“Who wants to worship a God who can be fully comprehended, eh?
Not much mystery in that.”
~Papa
Every so often a work of art comes along that connects with an unusually large audience and raises an unusually large amount of criticism and controversy. I think it’s safe to say that The Shack by William P. Young fits that description.
To some, The Shack seems to be the long awaited companion of the Holy Bible, the definitive answer to all of those tricky questions about the nature of God, the trinity, good v. evil etc. etc. . . .
To others The Shack is evil incarnate. Penned by the spawn of Satan, this book is sure to lead millions of followers straight into the eternal funeral pyres of hell…
Okay so maybe these characterizations are a bit over the top…
Regardless of where you stand on The Shack, I think you’d have to admit that Young has created one of the most compelling conversations we have had in the church for a long time. For this, I think we should be just as grateful as we are critical.
For those of you who absolutely loved, or absolutely hated The Shack, you’ll probably be disappointed in this review. Personally, there were things I really liked about The Shack and there were other things I thought were unbiblical and perhaps even dangerous.
For the sake of organization I have set up this review as follows:
The Plot
The Good Stuff
The Bad Stuff
My Conclusion
The Plot of the Shack (for dummies)
A middle aged family man named Mack, who had terrible relationship with his abusive father, experiences tragedy when his young daughter Missy is kidnapped and murdered, while on a camping trip. Her bloody clothing is found at a mountain shack. Mack later receives a note from God to return to the shack, which he does. There he meets the Trinity, each in human form, and has many conversations and experiences personal healing and transformation.
Comments: The first five chapters or so contain the story leading up to Mack’s meeting with God. I found this section of the book tedious and the writing to be a bit pedestrian. Being the father of three beautiful little girls I also had to fight the urge to just give up on The Shack, since I knew something horrible was going to happen to Mack’s daughter. I found myself dreading that part and wanting it to just be over with. The remainder of the novel, where Mack meets with God, was far better as the conversations with God are thought provoking and often truly moving.
The Good Stuff (Sound Biblical Teaching)
I found several solid biblical truths presented in The Shack. The list below is not exhaustive of all biblical teaching in the Shack, but I think it provides a representative cross section. I have included biblical references in brackets.
a. FORGIVENESS: (Luke 17:3-4, many, many other passages). In my mind the most positive element of this entire work was the deftness with which Young handled the issue of forgiveness.
b. FAITH: Trusting that God is who He says He is, and that He will do what He says He will do: (Isaiah 55:8-9, Psalm 25, 1 Peter 5, many others) GOD constantly reminds Mack that He (She?) is God and we are not, God’s perfect-ness and trustworthiness are constant themes in Mack’s conversations with God.
c. FREEDOM IN CHRIST: Christ lives his life in you instead of you trying to live the Christian life in your own strength (Colossians 1:27, 2:5, John 15 All of Galatians). (p112, p149)
d. CONSISTENCY in the CHARACTER OF GOD: Jesus the Son and God the Father are not playing a game of “good cop/bad cop” with us, with Jesus as the loving, forgiving good cop and The Father as the angry wrathful bad cop. When we see what Jesus is like, we see what God is like (many references in John, i.e. John 1:1, 1:14, 10:30).
e. DO NOT LIE: (Colossians 3:9, others). Our deception affects others. This is not a major point in the book, but it does come up a few times, for instance when Mack goes to the shack without telling Nan, Papa implies that Nan should have/could have come too.
The Bad Stuff (Unbiblical Teaching)
Let me reiterate that The Shack is a fictional novel. It was not written as a work of theology, however many people are treating as such and therefore I think it is important to be critical about the way this book deals with Christian theology. I found numerous unbiblical ideas presented in The Shack. Again, this list is not exhaustive, but I think it is representative, and again I have included biblical references in brackets. This section is longer than the one above, due to the need to explain why these teachings are unbiblical.
a. God submits to humans. (pp. 145-146)
To be extremely charitable, maybe what The Shack means is that Christ came to serve, and so we are to serve one another. This is a redefinition of the word submit, but if that is what the book means, then OK. Otherwise there is just no way we can say that God submits to us (John 13:13).
b. The book says God achieves everything without violating one human will (p. 125).
According to the Bible God can and does violate human will, ie. Pharaoh. See Romans 9:17-18.
c. Jesus states, "Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy." (p. 149)
Some would argue that I am missing the point of what “Jesus “ is saying in this exchange with Mack, or that I am taking this quote out of context. I vehemently disagree. I am simply quoting what was written and I have a hard time seeing how the context suggests anything different from how the quote is read.
