotes at least three universalists: Paul Tournier, Jacques Ellul, and Buckminster Fuller. He also quotes a popular New Age hero, Kahlil Gibran. These are more than just random quotes. These are from books he states on his own web site to have read recently – and many by Ellul especially. He refers to Ellul as “one of my all-time favorite authors.”
Stepping beyond universalism, Young presents God as being found IN all things. This is historically known as pantheism – where God is found in every tree, rock, person, and piece of sand. Where this is believed to be true, all things are also then worshiped. I do not believe that this is a leap. The statement that makes this most obvious is where Jesus tells Mack, “We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” According to this statement, the members of the Trinity are equally submitted to each other, just as they are submitted to us.
Even if this does not feed into a sense of human worship, what this story does is not exalt God – it brings God down to our level. It makes God our equal. I heard a story on the radio of a Jewish woman who was given a copy of The Shack and, after reading it, was appalled at how it belittles God.
With the focus in relationship, authority is continually downplayed. Based on the conversations that Mack has with Papa, we find that authority is something man-made and not natural. This, despite the fact that the Bible states that God established authority – from the angels, to the church, etc.
There is much more that could be said about this book, but I feel these issues are more than enough for me to walk away from it. I would just add a word of caution, as this book is certainly being read by many youth, there is some profanity/crude language used on occasion.
You may be reading this and have already read The Shack and enjoyed it. Perhaps you are thinking, “But I just liked the story” or, “It helps me see God in a new way.” Let us now consider those thoughts for a moment. Young has stated, in reference to this book, “while something might be fiction, it can still be true.” Young is a Bible college and seminary graduate and this is a theology book played out in a fictional story.
There are a few nice points made in the book. It certainly is engaging to the emotions. It presents a warm, fuzzy picture of God. This picture is appealing because it is a god that people want to believe in – one who does not judge sin, one who does not punish sinners, one who winks at our sins, one who has forgiven everyone, one who just wants to love and be loved, one who sees everyone as his children. This is not the God of the Bible, no matter how nice that picture may make us feel. If this is not the God of the Bible, it is a false god. If this concept of God shapes your relationship with God or comes to mind when you pray, there is reason for concern.
Now, despite what this book presents, as well as the fact that Young’s own online biography contains no conversion account at all, I am not trying to question Young’s salvation. Nor am I trying to question the salvation of anyone who enjoys or endorses this book. What makes this book attractive and causes people to assume it is good is that it carries glowing endorsements from people like Eugene Peterson and Michael W. Smith. However, there are good reasons while leading theological minds like Albert Mohler and Chuck Colson warn people against this book.
My concern is the rising popularity of the book. Well over 2 million people have read this book. The end of the book encourages people to give away as many copies as possible so that the book gets enough recognition to justify making it into a movie, which will then broaden its influence to many, many more people.
The invitation of this book is love God and let Him love you. That is fine, that does not bring someone into a right relationship with God. This book invites people into a right relationship with God, but leaves out the Biblical means to do so. What I mean, is it ignores repentance and faith.
If we have broken God’s Law – the 10 Commandments, we are in danger on Judgment Day. If we have ever lied, stolen something, looked with lust (which Jesus equates with adultery), hated someone (which Jesus equates with murder), used God’s name in blasphemy, and others, then we will stand guilty before God on that Day. If we are guilty of breaking His commands, our punishment is hell. That is a serious thing. Our only hope is that God loves us so much that Jesus took our punishment for us when He died on the cross. The Bible says that if we repent of our sin (turn away from) and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save us, our sins will be forgiven and we can be declared innocent in the sight of God. Then, and only then, do we enter a right relationship with God.
Again, I am not seeking to attack Mr. Young. What is in question is the theology he is presenting and holding forth to millions of people. It is my conviction that the theology is dangerous. I have read many reviews of this book by people who loved it. Time after time, I have heard these people comment that they love the book, but don’t think that new Christians should read it because it could “mess them up.” This tells me that even those who like the book realize the theology is questionable at best. What is left is a love for the book because it makes us “feel good.” What feels good is not a litmus test for truth, even if it makes us “feel” closer to God. We are admonished to “test the spirits.”
If The Shack would have been written as nothing more than a suspense thriller ending with Mack learning to forgive the man who killed his daughter, that could have been a very powerful novel. The deliberate attempt to resolve theology in the process puts this into a whole new category. This cannot be treated as just a good book with a powerful story. As Young admits, it is basically an analogy to unpack his theology.
If you read this book and enjoyed it, I would urge you to consider why. The story cannot be separated from the theology. If you have not read the book, I commend you to stay away from it. There are far better books that carry much better theology. The few positive “gems” in The Shack do not justify the rest of the content. If this book has shaped your theology or relationship with God, I urge you set aside what you read in this book and build your life and relationship with God on what we know of God made clear in the Bible. The question to “where is God in my suffering?” has already been answered there, especially in the book of Job.
The content of this review reflects the personal opinion of the writer and is not intended to reflect an official position of the church or its denomination.
Join the forum discussion on this post.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I’m in agreement about some of the soft-peddling Mr. Young does in his book. I would’ve liked to hear him write about justification, which I consider to be the backbone of the gospel.
