Is The Shack Worth Your Time?

I'm becoming increasingly depressed by the weak and empty Christianity that's being peddled out there.  What's even sadder is that I see people happily eating this stuff up with no idea of what they're missing.  Please don't sell yourself short.  We have a great and glorious God; seek Him in all His satisfying weight and depth!

The latest craze among Christians is a book called The Shack, and judging by its popularity, you've probably already heard of it.  I haven't read the book, but Tim Challies posted a very detailed review online, and it would be a good idea for you to look through it.  The book is a fictional story about a man wrestling with the problem of evil, the nature of God, the Trinity, the church, etc., in the midst of a family tragedy.  And as Challies points out:

Though The Shack is not a textbook for theology, and though it may not appear on the outside to be theological, as long as it discusses the nature and the plan of God, it must be so.

Challies goes on to explain and give examples where The Shack's view of the Bible, salvation, and the Trinity fall woefully short. (For example, the Father is revealed to the main character "in the form of a large, matronly African-American woman" who asks him to call her "Papa.")  The end result of its shortcomings is a very low view of God:

When we look to the Bible's descriptions of heaven we find that any creatures who are in the presence of God are overwhelmed and overjoyed, crying out about God's glory day and night.

But in The Shack we find a man who stands in the very presence of God and uses foul language...(140, 224), who expresses anger to God (which in turn makes God cry) (92), and who snaps at God in his anger (96).  This is not a man who is in the presence of One who is far superior to him, but a man who is in the presence of a peer.  This portrayal of the relationship of man to God and God to man is a far cry from the Bible's portrayal.  And indeed it must be because the God of The Shack is only a vague resemblance to the God of the Bible.  There is no sense of awe as we, through Mack, come into the presence of God.

Gone is the majesty of God when men stand in His holy presence and profane His name.  Should God allow in His presence the very sins for which He sent His Son to die?  Would a man stand before the Creator of the Universe and curse?  What kind of God is the God of The Shack?

Don't waste your time on these things, but instead make an effort to seek the books that intensely glorify the true, Trinitarian God and the cross.  This probably means you'll have to read some books that are more than 50 years old (at least), but you'll be so grateful you did.  If you're interested in the Trinity, try Bruce Ware's Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If you'd like a story of redemption and God's care, take a look at John Newton's An Authentic Narrative (only 100 pages).  It's possible there are a few good things about The Shack, but why spend your time on it when there's so much out there better than this?

Comments

[Jordan Strange]

I havent heard of this book until now. God revealed as an African American women? This is ridiculous. No one could stand in Gods presence and act this way. Between this and Tim Lehays view of the rapture im starting to get sick of the new books that keep coming out. John Macarthur anyone??

[Laurie]

Just to recommend another book worth reading: Five Sacred Crossings, by Craig Hazen. I don't read fiction, as a rule, but I saw this book recommended, and since Craig Hazen wrote it, I picked it up. Very, very good.

[Aaron]

Speaking of books on the problem of suffering I wonder if any of this blog's followers have yet read "God's Problem" by Bart Ehrman. In the comments for the overly simple review of the book here http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/04/evil-is-gods-pr.html I attempted to give a better explanation of the Ehrman's arguments and suggested others read the book to better understand it. Several people left comments saying they were content knowing the book only through a negative blog review which makes me think a better blog for them to follow might be named "Stand to Believe on Personal Bias"

Just sayin'.

[Scott]

I started to read this book and got to page 100 and could not get past the way that the author depicted the trinity. It was a major stumbling block to me. Up until that point it was a very engaging story with the potential for intense drama which revolved around the main character who lost his daughter to a serial killer. As a father, this is extremely difficult territory to tread on but as the story went on, I felt betrayed by the author. He led me to a feast but then only offered milk.

Our church featured this book for their monthly book club and I forwarded Challie's review to one of our pastor's several weeks ago. He felt that the review was a little unfair.

I happen to agree, to a certain degree, with Aaron's post. I often fall into this category of reading and believing a review of a "controversial" book and being satisfied at that. Maybe it is fear that what I read may shake my faith to the core - but that happens in everyday circumstances. I remember hearing someone say, "All truth is God's truth and we need not fear it." However, I can't help but sense a little sarcasm in your tone Aaron and to think that you are immune to personal bias is comical. We all approach an issue with personal bias.

[KS]

Last weekend my pastor gave the church his summer reading picks. We're supposed to read Blue Like Jazz if we need "something fun to read." He explained that it might make us mad, which would be good for us. Unfortunately, none of his other reading picks provides a balance.

