- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/15)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/16)
Burning Down 'The Shack'
- 06/15/10
- 73
If ever there was a book destined to see a lot of negative reviews it has to be Burning Down The Shack. Written by James De Young, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon, this book takes on the bestselling novel The Shack, telling, according to the subtitle, how “The ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions.” The Shack has a huge community of devoted fans and many of them will be distressed to see this book, and especially so if it begins to sell well and gain some kind of prominence.
It seems that I should begin this article by reviewing the facts of The Shack. But surely you know them already. The Shack has sold millions and millions of copies, has been translated into a host of languages and has remained on the besteller lists for over 100 weeks; it was self-published by an unknown author and an unknown publishing company and had an initial marketing budget of just a few hundred dollars; it is largely a word-of-mouth success that has seen many pastors buy boxes to give away within churches; it is, in short, an absolute phenomenon, the kind of phenomenon that will some day be a case study in a marketing text book.
This would all be well and good if The Shack was a good book. Sadly, though, it is not. Not only is it substandard in its writing, but more distressingly it teaches theology that is at times sub-bibical and at other times fully anti-biblical. Among its predominant themes are the Trinity, the character of God and the nature of good and evil—themes that strike to the very heart of the Christian faith. And in so many ways it is fully opposed to what is true.
James De Young writes from an interesting perspective—that of a former friend, or acquaintance at least, of Paul Young. He begins his book by providing some important but little-known background to The Shack. In April of 2004 De Young attended a Christian think tank and there Young presented a 103-page paper which presented a defense of universal reconciliation, a Christian form of universalism—the view that at some point every person will come to a right relationship with God. If they do not do this before they die, God will use the fires of hell to purge away (not punish, mind you) any unbelief. Eventually even Satan and his fallen angels will be purged of sin and all of creation will be fully and finally restored. This is to say that after death there is a second chance, and more than that, a complete inevitability, that all people will eventually repent and come to full relationship with God. De Young believes that Young’s belief in universal reconciliation is absolutely crucial to anyone who would truly wish to understand The Shack. It is the key that makes sense of the book and the theology it contains. Though far from the only theological problem with the book, it is the one that makes sense of the others.
Needless to say, universal reconciliation is also the theme of De Young’s refutation of The Shack. He seeks to answer big questions such as “What is God like?”, “Why did Jesus Christ die?”, “Does God punish sin?” and “Does mercy triumph over judgment?” Though his questions range far wider than universal reconciliation, in the end most of them lead back to this foundational component of Young’s theology. The author makes it clear that he is not out to attack Young and nowhere does he do this. Instead, he simply seeks to interact with his theology, with what he teaches through his novel. He does this by going through The Shack chapter-by-chapter, showing what Young did well in that portion of the book and then showing from the Bible where he went wrong. It is quite an effective format that refutes and teaches equally well.
While he does all of this, there is a sense in which he inadvertently displays one part of the reason that The Shack has proven so popular. Where Young could use narrative to subtly teach big theological concepts, De Young has to use the theological lexicon. This puts him at an immediate disadvantage. What Young seeks to make so clear through a story, De Young has to make clear through the language of theology. He does this well, but still shows by contrast how powerful narrative can be.
What I can’t quite decide is who the audience is for this book. Burning Down The Shack is 253 pages by the time the reader has finished the appendices and indexes. It is also occasionally heavy, teaching or refuting significant theological concepts. Maybe I am not giving enough credit to those who read and enjoyed The Shack but it seems to me that if you read that novel and took it to be sound theology, you are not too likely to read a 250-page text refuting it. And then there are people like me who read The Shack and were disturbed by it. But we already know The Shack is theologically deceptive, so why would we need to read a book about it? Having said that, the book is currently ranked in Amazon’s top-6000, not a terrible place to be, so I suppose someone must be buying it. I can’t help but think that if it was 100 (or 200) pages shorter it would have a far wider impact. I suspect, though, that it will largely be read by people who already know of the problems with The Shack. That is too bad, really.
Nevertheless, Burning Down The Shack is a solid book and has a lot to commend it. If you are looking for a resource that interacts with The Shack and does so in a way that is more thorough than my review and more discerning than either of the two books titled Finding God in The Shack, this may be just the ticket. Many supporters of The Shack have suggested that it is only Calvinists who dislike the book. I was glad to see that the lone endorsement for Burning Down The Shack is Paige Patterson (certainly no Calvinist) who writes, “[De Young’s] evaluation of the theology and deceit involved in The Shack is on target and critical for today’s world.” Calvinist or not, lover or hater, if you read this book you will benefit from it, I think.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (73)
”..presented a defense of universal reconciliation, a Christian form of universalism—the view that at some point every person will come to a right relationship with God.”
