- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment" Blog Tour (Day 7)
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/16)
"The Shack" by William P. Young
- 01/15/08
- 72
I am certain that there is no other book I've been asked to review more times than William P. Young's The Shack, a book that is currently well within the top-100 best-selling titles at Amazon. The book, it seems, is becoming a hit and especially so among students and among those who are part of the Emergent Church. In the past few weeks many concerned readers have written to ask if I would be willing to read it and to provide a review. Because I am always interested in books that are popular among Christians, I was glad to comply.
The Amazon reader reviews for The Shack are remarkable. With 102 reviews already posted, it is maintaining a five-star rating with fully ninety three of the reviewers awarding five stars. Only two have offered one star. A search of blogs and websites turns up near-unanimous enthusiastic (and almost unbridled) praise for the book. "This book is a life-changer, a transformer." "[The Shack] has become a favorite book OF ALL TIME." "I am changed. I pray indelibly. My oh my!" This book, which was released in May but which has already gone into its fourth printing, is making a major impact. It has obviously struck a chord with Christians.
I'll warn in advance that this review is going to be long. My major focus will be the book's content though I'll pause to glance fleetingly at the book's style as well. Because I've received so many questions and because the author covers so much ground in the book (and sometimes in a way that is somewhat unclear) I am going to proceed carefully and with many quotes.
There are two things I would like to note about this type of book--theological fiction. First, because of the limitations of the genre, it is sometimes difficult to really know what an author means by what he says. There is often some question as to what comes from the author and what comes from the characters. The author cannot always adequately explain himself; nor can he provide footnotes or references to Scripture. It can be challenging, then, to turn to the Bible to ensure that what he teaches is true. This makes the task of discernment doubly difficult, for one must first interpret the fiction to understand what is being said and then seek to compare that to the Bible. We will do well to keep this in mind as we proceed.
Second, we must also realize that, because of the emotional impact of reading good fiction, it can be easy to allow it to become manipulative and to allow the emotion of a moment to bypass our ability to discern what is true and what is not. This is another thing the reader must keep in mind. We cannot trust our laughter or our tears but must allow our powers of discernment to be trained to distinguish good from evil (see Hebrews 5:14). Discernment is primarily a Spirit-empowered discipline of the mind rather than an emotional response.
So let's look at this book together, doing the task God requires of us when he tells us to be men and women of discernment--Christians who heed God's admonition to "test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil." We'll simply compare what Young teaches to the Bible.
The Book as a Book
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.
But Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains. The book's reviews focus not on the quality of the story but on its spiritual or emotional impact. Eugene Peterson grasps this, saying in his glowing endorsement, "When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of "The Shack." This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" did for his. It's that good!" Could it really be that good? Is it good enough to warrant positive comparison to the English-language book that has been read more widely than any other save the Bible? Let's turn to the book's content and find out.
What Is The Shack?
The Shack revolves around Mack (Mackenzie) Philips. Four years before this story begins, Mack's young daughter, Missy, was abducted during a family vacation. Though her body was never found, the police did find evidence in an abandoned shack to prove that she had been brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer who preyed on young girls. As the story begins, Mack, who has been living in the shadow of his Great Sadness, receives a strange note that is apparently from God. God invites Mack to return to this shack for a get together. Though uncertain, Mack visits the scene of the crime and there has a weekend-long encounter with God, or, more properly, with the godhead.
What should you do when you come to the door of a house, or cabin in this case, where God might be? Should you knock? Presumably God already knew that Mack was there. Maybe he ought to simply walk in and introduce himself, but that seemed equally absurd. And how should he address him? Should he call him Father, or Almighty One, or perhaps Mr. God, and would it be best if he fell down and worshipped, not that he was really in the mood.
As he tried to establish some inner mental balance, the anger that he thought had so recently died inside him began to emerge. No longer concerned or caring about what to call God and energized by his ire, he walked up to the door. Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman.