But he didn't recommend The Shack. :-)

[Mike]

It is odd that so many pastors recommend postmodern authors without being sure their flock has read the truly important books of giants who have come before us. Reading all of CS Lewis and a few books by Schaeffer will give anyone a lot to think about. How can one truly deal with the "arguments" put forth through McLaren's characters or Don Miller's books w/o understanding the basics. The result? A shallow Christianity that seems "authentic" (the only goal today), but is woefully impotent intellectually. It looks like postmodernism is winning after all.

[Jeff Kimble]

John Stackhouse has written a number of posts reviewing The Shack for those interested. Professor Stackhouse teaches at Regent College and provides and incisive and fair analysis. Check out his blog at stackblog.wordpress.com.

[Jody+]

It generally seems a good idea to read a book before either recommending that others read it or discouraging them from doing so. I know several people that I respect who have read this book and gotten something positive from it (and while I don't know about all of them, I know that several of them have read classic authors such as C.S. Lewis etc...). I know others who have really disliked it and thought it possibly dangerous. In talking with them it seems that those who got something out of it and those that hated it were reading it in different ways, i.e. the first group was reading it without looking for an accurate presentation of doctrine, and found a narrative presentation that reflected their own understanding of God's grace toward them even in their unworthiness. Those who disliked the book were reading from more of a critical and theological perspective and took the time to name the trinitarian heresies that one might draw from the narrative. I haven't read the book, so I don't have an opinion on it other than this: give it a read and then let us know you're opinion if you expect people to take it seriously.

You might take a look at the following review(s) for another opinion, especially since the author specifically mentions Tim Challies' review:

Review of the Shack

Shack Attack (review pt. 2)

[Aaron]

Scott said:

"Aaron and to think that you are immune to personal bias is comical. We all approach an issue with personal bias."

Has this become the "Stand to Make Strawmen Arguments" blog? I don't recall saying I am immune to personal bias. :) You're right we're all affected by our personal biases but there's a difference in just accepting that and trying to make up for it. Getting all your information about positions with which you disagree from sources with which you do agree, as you said you do, isn't doing much to counter the personal bias that has made its way into your beliefs. As you can see I read this blog, a source with which I disagree on some matters. Not only do I read this blog but I subscribe to it as I do with others which oppose beliefs I hold. I'm not just reading what people with whom I agree say is the position of others with whom I don't....I'm getting it from the source. Which was the point of my original post about Ehrman's book.

The title of this blog includes the word reason. Maybe there should be a post defining reason, explaining logical fallacies, etc.

[Jody+]

sorry, the HTML didn't work. here are the URL's to the reviews linked above:

Review pt 1: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/recommendation-and-review-the-shack-by-william-p-young

Review pt 2: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/shack-attack

[Keith]

Aaron -

I don't think Scott's argument was a "straw man" argument. It appears to me that he wasn't trying to restate what you were saying and then refute it, but was simply pointing out your sarcasm and an aspect of your statement that appeared implicit. One could argue that your response was as much of a straw man argument, since you did not quote his entire sentence, which then changes the context somewhat.

I do have a question for you, as I am unsure of your position. Are you suggesting that a person cannot express an opinion about a book based solely on others' reviews of that book? In other words, they should only express their opinion if they have read the book? If so, that seems overly simplistic and not realistic. Much of our daily lives consists of gathering information from other sources and making value judgment about a particular topic. For example, if you hear a news broadcast about a event that angers you, do you refrain from expressing your opinion about that event even though you didn't personally witness the event that was the basis of the news story? I would think not. Realistically, most people I know do not have the time to read every book, article, blog, sermon, speech, etc. about a topic they are interested in and must rely on other's reviews in order to formulate their opinions. Simply put, we can't always "get it from the source."

I think the better approach is not to write off someone's opinion simply because they haven't read a book before expressing their opinion about it. (Lest I be wrongfully accused of creating a straw man argument or some other fallacy, let me go on record in saying that I am not suggesting this is something you have done or are doing - it's just a statement). Rather, in such circumstances, it may be better to inquire into what steps the individual took to form their opinion. In other words, are they relying on a single source from a clearly biased person, or did they review several reviews from both people who liked the book and people who didn't? Have they personally spoken with individuals who have read the book? Have they read any other books by this author, which might negatively affect their opinion?

In the end, it is also important to remember that we are still just talking about someone's "opinion," not a historical fact.

[Karen A.]