I heard he was a universalist. Good to have the truth about Young.Thanks for sharing this.
This should wake up each and every Christian to the foolishness of this book, but it won’t.
Thanks for the review.
“Not only is it substandard in it’s writing”
Perhaps you explained this in your initial review, but I’m interested in the substance for this assertion.
Perhaps it’s a book for those who feel uneasy about liking/loving “The Shack” in that it might encourage them to scratch their itchy ears with God’s truth instead of feel-good lies.
I tried to read the Shack. After all, can millions of other Christians be wrong I reasoned? Uh. Yes they can and they are. What a bunch of garbage that book was. In the rush to humanize God, I was waiting for the Almight to pass gas in the book. This book brought nobody closer to a relationship with the biblical Jesus. It only created another buddy in a long robe that listens and understands, but never can take away the stain of my sin.David, www.redletterbelievers.com
Tim,With regard to the writing skill in The Shack I would be curious what aspects are substandard in your opinion.
I read The Shack and to be quite frank I didn’t think the writing was substandard at all. In fact it was a page turner for me; however that is the main reason I found it so dangerous. The book tugged at the heart strings, in a way that I almost let my guard down. I knew that there were things wrong with it, the more I read. But there was a sense that I almost wanted this to be the true picture of God.What I mean by “almost”, is that I had to step back and really think about what the book was teaching. As I did, the book wasn’t enjoyable anymore, but I had to fight part of me that just wanted to sit back and enjoy the book with out any discernment at all.The only reason I read the book in the first place is because I know quite a few people who did and one person (a school teacher) told me that it is his favorite book and he has read it about 6 times.I talked to some people about the book and some didn’t like the book because of the writing style. But I have come to conclude that whether someone liked the book’s writing style has more to do with their taste, which is subjective to the individual.However, if someone knows the Bible and uses their discernment, they should see many problems with the book, regardless of whether or not they like the writing style or not.After reading The Shack and subsequently talking to people about the book, it became obvious that most so called Christians do not know the Bible. What was even sadder is that even some teachers of the Bible said that the book was biblically accurate. One such person was a professor in the SBC who actually debated people who said the book was heretical. He stated that only Calvinists didn’t agree with the book, mainly because they are (correct me if I got the term wrong) “Tritheists, not Trinitarians”.Unfortunately, other than Dr. Patterson and Dave Hunt, I have not heard of any other Arminians that have a problem with the book.
For those who wanted to know, this is what Tim said in his first review of The Shack about the writing style (The link to read the whole review can be found right above the comments under “related posts”):
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.
I am looking forward to reading this book. I share your sentiments about “The Shack” but wish many others would as well including some whom I go to church with. I think it would have been cool to see a layman or armchair theologians response to the book as I think it is that easy to debunk and refute (I would say the same for Dawkins “The God Delusion”).
The nagging question for me after reading The Shack (at the request of a friend who loved it and bought it for me to ensure that I would read it) was this:
Why does this fictional story enable people to feel God’s love more than the cross? All “wrong theology” aside, I have simply never been able to understand that. And I think it’s kind of sad. I didn’t like the idea of an author writing fiction and using it to put answers in God’s mouth. I had to make myself read it. But those who love this book look at you as if you are crazy if you don’t love it too.
I am in awe of what Christ did for me on the cross. A God in the kitchen making pancakes for me could never tug on my heartstrings more than the reality that the King of all creation willingly left heaven to come and die in MY place.
I do not mean this to be critical of anyone who loved the book. I have friends who say it changed their life. But it’s still hard for me to understand. I guess God can use anything to draw someone to Him. He uses people and we are certainly all deficient and flawed.
Tim,
As you know I’ve been a defender of The Shack, but your fourth paragraph does contain some new information.
In many respects, depending on how you read scripture, Christian universalism is consistent with a particular picture of God. It’s all wrapped up in The Prodigal Son story. But of course, it’s not what the Bible actually says when given the opportunity to speak directly, such as Heb. 9:27.
Obviously, right now, you, me and everybody else would like to get their hands on that 103-page paper. For now, I’d settle to hear Paul Young’s response on this particular bit of news.
I have not done a review of The Shack except to say that I don’t recommend that it be read by any but the most discerning of Christians.
The obvious problem with that is that many Christians think of themselves as very discerning, when it’s clear to anyone else that they aren’t.
Having clarified that I don’t recommend The Shack, I think that the furor around it has been mostly sad, for these reasons:
1. One of the biggest problems in the Church today, and historically, is the view that God’s greatest goal in life is to intimidate His children into following the letter of the law (choose which laws you prefer), and frowning with anger or severe disappointment when they fail.