The Apostle Paul said to imitate him as he imitated Jesus. Jesus himself said repeatedly "follow me." (1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1, the book of John)
Jesus’ life WAS INDEED meant to be an example to copy. This is the whole point of walking in the spirit and living in the freedom Christ has given to us through the atonement. This was really a dumb thing to put in the book.
d. God has NEVER been disappointed in humans (p.206)
Ask Moses or Noah for their take on that one. (Genesis 6:5-7, Genesis 32, Numbers 16)
I understand that God is OMNISCIENT, that he knows all that is and will happen, yet these passages certainly suggest that in spite of His omniscience God is taken aback and disappointed in the actions of man.
e. God has already forgiven everyone, it is just that many choose independence instead of God. (p225)
Rather it should be said that God has made the way of forgiveness available through Jesus Christ, but people still need to repent and put their faith in Him. There is a big difference. We need to ask forgiveness to receive it (2 Cor. 7:14). Otherwise we remain in need of forgiveness (Romans 4:7).
f. God does not need to punish sin because “sin is its own punishment” (pp119-120)
God is a God of love, and He is a holy God whose wrath is upon all mankind. To avoid his wrath, a person must repent of their sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ.
Certainly sin itself causes us harm and God gives us over to the consequences of sin (Romans 1:24, 26, 28 “God gave them up…”). And certainly God disciplines his children out of love (Heb. 12:6).
But make no mistake, the Bible is very plain that God’s wrath rests upon all people who do not belong to Christ. Just ask the people getting the bowls poured on their heads in Revelation if part of God’s character includes wrath.
Ask the Apostle Paul if God is a God of wrath (Romans 1:18, 5:9, Eph 5:6). The Bible consistently teaches and illustrates that God’s wrath is due to sinners, and we are all sinners who need salvation from our sins, which is given by God through Jesus Christ (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 8:1).
The fact that this book seriously downplays (or perhaps completely avoids) God’s wrath saddens me because even in His wrath God displays His incredible love and mercy. Outside of a proper understanding of God’s wrath, His Grace is cheapened. God’s amazing grace is so AMAZING because of the fact that it can save us from the horrible fate of sin.
g. God could never willfully choose some of his children to go to hell, anymore that an earthly father could willfully choose to send some of his children to hell. (pp. 161-163)
You can’t place human constructs, emotions and understandings on God. God is just when he sends people to hell, for that is what every person deserves, because all have sinned (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23). I personally don’t even like to write what I just wrote, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t make it untrue.
God is not a man, and he did willfully pour out all his wrath on his own Son, that a way of salvation might be made for you and I, as discussed in d. above (See also Isaiah 53:10 (ESV)
“Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief”, prophetically speaking of Jesus’ sacrificial death).
I know this isn’t the politically correct understanding of God in our postmodern culture, but scripture is still scripture. I personally like the way my old mentor Bill Opperman dealt with this when he would say, “God loves us enough to let us choose to go to hell.” Again, the results of sin are so horrible that it magnifies the incredible, unfathomable scope of God’s amazing grace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
h. Hierarchical structures in this world are human constructs that are thinly veiled attempts to grasp power and control people. Thus institutions are bad, as they are focal points for hierarchical structures. There is no ‘hierarchy’ in the Trinity. (pp. 121-125)
Certainly power can be used inappropriately, and in this world it often is. But God has established many institutions and relationships that involve one person having authority over another (See for example the relationships described in Ephesians 5:22 - Ephesians 6:4, or the authority granted to governments by God, as described in Romans 13:1). That authority is meant to be used in a loving, God-honoring way. Government, marriage, work, and family all come to mind as examples.
When on earth, Jesus repeatedly says that he is sent from God to do His Father’s will. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son. In heaven, Jesus is portrayed as being the exalted King at the right hand of God. A King by definition has authority over his people. A Kingdom is the realm where the kings reigns. Believers will one day reign with Christ. All of this suggests that leadership and submission is a very normal part of how God functions and how his people are to function.
