- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/5)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/6)
Finding God in The Shack (I)
- 02/05/09
- 37
I mark this review as Finding God in The Shack I because this month will see the release of two books by two authors but with only one title between them. Both books look to the overwhelming success of William Young's The Shack, evaluate it, and seek to answer its critics. As one of those critics, and as one whose review has been read hundreds of thousands of times, I have some interest in the subject matter. This is especially so when both books claim to lay to rest some of the criticisms lodged against it.
First out of the gate is Roger's Olson's effort. Olson is a theologian (professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) and in this book he purportedly "views The Shack with a theologian's eye and finds much sound truth. He delves into many of the significant issues raised by the book such as forgiving those who have done us great evil, how God acts in the world, how God is three persons in one and what difference this makes to us. While he offers his own criticisms of the book, he largely finds the truth about God in The Shack." Of course it is strange that in a book offering a theologian's eye he would say "Why do I think The Shack has something important to teach? The book rings true to my own experience." This seems to directly contradict the publisher's claim that he looks at this book as a theologian. Nevertheless, a few pages later he says that the book "communicates great truths about God that are both biblical and resonate with experience." Throughout the book he dedicates some effort to both.
Within his book, Olson asks this perceptive question. "I wonder how many folks who say they really love The Shack even stopped to think about what they read there?" I have wondered the same. I have enjoyed interacting with many people, hundreds even, who have done that. But I fear that hundreds of thousands more have put little thought into what they have read. Olson stops to think about The Shack and points out some of what is good and some of what is bad. Unfortunately his own theology is suspect in some areas, leading this book to advocate some seriously flawed doctrine.
Olson is Arminian in his theology (and is even author of a book titled Arminian Theology) and his understanding of free will will not sit well with those of a more Calvinistic persuasion. His understanding of free will impacts a good deal of related theology, especially as it relates to suffering and God's sovereignty. For example, it dictates how he understands suffering in this world and leads him at times dangerously close to open theism. "God has the power to stop evil and suffering, but that would require taking back the gift of free will. For now, at least, God is honoring our demand for independence, and is using his power of suffering love and mercy to bring us back to himself. If he unilaterally stopped all evil, people would not be free." And again, "In every tragic situation of innocent suffering God does all that he can do to prevent and alleviate it. Is God powerless? No. ... Rather, God limits himself for the sake of human freedom. And God abides by rules about how often and when he can intervene." He then tells of his indebtedness to Gregory Boyd's book Is God to Blame?. At one point he suggests that while God is in charge of the world, he must not be in control of it. He also says, "what if, instead of knowing with absolute certainty, God limited himself to knowing all possible outcomes and was prepared to deal with whichever ones became actual? It's just something to think about." He is the theologian. Shouldn't he tell us instead of just offering loaded suggestions?
Allow me to point to a few other areas in which Olson defends unbiblical theology.
First, Olson says rightly that The Shack gets the Trinity wrong in some important areas, and especially in areas related to the atonement (or, at least, in a traditional penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement, something he does not necessarily adhere to). But he follows this by saying "I consider these relatively minor flaws in what is otherwise a superb and moving portrayal of the character of God." This makes me wonder what could possibly qualify as a major flaw.
Second, he is a little bit ambiguous on the subject of hell. Where William Young seems to almost go so far as denying hell (and where at the least he describes it as something less than divine punishment for sin), Olson offers some criticism for this without affirming the biblical truth. He does say, "I wish William Young had said more about hell. It's not necessarily a place of literal fire and physical torment. But it is a biblical place." But he does not offer a biblical alternative.
Third, Olson defends inclusivism. "[C.S.] Lewis and the author of The Shack, together with many Catholic and Protestant thinkers, are inclusivists with regard to non-Christians. Without using the term 'anonymous Christians,' they are saying the same thing: that many people who are not organizationally Christians are Jesus followers because they love him and do his works. I agree with the author of The Shack on this." He declares that Jesus may accept people who are supposedly serving Christ even while not knowing who he is.
Also curious are these sentences. "A major theme of The Shack is trust. God wants our trust, and that will lead to everything else. Theologians call this 'justification by faith alone.'" Though I can understand what he is getting at here, I do not know of any theologian who would define justification by faith alone in terms even approximating these.