This “Flyswatter God” concept is itself false teaching, but seldom do you hear it called false teaching by mainstream Reformed (or non-Reformed) Bible teachers.
Few are “exposing” any Puritans or Reformed guys, for example, for heaping condemnation on the sheep, fearful that if they push “grace” too hard that the sheep will run wild.
They dare not say that the New Covenant is radical grace and that the children of God have had ALL their sins forgiven, even future ones not yet committed.
That they have died to the Law.
That they are no longer under Law but under Grace.
That there is nothing they could do that would make God love them less, and nothing they could do to make God love them more.
That He loves them, because He CHOSE to before the foundation of the world, apart from current or future obedience or lack thereof.
No, these otherwise fine teachers must zero in on “the law”, “obedience”, “sin”, “repentance”, may I say “The Flyswatter”?
(They do speak of love, sometimes grandiosely. They tack on our responsibility to love God because He first loved us. And how He saved us by grace. But now, it’s on to The Law as our “rule of life”. Gag me with a bulldozer.)
And yet it’s this law-based, obedience-based, frowning-angry-God-based, flyswatter-based false teaching that’s responsible for masses of Christians being robbed of the joy of close communion with the Lover of their souls, because they can’t freely face Him under the shame of their imperfection.
2. Paul Young writes The Shack and fills it with theological error. That’s a shame. I repeat, I really don’t recommend the book. Too much theological wackiness.
And frankly I think he could have pretty much done the same job without the Father as a smart-mouthed overweight black woman, Trinitarian errors and the implications of universalism, etc.
Too bad he didn’t. That’s sad, because I’d like to be able to recommend the book.
People are HUNGRY for the intended “meat” of The Shack even if they are theologically incapable of spitting out the “bones”.
3. It’s a shame the book wasn’t written by someone who has a better grasp of right Systematic Theology, plus the creativeness of Paul Young. Christian fiction can be powerful and useful.
It’s a shame some stuffed-shirt Reformed Law-Pushing scholar didn’t have a revelation from the Word of the radical grace of God AFTER salvation…
…a revelation from the Word of the love of God for His children that extends even beyond the Cross to their wretched little failing lives today…
…a revelation from the Word that Jesus isn’t standing with a flyswatter to whack them on the head, but wants them to fellowship with Him as their Beloved and them as HIS beloved…
…a revelation from the Word that stick-up-the-posterior flyswatter “holiness” is not holiness at all…
…a revelation that God may be “angry with the wicked everyday”, but He’s not angry with His children, any more than I was angry with son when he was 1-year-old, and he tried to walk, and fell on his face, and tried again, and failed again, and finally wobbled three feet into his Daddy’s arms, both of us laughing.
Then the stuffed-shirt Reformed Law-Pushing scholar could have repented, and written the book right.
I’m not holding my breath. But I’m praying.
I read the Shack. I liked the Shack very much. My kids liked the shack. I was 26 years deep in an evangelical fundamentalist Bible believing group. We were Baptist in theology and slightly more charismatic in expression. Exegesis, proof texting and a heavy emphasis on doctrine were our way of life. We were “RIGHT” and we could prove it. The value of being “right”, however, has greatly diminished in my life. Today I am less concerned with being right (and proving all others wrong by the way) than I am in walking with a God who loves and cares for me and, dare I say, likes me.
I veiw the shack as what it purports to be, a novel. This is a story. A story. A story for goodness sake not divine scripture. Tom Clancy is a better author but he writes stories too. I do not look for hidden meaning in the shack. I do not expect to find exegetical exposition or absolute truth in it. I look for a story. I find it stimulates my thinking about my Savious and my relationship with Him and his Father.
For too many years I listened while pastors and leaders took apart other authors declaring their doctrinal errors and scriptural mis-initerpretation (assuring me that ‘they’ had the truth and others didnt who happened to disagree with them. that exclusive, narrow band of interpretation no longer interests me. Why is it De Young feels the need to expose what he feels is ‘error’? Is the risk that horrendeous? If Paul Young is a Universalist thats his business. I would disagree were that a conversation he and I were having (and we have had conversations he and I) however I don’t see how his supposed universalism invalidates the life and truth of God inside him. I view that as “lumping” where its easy to discredit one part of a man if you disagree with another part of him. Bob had an affair so his preaching on purity is invalid. Suzie doesn’t believe in soulwinning so her bible studies are to be avoided and so forth.
Listen; The Shack is a delightful if simple read. It takes my image of God and turns it inside out. I think God can handle that. Why is it DeYoung cant seem to trust that the God in me can help me sort out truth from fiction and relate to me in the process which is the real joy…….
