- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (5/20)
- Next Post »Hasty Reading and Serious Meditating
A Review of The Shack (Download it Here)
- 05/20/08
- 51
In January of this year I released a review of William P. Young’s The Shack. Since that time the review has been read tens of thousands of times (and no doubt many times more than that at Amazon where it has been voted on 700+ times and has generated almost 100 comments). I continue to receive two or three emails every day either thanking me for the review or expressing anger that I could have given it a negative review. This book is a phenomenon.
Despite the book’s popularity among Christians, believers are divided on whether this book is biblically sound. Where Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver says it “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim Progress did for his,” Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says, “This book includes undiluted heresy.” While singer and songwriter Michael W. Smith says “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God,” Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle says, “Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical.”
As I’ve interacted with readers about the book I’ve often been asked why my review did not go into more depth. And it was not as in-depth as I would have liked. Though I found several areas I felt I must critique, since the review was already growing long, I did not go into as much detail as I otherwise might have.
Because of repeated requests to do so, I have decided to remedy the brevity of the previous review. I have written a longer, more substantial and (I dare say) better review of The Shack and am making it available here as a free download (in PDF format). Please download it, read it, print it, email it, and pass it along however you see fit.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (51)
Awesome!
Thank you so much for posting a longer review of this book. I recently found out someone close to me read the book and loved it. I read your first review and was concerned about the content and that this person liked the book so much. I look forward to reading this more in depth review.
"I have decided to remedy the brevity of the previous review"
...and I think your previous review was not brief compared to your average book review!
One more thing, I hope this book doesn't get translated into Spanish....but seeing its popularity within the ranks of current American evangelicalism, maybe its translation to other languages is just a matter of months.
Michael W. Smith says “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God,”
...because you won't find it in the pages of this book.
Oooohhh! I love the format and layout. I haven't actually read the whole thing yet, but I'll get on that right away.
Hey Tim, as a long-time reader of your blog, I want to take the opportunity to say thanks for this thorough review of the book. Although I haven't read "The Shack" yet, your review has fueled my own personal interest in the hype surrounding this book. Your review will serve as an invaluable resource for readers and church leaders hoping to guide their members towards biblical discernment. I'm glad you decided to define certain terms and quote from doctrinally sound theologians such as Ware and Grudem. Authors sometimes tend to take it for granted that their readers agree with them on the meanings of terms like "the word" or "theology" but I'm glad you didn't make that assumption. I liked the recommended reading section because it serves to direct readers to resources that will correct their understanding after reading "The Shack". One minor, minor thing that I wanted to bring up...
"Yet God has chosen to reveal Himself as masculine. Nowhere in the Bible would we find any suggestions that God expects us to relate to Him in anything but masculine terms. Nowhere is God known as our Mother. Nor does the Bible give us the lee-way to reimagine God as female-- as a Goddess. God has given us revelation of Himself and we re-imagine Him only at our own peril." (page 15)
I'm in total agreement with you here. However, for the sake of clarifying something that could be potentially confusing, I just wanted to point out that Luke records (Luke 13:34) Jesus comparing His desire for gathering Jerusalem together to a hen gathering her brood. This doesn't imply anything contrary to what you've stated in the review about the masculine reference of God. It is simply what it is. Jesus is referring to his desire for Jerusalem. He is not inviting us to view Him as feminine.
Jesus is referring to his desire for Jerusalem. He is not inviting us to view Him as feminine.
Quite right. There is a difference between the way God reveals Himself to us and the way He may describe Himself in metaphor or simile.
Thanks so much for doing this, Tim. I'm still in shock as to how such a bad book is so popular.
Wow, great idea Tim. This will be put to good use, I am confident!
Nice... I will definitely link to this.
Tim, just echoing what everyone else is saying here. Very nice job. Thanks for putting it together in such as well laid out PDF file, I have to imagine it took no small amount of time and effort to put that together.I've actually just emailed it to my pastoral staff and a couple of our elders for their own edification as I'm sure someone will be asking them about this book. Or what I really fear will happen is that it will be suggested as a good read for an adult Summer Sunday School class (shudder)
Tim, what a wonderful, scholastic review...(I actually took alot of notes in my Reformed Theology Notebook!)
Tim;
Can I borrow some of the time you have to create such great works? And I thought I was busy! Thanks for following Gods leading on this. I sent the last review you did on to some friends of mine, and it has opened up quite a dialogue between one and some youth pastors he works with, that are enamored of the book.
Thanks
I picked this book up shortly after early this year an didn't have a clue what it was about. I still plan to read it. However, I am sure I will be reading it with a different perspective after reading your review. Thanks for sharing.
Tim,
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this. This will be a great resource to give to people. Thanks for equipping us.
Chris
Tim, great review. Thorough and plainly an attempt to fairly step up to the challenge that others reviewers have raised with their uncritical reviews. The only thing that I thing you may have missed is in this quote from your review:
..."Wayne Jacobsen, a former pastor who hadbegun a small publishing company"
Wayne Jacobsen is much more than a former pastor w/a publishing company. He is a man with an agenda. He eschews any "formal" church affiliation or practice and is quite prolific in that effort. He has co-written a book very similar in theological expression (or lack thereof) called "So You Don’t Want to Go To Church Anymore" which uses a similar fictional narrative to explain away, in much the same fashion, similar Biblical truths. In this book, he uses a modern conversation with the Apostle John posing as a homeless person to dispense lines like "...real body life isn’t built on accountability. It’s built on love."Let's hope your review causes some potential readers to put it back on the shelf rather than waste the time wading through its inaccuracies.
