The Shack by Paul Young is a publishing phenomenon, it is a best seller that started life as a fathers novel to his children. Starting with a publishing budget of a few hundred dollars it has gone on to sell shed (or shack) loads.
Much of the Christian world has gone mad for it. Eugene Peterson reckons it’s the new Pilgrims Progress, J John thinks it’s the only book you should read this year, and Michael W Smith raves that it will send you ‘craving for the presence of God’. Smith speaks more accurately than he realises – because this book has absolutely NO presence of God in it and you become increasingly desperate for the true God revealed in the Bible with each chapter.
Indeed, the Shack is a systematic theology of heresy hidden in an average (but extremely emotionally manipulating) story. The story itself seems to be an excuse for the author to explain his views of God to his children. And that is it’s greatest weakness and danger – the majority of its doctrine is purely fictional. Let me give you a taste:
-The Bible is repeatedly maligned, and disparagingly described as something ‘reduced to paper’ (p65).
-The Fatherhood of God is not important. Indeed, God can be revealed as a woman if he wants. It just depends on your personal needs (p93).
-The Father did not forsake Jesus on the cross (p96).
-God does not need to punish sin (p120).
-God the trinity submits to us (p145).
-Jesus is not an example for us to follow (p149).
-At the cross, ‘mercy triumphs over justice’ (p164).
-Jesus says in view of non-Christians, ‘I have no desire to make them Christian.’ Indeed he explains how he has children in Buddhism and Islam (p182).
-Jesus effectually dies for the whole world (p192).
I could go on and on.
Because the book is endorsed by Christians, and has a very moving story, many Christians (amazingly) are not spotting the heresies. Indeed, a quick view of reviews on Amazon show that people are letting it transform their view of God. Yet they are adopting a god created in the image of the author.
This book has saddened me. I am sad that God has been so maligned and devalued, I am sad that Christian leaders are endorsing heresy, and I am sad that Christians are loosing sight of the true God reveled in the Bible for a man made invention.
For a fuller review check out challies.com
November 4, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I’ve yet to read the book. Was there *anything* of good within it? I have heard people who I deeply respect and are theologically – usually at any rate – spot on, say that the book wasn’t bad?
Then again if its on the Wesley Owen (ironic naming really) top ten booklist I’m usually dubious.
November 4, 2008 at 10:59 pm
There are a few good insights. For example, there is a great unpacking of the fact that all our relational blessings are only possible in the light of the trinity (p101). I love this idea and was encouraged by it in the book. Also, the book points out that God is present whether we are aware of Him or not (p195).
It seems to me that the best lies are hidden between two truths. This book is a perfect example of that.
November 5, 2008 at 10:19 am
My goodness Jon this one really got your goat. Mine too when I read it. As well as the stuff you’ve pointed out, theologically the book is a fictionalisation of the Arminian Free Will Defense take on suffering and sovereignty. And if you are not prepared to swallow that then all the packaging of a cosy non-threatening god that the book wraps it up in won’t wash. I kept wondering when Mack was going to be scared for his life in the presence of God, but it didn’t happen. There was never a Job moment.
Like Isaiah says “The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you” (28:20). This is a theology that isn’t big enough, or strong enough, to provide the real comfort that you need in the face of suffering.
November 5, 2008 at 10:21 am
Isn’t it worrying as Church leaders if our flocks start reading it and think it’s great? Does it show we are not doing our jobs correctly in terms of teaching our people to be discerning? Teaching people to thirst after true doctrine and teh God of the Bible? Or is it more symptomatic of the sin that dwells within that is always trying to get us to carve god out in our own image, limiting him to a confortable and agreeable god? Or am I just being silly?
Looking forward to reading this, although I don’t think i’ll be able to do so without bias at the offset…which is probably a weakness of mine
November 5, 2008 at 10:24 am
Wow…. where can I get a copy? Only joking…
It does seem to have pulled the wool over a lot of people’s eyes, doesn’t it?
Haven’t read it, but a load of people in my church are raving about it (positively and negatively…. )
November 5, 2008 at 10:27 am
Sammy isn’t it case specific? We may inadverently open the door to errors by under emphasising important truths (this is the “unpaid debts” theory). Then again the proclivity toward error comes from within (this is the Burger King theory, “have it your way”). We are prone to error because it is plausible and desirable. In a culture of blame it would be easy to dump the responsibility on to failing church leaders.
November 5, 2008 at 11:21 am
I guess the idea that God wants to submit to us and give us true freedom (which means no doctrine or rules) is very attractive to those who have not grasped the glory of God. This book is really a logical conclusion of two theologies: low grade view of scripture, and an Arminian view of God.
November 5, 2008 at 11:34 am
Good blog Jon.
I read the book and hated almost every second of it.
I guess Young’s work is the inevitable outcome of the confluence of modern western philosophy, and pleasant, ‘fluffy’ theology.
Thankfully I just sold my copy on Amazon – think I’ll send it with a health warning!
November 5, 2008 at 11:36 am
There something about fiction that makes it more plausible, perhaps because we are more likely to suspend our critical faculties that way.
November 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Interesting how we get so many comments on a ‘negative’ post rather than some of our Christ Exalting, gospel focused ones. What does that tell us about theproGnosis?
Asides from that, a cat is here to be thrown amongst the pigeons. Are we being too hard on the book? After all it’s just fiction isn’t it? No one black balled Lewis (C.S – not roderick) for using Santa Clause in his story or Aslan (=Jesus) being killed by a witch (which is obviously unbiblical).
Come on guys, it’s just a story…isn’t it?
November 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm
ACtually I bet people did black ball Lewis… in fact a quick check on Wikipedia says people (have) accuse(d) him of paganism. (Not to mention that rowling et al think he is sexist and racist…) ….
Interesting question Sammy – about comments – whadya think?
November 5, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Haven’t read it.
But, Simon Vibert and Mark Meynell… both good, sound theological brains have. They give positive but cautious reviews.
http://metamorphe.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/the-shack-by-william-p-young/
http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/relishing-the-trinitarian-dynamic-passing-time-in-the-shack/
http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/further-shack-ramblings/
November 6, 2008 at 6:38 pm
thanks for the helpful review – i’ve started to read it, mainly so that i could say that i’ve seen the problems for myself if i meet people who have read it (which i now have), rather than saying “i read this view and apparently it’s dodge”.
so far i’ve not got past the first few pages because it moved so slowly, it was taking mack about half an hour to get to the post box and back! then i got really busy – i might get back to reading it once crazy november is out of the way. but from what i’ve seen in reviews like this one and like the comments driscoll made on it in recent his sermon on the Trinity, these problems should probably be pointed out more widely.