A friend from church wrote a brief review of The Shack that touches on some key points as to why we should be cautious about this book. Or maybe even disregard it all together. He gave me permission to share this review.
SHACK ATTACK – OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?
“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.” -Charles Spurgeon
At the encouragement of friends, I recently read The Shack by William P. Young. A national bestseller widely embraced by some churches and many professing Christians, The Shack is a work of fiction that embodies lengthy conversations between the main character, a man named Mack, and three persons who represent a version of the Trinity.
Frankly, I was dismayed at many messages conveyed by The Shack and have been surprised that many of my Christian friends have read the book uncritically, finding it a charming and heart-warming story. Some say that it is unfair to have theological expectations since the book is fiction. However, The Shack is marketed as a spiritually transforming book, and it being received that way by many.
It seems to me that a more critical reading is required of The Shack than a secular work of fiction because the author creates characters that purport to speak as God and to guide Mack on his spiritual journey. The fictional story becomes a device to have characters representing the Godhead explain a particular theology. As believers, our spiritual antennas should be fully deployed when we approach such a book.
In The Shack, God the Father appears to Mack as a large, jovial black woman whom Mack calls “Papa.” The Holy Spirit appears as a small Asian woman, and Jesus appears as a Jewish man. Putting aside gender confusion and the attempt to give human form and voice to the Father and Holy Spirit (“no man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:8), it is critical for the Christian reader to carefully consider the message author Young has those voices bring and to weigh their message in the light of the clear teaching of the Bible. That is to exercise discernment, a requirement – not an option – for Christians.
When we read The Shack with discernment, I submit that we find many distortions and untruths. Consider just a few of the words Young puts in the mouths of his created Trinity (my comments are within the parentheses):
Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)
Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)
Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)
Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)
Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)
Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)
When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)
Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)
The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.
My brothers and sisters, even in reading and discussing a work of fiction, we must be prepared to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to do so without apology to the world. The Shack may, from its human author’s viewpoint, be in all sincerity intended as an inviting look at a highly relational God, but would you place even a drop of poison in pure water and invite others to drink? As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, The Shack “contains undiluted heresy.” Don’t you and I have a responsibility to be equipped to recognize heresy and to shine the light of truth so that we and others are not deceived?
- Wayne Elliott
p.s. I addressed some of the objections to this review: Is the Shack Only Fiction?
tagged as book review, The Shack in books,Church Issues,Culture,heresy,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.
{ 492 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Questions?!!!! Stop playing stupid word games with me. I listed three different quotes that Wayne pulled from Young's book which I say he took completely out of context and then proceeded to grossly distort those quotes into making it sound like Young was saying something he never said. Now quit playing games with me and address my points.
As I said originally, taking quotes out of context and using them to say something that a person never said is not reasoned critique, it's bold-faced lies and prevarication.
Someone hasn't read their Bible. Perhaps you should put away the fiction?
David, naturally we will express agreement with those we agree with. Is that odd to you?
As for reluctance toward continuing to defend our positions, realize that most issues have already been addressed in this lengthy thread, and many complaints have simply been along the lines of “it was good for me, so stop being so mean about the book.” If you are going to attempt to provide actual arguments, great, but do so in a reasonable and decent manner.
I expect you're not aware of this, but your comments are obnoxious and angry. Whatever content may be contained therein is clouded by your emoting accusations. Whatever you may think, that is NOT in keeping with the spirit of Mark's blog, and I wouldn't blame him if he deleted future comments that continue to be malicious. You are far from a good example of Christian character in your approach.
If you would like to have charitable discussion, that would be fine. Though some have long ago left this thread, there are probably still a few willing to rehash some of the thoughts that have been gone over many times before.
I see you like to play word games too. This is not about “rehashing old thoughts.” This is about taking quotes out of context and distorting what someone has written, which is what I'm saying Wayne did in his original post. I am not here to discuss the merits of the book, good or bad. I am here to discuss Wayne's gross distortions of what Young actually wrote. Maybe you can candy-coat that kind of thing, but where I come from, we call that lying. Where is the “good example of Christian character” in bearing false witness? Yup, you're right! I have this bad habit of becoming rather “uncharitable” when I'm lied to.
David, I find it odd that someone who writes poetry would not have a better understanding of words and how they are used.
Wayne did not distort what Young wrote. He analyzed what Young wrote about God in light of what the Bible says about God. You might not agree with Wayne though many do. Wayne is not distorting, but analyzing and challenging Young's theological positions. It is what Darrin said above, disagreement.