In the book's closing pages Olson declares that, when it comes to what it teaches, The Shack is 90 percent right on. And this may be right if we are discussing mere quantity. But when we weigh the ninety percent that Young gets right with the ten percent that he gets wrong, we see that this leaves him wrong on a great deal of very important theology. These are no minor details. He is wrong on the atonement, the Trinity and God's sovereignty over what he has created to name just three. So yes, there is a good deal of value in the book. But there is also too much that touches on theology that is just too important to overlook.
Olson concludes by suggesting that anyone who reads The Shack should do so with an open Bible and in light of Paul's admonition in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that we "test everything." Applying this same exhortation to Olson's book I think we will have to conclude that it falls short itself. At one point Olson says this about William Young: "I choose to think he's more biblically and theologically correct than that." And perhaps this is the downfall of Olson's book. Sometimes he deals well with the poor theology of The Shack. Yet all the while he does so with the underlying belief that Young's theology is more orthodox than the evidence seems to indicate. Olson's presuppositions may just keep him from seeing what is all too obvious: The Shack is just plain wrong in some very fundamental areas.
The surprising thing about Olson's take on The Shack is not that he finds both good and bad and not even that he finds more good than bad. What is surprising is that he regards as minor errors in theology that is at the heart of the Christian faith and that he shares so much poor theology along with it. As the publisher promises, Olson does cast a theologian's eye on The Shack and as such offers some good reflections, both positive and negative. While his overall assessment of the book is that it offers more truth than error, the discerning reader will find good cause to remain concerned. Ultimately I think Olson inadvertently does a wrecking job on his own thesis--that The Shack is predominantly good. By the time he has finished sharing all that is wrong with the book, many readers will no doubt scratch their heads and wonder just how good the good can be in light of all the bad.
Stay tuned next week for a review of the other Finding God in The Shack...
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 (37)
Tim: I haven't read "The Shack" but have some friends in the PCUSA who have and like it. Since I am a "five-pointer" and a "conservative," I live with some suspicion among my bretheren. (I labor here until I am certain the lampstand is gone or am called away.) The fact that they like it, and now in light of your article, I need to read it for myself.
As for Dr. Olson, your description led me to believe he must be associated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship who tend to play fast and loose with Scripture and wallow around in the angst of postmodern deconstruction. Sure enough, after doing some digging I found he attends such a church in Waco.
The open-ended question is a favorite ploy of postmoderns. Supplying answers isn't the point - in fact, at its root, postmoderns hold absolutes suspect. (It's why my PCUSA friends wonder about me.) Perhaps Dr. Olson is just trying to sell a book by communicating in a postmodern style to a populist market. Nevertheless, it makes good forensic work for Calvinists. Thank you for doing it on our behalf.
Where was your Ph D in theology from? :-)
Bottom line is most Calvinists just aren't going to be able to deal with The Shack, whereas Olson captures the Arminian perspective pretty well.
Most troubling to you Reformed folks is not the quibbles between Calvinism and Arminianism in The Shack, but the fact that while a lot of churches are Reformed in church dogma, they are overwhelmingly Arminian in the pews! The outrageous success of The Shack is just further proof of the continued slide of Reformed Theology.
Well done Tim. Disregard the criticisms you'll receive here in the comments. Blind guides, all of them. You're pulling down one of their idols: A personal god of their own making that would fit right in with Shack's.
To Olson: Church history and teaching go against him. That he teaches at the liberal Baylor theology school should tell you everything you need to know - Calvinist or not. Southwestern Bapt Theol. Seminary in Ft Worth is mostly void of Calvinists and none would side with Olson on hardly any major view. He is a walking error with a Ph.D.
"Where was your degree in theology from?"
The Anglican hierarchy asked CS Lewis the same question. You're in good company.
Jeff,
I'm a little confused. Tim didn't really focus that much on the differences due to the Calvinist/Arminian tension. The main 3 issues he pointed out are the Atonement, The Trinity, and God's Sovereignty. These are ideas Calvinists and Arminians agree on. I happen to believe Arminians are wrong in their soteriology, but we can agree on the 3 points I just mentioned. There is room for diversity of belief within the church, but not unbiblical belief. The problem isn't that Olsen is an Arminian. It's that he is so liberal, even unbiblical, in his theology, which is the real problem with the Shack.
By the way, if you think Reformed Theology is sliding, you must not get out of your circle much.
Jeff: You affirm my point. Popular Arminianism and postmodernism each begin in human experience instead of God's sovereignty. No matter what the "scoreboard" says, humans are free to act within their nature and remain under God's authority. Truth and popular culture will always be at odds.