I have heard several people claim that The Shack changed their lives. I even asked in a very pro-Shack forum a couple of years ago for testimonies about their changed lives. I wanted to know how reading The Shack had turned them from their sins and what specific sins they had repented of. ZERO response. Now, I am a simple man. This is the conclusion I have come to. Although I’m sure there can be exceptions, for the most part most people have had their *minds* changed *about* God as a result of reading The Shack, but not had their *lives* changed *by* God.
Incidentally, I found out just a couple of weeks ago that the woman who sent this book to my wife two summers ago—along with a note about how the book had changed her life—recently left her second husband (a truly decent and godly man) to pursue some high school sweetheart she ran into at her last class reunion. Curiously, that was the exact same reason she left her first husband and married the second (before he was converted).
The reason that I even bring this up is because I think it is relevant. I think many people read The Shack and it resonates with them because it presents God in a way that removes His fearsomeness. And that’s because—in The Shack—“she” is powerless. This completely undermines His character, and the God in The Shack is definitely not the God of the Tabernacle in the Bible.
My hypothesis is this: people who say their lives have been changed by The Shack have only had their minds changed about God. Their lives haven’t changed; their mind has. Their conscience has been appeased. And they like that. “I’m okay, you’re okay.” But I fear that there is a great danger for the people who find their comfort in a god like the one that is found in The Shack… and who continue to live a life of rebellion and unrepentance toward the one true God who is found in the Bible.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)
I am of the mindset that book should be reviewed first and foremost by the content it has. I have read the Shack, and I am fairly astute person. I did not come away from it feeling that Universal Reconciliation was the theme of the book. James DeYoung has some “secret” information on the author, and this definitely tinges his reading of it if he refutes the book mostly on the grounds of it supporting “universal reconciliation”.
Review the actual book! Critique what it has to say! No some 103 page paper about universal reconciliation.
Hi Tim
Thank you for the review. When I hear people complain that “The Shack is a story for goodness sake not divine scripture” I can’t help but to fear that they have missed the whole point. The Shack, novel or not, has deeply resonated with a large swath of evangelicals who have had their theology deeply impacted by it. Therefore it is entirely necessary to have a thorough critique of the book. Furthermore the author of ‘The Shack’ openly rejects substitutionary atonement and thus the very heart of the gospel. Why people would defend such God-dishonoring content that is impacting people’s understanding of the nature and person of God is quite disheartening. To the degree we misrepresent God, to that same degree we commit idolatry.
Also available here:http://www.monergismbooks.com/Burning-Down-The-Shack-How-the-Christian-B…
To summarize what I was trying to get at earlier and to incorporate what John H. said, too — THEOLOGY MATTERS!
Our theology affects the way we live our lives. Our theology is our understanding of God, and our understanding of God drives our lives. It impacts (or *should* impact) every decision we make. When we fail to understand who God is, we fail to understand what He desires and what He has done. Even worse when we do not understand or desire to understand God, then we try to redefine Him the way we want Him to be. Or as John H. said, we misrepresent Him.
The God of Scripture is quite clear that making a god we want to worship rather than worshiping the God who made everything is idolatry. It is spiritual adultery to claim the Name of the Living God, but give your heart to a false god. It is a fearful thing to deny the power of the blood of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Fiction or no, The Shack is unmistakably a book of theology. If it were not, then the staunch defenders of it (i.e., the people who claim to have had their lives changed by it) could not and would not make the claim that their lives have been changed or that they “understand God better” as a result of reading it. You cannot make a claim that you understand God at all without getting into theology. And the problem with the theology of The Shack is that it just does not line up with the theology of Scripture.
Terry:
Well said. I’m one of those reformed guys that sees his tendency to nitpick and wants badly to get free of it.
I loved the story in the Shack. Who could hate a story of reconciliation between a father and his dead child?
I hated the theology in the Shack. Arguing over it with other believers has only diminished my witness.
Oh for grace to know when to shut up and when to engage the enemy.
Terry,I think it would be helpful if you named some names. Who are all these Reformed guys who only talk about law? Who us teaching that God’s greatest goal is to scare his children? It’s easy to throw out generalizations; I’d like to know some examples.
Also, are you angry at your children when they disobey? That’s a better example than walking. I am angry when my kids disobey, and I’ve never stopped loving them for a second. You might also look at 2 Samuel 11:27. David was certainly a believer, and yet his sin “displeased the Lord”- so much so that there were serious consequences David faced for his sin.
I care quite a bit about good theology. The news about the paper was interesting, but the book itself was not as theologically out of line as some would make it out to be. In fact, when considering Cappidocian trinitarianism, it was more insightful than I have come to expect from much of mainstream Evangelicalism and Calvinism.