Just as above where you say Wayne is wrong. You are challenging his position because you disagree. I understand that you disagree, but that doesn't mean you are playing word games.
I've only banned one person on this blog and that was for a short time. I would appreciate if you changed your tone. If not, then please comment else where or I will ban you.
The problem is, Mark, the fact that I write poetry means I have an excellent understanding of how words are used, which is why I'm objecting so vociferously here. You call it analyzing. My years of education and my time as a writer and reporter has taught me that what Wayne did is called distortion and fabrication. If I twisted what someone said like that in one of my articles, I'd be in the unemployment line.
The simple fact is, nobody will address my original post, which tells me I hit a sore spot that nobody knows how to (or has the guts to) deal with. So ban me. That would be the easy way out for you, wouldn't it? That way, you wouldn't have to deal with my objections, would you? In the immortal words of Monty Python: “Run away. …Run away.”
I may also call what Wayne did apologetics. It seems you don't quite have a grasp of what he did. In your first objection you mention that the book doesn't refer to pantheism. It doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned by name. (BTW, the Lutheran link I gave above goes into great detail showing the pantheistic leanings in The Shack.)
For example, if someone wrote about 'God being manifest in three persons' this statement point to a modalistic understanding of God denying the Trinity. Yet neither modalism nor Trinity are mentioned. It is a description of a position without naming the position itself.
No one is addressing your original post because they probably don't see your objections as valid. You may even be misunderstanding Wayne's position.
No one is running. I get thousands of hits per month and these comments are here for all to read. If it makes you feel better to believe someone is running from your objections then by all means pat yourself on the back, enjoy and smile.
I need to go elsewhere for the weekend, but I shall return.
Mark, fasten your seat-belts.
Your beliefs are about to be rocked.
Back early. OK, let’s do this.
Webster’s dictionary defines Pantheism two ways. 1) 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. 2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire).
And here's what Wayne said: “Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)”
“God in all things.” I love this one. First of all, the sentence doesn’t even come close to saying that, but isn’t this a classic example of one of man’s “manufactured” sins? Well, if we see God in all things, (even though he in essence is in all things, as he created everything) therefore, that could mean that we might – and notice I said might – start worshiping those things, so if we see God in all things, it’s idolatry; and therefore a sin.
What a laughable bunch of bunk. God gave us the beauty and power of nature so we COULD see him in all things. Show me the verse that says that seeing God in all things is a sin? Oh, sure, you’ll be able to show me verses that say idolatry is wrong, and that it’s wrong to worship nature, but you will never find a verse that says it’s wrong to see God in all things.
This is a manufactured sin, much like the “sin” of drinking alcohol. Pretty much every church you go to today will tell you that drinking is a sin. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Bible says. There are several places in the Bible where drinking is actually encouraged, such as when Paul tells Timothy to “take a little wine for your stomach.” Actually, the Bible is quite clear on this. Drinking is not a sin. Drunkenness is. But man has “manufactured” drinking into being a sin.
And this one is classic. “In your first objection you mention that the book doesn't refer to pantheism. It doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned by name.”
OK, so if I “interpret” what you say to mean this or that, then what I think becomes what you mean? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter what someone actually says, if I “think” you meant this or that, therefore that’s what you meant, even though you really meant something else? That’s called jumping to conclusions, and it's disgusting. It's a lie.
Look at your statement here: For example, if someone wrote about 'God being manifest in three persons' this statement point to a modalistic understanding of God denying the Trinity. Yet neither modalism nor Trinity are mentioned. It is a description of a position without naming the position itself.
No, your drawing that conclusion from that statement is, in fact, a gross distortion of what was actually said there. “God being manifest in three persons” does not even come close to pointing to modalism. Modalism says that God was first God the father, then God the Son, and then God the Holy Spirit. What gives you the right to read modalism into a statement like that? Maybe you would prefer that the statement would be worded differently, but on it's face, that statement is true. God is indeed manifest in three persons! How on earth does that statement deny the trinity? More “manufactured” nonsense. You simply don’t have the right to read whatever you want into what people say, and that’s why I’m so upset here. Wayne did a hatchet job on Young’s work, and twisted what he wrote into saying what he never intended, and just like a lemming to the sea, you followed along behind him, agreeing the whole way.