For a minute there, I thought this was our next "Reading Through the Classics" book.
Whoa, Tim. There you go again, looking at the meaning of words and statements -- and looking for consistency in someone's writing. Can't you just feel good about stuff without thinking so much?? SERIOUSLY, another great review piece on the sloppy (and shameful) theology contained in The Shack, now being endorsed and promoted by the likes of Dr Olson. You should know that your original review is helping lots of folks in our area understand more clearly why reading The Shack gave them the creeps! Keep up the good work, brother.
Thanks for saving me from having to relive The Shack. This is a classic truth vs. love debate. The truth people can't get past the errors and the love people can't believe the truth people don't see the value in repairing relationships on earth. While earthly relationships do reflect our relationship with the Lord the love camp won't acknowledge that the only relationship that ultimately matters is the one with our heavenly Father. As I have asked at least twice in discussion groups I have been a part of on The Shack, how far off can you be theologically and still be saved? The love people can't believe I even posed the question and the truth people just shake their heads in agreement.
Saying that the author gets the Trinity (and the atonement) wrong but that there is still much good in the book is kind of like the punch line from that old joke:
"...other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
I read it. I thought from a Fiction point of view the book was ok. From a Theology point of view it's horrible!! I'm sorry but I just can't call God the Creator of the Universe "papa".
Regarding the 90/10 split, I propose a toast to Dr Olsen. I mix "THE Shack" consisting of 90% vodka and 10 % arsonic. And he takes the first draught. Enjoy.
I think it's safe to say that most Christians who are buying into the theology of The Shack won't be immediately helped by having "an open Bible in front of them", lacking of reading and rightly interpreting it being the problem to begin with (and that's why people like this author feel safe in saying things like that). It seems like a long and exhausting task to refute the error so prevalent in much of the church and it is, so thank you, Tim, for your service. It's very helpful and I know bears much fruit.
I liked John Challies' comment!
Tim:
Thank you for taking the time, to not only write the original review, but to continue dealing with this issue as books such as Olson's are written. Your efforts and willingness to be criticised for the sake of Truth is greatly appreciated.
Soli Deo Gloria.
You said that "or, at least, in a traditional penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement, something he does not necessarily adhere to" and it made me wonder: Did Olson say something to retract his statement of adherence to Penal Substitutionary Atonement from Arminian Theology?
"If he unilaterally stopped all evil, people would not be free"
Free will is sovereign isn't it.
Will we have free will in heaven to sin against God, perhaps even hate Him?
The free-will mind-set would rather be judged, then to have God cause him or her to be saved, and justified?
We are sinners and rebels, born still born in sin. Only God can quicken a dead sinner, and bring him to life, and that life is eternal! You can have my free will, now and forever more! i'll take God's saving quickening me from the dead, and making me a new creation, and giving me a new heart; A heart after God's own Son, Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the review Tim. I appreciate it.
The Shack for me is the pits. A waste of time.
If it is enjoyed by others, God bless them.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that
if more preachers would preach about the true God of the Bible,
and more Christians would reflect the nature of the true God of the Bible through the power of the Holy Spirit,
the Shack wouldn't even take up space on the $5 shelf at any Barnes and Noble.
Thanks for another great review Tim.
Heard about your book on "Revive Our Hearts" today. Do you ever have an open forum about some of the Christian authors today that you find are not in line with God's Word biblically?
Just wondering... thanks
As one who has had many classes with Dr. Olson while a student at Truett Seminary and could personally called Dr. Olson a friend, I was quite interested in finding out what would be written within this latest book. And after reading your review, I am disappointed to say that I am not surprised by the take. I was hoping that Olson would be more critical than he seems from this review. I figured from being around him so much that he would spend a lot of time finding what is good in the book...but had hoped that he would reveal equally the theological error in The Shack...
I hate that Dr. Olson has become so influenced by Gregory Boyd, and during my time at Truett, I saw the progression. (Most of it came during the semester that his class ironically convinced me of Calvinism)...However, let me propose that he can use our prayers more than he can use our frustrated comments (despite many frustrated comments can be quite accurate)
And for the record....yes, I really did go to Truett, and come out a five point Calvinistic complementarian who loves Jesus and is working with Mars Hill here in Washington...miracles can happen (also many theological fights in class along the way!)...