Great review and it looks awesome! What software program did you use to put it together.
Mr. Challies thanks so much for this extended review! I can't believe that book is causing so much [positive] impact, after reading those excerpts from the book, its quite alarming to me at least. The subversive undertones you wrote about are just, wow scary to say the least! thats how one subtly injects false teachings or bad teachings into the minds of others, the Holy Spirit being fond of uncertainty? Then how is He to guide us and teach us?FranciscoI hope this book doesn’t get translated into Spanish....but seeing its popularity within the ranks of current American evangelicalism, maybe its translation to other languages is just a matter of months.Shhh don't give people any ideas!! lol! I hope it won't be translated!
Great review and it looks awesome! What software program did you use to put it together.
Well, thanks. I used PagePlus X2 to put it together and to turn it into a PDF. It's not a bad little program, especially for the price!
If you are a Digg user, you may wish to Digg this story. Thanks to whoever it was that submitted it!
click here.
Enjoying the expanded review of The Shack.
On page 12 though, shouldn't that be the 2nd of the Ten Commandments?
I enjoyed your first review, and thought you were exceedingly fair. I'm looking forward to reading your expanded review, especially in light of having spent a recent Sunday evening with our Pastor reading lengthy portions from The Shack aloud. The god in that book shares with the God of the Bible essentially nothing in common. There is just enough truth on each page to get readers to swallow the main course of error. The author managed to purport both Arian and modalistic heresies within a page turn of each other, and has a very clear agenda - to discredit orthodox Christianity. It's been a long time since I've been so disturbed by a book. For some reason it reminded me very much of The Celestine Prophecy which at least doesn't pretend to be Christian literature. It brought to mind the story of Exodus 32 and the golden calf which Aaron fashioned. He made this god, but he didn't tell them it was a different god, he told them it was the LORD who brought them out of the land of Egypt. He created an idol for the people to worship, and called it the name of the true God, and they were convinced they could worship the true and living God in this manner. In the same way, The Shack portays a god that claims to be the God of the Bible, but is in truth a false god, an idol.
I’ll be honest, I read The Shack and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Currently I am also working through Millard Erickson’s “Introduction to Christian Doctrine” for the second time. You might wonder how I can enjoy reading both books when one may challenge the other? Simply because I see The Shack for what it is, a work of fiction.
Tim, wondering if you can touch on how you understand the author’s intent? I’m having a hard time understanding your credibility to judge it (and I mean this purely in an inquisitive sense). If the author means The Shack to sway people from the Bible, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree that we have a huge problem here. For myself, I never once felt that he was trying to pull me away from or compete with the Bible or that he had a subversive plot to undermine Orthodox Christianity. I simply enjoyed reading a fictional story that helped me see the different places that I have put God in a box. I agree that God reveals Himself to us through nature and through the Bible and we probably get the best understanding of Him through the Bible. Yet there are times when things outside the Bible can provide for some refreshing understanding of Biblical themes or of life in general. Should we be checking these things against the Bible? Yes. Is every truth plainly written in the Bible? No. My point is that as long as we have an understanding that, yes, there are things in The Shack or in Chronicles of Narnia that do not fully check with what the Bible says, take it for what it is. Still a work of fiction.
I’m wondering if Pilgrim’s Progress wouldn’t have gotten the same review back when it was first published, when people didn’t understand the context in which to apply it to their lives.
I have to admit that although this is subjective I actually enjoyed the book. There was even part of me that agrees with Michael W Smith when he said that it left him wanting the presence of God (probably not exact quote). In parts of the book it actually convicted me.However all that said, some of the very things that I found enjoyable about the book, are actually the very things that can be dangerous to someone who isn't discerning.The books portrayal of the Trinity is just one example of this. As I was reading this, my knowledge of the Scriptures told me that it was wrong, but the more I read, I began to question what I believed Scripture taught on the issue.Fortunately however, I am experienced enough in my Christian walk to know that I shouldn't let a book like this dictate what I believe. If I did, it would be similar to me letting scientific theory, dictate how I interpret Scripture.Thank you Tim for your review, I am going to read it a second time.
Tom
Your "review" (i.e., critique) is interesting to say the least. It is sad that you would even suggest this is a "review" and seems quite dishonest (since using such a neutral term will only "invite" more readers). But you are definitely smart and savvy ... I applaud you for being creative in your making this sound like an honest "review."
I found it quite biased to be honest. Any honest critique would begin by offering the readers your own beliefs and bias, so we could adequately judge your review. As such, you do not. For example, the uninformed reader might be quite unaware of the Reformed agenda that you seem to be promoting in this (including the "suggested reading" which is more of a "Who's Who" in Reformed thinking).
There are several instances in which your theological persuasions influence your "review." Some of your "arguments", I think, border on heresy itself. I will finish a critique of your critique in the coming weeks, and let people know here in case they might want to hear a different Biblical understanding of these matters.
If nothing else, thanks for the perspective of someone from an extreme Reformed persuasion. I can take most of your points and read it straight from a Reformed perspective. Sad. I was hoping for a more Biblical perspective. I guess in the next months we will have a chance to actively engage in this dialogue more from a Biblical perspective.
Some of your "arguments", I think, border on heresy itself.
That's an empty, useless assertion, unless you're willing to be specific. What specific statements in Tim's review "border on heresy"?