You see, it’s attitudes such as yours that have led to all the divisions in the church today. Rather than seeking to have a closer relationship with God, you want to expend all your energy on the minutia; on “the rules.” Unfortunately, most of your “rules” are of your own invention. And that’s why people like you hate “The Shack,” because the book exposes you for who you are. The main point of the book is that “it’s not about the rules, it’s about relationship,” and as one who is caught up in the rules, you got stung by the book’s message. You run around looking for “sin” under every teacup and bushel basket, and never really figure out what it is that God really wants from you, and never seek the kind of relationship God wants to have with you. Everything is a plot, or contains some hidden message or agenda, and you just can’t come to see the good that is all around you. You’d have fit right in during the Spanish Inquisition. Now why don't you go find something productive to do with yourself rather than trying to tear down something that God as blessed the way he had blessed The Shack.
OK, so that was my first point. Care to address my other two?
David,
First, it is very difficult to reason the way you are attempting. On my modalism example, it was just an example not a full blown explanation and rebuttal. The ironic thing is when you quote me saying:
Followed by your refutation that my statement
You have actually just restated my example. Anyways…check the Apologetics Index on TD Jakes to understand the manifestation language.
As to pantheism, if you really want to argue more with someone I suggest a href=”http://sometrueword.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-true-words-about-shack.html”>a Shack Attack or Shaky Shack which also claim pantheistic statements in the book.
It is also interesting to note that the Universal Pantheist Society site states partially in defining pantheism that:
After 400+ comments on this thread I don't desire this back and forth. I even stopped updated my Shack Reviews page even though there have been many more reviews.
You've said your peace and made some very assumptive charges. You know nothing about my personal life nor ministry, but you make charges anyways. You move from critique to person. My congregation saw fit that I was qualified to be a deacon to serve and lead them. They know me, you don't. Yet you presume away.
Even the Apostle Paul disagreed with Peter as well as the Athenians at Mars Hill. He confronted error. We are called to do so as well. If I discipled people without pointing out and correcting error I would not be disciplining them.
You've made some statements and they are here for all to see. Maybe it is time for you to start your own blog. As for this blog, that's all folks!
Oh yeah, thanks for rocking my beliefs. Take care.
It is not warning people against false teaching that is dividing the church. It is the promoting of false teaching, through books such as The Shack, that is dividing the church. Truth can never be learned through error, and there is nothing of redeeming value in The Shack other than the fact it can be used as an example of deceptive false teaching.
Ron, I agree that The Shack promotes false teaching. The author also was not some untrained guy who simply wrote a book either. He went to seminary.
There is no smoke without fire!
All this discussion back and forth is like the smoke and the fire is the heresies behind this book.
Why even bother reading this piece of fiction when you have even better books to read in the Bible?
(and at that, truthful accounts, and real prophecies, and good wholesome theology, that, I am sure of this, will take an eternity to get to grasps with!)
Ron, you make an excellent point. Romans 16:17 states, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” An important phrase here is “contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught”.
My point being that many people think doctrine is divisive to the church; but the truth of the matter is, BAD doctrine is divisive to the church.
Stephen, it does indeed take discernment to determine how much time, if any, should be spent on any given piece of foolishness, like this book. I believe God does lead some to invest a bit of time in order to see the issues and try to help identify them to others. But I agree with you – there is much, much better material to be spending time with, most notably the scriptures themselves.
Why do you people even argue about the content of “the shack”? This is what I'll tell you as long as you “truly” believe in God there is nothing to argue about! I'll ask you, as christians, do you really think God would be angry because of the misconceptions made in the book? Instead I think God would be more disappointed to all this argument! Theological or not, whether or not it teaches the exact knowledge from the bible or just from personal opinion; it doesn't matter at all; As long as we follow the topmost general rule God has give us that is “To “love” him, as we love our neighbors” which means if we really believe in God we must love our neighbors, the same way we do to him; Anything we do to our neighbors is what we do to our god. Criticizing works about God especially those said to have healed many ppl is like judging God himself. Thats all.
Why do you people even argue about the content of “the shack”? This is what I'll tell you as long as you “truly” believe in God there is nothing to argue about! I'll ask you, as christians, do you really think God would be angry because of the misconceptions made in the book? Instead I think God would be more disappointed to all this argument! Theological or not, whether or not it teaches the exact knowledge from the bible or just from personal opinion; it doesn't matter at all; As long as we follow the topmost general rule God has give us that is “To “love” him, as we love our neighbors” which means if we really believe in God we must love our neighbors, the same way we do to him; Anything we do to our neighbors is what we do to our god. Criticizing works about God especially those said to have healed many ppl is like judging God himself. Thats all.