I love your blog! You are very well respected and I'd like to know if you could check out my blog and let me know what you think. Thanks!
toknowhim (#19),
Tim oversees Discerning Reader, a Christian book review web site. It's not an open forum per se, but it is a place where biblical truth trumps popularity, trendiness, and the feel-good factor. I hope you take a few moments to browse!
Rachel (#18),
Absolutely inspired post! If anyone ever deserved to have the last word on this thread, it's you!
Re: 'God wants our trust'/justification by faith
I have often found it useful to describe (especially when talking to non-Christians) biblical faith (in the death of Christ in our place) in terms of trust. As in, the faith is us putting our trust in Christ's completed work at the cross - which we are certain of on the evidence. This is to defend against the non-biblical accusation of faith as 'blind'. Do you think this is an appropriate use of the word trust?
“Why do I think The Shack has something important to teach? The book rings true to my own experience.”I just finished reading The Shack because as a shepherd in the church I have always felt it was important to try to stay on top of the modern "hype" in the church so that I can give an answer and help the flock of God deal soundly with the trends from a biblical perspective. I am always suspicious of a book that has such wide support in popular evangelicalism because the church as a whole seems to lack biblical discernment. The Shack proves my point.This book has, as Tim says, some good points. The problem is not thegood points. The problem is the bad points mixed in with the good tend to blurr the good and muddy the truth. I have often used the example of Satan in the Garden to prove this point. Some of what Satan said was true but the lies that he mixed in with it turned the entire thing into a lie. And it was deadly indeed!If we as christians do not rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as we read "christian fiction" we will begin to develope a wrong understanding of our God and how He works. The argument that this book is 'just' a fiction novel doesn't ring true. If that were all it was then we would not be seeing books like the one being reviewed on the shelf. The author of this book clearly understands the significanct impact The Shack is having on christian society and thinking.Only a "christian fiction novel" ... I think not!
Can you say TRASH? All 3 of them. If it's 99.9% truth it is all lie.Wrong conclusions will always be drawn from faulty input. Tim, the reviews are interesting, but lack anything to discuss except they are a waste of time and money. I rather prefer a more brief review of the trashy stuff and the full and rich reviews you write of the Good Stuff.
Can you say TRASH? All 3 of them. If it's 99.9% truth it is all lie.Wrong conclusions will always be drawn from faulty input. Tim, the reviews are interesting, but lack anything to discuss except they are a waste of time and money. I rather prefer a more brief review of the trashy stuff and the full, rich reviews you write of the Good Stuff.
Something that I have noticed while looking into this matter and actually participating in debates concerning the Shack, is the fact that I have yet to find knowledgeable Arminians who have a major disagreement with the Trinity as presented in 'The Shack'.In fact on more than one occasion I have been told that the reason that I don't believe in the Trinity as presented in 'The Shack" is because I am a Calvinist. Also, they said (including one Prof from SBC) that Calvinists actually believe in "Tritheism" not the Trinity.To say the least, these differences about the Trinity between Calvinists and Arminians, made me seek to find out where exactly these changes in understanding started. However to this date, I have yet to find any information at all about this.
I feel like a kindergartner reading all of the comments from well trained persons. So please forgive my ignorance. I have been a Christian for about 10 years now, spent time with Precepts Bible study and listening to Thru the Bible by Vernon McGee. I study the Bible and will continue to do so. I read the Shack and the hairs on my neck stood straight up reading the book. I felt it pulling at your emotional state of mind while infusing lies with the book. I came away immediately with the opinion that new Christians should not read the book, nor should anyone and I do not agree with the opinion that it is just good fiction. I agree with the fact that Satan is in the book with some truth infused with lies to deviate Christians from following our Lord and Savior Christ. The only way to stay on course is to stay in the Word and follow the True God.#9 The truth people and the love people hit perfectly on the discussion. I agree when the "bad stuff" is infused with the good stuff #24, then it is time to back away from the book. Tim, thank you for another great review I enjoy these discussions and learn a great deal.
I was once told that the version of the bible used by Jevovah's Witnesses was 90% true, but the 10% wrong was an important 10%.
Here's another interesting review of "The Shack" from an Australian magazine called "The Briefing". I particularly like the wrap up to the review.
"The solution, though, isn't to run away from ‘the shack’; the solution is to spend more time there—not in William P Young's ‘shack’, of course, but in the place where the living God speaks for himself about the big issues of life. We need to spend more time gazing into the face of the God who reveals himself in the Bible."