David,
All in good time. Tim threw out accusations in his initial review that he never backed up. I would think you could give me the same courtesy ... unless all you care about is one-sided information. And maybe you do?
But I will certainly be specific. And I will address both of Tim's "reviews" in depth. There is a lot of misconstrued stuff in his reviews. And there are indeed certain parts that border on heresy, if we are talking about Biblical truth and what lines up with the early church. I'm not judging Tim in this. I don't know him. But I can judge his writing as either being Biblical or not, and whether it is a fair review. If all you care to talk about is what lines up with MacArthur, and your view is that John Piper is inerrant, then there isn't much you will believe that I say anyway.
I don't have anything against Tim. I even gave him advice to possibly keep him out of trouble with this "review." But many things that he has addressed can not be left unanswered, and I believe should be challenged from a Biblical basis.
Hi Tim,
I noticed that my gentle but lengthy critique of your review of The Shack has been deleted within an hour of my post. Was that because of content or length, or something else? Would it be possible for me to post a modified version?
Allen
Brandon,
Tim never made any unspecified accusations. His criticisms were aimed at specific statements. No one has to ask what Tim was criticizing, because he made it clear -- unlike you, who cry "heresy" and then decline to be specific. Saying "many things that he has addressed can not be left unanswered," and then leaving them unanswered, is just trouble-making.
If that's how you play, fine. Now I know how seriously to take you. I just thought I'd give you a chance to do the right thing and substantiate your charges at the appropriate time and place, which is the same time and place in which they are made.
Allen,
I "unpublished" your comment, and it was for length. It is not deleted, but is still available for Tim to read, if he has time. Please remember that this is the place for comments, not articles. It might also be helpful for you to know that virtually no one reads epic-length comments. Brevity is in your favor.
David,
Just so you know ... I'm not planning on crashing your party here. My purpose was to suggest there are other Biblical understandings that, although may not line up with Reformed understandings, can still be Biblical in nature.
You may disagree ... that is certainly ok. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and theological persuasion, as Tim is.
In regards to Tim's critique, I do believe it is misrepresentative to state that Young teaches heresy. This is just pure misrepresentation and mishandling of the truth on his part.
YES - Let the reader determine for themselves by searching out the truth diligently. May God bless their efforts.
I have nothing against you personally David (nor Tim). Please understand that. It is also not my purpose to detract from this board it's purpose and I apologize that the conversation has strayed so. I have stated all that I felt necessary. When I am finished with my critique of Tim's critique, I will let people know. And then they (and you) can judge that work as well.
David, you may have the last word here. I will not be posting further until my posting regarding my review of Tim's review. I do not mean any hard feelings but rather exhortation as brothers and sisters in handling the truth.
David,
I understand. Thanks for the kind explanation. Please delete the second long post also, and I'll come back later with a couple of much shorter posts. I tend to enjoy the "epic" responses of others who are speaking effectively to an issue of which I am passionate about, but I get your point that not many are. I'm not that familiar with the blog world, obviously.
Brandon, you write that "the uninformed reader might be quite unaware of the Reformed agenda that you seem to be promoting in (the review)." Given that the link for Tim's book review is found on this site, wherein his blog is described very clearly as being a "Reformed, Christian blog," what more could you want from him? I ask that sincerely and not in a spirit of discord. If Tim, as a Christian, is convinced that Reformed teaching best describes the teachings of the Bible itself, then how can he write a review of a Christian book without bringing in his Reformed convictions? For him to do so would be unfaithful to his own convictions about what the Bible teaches. When a Christian reviews a book with controversial theological content, for him/her to pretend to have a false "objectivity" about such content is not glorifying to God.
Christopher,
I have had the opportunity the past few days, as I've rummaged around a few blogs and forums to read Brandon's postings.
I have found him to be open to talking truth on from as level a playing field as we as Christians can afford - often calling people to discuss things from the Bible as a starting point.
I'll let him defend himself, but the controversial content, seems to be more from people entrenched in holding a specific (dare I say man-made) predetermined view of scripture, and haven't done the goods of rethinking whether or not the controversial theology is really what the bible is saying (but maybe in a different way).
I am a Shack reader - and one of those who are enjoying it. I honestly struggle to see how people can misinterpret what it is saying to such a degree as to call it heretical. Is it heretical to the Reformed or Calvinist or other predefined, man-made (and to some degree archaic world view - maybe. But so often (and I think this is what Brandon is arguing against) - people tend to state loudly that because this isn't the way someone told me the Bible should be read, I am going to disagree, instead of looking again at what the Bible is saying, maybe even asking God to impress on their spirits whether this is or isn't something He is doing in the world and how we should respond to it.
Maybe that way - we would have a whole lot more people on the same page about things instead of running around shouting I follow Calvin, I follow 'Reformed' - which if I remember correctly is something Paul EXPRESSLY told us not to do (in 1 Cor 3). Yet our Christian culture is SO full of 1 Cor 3:1-4 Christians that when someone says - "Ah guys, we should actually be following God here", he gets stoned and dragged out of the temple..
If what the Shack is saying really goes against the Bible - then why is it having such a positive impact on so many peoples lives - and the shocking thing is - this positive impact isn't a 'self-help' impact. It's not a 'do these 5 things and your life will be better (wear sunscreen)' - it's depicting the God of the Bible - in saying - "Hey, there's a God here, who loves you dearly and He longs to be actively involved in your life - He longs for relationship with you, if you'll only let Him". If you ignore the possible dodgy "God is a woman" thing - which if you read the book you'd realise it's in the form of a parable and the ONLY reason God is depicting Himself as such is to break Mack's preconception of who God is (not a grey-bearded Gandolf character).. - so if you ignore some of the possibly dodgy theology (all which have a reasonable answer - if people would take the time to listen - you will find (as so many of others who have read this book have found) a God who is present in our pain, who loves us more than we can comprehend.