I cringe at the thought of a book the takes apart each chapter one by one. I am sure that there are a lot of Christian novels that are very well accepted that we could all do this to, but I am not sure that this is fair, nor tolerated.
While I did not agree with some of the theology as a Calvinist, I found that it was within the barriers of orthodoxy at every major point. Could it have been more comprehensive? Sure. But how much do we really expect. It was a novel about grace and forgiveness. Any book out there about grace and forgiveness could be more comprehensive. Why single out Young so much? Because the book has sold so much and we like to ride on the coattails of the success of others.
If young believes in universalism, this would be a problem. But this problem would be isolated from the story of The Shack as I did not find universal redemption even a secondary theme of the book.
Yes, I am a Calvinist who liked the book.
“I guess God can use anything to draw someone to Him.” -Shari
Not really sister. The Lord has His ways, but not just “anything”. Satan surely has his schemes to hinder the truth, which is what the Shack does.
The Lord opens hearts to the truth of the Gospel, he draws us to see our sin, and His righteousness. We become as the publican saying , “Have mercy on me a sinner. I am unworthy of your forgiveness, Lord, but please have mercy on me.” This is the heart of the sinner whom Christ saves, whom the Father drags from the darkness into the light, a light we hat and avoid.And when He opens, and quickens, our dead hearts, we then love the light, and faith comes to fill our hearts and minds, and so we long to walk in the light, which is the truth, which is His Word; the Holy Scriptures. We have been born again, and this new creature, has left the old behind. (2 Cor. 5:17)
Jesus said, “Many will come to deceive. False teachers, prophets, and even false christs, will be very subtle and crafty with their tickling ears, and soft words of niceness. So that they may even fool God’s elect. If it were possible. But they wolves dressed up, and looking like sheep. Take heed Christian”
I am wondering if De Young realizes that “The Shack” is a work of fiction?
“I am wondering if De Young realizes that “The Shack” is a work of fiction?”
I guess since Young is simply writing fiction, it’s just a make-believe god? A god of his own understanding?I can agree with that.
But it seems all the people who read this book think this is what God, our Lord, is like in His heart and being. Doesn’t it?
“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” -god
Has anyone read “Rooms” by James Rubart?I thought halfway through that book that it would be the great fictional corrective for “The Shack”, but I’m afraid I was very disappointed.Soft theology. Doesn’t anyone really read the Bible anymore??
JMH,
You wrote, “Who are all these Reformed guys who only talk about law?”
I didn’t say “only talk about law”. That would be watcha call “spin” on your part :)
An example of such a “guy” would be here.
I’m not up to doing any more “homework” for you, though. If you don’t think the shoe fits many other teachers, at least from time to tim, I believe you have your own homework to do.
If you are disagreeing with me when I say that God is not angry with His children under the New Covenant, and if you mean to disprove it, then you need to use an example under the New Covenant of His anger toward His children.
Hint: You won’t find it. Failing to rightly divide the New Covenant from the Old (a la Heb. 8) is part of the problem. That problem is perpetuated mainly by Covenant Theology, of which I am not a proponent.
Even the Lord’s chastisement is a loving and usually longsuffering move to bring His beloved (that’s us) back into warm fellowship with Him.
And even your eagerness to show God as angry with His children is just a symptom of the very problem I’ve tried to address here.
It may be “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God”, but Lord deliver us from the too-common wrong teaching of “Saints In The Hands Of An Angry God”.
If God was angry when we fall short, He’d be angry almost constantly (which sadly is the view of too many beaten-down sheep — I hope not you).
Blessings,Terry
Make that “time to time”, not “time to tim”. Sorry, Tim. It’s a keyboard problem, not a Freudian one :)
Thanks for the review Tim! My senior pastor just gave this book to some of us on staff here at Compass Bible Church and we are putting it in our book store. I agree with you that most of us who read this book will already agree with the theology. But prayerfully we can be intentional to talk to those who don’t and I hope this book will be a big help!
This thread triggered a recollection of a challenge by Roger Olson, an Arminian and author of Finding God in the Shack, for a Calvinist to write a novel about pain and suffering and the sovereignty of God from the Calvinist perspective.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-challenge-from-Roger-Olson-for-calvinists
I have heard so many times, “The Shack came at the perfect time in my life.” Or “I just really needed to hear what it said.”
Another conversation like this happened with a good friend recently and I’m really struggling with how to respond to her. She’s opening up and being quite vulnerable about her life and faith and telling me how important this book is to her, and I just struggle to know how to address the major Biblical errors without stomping on her open-ness and getting all theologically nitty-gritty on her. Sure, it’s an important thing to point out - and I want to - but I just feel at a loss in terms of doing it with love and care.