A therapist friend recommended "The Shack" to me, but half way through I'm struggling with the seeming irreverence of the concept. I'm sure that on an emotional/personal level the book could have something helpful (as for the narrator having negative associations from his own experience with the word and role of "father"), but the left side of my brain that craves truth and right doctrine is having a hard time.

It doesn't help that I had just finished an incredible book, The Cross and the Prodigal by Ken Bailey (his newest book was just reviewed in World magazine). Jesus knew how to use a story to reveal God's heart and truth, and Bailey's book made me feel like I'd never understood the parable before.

Bailey, a seminary professor and Middle East resident for 40 years, explains the parables through the eyes of middle eastern villagers..amazing insights otherwise inaccessible to us Westerners.

[Karen A.]

Thanks, Jeff. The Stackhouse review was very helpful.

[Amy Hall]

Hi, guys. Obviously, for a review, I pointed you to Challies who put much work into analyzing the book (and has proved himself trustworthy over time). You can see the quotes from the book he posted and decide for yourself (and unless he made the quotes up, he makes a pretty clear case).

This post isn't a review. Since I haven't read it, my point more than anything else is the modest claim that there are better things out there to read than this--works that have stood the test of time and that we know take doctrine seriously (even fictional works). Just reading the quotes from the book about the way the Father is portrayed is enough to convince me that I can spend my time in better ways. God calls Himself a "He" in His revelation to us. Period. If someone takes it upon himself to come up with the opposite representation, I have a hard time taking that seriously. But on the other hand, I see profound books out there that have been changing lives for centuries. A quote on The Shack says this could be this century's Pilgrim's Progress. Well, why not just read Pilgrim's Progress? That's all I'm trying to say, and one can say that without reading the whole book.

[Aaron]

Hi Keith.

I'm sorry but I think I completely and accurately quoted Scott's position. I apologize for not having quoted him completely but the part of his post I omitted in quoting it had nothing to do with the part of his argument that I was addressing (the claim that I think I am immune to personal bias), unless somehow being sarcastic makes one believe one is immune to personal bias which I don't think is an argument that can be made nor was Scott trying to make it.

I do have a question for you, as I am unsure of your position. Are you suggesting that a person cannot express an opinion about a book based solely on others' reviews of that book? In other words, they should only express their opinion if they have read the book? If so, that seems overly simplistic and not realistic.

Sure someone can form an opinion about a book based solely on others' reviews but to ensure one has a well informed opinion they should seek out many sources of differing opinions in order to tease out and eliminate the biases. The issue I had with commentors in the Bart Ehrman book post was some were basing their judgments solely on the information given in a single review on a blog they were sure to accept uncritically and unskeptically.

...if you hear a news broadcast about a event that angers you, do you refrain from expressing your opinion about that event even though you didn't personally witness the event that was the basis of the news story? I would think not.

I refrain from forming an opinion until I take steps to ensure I've got the facts straight. Like you implied, this is best done by seeking out multiple sources of varying opinions to tease out and eliminate biases and one should allow that opinion to change after receiving further information which should put through the skeptical and critical process.

In the end, it is also important to remember that we are still just talking about someone's "opinion," not a historical fact.

In the case of opinions, you are correct but, referring back to my OP in the Ehrman book thread I wasn't contesting arguments of opinion but rather what the reviewer stated were the actual logical arguments made in the book which I felt were seriously misrepresented.

[Keith]

Aaron

"Several people left comments saying they were content knowing the book only through a negative blog review. . ."

"I'm not just reading what people with whom I agree say is the position of others with whom I don't...."

"The issue I had with commentors in the Bart Ehrman book post was some were basing their judgments solely on the information given in a single review on a blog they were sure to accept uncritically and unskeptically."

Your comments seem to suggest that the bloggers on the Ehrman post read 1 negative review from a clearly biased source and, without hesitation, blindly adopted what the reviewer had said. I've read all of the comments in the Ehrman post and don't see any that would lead to this conclusion (or the conclusion stated in the 3rd quoted sentence above, in the event I have overstated your conclusion). There is no evidence that the commentators had not read numerous other reviews (fair and balanced or otherwise) before expressing their opinions or, more importantantly, that they would accept a particular review "uncritically and unskeptically." It seems that you have may assumed as much based on (1) the fact they did not disclose every basis for their opinions in their comments and/or (2) the fact that they had viewpoints that differed from yours. Regardless, I think you are reading too much into their comments.