Wanderer,
It is not wrong to warn against false doctrine any more than it would be wrong to warn your family about a rattlesnake in the house.
Ron
Hmm… i just love how you're acting so tough. How's about yall humble yourselves and stop fighting. This book wasn't meant for you Mark. Don't be greedy. Young didn't write it for big ol Marky. God doesn't need to be defended. If this book helps people to grow in a new relationship, who are you to judge it? oh… you'll probably just say you're critiquing it…any way you put it… your judgment keeps a fallin. Relationship is way more important than sitting in church Sunday after Sunday half asleep in your tux and tie, counting down the minutes till you get dismissed so you can go watch football. Something tells me that's not the way it's meant to be. I'd much rather see Jesus face to face every day and grow and grow with him
Give it up on your denominational bull. Christianity isn't the 'right' way. I go to MSBC… I'm a 'Christian' but not because I go there, but because I follow Christ. I love God and it hurts to know that old men are fighting for their little piece of territory and tapping someone on the back when they say something they like. It's just dividing you. Don't read The Shack and base your life around what it teaches. Take the relationship and yearn to be that close to God. Excuse me if I've been a little out-there… I'm not trying to attack anyone… cause the way I see it is everyone's problem is they all think that they're right. And that my friends, is Wrong. God bless all. 
P.S. I'll try to grow my generation as a Jesus loving one, not a denominational fail. I'm 17 and I'm so glad I have the chance to lead souls to Christ… isn't that what it's all about. If someone read all this and they didn't believe in anything, what do you think they would do, or feel? This collection of posts sure wouldn't witness to him, that's for sure. God bless you all
… you keep gettin stuff wrong bro. Don't put God in anything… that's idol ism. I do believe God's word is in the bible.
Shawn,
As an 18-year-old, here's a word of advice: Try being a little sympathetic to the other side of a discussion.
Your snide comments regarding Young not writing this book for Mr Lamprecht is a little, well, rude. I'm sure Mr Lamprecht is aware that the book is not written for him alone. Secondly, your view of what being a Christian is all about is a little lobsided. Indeed, it is a relationship with Jesus Christ, but allow me to use an analogy. If you had a girlfriend, could you honestly call it a relationship if anything you knew about her was a complete fabrication? No, we call that being deluded. It is the same thing with being a Christian – our relationship with Christ is built on the truths of Scripture. Young's book makes claims about how God is, what God does and how we are in relationship with him – all those things are important, and if someone is getting those things wrong, then it is highly important that those errors are sorted out.
You seem to be hooked on having a relationship, but also seem to forget that the relationship is built on doctrine – truths which Scripture tells us about God, Jesus and the Christian life. Young distorts those facts, and distorted facts lead to a distorted relationship. Believe me, I am passionate about evangelism and reaching folks with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we don't water down that message or bend the facts to make God look more loving than Scripture reveals, even if it's nice.
Finally, the unsaved person who happened to come across this post and yearned for the way of salvation wouldn't automatically switch off, because someone disagreed with a book. Give people a little credit…
God became a man – that's a restriction on deity, from where I'm standing, Shawn…
Shawn,
Sorry to jump in, but I am genuinely interested in your argument. I hear similar logic quite often and I have never understood it. But I'm quite happy to be corrected myself if it's me that's got my thinking all wrong…
You say these two interesting things:
“…the way I see it is everyone's problem is they all think that they're right.”
“And that my friends, is Wrong.”
My questions would be these:
Do you think that you are right when you make the statement that others who think themselves right are actually wrong? If so, how come you are allowed to think yourself right, but others aren't?
Then you say (paraphrased), “Leading souls to Christ is what it's all about.”
Again, do you think that this statement is right? And if so, aren't you falling into the same “Wrongness” as all the unloving, proud “old men” that you're correcting?
Hope that makes some sense,
John.
[A young (ish) man who is constantly having to check himself for being proud and unloving.]
Susan or others defending the Shack, with a great deal of respect…do you also like and agree with the Prayer of Jabez? I as well do not like the division but at some times it is necessary. Unfortunate, but necessary to uphold the truth. I ca appreciate the message of the book, however am fully against an afraid of the dangerous themes and underpinnings clearly against what the Word teaches. Discernment is needed in many of these cases in my opinion.
Seeking Wisdom and the Truth, in Love,
Nate
Those interested in this post should appreciate Dr. Mohler's review of The Shack. Dr. Mohler states:
Thanks, Mark. I think it is worth showing Mohler's final important observations here:
“All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals — and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe.