The Shack is drawing people to God. The God of the Bible. The God of the 'Good News'. But for some reason some people are incensed by this. Without wanting to go about name calling or anything - but I seem to remember the much villified pharasees and religious leaders in Jesus' day acting in much the same way towards Him for the way He related to sinners, drawing them to His Father.
I think if we'd take a step back, maybe relook at what we believe in the Bible - go through the New Testament - look at how often God says He loves mankind or us. Look at how often the Bible explicitly says that God will complete what He started in us, or that we will do such and such through the Spirit - and you'll slowly start to realise that it's His doing it in us through relationship with Him that is what it's all about. Jesus destroyed the rat-wheel that sin and the law had us on when He died. Our best works (outside of Him) are dirty rags. Why do we still keep trying to 'do stuff' for this God who has done it all for us already!?
Peace and love in Him. - Here's praying we all get to know Him better!
Cam
Brandon/Allen/Cameron,
Obviously I can't respond to all of these comments or we'd be in a never-ending back-and-forth. I continue to stand by what I wrote in my review. I'll offer just a few comments.
The Shack is drawing people to God.
I cannot judge this. However, what I can judge is the book's theology and, as I've shown in my review, much of that theology does not accord with Scripture.
I found it quite biased to be honest.
It's impossible to write without some bias. I could just as easily say that your review of my review does not matter because you didn't first write a couple of paragraphs outlining your bias. None of us writes from a position that is entirely objective. That is impossible.
... it is allegorical. So that throws out about 90% of his complaints.
I find absolutely no reason to believe that The Shack is allegory. An allegory is a fairly strictly defined genre of writing and The Shack simply doesn't fit the bill. It is fiction, but not allegory.
Tim,
Thanks for your response.
If we take a step back - if this really is something God is actively using and 'endorses' then it's for Him to make prosper or to end regardless of 'bad press' or naysayers or good reports.
I do think however - that this is your theology that it's affronting. Or your view of biblical theology. There are many (the writer(s) included) that can refute the use of the theological stand point used in The Shack and base it on scripture. I don't doubt that it'll be contrary to your understanding of some of scripture, because otherwise, I presume your review would have been very different.
If Brandon is going to put his review together, then quite possibly, you'll have a better point-for-point rebuttal, but I would encourage you to take a step back and ask God to reveal to you if He thinks about these things in the same way you do. I'm not saying that as a 'God's on my side, you better make sure He's on yours', but rather - if we are following this God, He can reveal to us what He is doing in areas where we aren't sure if He is busy at all.
I think it's great that people have taken the time to rebut some of the things they disagree with in the Shack. It's just sad that sometimes these things go further than simply discussing the theology found there and move into word slinging, fighting and gossip.
Thanks again for your concise response above.
cam
Brandon
I just want to take the time to thank you for the time you spent on The Reformed Reader boards discussing the book and a few other issues. For the most part I found you to be pretty amiable person. Some of your posts however made me wonder what exactly you were trying to say, so perhaps at times the responses you got back were based on that.I am glad you have come onto Tim's blog; it should prove to be interesting.Something that I think everybody should be aware of is Brandon's stating that Tim's description of the Trinity is influenced by Tritheism. If anyone is interested in the context he said this they can go [url=http://www.reformedreader.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1475]here[/url]
I would like to touch on an issue that Brandon brought up, that actually confused me some what.I found the discription that Tim gave of the Trinity was in line with the discription I understood the Trinity to be.However, Brandon seemed to indicate that it is just the Reformed understanding of the Trinity.I have been a Christian now for about 29 years and only Reformed for the past 10 years. Why is it then that even when I was in the Salvation Army and after that a Penticostal Church, that Tim's expanation of the Trinity is in keeping with what I have always understood?Am I missing something?
Something that I think everybody should be aware of is Brandon’s stating that Tim’s description of the Trinity is influenced by Tritheism. If anyone is interested in the context he said this they can go.
Let me put to rest any such thing. I am well aware of the heresy of tritheism...and I do not hold to any such thing! I think my review made it clear that there is only one God.
Cameron, the Bible is emphatically my starting point in all explicitly theological discussions (and actually, in all of life itself, but that's another conversation!). If I understand you correctly, you are at least implicitly stating that Reformed theology is a man-made system and a view of Scripture that people force on the Bible (rather than allowing the Bible to form their theology). Are you absolutely certain that you are well-studied enough in both the Bible *and* the historic writings of the Reformers to know that this is the case? I am convinced of the Biblical soundness of "Reformed doctrine" (I prefer to simply call it consistently Biblical doctrine) because I see it clearly in Scripture itself. This was not always the case-- for years, I denied God's sovereign control of all people and events, because I incorrectly thought that the Bible didn't teach such a doctrine, and I also incorrectly assumed that such a doctrine made God to be the author of sin. On both counts, I was wrong. I believe historic Reformed theology *not* because I "follow Calvin" or any other fallible human being. I believe it because through study, I have found it to be the theology that most accurately reflects what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, and redemption.