All one has to do is read the "endorsements" at the Shack website - they are very telling. Books like this are nothing other than frothy entertainment. For entertainment with a spiritual pretense my choice is Gene Scott reruns. At least the good doctor had a sense of humor.

[Mo]

I used to be the type of person who put the time and effort into reading/watching whatever controversial book or film came along. If a conversation came up about it, I wanted to be ready for it.

I also hoped people would want to discuss them, whether on my journal or in real life. It's been a disappointing experience for the most part.

For one thing, I've been alone. I really thought the other Christians would join in, especially since I was the one doing all the work of buying the book, paying for the movie, writing up comments, etc. Dead silence.

As to the non-Christians, discussion has died off there too. People simply have no interest in discussion. They believe what they want to believe, and that's that.

***

All of that to say that I have not read this book. If there was someone I know who was interested in it, I would certainly make the effort. But I am just discouraged right now.

My pastor read it and he's got a review here. Pretty disturbing stuff. I cannot imagine why Christians would be looking at this in a postive light. It's frightening, how uneducated people are about the faith they claim to follow.

http://caffeineplease.typepad.com/caffeine_please/2008/06/the-good-the-shack-and-the-ugly.html

[Barbara]

I just read this book and it has shaken me up like no other. I have studied a lot of theology and I believe this book should be required reading by any student of any religion. I do not see why the conservative evangelicals do not like it - I am one myself - the book is all about personal relationship with God and the story is better than any sermon or theology book I know of.

[George]

I know I'm new here and I know that my comment will probably be disregarded, but I feel a different voice is needed in this discussion. Obviously, The Shack is not a book of Systematic Theology. So, therefore, it doesn't flesh out every nuance of the writer's doctrinal schema. I really haven't heard specifically from anyone what particular heresies are presented in the book. Yes, there are non-traditional representations of ideas in The Shack. Yes, there are provocative views of how God and man relate to one another. But, heresies? I don't think so.
For example.....take the issue of God revealing himself as a large matronly African-American woman: I agree that this is not how God has chosen to reveal himself to us in scripture. He chooses to reveal himself to us a male father figure and as a male incarnated as the Savior, and as a Spirit which is referred to in Scripture with the pronoun of "He". However, scripture also teaches us that
God 's nature includes all aspects of being fully male as well as all aspects of being fully female. "He created them in his image." So....did God historically and in real time reveal himself to us as a woman? No. Could he have chosen to reveal himself to us as a woman? Yes. A work of fiction often seeks to explore alternate realities that could have happened. Had this book asserted something like "God could have sinned", well...then you'd have me right there with you calling it heresy. In regards to the issue of a man using profanity in front of God: Profanity used with intent to insult and bring harm, ridicule, and disrepute to anyone is obviously wrong. However, I seriously doubt that God is as concerned with George Carlin's 7 words as we are.

[Amy Hall]

>>I really haven't heard specifically from anyone what particular heresies are presented in the book

George, did you read the review I linked to? Challies is very specific about the problems.

[Mike]

Aaron:

I am not necessarily content to know a book only by a negative blog review. However, in Ehrman’s case, I am content not to read his book for two reasons: first, I know that I disagree with the skeptical presuppositions he brings to his work and think his reasons for holding them are shallow, and second, in order to give him a chance, I listened to a Dennis Prager interview with Ehrman discussing his book, and yep, I was right. He had not changed his presuppositions and his latest book is another expansion of skeptical premises into logically flawed arguments.

I do take the time to read others’ books with whom I disagree, and I think Amy’s point stands – we should spend most of our time in reading books that will challenge our thinking. Of course, this does not mean we have to agree with everything in it. Given that you like to read “both sides,” appreciate tight logic, and have already read and argued for Ehrman’s point of view, perhaps you would enjoy (and be challenged by) John Feinberg’s "The Many Faces of Evil."

As a side comment, any conservative Christian who reads or hears anything from the mainstream press is in contact with opposing viewpoints on a daily basis since the media arm at large holds a worldview that contends against orthodox Christian doctrine. Surely you don't contest that fact.