The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books — we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible's teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers.
The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine.”
Amen.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
Darrin, I agree with you and Mohler on biblical discernment is lost. The Shack is just one of today's wake-up calls. One of the issues is that many are easily offended regardless of the approach in biblical correction. What is the best way to approach this?
Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.
I would like to begin this statement by saying i'm sorry I don't agree- but that fact is, i'm not. I think what a lot of the spectators posting in response to this review have forgotten is that this book was not made to re-represent God, the bible, the trinity, or to condradict the lessons taught in any of the many “religous” doctines such as the bible. In fact, I think it simply aimed to give those of us “spiritual” (as opposed to religious) persons a clearness of the creator's legacy that most flailing churches, religious entities, and hypocritical christians often fail to provide in the church, through YEARS of bible studying, hour-long sermons with ambiguous messages, and tithing ouf of guilt instead of love. While controvery ensues over the many different religious teachings, let the heart feel, the eyes cry, and the spirit embrace what it can, when it can. That's all this book does, and was meant to do; and it succeeds in every way.
A life changing book for me.. Best I have ever read. Thanks for this wonderful book. If it dosen’t change your life then you need to read it again.
Loved it!!!! In spite of all the posted controversy, I found “The Shack” to be a very heart warming and inspirational book!!
Laura, how did The Shack inspire you?
I’m in the middle of the book now and for every chapter I have to press on hard.. it has not held my interest….However the reason I started reading the Shack was because my husband read it and it turned his life around. He was always so intellectual. He had a hard time through abuse believeing that God was more than scripture. He could never relate to the personal relationship that God wants us to have with Him and the Godhead… He cried for the last 4 chapters which for whatever reason opened his heart anew…The Shack has turned his life around… and isn’t that what it’s all about. Out of what some would say to be herisay God moved and is now creating in my husband a personal relationship with Him.
I want to agree with some of the comments on the review… however as the humans that we are we always want to put God in box. He will use what he wills!!!!! And I will always Praise the God of the heavens and earth for reaching my husband even when others have failed. I watch my husband grow and grow from the day he ended the book.
Even God says that what satan made for bad God will himself turn for our good!
Praise God that it’s Him in control of are lives… Blessings to you all!
Those of you who fear God through the teachings of men and only read the Bible, if you would have true faith in a loving God and not a vengeful God you would learn that Gods truth is back on earth and the light is coming through. You all say that this book divides churches when in truth, they are already divided. Jesus himself said there is one one church and one Shephard. That shephard is the Father.
The separation of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost is by man, not God. Those who follow and praise the Father as Jesus did, the Father sends his spirit upon you and then you become a Son of God, as Jesus was. All are one and all in the Father.
If you had the freedom and faith to read more than just the Bible, you would learn much more truth than what is taught in worldly churches and schools about God. God teaches his own who heart and mind are free of the worldly teachings of men. This book barely skims the truth hidden through ignorance and fear of hell and damnation taught by man.
You want more truth, read the Nag Hammadi or the Pistis Sophia. Even the Book of Mormon has truths that even Mormons mistranslate. God is in all books. The Shack is just a teensy example of truths not accepted by men’s churches. Without a congregation, churches would fail, but God will always live in the hearts and minds of his people who don’t follow men, and are at war with no one.
God bless all who read and understand without their faith being threatened. For you are just a few of those who’ve found the narrow path, which few follow. Religions and Governments are not of God.
and if there is no GOD
then there is no FATHER
and if there is no GOD
there can be no creator
no nothing can be
if there is no GOD
iam here and this is now
therefore GOD is here
and if there is a GOD
THEN THERE IS LOVE.
God is Love. Yet, God gave all mankind the freedom of free thinking. He interfers with no man. All that comes down upon mankind that is bad are of their own making. All negatives are from Satan. Yet, a loving God knows not negativity of any kind.
This book, though it exploits what can be determined as real life pertaining to abduction and murder of a child, does not reflect on God’s love for that child and all involved.
Yet, the few truths touched on in the book that is not in line with modern religion, is just an example of the power of a word. How one accepts and handles change is each individuals right to think, praise or hate such words that cause one to re-think their position with God. That brings up a fear of God taught not by God, but by men who live off the fear of the ignorant and ill-informed. There is a scripture in the Bible which says; The more truth one has the more sorrow one feels.
Of you who love this book. A part of you has been touched with a truth your true spirit knows but your worldly self stands hard to deny. God knows us through our spirit. Sad many will never find and know the Father through it.