Yes, the invitation the book gives is to “love God” and enter into a relationship with Him. I also would’ve liked for the author to mention that this, according to Jesus, is the “first” (of most importance) commandment : LOVE the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. His invitation is good and biblical, but I wish that he had presented it more strongly as the first command of God, the failure of which carries strong and fatal consequences.
I don’t feel, as you do, that the author ignored the means of restoration, i.e., repentance and faith. I think that every time he mentioned giving up one’s independence he was referring to an act of repentance. In fact, I appreciate his characterization of sin in general, which IS independence from God. This was Lucifer’s sin, Eve’s sin and Adam’s sin, and really the basis of all my own sin. Going my own way; turning from God; declaring my independence from Him and His “demands.” The author hammered this time after time in the book, and I really liked that emphasis on the nature of sin rather than on “sins.”
You’re right; hell is serious. Separating ourselves from God and His will will lead to ETERNAL separation. The author muddies the waters when he says that God was satisfied with the death of Christ to the extent that He was reconciled to the world. Reconciled means that “everything’s fine.” This gives the non-Christian reader false assurance, especially if he were to quit reading at that point. We have to repent of our rebellion and independence before we are reconciled to God. And, by the way, doesn’t the author have this backward? Paul tells us that WE are the ones who need to be reconciled to God– NOT the other way around!
Do you happen to know if Mr. Young intended this book to primarily address believers? Mack was, after all, a Christian, although a troubled one. Maybe part of our problem with the theology of it is that we’re trying to apply it to non-believers primarily.
I don’t understand your paragraph regarding Pantheism. I don’t see that element in the book.
Your opening ten points (with the exception of #2 and #10) mischaracterize the book, in my opinion. They seem a bit like straw men to me. But all in all, in the paragraphs which follow, I do see your problem with the book. I have to say that I enjoyed it for the most part, tho’ I read it from a believer’s point of view. I recognized the problems but was able to get enough from the good parts that I felt a general appreciation for it.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Thank you for sharing your response. It is good for people to have another perspective regarding the book. Mr. Young does not specify whether the book was intended to address believers or not – although he has been very up front in interviews that this book was a blatant attempt to summarize his theology. Specifically, he wanted to pass on his theology to his children. That holds true through the book as Mack addresses questions of significance for people who are Christians and non-Christians. Any time one sets out to clarify a theology of the cross what it means to be saved, it is vital to be very clear on those points. Mr. Young, for his level of theological training, should understand that.
Regarding the issue of pantheism, the book states that God is found “in everything.” Had the statement been something more like “through everything,” I would not have reacted so strongly. But to say that God can be found in a everything, means that God is in every rock, tree, blade of grass, etc.
I respect the fact that you feel my original ten points mischaractize the book. However, I also feel that there are enough other respected theologians who see the same problems, that I do not feel that I am out on a limb. I do not have access anymore to the exact quote, but there was one point, if memory serves me right, where God is portrayed at not being angry at sin, but what sin does to people. How does this fit with sinners being, by nature, objects of wrath, according to the Bible? Why, then, punish people in hell?
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts, and I hope they are helpful to those who read them. I am not trying to defend myself or argue in any way. However, I did not find enough good in this book to justify any positive feelings about it. As Young admits, this is a theology book at its core. Because of that, I do not believe it can be glossed over lightly. And, as with any theology book, we cannot separate whether the reader is a Christian or not. The fact is, Mr. Young has written a theology book that millions are reading and it is defining their relationship with God. That is very serious. He will be held accountable for the theology he planted in hearts across the country – whether good or bad. I can see how many Evangelicals try to “read into” this book and compare it to sound theology. But the question comes down to the author’s intent.
Thank you again for your thoughts! Stop back and share again!
December 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
If you visit the forum on this topic, I will be gathering other reviews for people to read if they want to further look into this.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
You said: “I can see how many Evangelicals try to “read into” this book and compare it to sound theology.”
I think I’m one of them!! I admit that I had to read between the lines at some points in order to see the good theology. But again, at other points I wholeheartedly thought, “Right ON!”
When I read the statement about God being “in everything” I assumed he meant that God could be SEEN in everything, that is, His fingerprint is seen in all that He’s made. How true this is!!!
Thanks for an interesting discussion, Paul!
December 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Yeah, if he meant that God can be seen in everything, that would be different. But, there are plenty of ways to say that so as to remove doubt. There were certainly some good points made along the way, but also some really bad ones. Normally I might give him the benefit of the doubt, but seeing as how he intended this to be a portrait of his theology, I read it differently than a normal novel. If he never intended some of these points to be so far out, it might be good for him to publish some type of clarification. I have not seen that yet. Maybe after 12 years in ministry, I have had so many people second-guess something that I said, I don’t like to leave room to be misunderstood – ESPECIALLY when it comes to the issue of salvation.
As it stands, I would say this was actually a pretty well written book with bad theology. I would have to say that if he intended this to be a good book covering sound theology, then I change my opinion to it just being a poorly written book! But I would at least admit I read it incorrectly.
I appreciate your offering another point of view on this.