[Laura]

I just finished the book this evening. Bought it today! A fast read. While reading it, I was very, very hesitant. However, I finished it. At some point, I started to think the author was espousing Universalism...everyone is saved, only they don't necessarily know it. But I think what he really said is that Christ's death has covered ALL sin, if people choose to accept that His death is the way to reconciliation with God. And that isn't un-Biblical. It is a strange, interesting story. But I think one worth reading! It is thought provoking...and it does speak to the incredible love of God. It is for people who can't get their head around the absolute acceptance and love of God for them. It has a point to make about God and it makes it well. Don't be afraid to read it. It helped me deal with the recent death of my sister. She was a Christian, and so am I, and it has taken about a month since she died, for it to start really, really hitting me. I have had some of the same anger/it ain't fair issues that the main character Mack had about losing his daughter. It just reafirmed to me that the Lord still loves me, and her and my family and will make SENSE of her death...and our suffering. So, if that is all I got out of it (which it isn't) it met a need I had and I am better for it. Anyhow, give it a chance, read it, and form your own opinion!

[Bart Breen]

I think the sad part of those who have so much to say about the "truth" of the Shack without reading it is that in so doing you are discounting the myriad of people who have read the book, and in particular those with a great deal of pain brought about by any number of past experiences who are testifying that the book has helped to bring them beyond a legalistic type view of God to realize that God is personal, loving and present with them not only now but also at the time of wounding.

Would that in and of itself justify bad theology if it were present? No. But some here, and I'll leave it to you to determine for yourself if you fit the bill, in discounting the book, especially without reading it yourselves, are also invalidating and discarding those who are being reached and helped by the book.

Some may even be moving beyond that passively and actively wounding and disregarding those very same people as either unworthy of your attention.

You don't like The Shack? That's fine. It's a book and there's room for personal tastes and likes and dislikes. Going beyond that, especially on the basis of hearsay and a misunderstanding of the nature of work does more than what you think perhaps. It shows a great deal of disrespect to hurting people who for obvious reasons aren't coming here for healing.

Do you wonder perhaps, why that might be?

[Taylor "a teenager"]

it is sad that some of you "adults" would look down on gods character only because of his looks? i know his "appearance" isnt what saved you and his "apperance" isnt what is with me on a daily basis.

[ray stone]

I browsed the pages of The Shack and ended up reading about three and a half chapters, plus the ending. Voom! Powerful. Despite some awkward sentencing and obivous theological loopholes, the book is creatively absorbing. Clearly is does not line up one hundred percent with scripture (no book does), but this is why it is FICTION. Does it dishonors God? I think not. Is is leaven and heresy? That is debatable. It simply is what it is. Let the reader beware. An equally intriguing and controversial work is A Step Into Deliverance by T. Pugh. It is a riveting autobiography about a pastor's amazing journey down the road to the deliverance ministry. It's a real page-turner

[Robin Sampson]

I wrote a lengthy review on "The Shack" addressing the controversies.

http://tinyurl.com/56garc

Bottom line- If the focus of your faith is a relationship with God The Shack will be wonderful. If your focus is on legalism, then The Shack will disappoint.

I like the over all theme that takes God out o the box--Don't worry about yesterday or fret over tomorrow. Enjoy God now. He has it all in control. Surrender and walk in joy.

What does it matter that the author portrayed God as an African American woman? As someone stated, the work is FICTION. Up to interpretation. The author was not trying, in his publishing the book, to win over the faithful. He was being creative and had a vision and wanted to share it. I personally loved the book. I struggled with the concept of the trinity the way he wrote about it. But again, I got that it was his interpretation. If you read the book you will find that God had said (in the book, not The Book) that he/she/God chooses different ways to reveal Himself. And at that particular venture it was through the physical appearance of an African American woman.

I thought it was beautiful. Before you call something ridiculous you should experience it. And not be prejudiced.

[Ryan B]

For those that think the Shack is just FICTION and it shouldn't matter if the author's view of God is in line with Universalism. Do you think the same thing about the Book of Mormon? The book of Mormon redefines God, and I'm sure some people believe it has helped them spiritually. The question is, do you need to read it to know that it is not a correct view of God? Can you criticize it?

I will say that both are books that do not give a correct view of God, FICTION or not and we do not need to read these books to have an opinion of them.

I think you can explain the true God and his nature while using a Biblical perspective.

[chanelle]

i've read The Shack and yes, God is an African American woman, Jesus is an Arabian fellow, and the Holy Spirit is oriental, (i'm refraining from using the modern word "asian") but william young, the author, did a great job with the book. i may be biased because i did in fact read it, like it, and recommend it, and you do make quite a point, but the truth inside cannot be disputed between christians because all will find the passages as beautiful and truthful as if it were from one of those 50 year old books from old christian scholars. and c'mon, being right + rude = a wrong, hahaha. don't judge a book because someone wrote a review about it. read it yourself and get your own opinions!