I read The Shack I liked it and I know several folks who have read it. It did not change or influence my theology nor theirs in any way, I remain reformed in my thinking and have no problem with the book. Their are by the way Reformed Theologians that do like the book! Mike
“The Shack ” is the novel version of “The Message.” Both have helpful aspects. Neither quite deserve the success they enjoy. Evangelicals are suckers for “Star Wars”-like sweets.
”..getting all theologically nitty-gritty on her”
I get you.
I like to discuss things with others, but when you get to a point where each other’s opinions are steadfast, then you have to move on. Or they have to move on from me.
I simply say this book makes God out to be a different god. Young is a universalist, and his book is from his heart of this false doctrine, and so his fictitious god is just that, a phony god.
Yet, people think this fiction god is what God is like. That’s sad.
I suppose you can like the book, and say, his god is a false god, but iI still like it. That’s a possibility.
No it not just Calvinists that are distressed by the emotional attachment to this book without regard to Biblical discernment.I certainly appreciate that Calvinists are taking the time to examine and expose the book.
The Shack is a work of fiction. But what is the relevance of literary genres when fellow Christians, our brothers and sisters, are being led astray by this fiction? Whatever the author purports it to be, it’s about the nature and character of God, and thus it is theology. Even if some readers can discern truth from fiction, many cannot or will not. Refuting the theology present in this book is not about polemics, it’s about leading people back to the truth of God’s character and work, and our relationship to Him. Our very lives depend on Truth—both eternally and now. The New Testament writers and evangelists heartily refute wrong theology, because they know it leads to death.
It occurs to me that defending wrong theology as merely fun fiction would be a very effective tool for the enemy to spread his lies.
To those who oppose any sort of corrective to this book, where is your compassion for those who do not understand that it doesn’t present an accurate picture of the true Lord?
Let’s just get rid of all those silly bible verses about sound doctrine.
“This thread triggered a recollection of a challenge by Roger Olson, an Arminian and author of Finding God in the Shack, for a Calvinist to write a novel about pain and suffering and the sovereignty of God from the Calvinist perspective.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-challenge-from-Roger-Olson-for-calvinists”
Although not a novel, wouldn’t this be the Book of Job?
Hans Zaepfel wrote:
“This thread triggered a recollection of a challenge by Roger Olson, an Arminian and author of Finding God in the Shack, for a Calvinist to write a novel about pain and suffering and the sovereignty of God from the Calvinist perspective.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-challenge-from-Roger-Olson-for-calvinists”
To Hans Zaepfel (and Roger Olson) - this challenge was answered over 330 years ago. This is from Wikipedia:
The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come is a Christian allegory written by John Bunyan and published in February, 1678. It is regarded as one of the most significant works of English literature, has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print.
ShariYou said “I have friends who say it changed their life.” I have heard the same sentiment from quite a few people as well.One of the things we need to remember is that our enemy is crafty. If he can he will use an undiscerning reader’s emotions to deceive them. For those who say that the book changed them I suspect they see the book as completely compatible with what Christ did on the cross. In fact, I would say that in their mind it makes what Jesus did on the cross more real.Another thought I have on that is that I believe a lot of Christians are very unknowledgeable and therefore ripe for the picking for books like these. It is my experience that most local Churches do not teach beyond the surface of what the Scripture teaches. For example these Churches might say that they believe in the Trinity, but they leave it up to individual to find out on their own what the Trinity is. When a heretical book like ‘The Shack’ comes along those individuals who don’t understand what the Trinity is, become convinced that what they see in ‘The Shack” is biblical.It doesn’t help that there are many supposed Christian theologians (even in the SBC) that have come out in support of the book.If you scroll up you will notice that I commented about ‘The Shack’ in another entry.In it I commented that when I read the book with discernment that I no longer enjoyed it.. This was mainly because; as I read it was evident that what I was reading was heresy. I suspect this is probably the main reason why you didn’t like the book.
John Luce said: “Review the actual book! Critique what it has to say! No some 103 page paper about universal reconciliation.”
I read the book myself and though I did not at the time see “universal reconciliation”.If what I read about this 103 page document is true; it certainly explains a lot of things. I will not go into detail about this because it would be too wordy, but if one does a study on universal reconciliation, they will find out that it is completely compatible with ‘The Shack’. If Paul Young does indeed believe in “universal reconciliation” he definitely would display it in the book.That all said, the fact is even if the accusation of “universal reconciliation’ is not true; the book has more that enough false teaching in it for me to say to others “do not read it, unless you are very discerning”.