About The Shack, I still need to read it myself to form an ultimate opinion, but I am disturbed by any book which even comes close to showing God the Father as a human being, even if "only" for "artistic purposes" (to my knowledge, Scripture never allows us to think of the Father in a specific human form). I am similarly disturbed by any book which assigns a human name to the Holy Spirit and similarly pictures Him in human form. Only the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, has a human name and human form. To even "artistically" assign specific human names and forms to the other Persons of the Trinity is at best unwise and at worst heretical. I sincerely hope that William P. Young is in the former camp (unwise) and not the latter (heretical). Athanasius, who fought so hard to protect the Biblical understanding of the Trinity, might well be rolling over in his grave if he could see the acclaim that this book has received....
Tim
I 100% agree with you that your review should make it clear that there is only one God.However Brandon doesn't agree with that, in fact as the link that I gave shows he favors the discription of the Trinity give by Barth as the true Biblical discrption of the Trinity, for reasons that he gave on that site.
Tim, I respond to your review of The Shack with both great respect and great disappointment, just as with your first review. I respect your diligence and hard work and your sincere desire to preserve truth as you understand it. I respect your ability to organize information and communicate clearly. I suspect I would thoroughly enjoy sitting down with you and talking about the God we love for a few hours or a few days.
However, I am deeply disappointed with the tone of fear of intimacy with God that resonates throughout this review. I am disappointed by the defense of the institution and traditions of the Church, over embracing the biblical realities of the body of Christ.
I am responding as an elder and teacher in a conservative but non-traditional congregation whose roots are Southern Baptist. In no way do I consider myself as postmodern, emergent, or liberal. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I believe in a loving and holy God, who exists in three persons as defined by the Word of God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. I believe in the objective truth of God that can be known through His special revelation to us by His Word and His Spirit.
Yet I strongly and respectfully disagree with the content of your review, which I know will be read by thousands, due to the quality of your presentation and your good reputation among conservative evangelicals. I affirm you as a brother who has knowledge of the Word of God, and respect for the Word of God, and I write to you as a little brother, not as an expert.
Yet, in love I think you've missed it badly on this review. In order to keep this post reasonably short (brevity not being my gift), I"m just going to respond to the charge of the book being subversive in this post.
POINT #1: The book is quietly subversive
Perhaps it is subversive, but the important question to ask is “subversive to what”? Subversive is not necessarily bad, if what is being subverted is wrong or of little value. Luther is a very good example. Right?
Talking points from the first section of your review:
a. Theological seminaries: Being subversive toward these institutions doesn’t exactly equate to heresy or even a dangerous opinion. There is some that is good, and perhaps much more that is broken, within the modern seminary system (speaking very generally). Depending on the institution, the brokenness would include a bold up-front, or subtle behind-the-scenes, culture of politics, materialism, legalism, competition, tasks over relationships, arrogance, teaching of business principles as the best methodology to advance the kingdom of God, false elevation of the pastoral role, traditions of man taking precedence over the Word of God.
All of those, if they are present and ingrained, are qualities that deserve to be subverted. Right?
What do we call those who overthrow deeply flawed or corrupt systems? First, they are called subversives...then they are called revolutionaries...and eventually history records them as heroes. Time will tell where the author falls, but at least acknowledge the possibility that his supposed subversion might be warranted and valuable.
Some flavor of subversion always precedes reformation. Right?
b. The Church as a body or as individuals: This is a completely inaccurate interpretation of the author’s meaning, after having had several email and phone conversations with him myself. Young totally believes in the Church as a body. If he’s being subversive, it’s toward our wrong VIEW of the church as an institution or as a location, building, or specific assembly time. The Church IS the individual people who are indwelt by the Spirit of God, but the quality of the Church is not at all defined by a building or mere attendance in a weekly “service”.
We support Young in his subversion of the institutional view of the Church. The Word of God describes the Church as a “body”, a “flock” and a “family”, but never as an organization or an institution. The author is actually defending the reality of the Church, against the error of man’s tradition, and we applaud him for that.
Luther made a huge step toward reformation, but he stopped short of taking the Church back to its biblical roots in terms of how we share life together – and left it in the Roman Catholic position of an institution, not a family. So, Reformed theology and practice are a good step in the right direction, but this system of belief stops short of restoring us to a genuine biblical faith and practice of knowing and following Jesus Christ. So, loving subversion of the system is both good and necessary.
Luther faced the same charges, by the way.
c. Family Devotions: Again, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the intent of the author. Young is a huge proponent of individual families or groups of families worshipping God together in the home with their children, and of using God’s Word as part of such gatherings. He’s making a statement in the book about the childhood memories of the main character who grew up under a legalistic, hypocritical, domineering, horribly broken father...not attacking family worship. You missed this one by a mile.
d. Theological uncertainty: I am constantly amazed by those who say that they embrace the Word of God, and yet they bristle when someone makes a dangerous statement that absolutely agrees with the Word. Yes, there are absolutely a number of concrete, objective, basic truths about God that are not in question and on which we can all agree, if you accept the written Word as truth. The author affirms many of those basic truths in the book. But – it is also true that the nature of God is bigger than what finite man can understand, and that in His revelation to us, God Himself states that there are mysteries and there are truths which we’ve never imagined - and some that we can only proggressively understand as we mature. So, there is BOTH theological certainty and theological uncertainty – from a biblical perspective.