Amen
Interesting.....Arminian perspectives, Calvinistic perspective, Reformed theologians, "biblical" Christian perspectives..... seems to me there is a lack of a Gracefilled perspective.
What's not graceful about pointing out Biblical errors in a book that's sweeping through the church like a plague? Sheesh, we don't have to swallow everything in the name of not being offensive to our brethren do we? I don't think Paul cared what Peter thought when he called him out in front of the church for being a hypocrite, do you?
I have a Lutheran radio program for 12 years on AM 850 KFUO in St Louis. On October 1 and 8, 2008 I spoke about The Shack in a very positive way. You can listen to those broadcasts by going to www.lawgospel.com and clicking the AM side and go to Law and Gospel and October 1 and 8. My hope is that it becomes a movie.
The Shack is still the #1 NY Times Bestseller, 36 weeks running, with over 6 million in print. If you add pass-along readership, there may be up to 10 million people who have read it with more all the time. I believe it is the cry of a large segment of the population for answers to their deep spiritual questions. Like, "Why does God allow tragedy to good people? Who is God? Does he actually care about us?" etc. I think rather than alienate these readers by critiquing the theology of "The Shack" - questionable as some of it is - if we use these questions to turn readers back to Scripture, we accomplish a redemptive purpose. That's what I'm trying to do at http://shackstudyguide.blogspot.com. Please help me articulate the best possible questions to lead seekers to the truth.
James (7:47 PM), right on. Thanks for posting.I would suggest fans of the book, who think they can have people match the book side by side with the Bible, or go through the two together, go visit the book forum. Read the comments, see how the moderators do not correct false doctrine with the truth. They pretty much blast you if you challenge the book for one minute. They dont correct people who say things like "I guess I dont have to obey God, because we are on one level." They also are awfully jazzed about putting the book in the hands of the military, third world countries etc, and not so keen on handing out Bibles. Do you think it might grieve God to see this kind of attention paid to a work of fiction? Oh, but wait, it is fiction, it's just a story after all and it wasn't meant to contain any theology......really.....
One important note here: this phenomenon of mixing truth with error is really important. Errors that have been successful (if I can say it that way) throughout history have always been sweetened with the truth. Poison is more palatable when mixed with sugar than vomit. It is because of the mixture that serious errors like the big three that you mentioned are more dangerous, not less. Thanks again.
I am not sure that many of the above comments are really relevant to the value of "The Shack." It is not written for 5 pt. Calvinists or anyone who is a committed right leaning evangelical/orthodox doctrinal confessions. It is written for people, who in their subjectivity and human experience, (and also theological infancy) have encountered deep grief and pain. The book is not a theological tract on the sovereignty of God. Those who suffer from tragedy or un-explainable violence, do not need to affirm God's impassivity. The book does what Young intends it to do. It helps people move from conceiving of God as an un-feeling or un-involved God of the philosophers to a the engaged God of creation and renewal. I have a friend going through cancer who is not a committed believer but found that book to encourage and help her understand her suffering in light of God's work in the world.
I read The Shack and I was charmed by its imaginative plot, and the effort to show God is intimately involved with His creatures. For the record, I'm a 5-point Calvinist, and complementarian, but of the "big tent" variety, meaning I appreciate fellowship with non-Calvinists of various stripes...even while I believe the Calvinist model is the most honest to scripture. It wasn't the non-Calvinist points (Wesleyn soteriology) that bothered me...later...after I digested the book and got more emotionally distant from it.
Rather, it is the rank irreverence of portraying God the Father as a fat woman....(He should be portrayed as the bible does....NOT bodily AT ALL) and the sure confusion of roles and authority in the Holy Trinity. I don't think Young has any concept of the atonement...as only in the atonement really do the roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit become clear. I do know that many Arminians these days reject substitutionary atonement, and Open Theism really is the logical end of libertarian freedom--if one's commitment to scripture as holy is lacking.
Upon reading the short-short version of Dr. James DeYoung's background knowledge of Paul Young as a Christian Universalist (found here: http://gospeldriven.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/guest-contributor-dr-james-deyoung-revisiting-the-shack-universal-reconciliation/ ) it's easy to see the center of all the various problematic theology in the book:
It's not that Paul Young is Arminian, its that he is Universalist.