The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.68 You Save: $12.31 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: How warped theology makes millions
Summary: 1 Stars
I read "The Shack" last year because it was being so widely promoted as a "Christian bestseller". Many women's groups are reading it together, and it continues to be described as a "transforming" and "life-changing" piece of fiction. I love a good story, and if it reflects Biblical truth, all the better!
Like the poor girl in this story, I was abducted into the woods as a small child and raped at knife-point. The stranger didn't kill me, though I believe it was his desire to do so. Somehow, I lived through it, but life had changed for me. I grew up struggling to understand a God of love and justice too. A creation such as Papa" in the shack would not have been satisfying in the least. It would have been patronizing and untrue. It was only when I bought a Bible in college that I found all the answers, healing, and redemption I needed. I had no problem understanding a God of justice who judges sin and a God of mercy who loves sinners.
However, the author of "The Shack" seems to think that Scripture is not enough to explain the problem of pain in the world and God's answer in Christ. From beginning to end, The Shack has a quietly subversive quality to it. The author very subtly criticizes many aspects of the church and contemporary Christianity before replacing the concepts he criticizes with new ones. He criticizes seminary education ("Mack struggled to keep up with [Papa], to make some sense of what was happening. None of his old seminary training was helping in the least" (91)), the Bible ("God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects" (65-66)), Sunday School ("This isn't Sunday School. This is a flying lesson" (98)), the church as a body ("You're talking about the church as this woman you're in love with; I'm pretty sure I haven't met her.... She's not the place I go on Sundays" (177)), the church as individuals ("For Mack these words were like a breath of fresh air! Simple. Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands and not the sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people's heads, people he really didn't even know. Just sharing life" (178)), family devotions ("Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories.... He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible" (107)), theological certainty ("I have a great fondness for uncertainty [said Sarayu]" (203)), the word "Christian" as a descriptor ("Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian [said Jesus]" (182)) and on and on.
Not only does the book get many orthodox doctrines wrong, it relies so heavily on emotionality as to despise discernment and Scriptural authority. I found the depictions of the Trinity to be especially disturbing and trite, as if made largely with an Oprah movie in mind and not the Godhead of the Bible. If a Christian can't see a problem with conveying our righteous and Holy God as a jovial African American cookie baker, a sensual Asian woman with a pagan-like devotion to the life spirit in nature, and an out-of-work carpenter who spends his time idly canoeing or going for day hikes...then it will take a whole lot of work to address the flawed theology.
Another reviewer pointed out, "Much of the story focuses on forgiveness. Mack has to learn to forgive first God (or at least to come to an intellectual understanding of why God was unable to intervene to save Missy) and then, at the book's culmination, to forgive the murderer. I am adamantly opposed to the idea that we would ever need to forgive God for anything. However, because this teaching is seen only vaguely in the novel, I will pass over it for now and turn to another area of forgiveness--that of unconditional forgiveness."
Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness. This is true of God's offer of forgiveness to us and, as we are to model this in our human relationships, must be true of how we offer forgiveness to others. So when, at the book's climax, Mack cries out "I forgive you" to the murderer (who is not present and has not sought forgiveness) he cannot offer true forgiveness. Neither can true forgiveness exist where Mack is unable to pursue reconciliation with this man. Forgiveness makes no sense and means nothing if we require it in this way. It may make a person feel better about himself, but it cannot bring about true forgiveness and true reconciliation. And so Young teaches a therapeutic, inadequate and unbiblical understanding of forgiveness."
The main problem in the story is dealing with the pain of a murdered child. The main answer is that God is impotent and has no concept of sin, or justice...only love for all regardless of what we do or believe. As Whitney Houstan would say, "the greatest love of all is learning to love yourself." It's all that simple. Once we die, nothing we do here really matters, because we will finally be free from the earthly burden of not loving ourselves enough. Now, have a cookie and go in peace.
Keep in mind, too, that the author wrote "The Shack" as a response to his own guilt about commiting adultery. He is trying to forgive himself for destroying the lives of his children. The answers to life's most painful questions are answered badly and insufficiently by him in "The Shack", but because they answered in such as way as to make a person cry, they are perceived by many readers as "truth" that hit's home. The author has, essentially, made an emotional and humanistic argument and wrapped it up in a best-selling Christian package. This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is a new god, hastily sewn together from parts of movies and books and self-affirmation seminars.
Book Review: Seductively deceptive
Summary: 1 Stars
Overall, I thought the book was very interesting and made you think. At first I was guarded about the way they were presenting God, so I was reading cautiously. As I went on I understood the purpose and was fine with it. The book put things in a real good perspective so the answers to common questions seemed obvious and natural. That was the good part. Now for the negative...