So there is certainly always some uncertainty in our knowledge of God, even as we are certain about what He has made abundantly clear to us about Himself. When we try to fill in all the blanks, then we walk toward error. To admit that there is some mystery is healthy and honest. Mystery is part of the revelation of God. Even the clear truths of God's Word are so much deeper than we can understand in our natural mind - so there are even levles of mystery within the agreed upon truths - grace for instance.
e. Preconceived notions. True, many of our preconceived notions about God can be correct. And as you state in your reviews, you agree with many of the “notions” the author has. However, it is equally true that it is probable to certain that we have one or more totally inaccurate or inadequate “notions” about God. Again, this is because much of the truth of God is not intuitive to the nature or thought process of fallen mankind. If we look at the state of the Church today, we must conclude with the author that there are many mistaken preconceptions of God running rampant in the Church, including within the conservative, orthodox Church.
Thanks for the thorough review, and I know you stand by it, but I believe your perspective on the book's intent and message is not accurate, nor is it fair. I'm confident that your intentions are good, and thank you for a forum to share our thoughts with each other.
Grace and peace,
Allen
By the way, on a related issue to the book, if you want to read about one church's unintentionally subversive (at first) journey of transition from being an institution to a family, you can check out one chapter of the story on this website:
www.bridgewaterchurch.org
Click on the front page link titled "Why are we selling our church building?"
Allen
I have to say that the way Tim understood the book (as his review shows) is exactly the way I understood the book.If Tim is misunderstanding the book it is not his fault, because we can only critique was is written.Take for instance "family devotions", it may be true that Young is a huge proponent of family devotions, however, you would not know it by reading the book itself.
As I was reading The Shack, I could not help but think why isn't Macks seminary training helping him at at? It made it seem as though the author was saying that seminary was useless. If the author wasn't intending to make the reader think that, then he should have written into the story line something that would alieviate those concerns.As I was reading the story, I kept on thinking that perhaps this would come up later in the story, but it never did.2Tim. 2:15 says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Isn't this what seminary training should do?The book left me with the impression that this was a bad thing, not a good thing.
Hi Tim, I just listened to Al Mohler’s radio broadcast commentary on The Shack over the web, as a result of your referencing his comment about the book being heresy in your review.
And since you’ve referenced Mohler, and Mohler references you in his broadcast, and since this is the most intelligent blog discussion I’ve found on this book thus far, I’d like to comment on Mohler’s broadcast. I think several of Mohler’s criticisms of the book clearly illustrate one of the main theological issues in the modern evangelical Church that The Shack may be seeking to quietly “subvert”, the theology (practical not theoretical) of believers living in separation from God.
First, I agree it's not a perfect book, and it pushes the edges in a few places place. But I have not yet read a perfect book yet other than God's Word.
But Mohler makes some stunning statements within the broadcast that reveal an incredible bias or confusion in his view of the text of the Bible – even though he is clearly one of the most intelligent and well-trained scholars I’ve ever met. For brevity, I’ll discuss only one of those statements here.
In reference to Mack’s conversation about Jesus with Papa in the book, in regard to Jesus choosing to live as a dependent human being – fully God and fully human – there is a passage where Mack asks about how Jesus healed the blind, if Jesus was chooosing to live as a dependent human. Papa says that Jesus healed the man as a dependent, limited human being, trusting in the Father's life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, in his humanity, had no power within himself to do heal anyone without depending on God, but He lived as the perfect example of a human depending on God within Him.
Mohler, in the context of a strongly negative reference to The Shack’s portrayal of Jesus, then says (quote):
“Evidently, similarly, God intends to work through us in the same way. Again, try to square that with the New Testament.” (Al Mohler, quote from radio broadcast)
My jaw almost hit the table, as I listened to that quote from Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky, one of the most intelligent theologians of our generation. I listened to that sequence four times just to be sure I had heard Dr. Mohler correctly. I did.
Without any commentary, I’ll accept Dr. Mohler’s invitation to square it with the New Testament, using the words of Christ Himself.
10"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. (John 14)
Regarding sending out the twelve in Matthew 10.
"And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:7-8)
Regarding sending out the seventy in Luke 10:
8"Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' ..... 17The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." (Luke 10)
We’ll add Paul’s words to further support the idea that we will do what Jesus did, because Christ lives in us.
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20)
Jesus clearly says we will do what He has been doing, and even greater things, in reference to the body as a whole. Yet this book is being attacked by seminary presidents for presenting Jesus in the same light that Jesus describes Himslef. Perhaps we begin to understand the books "subversive" tone toward the seminaries, huh?
The gospel of John makes it very clear that Jesus was fully God – and yet He choose to limit Himself and live as a human being – fully dependent on the Father and the Spirit. That in no way reduced or eliminates the total deity of Jesus. It just means that in His sovereign power, Jesus chose to not live from His divine power while He walked the earth, but to instead depend on the Father and the Spirit, as the perfect example for you and me. That leaves us without excuse, by the way.
" I can do nothing on My own initiative As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (John 5:30)
So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. (John 8:28)
And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. (Luke 4:14)
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. (John 5:19)
I respect Al Mohler as one of the most intelligent men I know, and as sincere as anyone I’ve ever met about theology. But I think Mohler’s strict adherence to his particular brand of theology has resulted in some significant blinders toward the Word and the Life of Jesus Christ. By the way, I also believe the same can be true of all of us, no matter how good our intentions are.
So let’s not put any person or theological system on a pedestal as having God completely figured out, and let’s always be willing to let go of certain pages from our particular “flavor" of theology, when we find holes in that page, including Reformed Theology. Calvin would agree, I hope.
Thank you again for allowing us to have this disucssion on your blog. Sorry to be the one to post three in a row.