Tom, Yes, we are on the same page. To give you a little background, I was raised in a religious cult, believing I was a Christian, but that our group had special revealed truth that the rest of Christianity did not have. I was brainwashed and indoctrinated from birth to accept their beliefs and told how special we were, how privileged we were to have the truth. You were made to feel that you would be hurting God much more to leave this group (and go out into “Babylon”) than to backslide. And I mean that this was spoken in church in a direct way, with examples. It wasn’t only implied (although many ways of thinking were subtly implied also and reinforced by the songs we sung over and over and over).
One of the heresies I now realize I was taught was that the Trinity was a false doctrine. I was taught that Jesus was God the Father’s first creation. He was not God. And the Holy Spirit was more of a force or power that emanated from God, definitely not a Person of the Godhead. I always heard the term “two in the Godhead.” But I realize now that what I had been taught was two gods; one higher and one lower (Jesus being a creation of God). The Trinity was mocked. While I was in that group (43 years of my life), I never felt there was even a good reason to look into it. I trusted the messengers to tell me what was truth and what was not. I wound up learning, as an adult, of the many secret sins that had been kept silent by leadership (same messengers), including sexual abuse.
I moved from CA to TN with this group because the pastor relocated and asked the whole church to follow him. He didn’t just ask. He said it was God’s will and he would fear for our souls if we stayed behind. I didn’t buy into that, but wanted to stay with my friends and family. My whole world was my church and church friends. My family was deeply rooted in this group. It was unfathomable to me to stay in CA without them.
This group is rooted in a movement that began near the beginning of the 20th century and the founder was William Sowders. Plenty of stuff comes up if you Google him. This has gotten lengthy, but it’s just the tip of the iceburg. I wrote my testimony last year and self-published. My friend and Country Music Legend, Charlie Daniels, graciously wrote the foreword for the book. He thought it was a powerful testimony and could be helpful to others. The only problem is, I’m unknown and really don’t have a clue how to market my book.
I got out of this group in 2003. I went through a divorce at the same time. The church was extremely controlling and one of the very few things a young person had to look forward to was marriage. I married at the age of 16 and became a mother by 18. The marriage was abusive, but I stayed almost 27 years. I didn’t think I had choices in life. I really believed I had to stay and endure forever. And I tried. My deliverance from oppression from both domestic and spiritual abuse came simultaneously. I was 43 years old when I left and I am 51 today.
Since leaving, I have invested a lot of time in trying to learn sound doctrine and understand the teachings of true Christianity. (I was also taught that no one went to heaven unless they achieved sinless perfection in this life - a horrible burden to grow up under.) I did not learn about grace until late in life. I think of myself as having been a Christian without the cross. I have read Tim’s book on spiritual discernment and also read his blog because I have found Reformed authors to have the very best Christian books on the market, as far as how biblically based they are, rooted in both God’s justice and His mercy.
Some of my friends can’t totally relate to my strong convictions about the subtlety of deception in our Christian world today. It seems that everyone is more comfortable saying nobody really knows what the truth is. Everything is based on feelings. That was one of the biggest parts of my deceptive upbringing. Everything was rooted in or confirmed by emotional experiences, dreams, feelings. It’s hard to break free from all of that. But, by God’s grace, I have.
I hope this doesn’t sound like a plug for my book. I just felt to share in response to your comment to me. Thanks for listening.
MikeYou said: “I read The Shack I liked it and I know several folks who have read it. It did not change or influence my theology nor theirs in any way, I remain reformed in my thinking and have no problem with the book. Their are by the way Reformed Theologians that do like the book! Mike”
As I said in another entry, I actually liked the book for its story.But, as I read it became obvious that I could not just put my brain in neutral and read it. The moment I started to read it with discernment the enjoyment of actually reading a good novel left. In its place, I began to see that to the author it was more than a work of fiction, but a fictional account of how he understand God and humanity.Unfortunately this understanding through the book has changed a lot of peoples understanding on who God is and what Scripture is about.This was confirmed to me when I went to a web site and blog that was dedicated to the book.If I remember correctly, Paul Young was even an occasional participant. Although there were a lot of people that just enjoyed the book itself as fiction, by and large the majority were singing the praises of its theology. This included theologians, pastors and lay people as well as the curious.
Personally, although I can understand someone of Reformed understanding liking the book for its story. I can’t understand how they can make light of the heresy that is displayed in it; especially seeing how it has affected so many people.
How do you explain this?
Shari
Thank you very much for writing back.Although my experiences were no way as dramatic as yours; in a way they have some similarities.I used to belong to the Word of Faith Movement and I can tell you that it is very deceptive. The leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin etc…made themselves bullet proof so to speak by saying things like: “don’t touch the Lord’s anointed.” This was in reference to when someone questioned their teachings. This of course was taking Scripture completely out of context, which was as I came to understand after I left the movement; a regular practice.You and I also have another thing in common; we are both 51 years old.