This large and oh-so-stereotypical matronly African-American woman is God (or at least an anthropomorphism of God she chose to take on in order to communicate with Mack). Throughout the story she is known as Papa. Near the end, because Mack requires a father figure, she turns into a pony-tailed, grey-haired man, but otherwise God is this woman. Jesus is a young to middle-aged man of Middle-Eastern (i.e. Jewish) descent with a big nose and rather plain looks while the Holy Spirit is played by Sarayu, a small, delicate and eclectic woman of Asian descent. By this point many people will choose to close the book and be done with it. But for the purposes of this review, let's just assume you are able to get past seeing God and the Holy Spirit portrayed in this way and let's press on.
There is very little action in The Shack and the bulk of the book is dialog, mostly as the members of the Trinity communicate with Mack, though occasionally we see glimpses into their relationship with one another. The banter between the members of the Trinity, most of which is geared towards helping us understand the love that exists between them, leads to some rather bizarre dialog. Take this as a typical example:
Mack was shocked at the scene in front of him. It appeared that Jesus had dropped a large bowl of some sort of batter or sauce on the floor, and it was everywhere. It must have landed close to Papa because the lower portion of her skirt and bare feet were covered in the gooey mess. All three were laughing so hard that Mack didn't think they were breathing. Sarayu said something about humans being clumsy and all three started roaring again. Finally, Jesus brushed past Mack and returned a minute later with a large basin of water and towels. Sarayu had already started wiping the goop from the floor and cupboards, but Jesus went straight to Papa and, kneeling at her feet, began to wipe off the front of her clothes. He worked down to her feet and gently lifted one foot at a time, which he directed into the basin where he cleaned and massaged it.
"Ooooh, that feels soooo good!" exclaimed Papa, as she continued her tasks at the counter.
Young covers a wide variety of theological topics in this book, each of which is relevant to the theme of Mack's suffering and his inability to trust in a God who could let his daughter be treated in such a horrifying way. The author is unafraid to tackle subjects of deep theological import--a courageous thing to do in so difficult a genre as fiction. The reader will find himself diving into deep waters as he reads this book.
Much of what Young writes is good and even helpful (again, assuming that the reader can see past the human personifications of God). He affirms the absolute nature of what is good and teaches that evil exists only in relation to what is good; he challenges the reader to understand that God is inherently good and that we can only truly trust God if we believe Him to be good; he acknowledges the human tendency to create our image of God by looking at human qualities and assuming that God is simply the same but more so; he attempts to portray the loving relationships within the Trinity; and so on. For these areas I am grateful as they provided helpful correctives to many false understandings of God.
But the book also raised several concerns. Young covers many topics and time would fail me to discuss each of them. Instead, I will look at concerns with some of the book's broader themes and will do so under several theological headings.
The Trinity
Young teaches that the Trinity exists entirely without hierarchy and that any kind of hierarchy is the result of sin. The Trinity, he says, "are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being'... Hierarchy would make no sense among us." Now it's possible that he is referring to a kind of dominance or grade or command structure that may well be foreign to the godhead. But a reading of the Bible will prove that hierarchy does, indeed, exist even where there is no sin. After all, the angels exist in a hierarchy and have done so since before the Fall. Also, in heaven there will be degrees of reward and there will be some who are appointed to special positions (such as the Apostles). And the Bible makes it clear that there is some kind of hierarchy even within the Trinity. The Spirit and the Son have submitted themselves to the Father. The task of the Spirit is to lead people to the Son who in turn brings glory to the Father. Never do we find the Father submitting to the Spirit or to the Son. Their hierarchy is perfect--without anger or malice or envy, but it is a hierarchy nonetheless.