If one becomes angry upon reading this book, their being decieved by Satan the true ruler over this world at this time for a short time longer. He’s working hard to keep that staus quo as is. A change in beliefs that takes away from the norm would devastate the churches of man.
Only those who’s faith is weak will be deparate over this book. This book shows the power of words. And how words are accepted or not accepted shows what God each individual follows and praises. A God of Love or a God of hate and condemnation.
God bless any who read this and are not offended.
I read The Shack a couple of years ago…I consider myself to be grounded in the Word of God with almost 40 years of study ‘under my belt’ (honestly not boasting, just making a factual statement). The Shack is definitely an allegory and I was absolutely blessed by reading it but more so by the parable of what was being given. Kind of like the way Jesus did with parables, illustrations of truth, His Truth, in ways that people could relate to. He being God knows how to communicate truth to us. I agree with your rebuttal of the criticism of this book. I understand the difficulty some have in relating to some of the illustrations and statements made, but I have had difficulty relating to some illustrations and statements made in the Scriptures, but I know that they are just. Anyway….. Endeavoring to walk in love but to be bold in conviction of Truth, JPatt
This book is a true spiritual experence, To bad you can’t open yourself to other possibilities. How you choose to believe in your “Higher Power” is certainly your choice, as it is mine to believe in mine as I choose.
Bill, you’ve piqued my interest and I’m curious about a couple of things in your comment.
What spiritual experience did you have with this book?
Given your spiritual experience and that The Shack is written from a Christian perspective, what “Higher Power” do you choose?
Thanks.
Hi…this is the best comment I’ve read here so far. It is about relationship and I encourage you, 17 yr. old, to follow your heart felt passion for Jesus! It’s about Him, not us
Having so many other good works for Christians to read, leave this one alone, it will not benefit you in the least. My Pastor says he would not advise us to read it but its our freedom to do so of course. I choose not to because I don’t need it to tell me anything about my awesome God. How about something from RC Sproul, now that would be very beneficial to your spiritual well being.
Peter, I like your perspective that there are many other good works for Christians to read.
God is just love. Can’t you see the beauty in all of these different perspectives? I tend to not disagree or throw words out there about who’s right and wrong because in reality (my opinion) no one is indeffinantly right. A right for you can absolutely kill someone else. This book really is just so personal just like everyone elses relationship with God. I myself live in gods love day in and day out and there isn’t a soul out there that could discredit my own beliefs without looking with a clear mind. No one has any right to judge anyone or anything, but we all do so easily and care free. God has never judged us, he’s only giving us the freedom to love and use in our own ways.
I have been told this is a good book. I intend on reading with a grain of salt as with anything. I have deep Christian faith and 5 years of Catholic school. I consider myself Christian now. I believe God work in each our lives one thought, minute, person, day, verse, and sometimes book at a time. We each our at our own level in our walk with God. If this book gives interest or help in any way to someone receiving God in their lives with repect to the Trinity, is this not a step in the right direction? No doubt they will follow up with the bible and scripture related books that will open the mind and hearts to the Lord, who will lead them Him without splitting hairs. Peace and God love to all.
I have to say that “The Shack” by William P. Young was a very thought provoking read.
After reading the book, I was left pondering several things about it – which is a true testament to the book’s worth. I had several questions on the validity of some of the descriptions of God but I had to humbly admit that there may be no answers this side of heaven for how God presents Himself to each individual.
I posted a more in-depth review of this book on my own blog http://www.tracysbooknook.com.
-Tracy
I don’t need to drink all of the ocean to tell you that it is salty. nor do I need to embrace this book because it is sold at a church or some Christian book store. I do need to be on guard to how a book like this can effect ones theology……Especially if this book is the pastors wife’s favorite book. With over 12 heretical view points, opinions or teachings, how does this book effect the belief system of the pastors wife? Oh and you say Hey, it’s just a book, it’s just a fictional book. Ok lets use that argument and say the pastors wife is reading the Satanic Bible is that ok with you? or how about some Harlequin Romance Novel?
The Gospel message is lost in a book like the Shack, and the authority of the bible is minimized. The nature of God and the Holy spirit are minimized to being simple humans. What gets me, is I have heard people get more upset over someone misrepresenting there mother. This should raise the hair on the back of your neck when someone misrepresents the nature and character of God.
It has been said “a good lie contains as much of the truth as possible” I am about half way through reading this novel, but have an uneasy feeling as I continue that something is just not right. Usually that is the Spirit who resides in me warning me.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 13 trackbacks }