So I read The Shack. As I had read some bad reviews of the book I was not looking forward to reading the book and the anger that was sure to follow. The book was not as bad as I had thought, and was genuinely touching and wise in parts. Then again the book’s theology was at times worse than I would have thought possible. I don’t feel that I can do a better job of reviewing the book than has already been done so this will be just few of my thoughts on the book. Douglas Wilson has reviewed the book here and Tim Challis has reviewed the book here. I invite you to check out their reviews.
First, as Douglas Wilson points out in his review, this book has some excellent insight into the way people work. Sin runs deep in our souls and is notoriously difficult to root out or even find sometimes. If The Shack was the first time many people were exposed to these insights into how people work and how sin weasels it’s way deeper into our souls, then shame on us pastors who have never taken our congregations through it ourselves. Most of the insights in this book have been discussed elsewhere and in greater depth and accuracy. Even so, as it stands the book is strong in this respect.
Second, I have a real problem when people mess with the Trinity. Suggested modalism, even if it is only suggested, is inexcusable. The church deemed modalism heretical over fifteen hundred years ago. Young also personifies the Father and the Holy Spirit in human form. I know that this does not bother all people equally, but in the Bible God is revealed in human form only in Jesus. I cannot see how Young has not made an image of God here when the Bible expressly forbids such action. This mixing of accurate and inaccurate statements regarding the Trinity will cause confusion among those who are not well grounded in doctrine. Again, shame on us pastors who have not taught our people the creeds and doctrine.
Third, Young at times openly contradicts scripture. He puts in the mouth of God the Father the words “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside.” Here Young denies that God actively punishes people for sin. If that is the case then the cross has become nonsense. Sin can be it’s own punishment and God sometimes hands people over to their sinful desires as a punishment, but God as the righteous and holy judge of the universe also actively punishes sin.
Fourth, I find myself bewildered and saddened that so many people are so touched and ministered to by this book. I kept asking myself as I read it “Why do people find this picture of God so compelling?” Some people have found the picture of God in the Shack to be more compelling than the picture of God in the Bible. That’s dangerous. One of the blurbs on the back of the book stated “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.” That’s exactly what happened to me, after reading his picture of God I was craving God as revealed in the Bible. The God of the Bible is warm, intimate, and loving, but never at the expense of being holy, just, and majestic. I am not telling you that you should not have been touched by this book. I simply hope that you will go to scripture and find the picture of God revealed there as more touching and compelling than the picture of God that Young gives us.
The other reviews mention numerous other problems with the book. Read them for more detailed analysis. I cannot recommend this book, but read it if you feel you must and even enjoy some parts of it. Then when you’re through with it, double check everything to the Word of God. Please leave your comments, I welcome the feedback and discussion.
My thought’s on The Shack
3 Responses to “My thought’s on The Shack”
Leave a Reply
View more by category: Theology (31), Uncategorized (27), quote (22), Daily Walk (18), link (18), Books (10), Philosophy (7), Wii (5), Guitar (4), regular (4). Or by month: March 2010. Or visit the Complete Archive.
I agree with your comments. I too wonder why we want to read something that is a mixture of truth and error, when we can read the real thing from the Scriptures of a God who out of the goodness of his pleasure interceded on our behalf that we might know Him and enjoy Him forever.
Hi Jason.
I agree with what you stated here about this book. My question is actually in reference to a different topic altogether. When having spoke about some distinctions about New Covenant Theology in contrast specifically to Covenant Theology, there was discussion about the law. I agree that in the new covenant we are not under the law, but under grace. It was agreed however that the law was still a revelation of God, a revelation of God’s will, and serves in defining what it means to love God and to love your neighbor. However, in affirming all that, it was also stated that the law is not authoritative for the new covenant believer. My confusion rests on this point on what is meant by authoritative. If we can agree that the new covenant believer is to love God and to love his neigbour, that this is a requirement (not as the basis of justification but as its fruit) and indeed loving one another was a command of Christ, and if the decalogue specifically aids us in defining for us what that means; how does the decalogue say something essentially different from Christ’s commands that is not authoritative (Even Deuteronomy 6 made clear the commandment to love God with all one’s heart)? The reason why the question was stimulated by this review was because you went to the decalogue to make an authoritative statement as to what the Bible forbids as contrary to God’s will and you applied that for us today. What do you mean when it is said that the law is not authoritative, yet it reveals God’s character and his will for mankind? Could you clarify for me this distinction in New Covenant Theology?
Hello Dustin,
A short bit of investigation has turned up that the position I hold to is not in fact New Covenant Theology. I should be more careful when I use terms that I have not fully read up on. I apologize and therefore also do not speak for “New Covenant Theology” in any sense.
Okay, on to the Law. The Law remains authoritative for Christians not as an expression of God’s precise will to them but as a revelation of God’s character for them. We are not under the Law, so we are not required to keep any of the commands of Mosaic Law. I see the Law as a unit. To break one command is to break the entire Law, whether that command was “Do not Murder” or “Do not reap your fields to the edge.” We cannot start requiring parts of the law without getting ourselves into a pickle. Paul noted in Galatians 5:3 that if we accept circumcision, then we are obligated to keep the entire law.
As the Law reveals God’s holy and righteous character it remains authoritative for us. Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:16 that we are to be holy as he is holy. We learn about his holiness from all of scripture, especially the Law. Maybe part of the problem is that sections of the Law are so transparent in how we apply them today and other parts are not. No Christians I know of sit around arguing over whether it is okay to commit adultery. But other parts of the Law, such as the Sabbath, spark considerable and possibly unresolvable differences in application. As a minister I think I can tell someone from the Law that God cares about poor people, an therefore you should also. I consider this revelation of who God is as authoritative, I cannot ignore it. I would find that I don’t love poor people the way I should and therefore am guilty of sin. I would also consider it only fulfilled in Christ Jesus’ person and work for us. And I would motivate the Christian to give to poor people because they know how Christ Jesus who was rich became poor for their sake in order that through his poverty they might become rich. But I would still consider the revelation of who God is as authoritative in the sense of directing the Christians behavior. The actual specifics of the Christian’s actions (working in a soup kitchen, giving out blankets to homeless people, etc.) will depend on how the Spirit leads them in their location and time.
This may not be helpful, and if not I am sorry. There are doubtless many holes in my position. I have been disappointed in both the dispensational and covenant theology approaches to the law; I am trying to work out as best I can a consistent approach to the entire law without either ignoring it or breaking it into more easily managed pieces.
Grace and Peace,
Jason