There were four serious negatives, then a bunch of pet peeves. What makes these four really serious in my mind, is that's how Satan lies. He sticks to 95% truth and insight, then bends your thoughts just slightly away from the truth. People focus on all the insight they are seeing and don't realize they are slowly being lead astray.
1) The book claims there is no evil. Evil is simply as absence of good. Hogwash. The bible makes it clear that evil is a active force that we need to be protected from. Jesus expelled evil spirits, etc.
2) No one goes to hell, everyone is "repented" either during life or after death. Hogwash again. The book doesn't directly state that, but indicates it indirectly. There is no mention of hell except by Sophia in order to scare Mack. In fact Mack's father was in Heaven being repented. It's implied that Mack and the killer will eventually have a different relationship in Heaven.
3) There are no rules and nothing is wrong except guilt. - Sorry, but that's not what God says. I also believe that guilt is sometimes the voice of the Holy Spirit.
4) Mack leaves with the new realization of "God the servant". So that contradicts everything they said about circular relationships and no hierarchies. As he leaves, the hierarchy is reset to where God is subservient to man, even if it is a limitation by choice. Nonsense!
My pet peeves center around the fact that he was pushing a lot of liberal political agendas in the book. Except for the ones on independence and change, none of them added anything to the books and should have been left out. They just cheapened the whole story.
Pet peeve #1 The gun had no place in the story except to show that God hates guns. "Papa" could hardly touch the gun. She held it at arms length with two fingers. Interesting contradiction to how Sarayu explained why poison plants are good. She stated they can be used for good purposes like medicine. The fact they can be used for bad doesn't change the fact that they themselves are still good. Well, guns are used to get food (Papa is serving bacon, so he has no objection to eating animals). Guns are used for protection against animals in the wild, they are used for fun, sport, entertainment, etc. The fact that some people can use them for bad should be viewed the same as poison plants. You can argue about different types of guns, but I think God is smart enough to understand that they are just lumps of metal that are not good or bad. It's how someone uses it that counts.
Pet peeve #2 Papa makes the statement that if there were more women rulers, there would be far less war and certainly no child sacrifice. I read this after returning from a Mayan ruin that was headed by a queen. I saw the sacrifice sites where little boys and 13 year old girls were sacrificed by the queen. Women's libbers often claim that if women ran the world there would be no war, but that doesn't align with history. Historians have proven that the amount of violence under woman rulers is virtually the same as under men. Violence is bread by power, not gender. Why would God make an unnecessary statement that He knows is untrue?
Pet peeve #3 Mack calls Jesus an ecologist and Jesus agrees. Many of todays self described "ecologists" believe that it's ok for people to be hurt or die, as long as a tree is saved. I don't believe Jesus would align himself with modern day ecologists at all. I do believe we should all respect the planet and not abuse it; but I also believe that He designed the planet to supply all of our needs and to outlast mankinds duration on the planet. We are intended to use what He provided... but we can do it respectfully. That is a conservative view, not an ecologists view.
None of the previous three had any place in the book. Had they been left out, it wouldn't have affected the story one bit. They were put in there simply to make political statements.
Pet peeve #4 The old mantra "Change is Good". That is one of the most dimwitted statements babbled by brainwashed liberals. Change can be either good, bad or neutral. Without knowing what the change is, you can't just decide "change is good", yet this book states that over and over again.
Pet peeve #5. This one may be a stretch so I saved it for last. The main point of the book is that all of our problems are caused by our desire for independence. That statement would be 100% true if it said our problems are caused by our desire for independence from God. I believe our desire for independence is a reflection of God's spirit within us. The ONLY time it is bad is when we desire an independence from God himself. Our desire for independence from man made governments actually bring us closer to God, and closer to the claim that we shouldn't have so many rules that bind us. Not once did it say "independence from God". It was often worded to sound like an attack on conservative values of freedom and independence. In fact, the term 'declaration of independence" was actually used. The author never once explained that "independence from God" is the problem, not independence from governments and man made authorities.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading the book and I think I got a lot out of it. I do believe however that it was a masterfully written, Satan inspired story.
Book Review: Time to Rain on this Parade
Summary: 1 Stars
I am certain that there is no other book I've been asked to review more times than William P. Young's The Shack, a book that is currently well within the top-100 best-selling titles at Amazon. The book, it seems, is becoming a hit and especially so among students and among those who are part of the Emergent Church. In the past few weeks many concerned readers have written to ask if I would be willing to read it and to provide a review. Because I am always interested in books that are popular among Christians, I was glad to comply.
First, a word about the book as it is written. William Young shows himself to be a capable writer, though I would not have believed it through the first couple of chapters. The book began with far too many awkward sentences and awkward sentence constructs (e.g. "One can almost hear a unified sigh rise from the nearby city and surrounding countryside where Nature has intervened to give respite to the weary humans slogging it out within her purview"). But as it went on and as the story took over the book became easier to read. The story itself is interesting enough, though certainly it lacks originality. The last chapter should have been left on the editing room floor and the final paragraph (before the "After Words") was a ridiculously terse attempt to provide closure to remaining plot lines. But on the whole the book is readable and enjoyable. Never does it become boring, even after long pages of nothing but dialog.
But Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains. The book's reviews focus not on the quality of the story but on its spiritual or emotional impact. Eugene Peterson grasps this, saying in his glowing endorsement, "When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of "The Shack." This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" did for his. It's that good!" Could it really be that good? Is it good enough to warrant positive comparison to the English-language book that has been read more widely than any other save the Bible? Let's turn to the book's content and find out.
The Shack revolves around Mack (Mackenzie) Philips. Four years before this story begins, Mack's young daughter, Missy, was abducted during a family vacation. Though her body was never found, the police did find evidence in an abandoned shack to prove that she had been brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer who preyed on young girls. As the story begins, Mack, who has been living in the shadow of his Great Sadness, receives a strange note that is apparently from God. God invites Mack to return to this shack for a get together. Though uncertain, Mack visits the scene of the crime and there has a weekend-long encounter with God, or, more properly, with the godhead.
Young covers a wide variety of theological topics in this book, each of which is relevant to the theme of Mack's suffering and his inability to trust in a God who could let his daughter be treated in such a horrifying way. The author is unafraid to tackle subjects of deep theological import--a courageous thing to do in so difficult a genre as fiction. The reader will find himself diving into deep waters as he reads this book. Unfortunately much of this theology is simply inconsistent with the Bible. Young shares strange ideas on the Trinity, the way God reveals Himself to us, forgiveness and a variety of other topics.
Despite the great amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodoxy Christianity. For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, "I understand what you're saying. I did that for years after seminary. I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn't know you. This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers."
Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young's readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: "Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It's a gift. `Discipleship' will never be lessons again." Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their "modern" mindsets. "If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening." Still another says "This book was so shocking to my "staid" Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is." At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity--to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology--and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.
Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology.
You may wish to read a more thorough review on my Amazon author blog...
Book Review: Lots of Good Here, but Cons Outweigh Pros
Summary: 2 Stars
We love stories! And The Shack uses story powerfully, communicating truths in a way that lets us "get them," emotionally and intellectually. We love the laughter and intimate, loving relationships that pervade The Shack. We love the way the book faces the problem of pain; its affirmation that God is good; and the way it points out that we can trust God only to the extent that we really believe, in heart as well as head, that he's good--and that the only alternative to trusting God is sitting in judgment over God. We appreciate The Shack's affirmation that good isn't just what feels good or even what I think is good, and that evil is the absence of good and has no creative ability in itself. We love the book's emphasis on "unilateral" forgiveness, and its teaching that everything is about Jesus.
But we think The Shack also presents some non-biblical views on important Christian teachings, and because they're inserted in dialogue in a novel, it's harder to examine them.
We're concerned that The Shack tends to de-emphasize the role of the Bible in the life of a follower of Jesus. In The Shack, subjective impressions seem to trump Scripture as a way for God to communicate, and the Bible is almost an afterthought:
"You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship--a way of coming to be with us" (198).
Another passage almost seems to ridicule the Bible:
"In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. . . . Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?" (65).
The author may simply be ridiculing the misuse of the Bible, but because these are his primary references to the Bible, the overall effect seems to point away from Scripture, toward subjective impressions. The Bible claims to be not just one among many ways we hear our Lord, but the way by which we measure all other ways. The primary way we have of telling whether the voice within is the Holy Spirit, our own idea, or the voice of the enemy of our souls, is to check what we're hearing against the Bible's teachings.
We think this casual attitude toward the Bible is found throughout the book. To give just one example, The Shack seems to implicitly teach universalism, the belief that everyone will eventually end up in heaven. Papa tells Mack that she is now fully reconciled to the whole world, not just to those who believe in her (192). Later, Papa tells Mack that he has forgiven all humans, and that "when you forgive someone you certainly release them from judgment" (225). Mack asks Papa: "But if you are God, aren't you the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a great lake of fire?" (119) She answers, ambiguously, "it's not my purpose to punish [sin]; it's my joy to cure it" (120). Sophia tries to get Mack to choose three of his children to spend eternity in hell, saying:
I am only asking you to do something that you believe God does. He knows every person ever conceived. . . . He loves each one. . . . You believe he will condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from His presence and apart from His love. Is that not true? (162)
Mack can't choose, of course, and ultimately volunteers to take his children's place in hell. Sophia's response? "Now you know Papa's heart, who loves all his children perfectly" (163).
God's heart is indeed to take our place, through Jesus's death, but The Shack sidesteps the question of what happens to those who don't avail themselves of it. Sophia's implied teaching doesn't seem to square with the consistent teaching of the New Testament that Jesus will come, "dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1.6-10)
We don't enjoy what the Bible says about hell and the wrath of God. We find it a hard and painful teaching--but it does seem clear to us that it's a biblical teaching. It would seem strange that Jesus himself would warn us so often about hell, if it weren't a real possibility.
Scripture tells us to test what people say: "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind" (1Thess. 5.19-22). We encourage you to examine all of The Shack's teachings in the light of the Bible.
We think The Shack's stance toward God's wrath and coming judgment is important in itself, and even more important as an indication of the book's general attitude toward Scripture. When we stop clinging to the Bible as a God-breathed document, we lose the only objective standard we have against which to measure ourselves and our world, and we end up like Israel in the time of the judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21.25).
Book Review: For the Love of God
Summary: 4 Stars
When this book became popular I heard all kinds of rumors about it being full of heretical ideas. (So I wanted to read it all the more.) I didn't follow up on what people thought the heresies were. I wanted to see if I could find them myself. Every time I think I had one spotted, a little further reading brought it back into balance. If you've been scared away from reading this book because some well meaning, overly literal minded Christians consider it heretical, my advice is to trust your mind to God, read the book and decide for yourself. This is too good a book to pass up based on someone else's opinion. It's an imaginative dramatization about the nature of the Triune God, and God's relationship to us, set in the present day. Read it as such, not as doctrine or theology. Quibbling with this book on those grounds is to entirely miss the point of the story. The only warning I want to give to those who would read this book is that the first 4 or 5 chapters are going to be a heart wrenching experience, especially for those who know what its like to be the father of a young girl. But, if you've experienced any kind of deep pain in your life and you wonder where God is in it all, this book could be of some significant help. What the author portrays in this book is admittedly in the realm of fantasy, the details and events of which are not normal Christian experience. But, even as fantasy it's highly illuminating of God's character and the love and concern that God has for people. This is a distinction worth keeping in mind so as not to miss the wonderful message of this book. The reason I don't give it a higher rating is that I don't consider the quality of writing to to rank up there with some of the best fiction I've read, but that's a minor quibble. I couldn't do any better.
The biggest objection to the book is that its author seems to espouse Universalism, which I take to mean in its extreme form of salvation being extended to all people no matter what their beliefs or actions. I don't know his personal views, but it's not obvious to me from the book that Young is a Universalist any more than C. S. Lewis was. Things that may seem cut and dried to some seem to me a matter of degree. I think, at heart, God is something of a Universalist (Jn. 1:29, 3:17, 12:32, 47; Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22; 1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10, Titus 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Jn. 2:2.). This doesn't mean all will be saved, but that God surely loves and makes that provision for all. Reading chapter 16 of Young's book, especially on p. 225, it says "In Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship". What do you think that distinction means? Forgiveness may mean the cancellation of a debt (of sin), but it doesn't necessarily put the debtor in a good relationship with the One he owes. To refuse to have a relationship with God even when one's sins have been forgiven puts a person in a very sorry state indeed. This sort of statement doesn't fit my idea of Universalism. It takes more than forgiveness and calling one's self a Christian to be "known" by God in this sense (Mt. 7:21-3). The book doesn't present the process of conversion and finding a true relationship with God as an easy one. Truly forgiving and accepting true forgiveness is not easy.
There is some interesting debate around these issues even in evangelical Christian circles. Here are a few sources of information:
Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions
A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions
A Theology of Inclusivism
Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (ch. 12)
No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized
These books are somewhat controversial, but it doesn't hurt to extend a little consideration and understanding to others with whom you may disagree but who nevertheless call on the name of Christ as Lord. Though they may not change your views, at least you'll hold them with a better understanding of other points of view.
Another objection to the book is the personification of Wisdom in the book as Sophia. Some Christians and Pagans seem to have made her into a deity, but I don't think The Shack does that. It says explicitly that Sophia is not a member of the Godhead. Young is using personification (a common literary device) and he gets it from the book of Proverbs in the Bible. See p. 171 in the book and Proverbs chapter 1.
Many other objections seem to stem from the fact that the book doesn't adequately represent some doctrine or another. For example, evil is acknowledged only is systemic form, not as a personal entity. Satan never shows up. (Not surprising since the dialogue takes place in a setting that would exclude him.) Objections based on what the book does say have much more credibility than inferences made from what is not said in the book. This book focuses on what Young sees as the effect of the provision that Jesus Christ has made to heal the terrible rift between God and humankind. With out that we're all hopelessly lost.