Shari
I thought I would mention that I would very much like to read your book.
David
Thankyou, it is good to know that we are not alone in our sentiments.Personally I think the book would not have had as much success if more non-Calvinists would have spoke up about the heretical teaching in the book.
I just came across an article where William Paul Young talks about how The Shack changed his life. The article is entitled, “‘The Shack’ author William Paul Young tells how book changed his life”. (Couldn’t help but note the irony here since, as others have mentioned there are many that have claimed their lives have been changed as a result of this book. I’ve already commented on that previously, so won’t do that again.
One of the things that bothers me about this book, in addition to the theology of it, is the manner in which it is presented. First, there is the putting of words into the mouth of God that God has never said. It is one thing to talk about God and to talk about what God has said. And there was definitely a place for the prophet, men to whom God gave his very words to speak. But it is quite another thing entirely to make a “god” to “speak” the words you really want to say. It seems to me that here William Paul Young has turned the gift of prophecy completely on its head.
The second thing that really bothers me is the complete disregard of the second and third and fourth commandments in portraying the invisible God, in the likeness of a man… or in this case, a large, jovial black woman as Yahweh and a young, attractive Asian woman as the Holy Spirit. And should this book be made into a movie, these commandments will only be more perverted by having real actors in those roles. I’m sorry, but that just repulses me.
In fact, that’s what led me to the quote by Young I’m about to share. I actually did a google search to see if The Shack was indeed going to be made into a movie, and it appears that it probably will. At the beginning of the article, though, is a quote that I think underscores in Young’s own words the total lack of reverence I sense in his book about the character and person of God. This is the very beginning of the article:
When the author of “The Shack” travels the world to talk about his mega-selling novel, the emotional and spiritual depths of responses he gets from audiences make him feel as though he were listening to God.
“When people ask me what I do, I tell them I hang around burning bushes all day,” William Paul Young said, referring to the biblical story of how God spoke to Moses from a burning bush.
Now, is it just me? Or is Young totally undermining the glory and majesty of God here, making men like God and God like men? This seems to be his theology, and it is one that I just cannot stomach.
Tom,
That’s very interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience. I have come to realize, since the book’s publication, that there are many more of these controlling groups than I ever imagined. I have gotten emails from readers who found the book through online searches on spiritual abuse and shared similar experiences with an unrelated group. The feedback has been so rewarding and encouraging.
I’m grateful for every reader. And I would love for you to read my story. It’s available for purchase on my own website, as well as online distributors like Amazon and B&N. I have seven five-star reviews on Amazon.
I am very familiar with the “touch not mine anointed” response. And also “Obey them that have the rule over you.” Among others, of course.
You know what? I don’t think we really need Christian fiction (unless it’s something like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien).
Compared to the stuff that happens in realistic Christian fiction and the stuff that happens to us in real life, I’d say that real life rocks.
@Lauren -
HA! And AMEN!
I think the key phrase you used in describing this book is “sub-standard.” It is substandard in its composition: there is no way that you can honestly compare this book with “Pilgrim’s Progress.” It has a juvenile, amateurish tone throughout its pages. More significantly, it is substandard in its theology (and I used that phrase loosely). It is as though the author took every jumbled notion about God that has surfaced in the past few decades, stirred them up, and poured out this concoction. But the tragedy is that so many are being deceived by its message, a message not taken from the Bible, but from agnosticism of our present age.
I loved “The Shack.” I thought it was brilliant and a real page turner. Addtionally, it brought me closer to God. I prayed while reading the book, asking God questions along the way. In a sense spending time with Him while reading a fictional book.
There is much that can be said against “The Shack” and one does not have to be a Calvinist to dislike the Theology one finds there.
It was OK as a story, but it purports to be a Christian novel, and that’s where it trips up (I bought my copy at B Dalton in Waynesville, NC).
Universalism is not a central subject of the book, but it is there. The picture of God in the book is terrible. It’s nice that the central character finds peace, but I found the book to be somewhat of a disappointment because of its heretical Theology.
Others, who are also not Calvinist have had serious problems with the book, Norman Geisler has written a couple of articles on the issue. they were succinct and to the point. A book is not necessary to counteract the baleful influence of books like “The Shack.” All it takes is a desire for the truth and a concern for the Church and the unreached.
By the way, Mr. Rayburn, where on earth have you seen anything like “One of the biggest problems in the Church today, and historically, is the view that God’s greatest goal in life is to intimidate His children into following the letter of the law?” Calvin’s Geneva was a pretty grim place, but I’ve never seen anything like what you are claiming at anytime in my over 40 years as a Christian.