There are other teachings about the Trinity that concerned me. For example, Papa says "I am truly human, in Jesus." This simply cannot be true. God [the Father--a term that the author avoids] is not fully human in Jesus. This melds the two persons of God in a way that is simply unbiblical. Some of what Young teaches is novel and even possible, but without Scriptural support. For example, he teaches that the triune nature of God was an absolute necessity since without it God would be incapable of love. His reasoning is not perfectly clear but seems to be that if God did not have such a relationship "within himself" he would be unable to love. But this is not taught in the Bible.
Overall, I had to conclude that Young has an inadequate and often-unbiblical understanding of the Trinity. While granting that the Trinity is a very difficult topic to understand and one that we cannot know fully, there are several indications that he often blurs the distinct persons of the Trinity along with their roles and their unique attributes. Combined with his novel but unsupported conjectures, this is a serious concern.
Submission
Young uses the discussion about the Trinity as a bridge to a the subject of submission. Here he teaches that each member of the Trinity submits to the other. Jesus says, "That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and will always be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way." Why would the God of the universe seek to be submitted to mere humans? "Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship." Genuine relationships, according to the author, must be marked by mutual submission. "As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply 'be' in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other's concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy." Submission, according to this book, must be mutual, so that husbands submit to wives while wives submit to husbands, and parents submit to children while children submit to parents. While the Bible does teach that we are to submit to one another, it also teaches that God has ordained some kinds of hierarchy. While a husband is to submit his desires to his wife, even to the point of sacrificing his life for her, he is never called to submit to her in an authoritative sense. Wives, though, are commanded to submit to their husbands, acknowledging that the husband is the head of the family. Similarly, all people are to submit to the God-given authorities and every person is responsible to submit to God.
This understanding of absolute equality not just in value (which the Bible affirms) but also in role and function (which the Bible does not affirm), leads to a strange idea about why God created Eve out of Adam. He teaches that it was crucial for man be created before woman, but with woman hidden inside man. Had this not happened, there could not have been a proper circle of relationship since otherwise man would always come from woman (through childbirth), allowing her to claim a dominant position. She came out of him and now all men come out of her. This allows total, absolute equality, says Young. I can think of absolutely no biblical proof for this and neither does the author offer any.
And so we see that Young uses The Shack to teach an unbiblical understanding of submission. And he uses this topic to bridge to another.
Free Will
Young's understanding of free will seems to follow from submission. "I don't want slaves to do my will," says Jesus. "I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me." Speaking in veiled terms about conversion or something like it, Jesus says, "We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union with you. If you want to do your thing, have at it. Time is on our side." God, it seems, has already forgiven all humans for their sin and has willingly submitted himself to them, though only some people will choose relationship. He is fully reconciled to all human beings and simply waits for them to do their part. Never does Young clearly discuss the consequences that will face those who refuse to accept this offer of union.
Overall, Young presents a God who is unable or unwilling to break into history in any consequential way. He is sovereign at times, but certainly not so in conversion (a topic that receives only scant attention) and is limited by the free will choices of human beings. Scant attention is paid to God's fore-ordination, the understanding that nothing happens without it somehow being part of His decree (even while God cannot be accused of being the author of evil). Papa explains to Mack, "There was no way to create freedom without a cost." But nowhere in the Bible do we find that God is somehow made captive by human free will and that He has to allow things to proceed in order to maintain His own integrity as Creator. Always God is sovereign, even over the free will choices of men. Our inability to understand how this can be does not preclude us from the responsibility of believing it.
Forgiveness
Much of the story focuses on forgiveness. Mack has to learn to forgive first God (or at least to come to an intellectual understanding of why God was unable to intervene to save Missy) and then, at the book's culmination, to forgive the murderer. I am adamantly opposed to the idea that we would ever need to forgive God for anything. However, because this teaching is seen only vaguely in the novel, I will pass over it for now and turn to another area of forgiveness--that of unconditional forgiveness.
Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness. This is true of God's offer of forgiveness to us and, as we are to model this in our human relationships, must be true of how we offer forgiveness to others. So when, at the book's climax, Mack cries out "I forgive you" to the murderer (who is not present and has not sought forgiveness) he cannot offer true forgiveness. Neither can true forgiveness exist where Mack is unable to pursue reconciliation with this man. Forgiveness makes no sense and means nothing if we require it in this way. It may make a person feel better about himself, but it cannot bring about true forgiveness and true reconciliation. And so Young teaches a therapeutic, inadequate and unbiblical understanding of forgiveness.
Scripture and Revelation
There are few doctrines more important to Christian living than this one--understanding how it is that God chooses to communicate with human beings. Though the Bible teaches that Scripture is the "norming norm," many Christians give precedence to other supposed forms of revelation, and particularly promptings, leadings and "still, small voices." Sure enough, such an emphasis is seen clearly in The Shack. How will we hear from God in day-to-day life (away from the miraculous shack)? "You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours," says Sarayu. "Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow our relationship." And where will we find the Spirit? "You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship--a way of coming to be with us."
Beyond looking for new revelation, The Shack says little about how God has communicated or will continue to communicate with us in Scripture. There are a couple of times that it mentions the Bible, but never does it point to Scripture as a real authority or as the sufficient Word of God. "In seminary [Mac] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects... Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?" Here we see Young pointing away from Scripture rather than towards it. Through Mack he scoffs at the idea that God has spoken authoritatively and sufficiently through the Bible. And if he points away from Scripture he points towards subjective promptings and leadings.
Though common, such teaching is dangerous and directly detracts from the sufficiency of Scripture. When we admit that God has not, in the Bible, said all that He needs to say to us, we open the doors for all manner of new revelation, much of which may contradict the Bible. What authority is there if not the Bible? Ultimately the issue of revelation is an issue of authority and too many Christians are willing to trust their own authority over the Bible's. What authority does Young rely on as he brings teaching here in The Shack? Does he look to a higher authority or does he look mostly to himself? The reader can have no confidence that Young loves and respects God's Word has He chose to give it to us in Scripture.
Salvation
The book contains surprisingly little teaching about salvation. When Young does discuss conversion, he places it firmly in the camp of relationship but also uses the stereotypical phrases such as "this is not a religion" and "Jesus isn't a Christian." Jesus apparently loves all people in exactly the same way, having judged them worthy of his love. Young also wades dangerously close to universalism saying that Jesus has no interest in making people into Christians. Rather, no matter what faith they come from, he wishes to "join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa." He denies that all roads lead to him (since most roads lead nowhere) but says instead, "I will travel any road to find you." Whether Young holds to universalism or not, and whether he believes that all faiths can lead a person to God, the book neither affirms nor refutes.
Conclusion
Many other topics receive less attention but also raise concerns. For example, Jesus comments on religion, politics and economics saying "They are the man-created trinity of errors that ravage the earth and deceives those I care about." But Young offers no biblical proof that this is something Jesus would teach. In other places God seems to gloss over sin, judging certain sins almost inconsequential. And so it goes.
So where does all of this leave us? It is clear to me that The Shack is a mix of good and bad. Young teaches much that is of value and he teaches it in a slick and effective way. Sadly, though, there is much bad mixed in with the good. As we pursue his major theological thrusts we see that many of them wander away, by varying degrees, from what God tells us in Scripture.
Despite the great amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodoxy Christianity. For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, "I understand what you're saying. I did that for years after seminary. I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn't know you. This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers."
Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young's readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: "Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It's a gift. 'Discipleship' will never be lessons again." Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their "modern" mindsets. "If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening." Still another says "This book was so shocking to my "staid" Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is." At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity--to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology--and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.