Grace and peace,
Allen
Hi Tom. Thanks for your response. I believe you are correct in interpreting that the author was saying that seminary was useless for he main character - and probably in the case of the author.
As to why seminary didn't help the main character, I suggest that that author is making the point that living from knowing "about" God (gnosis in the Greek) is a much different walk than intimately and experientially knowing (ginosko in the Greek) God - and His healing, restoring love and grace.
By the way, the seminaries turn out hordes of students who end up no so different than Mack. Information does not lead us to transformation, or to healing, or to maturity. Jesus is the Word (logos) and the Truth - a living, relational truth. A relationship of trust and love and worship of God is what transforms us from the inside out, along the journey of sanctification. Most seminaries do not teach or model such relationship, but instead teach facts and theology and strategies and methods. They turn out well-informed, highly motivated leaders who may or may not have any idea what it means to live from an intimate, abiding relationship with Christ in them, the hope of glory.
Solid seminary training, that leads potential shepherds much deeper into intimately knowing Jesus Christ in them, and understanding His written Word, and walking in harmony with the Spirit, would be a positive.
However, seminary training that focuses on teaching us facts about God and Church history, and humanistic strategies for church growth, and blind adherence to denominations and theological systems, and builds on our natural strengths, and develops our dependence on human effort and human methods, and prepares us to be profesional Christian leaders who embark on a career of climbing the ladder to bigger and better churches - can eaily be of negative value to a man who is called to serve the Church as an undershepherd. Such an environment, and such training, can actually be a hindrance to living as humble, bold shepherds who live in total dependance on God, not themselves.
The author is against such information-focused training environments, and I am in total agreement. It's one of the fingers on the hand that is choking the life out of the mainstream, modern, evangelical Church.
Does that make sense?
AllenNeither Tim nor I said that there were not seminaries that were bad. However, the book leaves the impression that he paints all seminaries with the same brush. Again if the author wasn't trying to do this, then he should of made himself clear. We can only critique on what is written.I think it was JI Packer that said something to the effect of.Knowledge for knowledge sake alone, only puffs up.If you have ever read Packer, you would know that he has written many scholoarly books, yet he stresses what I said above.
Tim I think you are spot on with your evaluation. If you want to get down to it would Paul, John, Luke, or Peter agree with this description of God from the Shack? These men were fighting against Gnostics who were trying to distort the real truth of Jesus and get people to buy into a close representation instead.
Let's not forget the battle these authors of the New Testament were fighting. They could not afford to write between the lines. They could not afford to be ambiguous. The theological battles they were fighting were intense and they came up with precise answers that need to be discerned through humble hearts and wise hermeneutic.
Tim I had wondered if you have read or reviewed Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender by John Stackhouse Jr.? The type of theological unpinning from that book seems to be threaded throughout The Shack.
Some thoughts on the second section of your review, regarding revelation.
a. The Word: The author never says that the written Word of God is not God breathed and of ultimate value, nor does he say the written Word is not profitable. What he DOES say is that many believers have artificially reduced or limited God’s voice to ONLY the written Word. The written Word itself never makes such a statement. God speaks directly to His people, as He chooses, throughout Scripture – and He continues to do so today (as He chooses), if we will stop, be still and listen.
Jesus repeatedly says in John 10 that His sheep will know His voice, and in Revelation 3, in the context of repentance, Jesus invites believers to hear his voice as He stands at the door and knocks (a passage we totally misapply to evangelism), and to let Him in so that He can sit down and share a figurative meal with them (table fellowship, one of the most intimate expressions of acceptance in the Jewish culture). We are invited to dine on and with the Bread of Life, Christ. That's intimate, and very uncomfortable to our wounded souls, who prefer correct facts about God (which we can manage and control) to living in intimacy with God (over which we have no control).
b. Mediation. Oh Tim, my dear brother, what a tragic misunderstanding of the beauty and power of grace is shown in the following statement from your review. “We may long for im-mediate or unmediated communication, but today our sin stands between us and the Holy God.”
Although an extremely common theology, whether Reformed or other flavors, this is not at all sound new covenant theology, although it does fit the old covenant quite well.
Which of our sins were not forgiven, and now stand between us and God? If we die at this moment, having unconfessed sin in our life, do those sins still stand between us and God? Of course not.
Our sins (past, present and future) have been forgiven and wiped away if we are in Christ. Totally. All of it. Whether that seems “fair” or makes sense to us, it is true. If there is sin between us and God, then we stand in the place of condemnation. There is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1). That's totally based on what Christ did, not what we have or haven't done (as Reformed Theology would totally agree).
Again, this is one of the main points the author is making so well in the book - and one of the reasons the book is resonating with so many. If we are in Christ, then we are totally accepted by God; Father, Son and Spirit.
We are totally accepted by our Father, who also reveals Himself with the shockingly intimate term “Abba” (Daddy, Papa). That one word destroys the concept of a terrible, holy Father who is distant from us - or who we can only respond to in terror. If we truly know Him we fear not being near Him - that is our terror - not being in His presence. That is now the invitation - to know Him as Daddy. Sorry if that doesn't align with your view of The Father, but that was the picture Jesus gives us of how we relate to the Father in the new covenant under His blood.
The sin debt has been totally paid by Jesus on the cross, and the veil of the templle was been ripped in half as a shocking symbol of the radical change in our ability to relate to God, and we have been made holy in the Father's eyes by the work and the presence of Christ, through absolutely no credit to ourselves.
