Shayla: What are your views on “The Shack” by William P. Young?

 

Meforshim:

I generally don’t do book reviews because there are so many books, and there is so much garbage out there that I’d end up at the end of my rope and wanting to let go! Having said that, periodically, a book will arise that is so dangerous it warrants comment, if for no other reason than to warn off my brothers and sisters.

“The Shack” is such a book. It is not dangerous because it is well-reasoned. It will never pass for high literature. Unfortunately, our society has so degenerated that fluff like “The Shack” or “The Prayer of Jabez” can become the latest religious craze. Though characterized by weak writing and putrid theology, by the sheer force of the number of books sold, such works may be transformed into an influential force.

I will not waste much time on this drivel. I will restrict myself to pointing out in a summarized fashion some of the numerous errors “The Shack” makes.

  1. It portrays God in an irreverent and disrespectful manner in abject rebellion to the mandate that we are to fear the Lord and have a reverential awe of Him.
  2. It devalues work, authority and respect.
  3. It says that reading the Bible is unimportant.
  4. It says that regular disciplined prayer is unimportant.
  5. It is anti-intellectual.
    1. It says that theology (a systematic understanding of God’s nature and requirements) is unimportant.
    2. A consistent theme of theological deconstruction runs through the book. Mr. Young consistently implies that new, self-derived inspiration is far superior to old, classic, or even biblically derived truth.
  6. It teaches that the only reason that there is any kind of hierarchy is due to the presence of sin. This runs directly counter to the Master’s NUMEROUS statements that He voluntarily submitted Himself to the Father’s will and never said anything that did not come from the Father. 
  7. Unsurprisingly, it rejects the existence of hell and depicts all people, regardless of faith, as being saved.
  8. While supposedly intending to clarify the issue of pain and suffering, all it gives is catchy little slogans that are irrelevant to most real-world issues. You’d be far better served to read C.S. Lewis’ “The Problem of Pain”, or the book of Job for that matter.
  9. It presents views of God that run counter to the Scriptures:
    1. It depicts Him as no better than many humans.
    2. It depicts Him as never getting angry at sin. Rather than presenting the balanced truth that God is love but that God’s holiness also drives Him to hate certain things and that in the end He will be our Judge, Mr. Young falls completely into the mushy, touchy feely camp of “love at any cost”.
    3. It has God saying that He doesn’t care about faith.
    4. It portrays the Father and the Spirit in bodily form something we are specifically forbidden to do.
    5. It portrays the Father as a woman called “Papa”, lending itself seriously to the charge of goddess worship. That aspect of the Trinity, in His omniscience and supernally divine authority, chose to refer to Himself as “the Father”. Who are we to redefine Him?
    6. In contrast to the biblical presentation of the Trinity as “triunity” three distinct Persons operating in sinless unity, the Shack embraces modalism. In my opinion, this is in order to push its New Age, post-modern philosophy of hyper-egalitarianism.

I could go on, but frankly, the book simply isn’t worth the effort. Allow me to address a couple common defensive comments:

1. “It’s just a work of fiction – it’s not meant to be a theological tome.” This is generally the reply people make when anyone who knows anything about the Bible starts pointing out the heresies that pervade the Shack. I find the argument interesting. For one, if it’s not a “theological tome” when confronting a knowledgeable skeptic, why is it pushed as a great theological work on the same level as C.S. Lewis’ “Narnia”, or John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” to the theologically illiterate? I further find that particular argument interesting because of its implications. The argument basically runs like this:

A: This is a great book that gives insight into the Trinity and the nature of suffering.

B: No, it’s not! It has terrible theology that runs contrary to Scripture and it doesn’t answer the question!

A: Well, what do you expect? It’s just a story!

Those who put forward this argument understand (at least subconsciously) the frivolity of Mr. Young’s approach. This work carries no weight and they know it. But because it elevates man and promises an end to all suffering and depicts God as the servant of man, they like it anyway.  

2. “Well C.S. Lewis also depicted God as Aslan the lion!” In this comment, an ignorance of the nature of literary tools is revealed. While C.S. Lewis was using metaphor, Mr. Young presents his characters as personifications. What’s the difference? Aslan did not represent the Trinity. Aslan represented the “Lion of Judah”, the Son of God. But C.S. never had Aslan say, “I am Jesus and I say such and such.” Mr. Young goes directly against that convention (as well as the prohibition to present God the Father in any physical form) by doing exactly that. His characters (the Father as an African-American woman, the Spirit as an Asian woman and the Son as a Middle-Eastern laborer) directly identify themselves as God and present doctrine that contradict the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures!

For a more systematic (and probably more charitably written) review of the work from a theological point of view consider the excellent work of Tim Challis.

I end with some great advice from Quoheleth, the Teacher: