- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/6)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/7)
Open Mind, Closed Bible
- 08/06/08
- 96
Almost eight months after my review of The Shack I continue to get daily emails about it. This is proof, I suppose, of the book’s continued success. I do not know if the novel’s popularity has peaked yet but can see that it is still at the top of its category on many of the bestseller lists. The emails I receive typically fit into one of two categories: the “thanks for the review” category or the “how dare you?” category. Today I want to address just two of the more common critiques of my critique of the book.
Here is how one reader expressed herself: “Hello Tim. I read your review after I had already read The Shack and I think your review is ridiculous. Your review reminds me of exactly why ‘stodgy old religion’ is so unappealing to masses of people.William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” Another concerned reader told me of a professor in a conservative seminary who was untroubled by much of the book’s poor theology. “I was surprised that he seemed not as concerned due to the fact that it is a novel and so some leeway should be allowed for ‘poetic license.’ He acknowledged my concerns and said he shared them as well but said the novel did not ‘intend to do theology.’” I have received these comments, or ones like them, time and time again.
There are two broad arguments used here.
The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.
There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.
The second argument is that The Shack is not a work of theology and, therefore, must not be treated as such. An article at Christianity Today makes this argument. “It’s tricky to speak definitively of The Shack’s theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a “parable” (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.” And in their review of the book they say, “Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology and its storyline, not for its faulty mechanics. Reviewers have criticized the book for hinting at universalism, as well as for feminism and a lack of hierarchy in the Trinity. Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
This is a convenient argument but one we need to guard against. It creates a false, unrealistic division between works that are theological and works that are not. Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision (such as a Systematic Theology) and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not. The Shack is, by the author’s own admission, a work that seeks to change the reader’s perception of God. It is deeply theological! Read the reviews of this book and you will find readers saying how much this book impacted their understanding of God’s person and nature.
Tom Neven, writing for Boundless Line, covers this well in an article titled “But It’s Only Fiction.”
If you’re going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.
So if you’re going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he’s supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don’t care if he’s trying to make God more “accessible.” He’s violated the rules of fiction.
More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to “improve” the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.
The Shack is theological fiction. If it talks about God, it must be so! While it may not require the kind of precision we would expect from a work of formal theology, we cannot deny that the author seeks to teach what he believes to be true about God. And we cannot then deny that it teaches theology that is, in a word, false. It is not an issue of precision but of right and wrong! Fiction is a powerful medium for communicating truth and the evidence of this is in every positive review of the book; the evidence is in the fact that Jesus Himself often communicated using fiction.
The reader who complained about “stodgy old religion” exhorted me to “try to re-read the Shack with a more open mind.” But from her email and the others like it, I can see that in this case an open mind would require a closed Bible. We cannot set aside Scripture even when we read fiction. There is no such thing as only fiction.
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 (96)
“William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The above may definitely be true but which God are they growing closer to? The God of the Bible? Or of The Shack?
Tim,
Thanks for addressing these questions. This book has become a replacement for Biblical truth where I live.......scary.
Sorry... but I want to grow closer to the God of the bible not the god of someones imagination. I read books that help me to do that. Books that take me the "other" way are just plain dangerous.
Tim -
I appreciate your earnestness and sincerity, but your continued recalcitrant and ugly opposition to this wonderful work is wearying. It's clear that you read into the text various theological positions that that author has clearly and explicitly repudiated (specifically with regard to the Trinity, the Atontement and Universalism - search on Google and YouTube for his statements) and I don't doubt that when you "see" these things in the text, you experience a real and emotional aversion to them, but I think you are lacking circumspection here.
I think it's fair to say that if you "saw" these theological positions in the book, that others might and that, therefore, the book should be avoided. Because of this, you feel justified in lambasting a work that theologians much greater than yourself have come out in strong support of without noting the "serious" concerns you seem to see. But, while it's fair to say that, it unfortunately applies to the book you seem to think is so wrongly abused by many of The Shack's defenders - the Bible. In other words, if you can only recommend to people books that are not subject to misinterpretations of the authors' intent, you will have a slim bookshelf indeed.
The book itself is a touching and meaningful devotional work that does so much to oppose, in an accessible way, the constant drumbeat of secularist and anti-theistic rhetoric regarding God's love and compassion in the face of suffering. From God Is Not Great to God's Problem, the reading public has been assaulted with the challenge of reconciling the of evil and suffering of humanity with a good and loving and powerful God. The Shack is certainly no point-by-point refutation of these bad philosophies (I recommend several of Marilyn McCord Adam's books for that), but it is an accessible treatment of numbing evil being reconciled with an all-powerful, beneficient creator in the context of a human story.
Why you continue to miss this central and vital point over misunderstandings of the author's other theological perspectives (offered, at best, as peripheral observations - and, admittedly, not by the best writer around) is hard to understand.
Peace.
I really liked the book, but i do see truth in what you say. Guess i'll just settle that it is a good read (for me), despite a lot of flawed concepts. Ah, how unfortunate. This book would have been legendary if the theology was biblically sound.
Tim,Thanks for your review. I'm using it with folks in our church who are asking me about the book. It seems to come down to people who want to seperate theology from life. I just don't see how you can do it and totally agree with your view of the book. Thanks again,
Hey TimLooks like the shack is a work of fiction along the lines of Purpose Driven, theologically I mean. I personally wouldnt touch this book, I can see no benifit in reading bad theology, except maybe to use it as a springboard to witness to the unsaved that loved this book. I don't believe anyone who loves God and is born again by the Spirit of God could love this book, how can someone enjoy a work that defames and perverts Gods character?
Although I know some may claim my comparison of the two literary forms is blasphemy, if, as CT says, the book was intended as a parable, would the "look for the one lesson" manner of interpreting biblical parables apply? Some of the "qualities" of God in the parables of the unrighteous judge or the friend knocking on the door of his sleeping friend's house may assign theologically incorrect attributes to God if every characteristic is brought over from the literary lesson to reality.
Having said all that, though, I do wish many could get as excited about biblical lessons as about easy-to-read novels on spiritual warfare, the Tribulation, or any number of other topics.
Amen brother! The negative reactions you're getting to your review are symptomatic of a church that long ago abandoned theology in favor of feel-good religion (as has much of the church in the west). The guys at the White Horse Inn call what passes for Christianity in many circles today moralistic therapeutic deism. Since people have been taught to believe that feelings come first and truth second (if at all) any attempt to point out the inaccuracy of a person's theology is seen as mean-spirited and unchristian (after all it might make them, or those who agree with them feel bad, a violation of the prime directive.)
You're not scratching the itching ears and there's always a price to pay for that! :-)
The Shack is just another version of Israel's golden calf of Exodus 32, man's making an idol, this time, in the form of something from the earth below. We see how quickly the people of Israel, including Aaron, the high priest, fell in line there, and the bestseller lists show that people of the 21st century aren't much wiser. Sadly, people prefer William Young's god to the Holy God of Scripture. He/she likes to "hang out," cook, stargaze, and garden. It's hard to worship a god like that, but you could have lunch with him/her or go to a movie together. Only the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts can bring us to a real appreciation of the God of Isaiah 6, who drives us to our knees and makes us realize who we are and how much we need Him.
I agree that the Shack has some serious theological issues. Are they too serious? That's for the discerning reader to decide with the Spirit and the Word as guide. What I don't understand is the apparent hypocrisy in those who strongly discourage reading the Shack while praising the reading and watching of the Narnia books and movies.
If you are going to suggest readers avoid the Shack, then be consistent and discourage readers from reading The Chronicles of Narnia as well. Narnia shares many of the same theological issues as the Shack. It's Trinitarianism is questionable, and it clearly teaches inclusivism (if not complete universalism). This last theological point in the Narnia books has been used by Brian McLaren in his book "The Story We Find Ourselves In," to support universalism, and from Lewis' other works it is obvious that he fell somewhere between inclusivism and full universalism.
So why is there this discouragement of one work alongside the encouragement and praise of another whenever they espouse the same theological errors?
The most frustrating thing about "but it's only fiction!" is that The Shack is being promoted (by its author and publisher) as much more than fiction. Apparently it's supposed to change your life by changing how you think about God-- that's what the press says, and what the celebrity-Christian blurbs say.
Promoting it this way (and passing around "tear-stained copies" in order to change others' lives as well) makes it ridiculous to then respond to theological criticism with "but it's only fiction!"
Tim:Thanks for yet more insightful comments on The Shack. I appreciate your conclusion, as it hit very close to home for me. After months of resistance, I finally broke down and read The Shack, but I did so with an open mind, AND open Bible.
I am actually glad I read it, mostly to see what the fuss/excitement was all about. On the one hand, I can understand why people have enjoyed reading it. Theology aside, I found it to be a clever storyline. On the other hand, its problems with speaking truth about God really are glaring. And its potential to mislead someone who is struggling with their understanding of the nature of God is considerable.
Thanks for your part of the continuing effort to shine light on The Shack's pitfalls and shortcomings.
The Narnia comparison is also pretty common. I agree that Lewis had some theological issues. But there are at least two differences. First of all, the example everyone gives-- the vignette in Last Battle that suggests inclusivism or universalism-- is about three paragraphs out of seven books. I'm sure there are other things I wish Lewis had done differently, but this is the exception rather than the rule in the series-- by a long shot. The overwhelming positives of the series vastly outweigh the few negatives.
Secondly, Narnia is not an allegory or a parable-- it's a series of fantasy books driven by a Christian worldview, and there are elements that present Christian truths in powerful ways. The Shack puts words in the mouths of the persons of the Trinity. There's a big difference between that and a lion who serves as a Christ figure.
"I don’t believe anyone who loves God and is born again by the Spirit of God could love this book, how can someone enjoy a work that defames and perverts Gods character"
Wow. Pride? Arrogance? Legalism? The ability to judge the hearts others? Talk about bad theology and a closed Bible...
If you can at all begin to discern the value of philosophy by the people who praise it, I think this blog is especially telling.
Also note that Tim references the works of Lewis as "positive" examples as a contrast to the "negative" example of Williams. It's interesting to note that many fundamentalists roared against Lewis' works on exactly the same bases Tim argues against The Shack. In fact, one of my favorite Lewis works, The Great Divorce, was so controversial, Lewis had to add a preface to later editions clarifying that he wasn't teaching "theology" but was using fiction to discuss questions of the human heart.
Tim,
I am thankful of your insightful reviews that I find to be very honest and objective in relation to Scripture. You have challenged readers of The Shack to read with an eye of skepticism and compare its theology with the one and true theology of Scripture. As you quoted in your book (The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment) from John MacArthur, “Here’s a simple definition drawn from what the Bible teaches: Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth...Truth is theological.” The Shack was written under the umbrella of fictional literature, but this does not mean that an author of fiction can support inconsistent theology in relation to Scripture and portray the character of God in any which way that he pleases. Thank you for your reviews.
Kyle,Every form of literature serves a purpose. The Chronicles of Narnia are a work of children's fantasy. It is simply a tale of wonder that transcends ordinary life written with children in mind. They were not written with the intention of teaching children anything about God, the Trinity, or the atonement. They were written as a work of art and most children read them without even having a clue that Aslan is some sort of Christ. If elements of Christianity can be found in the books, which they can, they happened, but they were not the motivation behind the writing, nor the point. Lewis states this himself in many of his letters. From what I understand about The Shack, the purpose of the book was to draw people closer to the Lord. This immediately binds the author to portray truth in a realistic way, not necessarily with its' facts, but with the meaning behind those facts. It seems to me that the meaning of the story obscures the reality of Scripture and this is not just a betrayal of Biblical Truth, but a betrayal of literary art.
Jeff,Again we must remember that it is not just the facts of a book, but the meaning behind those facts. Obviously you cannot take a bus from Hell to Heaven, as in Lewis' The Great Divorce, but the meaning behind his allegory is crystal clear and orthodox. The meaning behind the symbolical facts in The Shack is anything but an orthodox God.
It's also interesting to note all the folks coming out to defend Lewis' works and theology and to point out differences with Williams'. Yet based on their own personal statements of belief, Williams is significantly more orthodox than Lewis. Lewis dallied with universalism throughout his Christian life - Williams clearly repudiates it; Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; Williams states that he does believe the Bible to be inerrant; etc.
Now, there's no question who is the better writer between Williams and Lewis. And, I suppose, some of the misplaced acrimony toward The Shack is the fault of Williams' writing capabilities. Nonetheless, there seems to be quite of bit of pathological inference, willful ignorance, and shallow thinking going into the criticisms as well.
Jessica, I disagree. Is it orthodox to believe in the doctrine of purgatory - as is the clear implication of The Great Divorce? So clear, in fact, that the author himself had to specifically issue a clarification added to subsequent editions of the book? Lewis' story in The Great Divorce is anything but orthodox in either its facts or its implications - but Lewis defends it on the basis of "speculation" as well as on the basis of the intent of the story being about the human heart and its transformation and not about theological issues concerning the nature and character of God, heaven or hell. Very similar to Williams' own statements regarding The Shack.
RE: my last post, "implication" in the final paragraph should have been "inference". Lewis didn't intend to imply the doctrine of purgatory (he says this in the clarification I mention), but it was the common inference fundamentalists took when they read it. Thus the controversy and Lewis' subsequent clarification.
Great post, Tim.
I think you did a pretty good job responding to those criticisms.
The Word needs to remain central. If people do desire to draw closer to God at the behest of a false portrayal of God, then it's likely they want to draw near to some God like creation of their mind. People have always done this kind of thing.
Also, all throughout history poor theological shifts rarely show their nasty side for a couple of generations. People may very likely enjoy the way they now see God, and whether they like it or not, their new theology. But, what will the implications of these subtle shifts be 100 years from now?
I would hypothesize, based on what we've seen in history, that the effects could be tragic. The Word must remain central.
Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision ...and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not.
Great comment. I could substitute "conversations" for "works" and use that just about every week!
Pragmatism...yikes, yikes, yikes! It's so easy to fall into the if-it-works-it's-good mentality, but no! Thanks for pointing this out.
Open mind, yes, closed Bible, no. That's just it!
Kyle, the issue you addressed is mention above in this post, in what he quoted from the Tom Neven review.
Whether "The Shack" or "Narnia", these are the works of men. I am grateful that God has given us men to examine and extract truths from scripture- even through fiction, but always, ALWAYS, must men's thoughts be measured against scripture. Whether I read Piper, MacArthur or my other favorite authors I never presume they are incapable of error.
Regarding the perception of Jesus in "The Shack" that so many seem to dwell on:
Rev. 19:11-1611I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Tim has provided a service by warning people of trouble that may lie in "The Shack". The unchanging God of the Bible gave us Jesus, who showed us a perfect life of love, sacrifice and obedience. That same God will also judge the wicked. It sounds like "The Shack" may have missed some important facets of our great and merciful God.
In the Christianity Today article that Tim mentioned, it said:
"Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology..."
"The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology."
Its interesting that many readers love the book for its so-called 'clarification' of some major Christian theologies, but when pressed on the issue of right theology they quickly claim that the book was not meant to be a 'systematic theology'.
It seems, like it or not, the author has offered an explanation of God that many are taking literally. If they were not affected by Young's god, then why would they so enjoy the book?
And without a doubt, if the words that Young's god speaks have "weaknesses" or if we have to take them with "a grain of salt" while "looking past some of the more seemingly universalistic tendencies", then he is not the god of the Bible.
That is what frightens me. Why would we want to fill our minds with the words (however helpful they may seem) of a god that is not really God?
As always thank you for unapologetically speaking the truth. It may not be appreciated by all but it is by many. Excellent post.
I think the defenders who say "it's just fiction" don't realize how powerful fiction is. Despite what someone said above, Lewis did want children to learn from his works. He called it "baptizing the imagination" -- the idea that concepts get into your subconscious and will emerge when you encounter them again later (e.g., the idea of atonement for sin).
If someone is reading a work like the Shack aware of the questionable theology and trying to discern the bad from the good, they'll probably be fine. Those who read it as "just fiction," though, are very likely to absorb these ideas and have them reinforce theological errors they meet later.