What happend when the veil ripped in half at the death of Jesus Christ? The Old Covenant, where only the high priest who could enter the intimacy of the Holy of Holies once a year (and then with a rope tied around his ankle in case he entered wrongly), ended. The blood of bulls and sheep did not remove sins, but the blood of Christ did - totally. The letters of Hebrews (along with Romans and Galatians) would be a good read if this doesn't make sense.
In the new covenant, ALL of God’s children are now invited into the holy of holies, not just a single human mediator. Does that mean that we live however we want and do whatever we want (license)? No way! If we understand the reality of our sins being totally forgiven (past, present and future), we live in the wonder of extreme gratitude and desire to live from the life of Christ within us (Gal. 2:20), who is our rigtheousness. That leads us deeper and deeper into dwelling/abiding/remaining in Christ and out of dwelling in sin.
But if we do sin, and we will, those sins are already forgiven by His sovereign grace. The Word of God says that He has made us holy. How else could he take up residence in us? God no longer sees us as sinful creatures, but He sees Christ when He sees us - and He sees holiness. Otherwise, God would not dwell in us. Right?
Yes, we absolutely have a mediator in Christ, but where does He now dwell? Within us. We are now the temples of God, jars of clay inhabited by Christ in us. We are now invited to “abide” or “remain” in Him, just as Jesus did with the Father when He walked the earth. Our mediator operates from intimate union with His children, not separation! That truth is God’s choice and for His glory, not ours.
The Word of God says we are now invited to abide in this intimate union with God as our daddy (Abba). This in no way reduces the Father's holiness, but instead magnifies the grandeur of His grace, as He invites us to live in His embrace and His kiss (see the parable of the “Prodigal Son” which is really about the Loving Father).
I believe this is the main point of Young’s book, and one of his main reasons for it seeming to have (or having) subversive tones toward the structure and thought of the relational deadness of the modern institutional church, which promotes living in separation from God due to the reality of our sinfulness, instead of living in the intimate union the Word of God describes. That union is produced and sustained by the blood and Life of Christ, not by our personal purity. Again, that is not a justification or an excuse for embracing sin. The point is that our sin no longer stands between us and God.
Yet if we believe that our sin still stands between us and God, then intimacy with Him appear ludicrous. I believe that most of the Church lives in this.tragic place of separation "theology", Tim.
You’ve made the author’s point perfectly clear in your review, Tim. Most of us still see wrongly ourselves as living on the other side of the veil due to our sin. I say that in love, and as a man who lived and taught from the same place for a number of years. I understand the thought process, but as I've been led deeper and deeper into the Word - with the startling perspective of the new covenant applied to the gospels- I've had to change my own preconceived notions. I was wrong, and I know there was no condemnation for being there, only an invitation to change.
Is our sin acceptable to God? Never. Are we as His children acceptable to God? Always.
When are we acceptable to fellowship with God? All the time, if we are in Christ.
When are we clean on our own merit or efforts to be pure and holy? Never. It’s all the work and merit of Christ, who says He now lives and works in us.
Yes, our sin has severe consequences in this life. I’m in no way saying it doesn’t. But in Christ our sin no longer “stands between us and the Holy God.” Paul makes that abundantly clear in Romans and Galatians, and the writer of Hebrews echoes the same. The life we have now is the life of Christ in us. Christ the mediator is who God sees and is the one with whom we enter into the Father’s continual embrace.
Can sin hinder our expression of God’s life and character? Absolutely. Does sin always bring harm and hurt? Yes. Does sin dishonor God? Always. Does God want us to avoid sin? Certainly.
But does God ever reject fellowship with us, in the new covenant, because of sin in our life? No, and no, and no! That is an old covenant reality, and as the writer of Hebrews makes clear, this new covenant is a far superior gift from God.
Let me share a picture of the new covenant relationship that has been a tremendous help to our body in understanding how we are now invited to relate to God. I have a three year old daughter (oops, she turned four yesterday). So anyway, I have a four year old daughter. She calls me “Daddy” and loves to climb up in my lap and talk, and I love the same. Sometimes my daughter sins or transgresses my desires for her as her father. Do I reject her and dissociate myself from my child at that point? No way. I may bring corrective discipline, or I may stand back and occasionally let her experience the consequences of her rebellious choices as a learning experience, but I never let her transgressions “stand between us”. I hate it when she rebels or causes harm to herself or others, just as God hates our sin. But I always, always, always accept her for who she is, even as I may not accept her behavior. And on my best day I am an imperfect father, with an imperfect love for her. The “perfect love” of Abba, that He lavishes on His children, is so much better than my love for my previous four year old daughter. Am I guilty of recreating God in my image in that example? I think not. I could not be more loving and accepting of my imperfect child than God would be of His.
Tim, you are accepted always by your Father in Heaven. Always. That biblical reality will change your life and set you free to walk in joy and truth. Grace and truth are never decoupled.
We are accepted in grace, because of what Jesus did for us on the cross (propitiation) and through the outpouring of the Spirit (the fulfillment of the promise), not because of what you or I have or have not done today to perform for God. Intimacy with God is what leads us to true holiness, not our efforts to try harder and be better. This hard-to-believe grace is at the core of what the author is communicating. This grace is not given for license, but to lead us into a life of walking in the Spirit and in truth.
Grace and peace to you my brother.
Allen
Francisco, Allen, and anyone who tends toward long-windedness,
May I remind you that these are blog comments. Tim doesn't even write articles as long as your "comments"!