(See John 5:30 & 6:38 and consider how the Son related to the Father while He was on earth. See 1 Corinthians 15:28 and consider how the Son relates to the Father in eternity. Consider also the phrase ‘at the right hand of God’, which is consistently used to describe Jesus’ relationship to the Father. All of these references plainly suggest hierarchical relationship between Father and Son. This relationship in no way suggests inequality any more than a husband’s leadership of his wife or a mother’s leadership of her children implies inequality between husbands and wives or children and parents.)
i. Universalism. Some reviewers have suggested that the Shack teaches universalism, (a belief that all people will be saved) and that the author is a universalist. I don’t believe this is true about Young, I am willing to take him at his word. Unfortunately many of his statements that appear to promote universalism are vague and leave you hanging on for a response or conclusion.
There is one line in particular, where Jesus says he is the ‘best way any human can relate’ to God the Father or the Holy Spirit. (p. 110)
The Bible says Jesus is the only way (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). I don’t know why the author chose to have Jesus say He’s the best way (implying there are other, but less effective ways) to know God, when the Bible is so plain in saying He’s the only way. It is easy to see why some accuse The Shack of treading the path towards universalism, with a line like that.
In this same conversation Jesus seems to be saying that God will find people in other religions. The scriptural truth is that there will be Christ followers from every tribe and tongue and nation. Still, the language in this interaction is so vague that it is hard to know if it means to say that God can be found in other religions, or if God will call people in any religion to follow Him (but not through that religion).
There was no need for vagueness, for the Scriptures are very plain that salvation is found in Christ, and not in any other religion. God calls people from many religious backgrounds, but He calls them all to repent and follow Christ (Acts 17:16-34, especially 16, 30-31).
My Conclusion
First of all, the views that I am about to express are my own personal opinions. I do not know William P. Young, and I do not have an ax to grind with him. From what I understand Young was the child of Alliance Missionaries (the same denomination that I am a part of). Apparently Young was abused as a child while attending an Alliance “MK” (missionary kid) School.
According to Young, the Shack was written out of his experiences and pain and was intended to be a gift for his children only. I respect Young for this endeavor and wish more parents would choose to engage with their children on spiritual matters.
For the most part I enjoyed reading The Shack. I thought the last two thirds of the book were well written and that overall it is a good work of art. I also choose to take The Shack for what it is, a fictional novel with (I feel) a very loose and often unbiblical interpretation of the Christian God.
It is easy to understand why this book connects with so many people on such a deep level. First of all the book deals with every parent’s nightmare. There is no scarier scenario to any parent than losing a child to the hands of a murderer. Add to that the fact that the book tackles the #1 question asked of God; namely, why does God allow for the existence of evil, and it all adds up to a great recipe for a hard to put down nail-biting, tear-jerking, heart-warming novel.
Young offers some “great feeling” answers to life’s tough questions; answers which (in my opinion) continually blur the lines between true and almost true. Not only does Young provide warm and fuzzy answers to tough questions, he does so from God’s first hand perspective. For this reason alone I would be very cautious to recommend The Shack to anyone.
I believe there is great danger in presuming to understand or know the mind of God. At one point in the story Papa (God) asks Mack, “Who wants to worship a God who can be fully comprehended, eh? Not much mystery in that.” And yet Young continues by presenting a “straw man” representation of God, which does just that.
The late great theologian Charles Spurgeon once said that, “discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” In it’s handling of deep theological issues The Shack is often vague and it mixes biblical and unbiblical teaching, making it difficult to discern truth from error.
I found myself often rereading a section and asking myself “Is that right? It sounds almost right…but it’s not quite right.” Then the more I thought about it and compared it with the Bible, the more I realized the error(s) mixed in with the truth.
In our postmodern, post-Christian culture, this mix of truth and near-truth makes The Shack potentially more dangerous than a book that is blatant in speaking out against Christianity. A book that is a blatant attack on scriptural truth would be rejected out of hand, but The Shack often sounds true so therefore many people may miss the serious problems discussed, simply because there is “some truth” or because it “feels” true.
In this way the truth and near-truth are digested together, giving people a confused understanding of the nature of God as taught in the Bible and other biblical teaching.
As a pastor I feel I have the responsibility for offering wise counsel and discernment to those who have accepted me as their pastor. I read this book (and subsequently wrote this review) because of the obligation I felt (as a pastor) and to be able to enter into the discussion surrounding The Shack, and to offer my take as a theologian and follower of Jesus Christ. With that said, I would be hard pressed in recommending The Shack to anyone, especially to new believers and those who might not carefully hold the powerful ideas presented in the work of fiction up to the light of the chief factual source of truth, the Word of God.