Jeff,Considering that Lewis was Anglo-Catholic, even if he did imply a belief in purgatory,or if it could be inferred from his book, that would hardly make him unorthodox. It is one thing to disagree on theological issues that have been hotly debated by Christians from the three strands of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern, and quite another to develop a view of God that no orthodox Christian has ever had before. Again, it is not the facts of a fictional book, because a work of fiction by its' very nature is going to have elements that are not true, but the meaning behind those facts, that must be true.
Lewis' meaning about right and wrong, good and evil were impeccably orthodox.
jeff_r,
In my opinion, modalism is a greater error than the denial of inerrancy or universalism. Heresy in theology proper strikes at the "vitals of religion" in a way that bibliological or soteriological errors do not necessarily.
Chris B,Let me clarify what I said about Lewis and Narnia. I did not mean that children won't learn from these books, just that it wasn't the whole point of the book. Lewis did not start writing these books saying to himself how can I teach children theology? He started with the image of a faun carrying parcels in the snow and went from there. The theology found its' way into the book, I am certainly not denying that, but it was not the intention of his writing. If he had started with the goal of catechizing children, well, that would have been bad art, and Lewis himself was strongly opposed to bad art.
This isn't really a comment on this article, but I thought I would share a clever little story from my week. It was too good to keep to myself.In our city, there is a well traveled main road that many people drive on every single day. There is also a church along that road. The church has a marquee out front that always says - 'Finally, a liberal church!' It is a baptist church of some sort. We drive by it pretty often. One day last week, as we drove by, there was an additional sign next to the permanent marquee. This one said, 'We don't approve of torture'. (Who does really?) I assume it was a somewhat veiled message pointing perhaps to Guantanamo or Iraq and various forms of interrogation. As we drove by, my husband said in response to the signs, "They should have one up there that says 'We don't condone the crucifixion'." LOL. I loved his wisdom and humor at that moment, and thought you would too.
Jonathan -
I don't disagree, but to the point of this dialogue, it's a moot point.
The issue is that Williams has denounced clearly and explicitly all the supposed theological heresies he's accused of "implying" in The Shack and that he's dealing with an entirely different topic regarding human suffering and the ultimate goodness and provision of God. Folks are getting wrapped around the axle on issues that are both secondary to theme of The Shack and are unintended/denounced by the author.
I would nuance the issue re:modalism with the fact that any non-systematic treatment of the Trinity tends to lean toward one of the classic trinitarian heresies. Pick up any contemporary Christian novelization in which one or more of the godhead make an appearance as a character and I think you'll see the point.
This doesn't excuse poor theology, of course, but it makes the point that in countless sermons, lessons, books (fiction or non-) Christians are exposed to oversimplified explanations or depictions of the Trinity that, arguably, could distort one's understanding of that important doctrine. Yet for some reason (jealousy, pettiness, boredom?) some folks have picked this otherwise charming and helpful book, The Shack as the poster child for not getting the Trinity "just right" in a work not intended as a theological treatment of the subject.
"If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good."
I'm wondering if you mean by this statement that: anything that stirs emotions in our life outside of reading the Bible is not good. That is - we shouldn't watch, read, listen to, practice anything that stirs emotions. Are you saying God cannot accomplish his end through any means outside of the Bible?
and we should apply Biblical discernment on everything, not just some things. Thus, we should always have our "Bible open", God would not want it any other way.
Tim,
Thank you for this post and your previous review. I am still trying to make sense of this book, but for the most part I agree with your analysis.
I have 2 questions:
1. Is your main concern with The Shack's theology–or the way The Shack's theology is presented? Most of the arguments against this book focus on the presentation of the theology or on tertiary aspects that I doubt the author intended. I'm just curious to know if you find gaping holes in the central theme/theology of the book.
2. If the author is sincere in framing the book as a parable, do you feel there is a line of "acceptable symbolism" that should not be crossed when presenting theological parables? After all, Jesus presented God in various human forms when telling parables.
Thanks again.
All I can say is, thank you. I plan to read the book for the first time within the next week or so. I can't say I agree or disagree with you at this point because I want to understand the context from the book itself. Having said that, your arguments against the theology in it, at least from the passages you have referenced, are well put. Thank you for your discernment.
Marshall
Yet based on their own personal statements of belief, Williams is significantly more orthodox than Lewis.
Jeff, I assume you mean Paul William Young. A close family friend of Young's has detailed Young's embrace of Christian universalism, as I reference in my review. Young and his co-authors can denounce and renounce anything they want, but the book teaches universalism, plain and simple. I quote the following in my review:
"I am now fully reconciled to the world."
"The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?"
"The whole world, Mack (192).
That's universalism, unless you totally redefine "reconciled," which apparently they must do.
I won't waste a bunch of space here quoting my stuff about fiction and Narnia related to The Shack. but I also wrote a recent rant called Theological Fiction: Should There Be Boundaries? for anyone interested.
I recently found your site after it was referred to in a personal review I read of The Shack on I-tunes Audiobooks. I am just starting the book after many of my friends have read it and rave about it. Thank you for laying out a biblical perspective on the theology so obviously found in the book. I am sharing your site with friends and family. Your critiques are much appreciated!!!
Tim, Great review -- charitable and biblically faithful. Thanks for making it available. Hang in there, bro.
Hello Tim,
Thanks for your ministry and review of "The Shack." Though I have not personally read the book myself I have read other reviews from trusted Theologians and have read that the book undermines Scripture and the Church, mutilates the Gospel and offers up wrong teachings on the Godhead as well as offering up a New Age understanding of God.
It's hard to find time to personally read and review all the dangerous books out there in the Christian market, so I appreciate your ministry to us all. My husband is youth pastor at our home church and we have created a personal blog for the teens to use as a resource to help them in their Christian walk. We have included your website as a resource for them.http://preachthescriptures.blogspot.com/
Thanks brother!
Steve and Linda
Tim,
I am very thankful for your review. It is balanced and biblical. And thank you for making a printable version available so that it can be given out as a resource.
I am curious why those who love this book and are moved "closer to God" are so unwilling to just take a look at where the book strays away from biblical theology? At once, they are putting their experience from the book ahead of scripture. And, I'm seeing from some of the comments above, they are at once defensive about the subject. I'm currently dealing with these types of reaction from a cousin who has read the book and is unwilling to read your review or any other biblically based commentary on the book.
The most frightening part about all of this is the way it seems to be spreading like wildfire through churches and endorsed by pastors. It is beginning to spread in our fellowship and it has prompted our senior pastor to write his own review as well as planning to address it from the pulpit in the coming weeks.
Kepp up the good work brother! Glory to God!
Tim, I heard you on Pilgrim Radio which was founded and transmits from the next town south of Reno. The voice of Tim Challies! Not to be easily forgotten. :)
This review/update comes at a good time. My little ladies book club (hosted by the little lady up the street) has decided to read The Shack as raved about by one of the ladies. I hated the book, but am looking forward to gleaning lots of insight to share before our next book club, and presenting the true Gospel to the group. So...thanks.
Tim,
I am in 100% agreement with you. People need to understand it's not about the warm fuzzies or how something "touches" us or makes us "feel." It's about truth. The Shack depicts God in a way that is pure idolatry. God is being represented as someone contrary to who he is. Lest people forget when Israel built the golden calf and worshipped it, they claimed they were worshipping Yahweh! Yet God didn't say to the Israelites "Well, I can see how this was meaningful to you, and really touched you, so I suppose it's okay."
-Tom
Just a short comment (via phone!)from one who hasn't read the book but -as I outlined in a longer comment to Tim-perhaps has some understanding of the writer et al's theology. Perhaps Tim would post my email?..I'd encourage persons to check out Steve McVey's books ' grace walk'and 'grace rules'-as well as his '101 lies'videos- for some issues of the new covenant etc that appear to resonate. I think Wayne Jacobsen has a connection with Greg Albrecht and Jim Fowler (see 'Plain Truth Magazine')-(Re:' modalism'- that would be heresy -but I understand the intent is a'perichoresis'-the intra-Trinitarian love-relationships-which no doubt informs the nature of 'submission'within a different light. Re:'fully reconciled to all men';I'd point out that 'universal atonement-particular applicationists'(e.g. Shedd)rightly have reconciliation having an objective ground-God to man,paying the debt-and a subjective ground-man to God- that personally appropriates that through faith. I'm not saying the author is a 'calvinist'but just pointing out that many higher calvinists freak when they see any concept of ' it's finished'for all men,as the grounds of a gospel invitation for all men. They naturally tend to think it must mean universalism...well,just some thoughts.
Hey brother Tim,
Let me ask you something to be fair. Should those who critique the book read it first to draw their own opinions of the book? Most of the commenters that I see on your review seem to have never read the book whatsoever. However some are even using your review to share with others why they shouldn't read the book. Do you believe that to be apologetically lazy? I do brother in all ways. Many of the people who provide criticism very rarely read what they are critiquing (I mean criticism in the technical sense not the negative use of the word).
I believe this to be dangerous and maybe something you can address. I believe you would scorn a man who would say "I don't need to read the bible, I will just agree with whatever my preacher says" (though some preachers love it I am sure). If we are going to be biblical thinkers and consistent with our apologetics we must read the works we agree or disagree with.
There tends to be this spirit in evangelicalism today. If _______ (insert your favorite theologian) agrees with it then it is good, if not then it is bad. Many have done this with Pagan Christianity, only seeing the cover on blogs and Amazon. Again I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your review as a believer in Christ and if you live in a place where Freedom of Speech is excercised have at it. I guess my concern would be for those who are clueless about the book, its authors and the purpose.
I guess my challenge would be for you to say, "hey read it first". Many Christians are left with pie dripping from their chins because they have been exposed for not thinking but parroting the response of another. Lets not do that. Lets promote a freedom to think, a freedom to use our brain and then if need be the freedom to disagree. But to draw a conclusion from someone else's opinion well.... that just ain't thinking.
Wow, just starting reading this book today (have to see what all the commotion is about!), so far there doesn't seem to be much theology at all, must not be far enough in...
I'll be interested to read your original review when I finish reading the book.
Jake said in #14, Secondly, Narnia is not an allegory or a parable— it’s a series of fantasy books driven by a Christian worldview, and there are elements that present Christian truths in powerful ways. The Shack puts words in the mouths of the persons of the Trinity. There’s a big difference between that and a lion who serves as a Christ figure.
Actually, there's no difference. Aslan isn't a Christ figure. He doesn't represent Jesus, he is Jesus, as He manifests in this other world.
Lionel makes good sense. There seems to be a lot of cliquey'implicit 'faith''in protestantism. But surely genuine spiritual life is more than functioning of a bare epistemology and derivative ethic. I really think that many 'reformed' people have done with reforming. They seem to have open bibles in one hand,'the reformed faith' outlined in their favourite creed in the other,and a closed mind with which to read the former through the grid of the latter. I'm not wanting to be contentious,but I feel there's a lot of truth to the same.
Here is what I just don't understand. If you the reader likes books like this, why do you come to this blog? AND why does it bother you so much what someone writes about a book that if you read this blog with any consistancy, you would know the review of the book won't be something you like? Just don't understand.
Lionel, you wrote:"Most of the commenters that I see on your review seem to have never read the book whatsoever. However some are even using your review to share with others why they shouldn’t read the book. Do you believe that to be apologetically lazy?"
Speaking for myself I would say no. A good reviewer gains trust with his audience and is able to provide information that tells them something is not "worth" reading. I've read books Tim has reviewed and I find his critiques inciteful and balanced. And isn't that the point of reviewing? Providing an audience with recommendations to read or not to read something?
Regarding "The Shack", I suppose I would read it if persons in my sphere of influence intended on reading it and I felt I needed to discuss in detail what the problems are. Otherwise the point is why waste your time? No one is saying to burn it, just save your reading for other things. And by the way, this isn't the Bible. Comparing the Bible as an optional source of reading to "The Shack" doesn't help your case.