Eugene Peterson says this book is as good and as important as The Pilgrim's Progress. Well, it really is not. It is neither as good nor as original a story and it lacks the theological precision of Bunyan's work. But really, this is a bit of a facile comparison. The Pilgrim's Progress, after all, is allegory--a story that has a second distinct meaning that is partially hidden behind its literal meaning. The Shack is not meant to be allegory. Nor can The Shack quite be equated with a story like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where C.S. Lewis simply asked (and answered) this kind of question: "What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" The Shack is in a different category than these more notable Christian works. It seeks to represent the members of the Trinity as they are (or as they could be) and to suggest through them what they might teach were they to appear to us in a similar situation. There is a sense of attempted or perceived reality in this story that is missing in the others. This story is meant to teach theology that Young really believes to be true. The story is a wrapper for the theology. In theory this is well and good; in practice the book is only as good as its theology. And in this case, the theology just is not good enough.
Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology.
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 (72)
This review is by a man with opinions based on his paradigms just as William P. Young is a man who wrote according to a paradigm. Lets not get so wrapped up in ourselves and allow the Spirit of God to unwrap it all - or dont you trust His Spirit? Why is it that Christians get so up in arms about things like this - eg. the davinci code, jesus christ superstar, the secret - when in the big picture, regardless of how it looks, these events are nothing when compared to who God is and how He chooses to work in our lives!Weep at the injustice, get angry at senseless violence, help the needy - but dont kick at people because they see things differently then you!
1. Gerry wrote:This review is by a man with opinions based on his paradigms just as William P. Young is a man who wrote according to a paradigm.My response: More precisely this is a review based on proven Biblical principles with a discerning Scripturally-based viewpoint while “The Shack” is based on presumptions about who God is without much adherence to who God has revealed Himself to be in His Holy Word.
2. Gerry wrote: Lets not get so wrapped up in ourselves and allow the Spirit of God to unwrap it all - or don’t you trust His Spirit?My Response: I can’t even grasp why you would come to that conclusion. Are we not supposed to encourage one another as Christians to think Biblically about all things? Things we read, things we say, do, the way we live?
3. Gerry wrote: Why is it that Christians get so up in arms about things like this - eg. the davinci code, jesus christ superstar, the secret - when in the big picture, regardless of how it looks, these events are nothing when compared to who God is and how He chooses to work in our lives! My response: Because when we sit back and do and say nothing and do not get involved in the world around us and take a stand for Truth then things like genocide and selective abortion become “the norm”… God is sovereign… yes… and He uses people to accomplish His purposes… so let us praise God that He actually chooses to use us at all, which takes getting wrapped up in bringing glory to God for His Name’s sake.
4. Gerry wrote: Weep at the injustice, get angry at senseless violence, help the needy - but dont kick at people because they see things differently then you!My Response: There is such weeping and righteous anger for those things. But ya know what, God cares about the seemingly little things too… like standing for Truth. He abhors all sin to the same degree because sin is sin. He abhors pride and murder, an adulterous heart, a little white lie, as much as He abhors the twisting of His Truth… the adding to and taking away of His Truth… the turning of our heads when we see a friend in sin, a widow in need, a hungry orphan… This is not about kicking anyone because they see things differently. It is about standing up for God’s knowable, applicable, unchanging Truth.
…pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. I TIm 6: 11,12
Let us not be found idle or lazy, but let us finish the work given us to do… including steadfastness in His Truth as we discern and hold fast to sound doctrine. Why would we lay aside God’s Word in exchange for an almost, not quite, man-twisted version of truth? Even if it is posing as a non-threatening work of fiction?
“…there must be self-denial and suspicion of ourselves, and submission to the authority of Christ Jesus, before we can heartily receive all the truths of the gospel, therefore we are in great danger of rejecting the truth. And whatever opinions and thoughts of men are not according to the law of God, and warranted by it, the believer disclaims and abhors. Those who are led away by error, fall from their own steadfastness. And that we may avoid being led away, we must seek to grow in all grace, in faith, and virtue, and knowledge. Labour to know Christ more clearly, and more fully; to know him so as to be more like him, and to love him better. This is the knowledge of Christ, which the apostle Paul reached after, and desired to attain; and those who taste this effect of the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, will, upon receiving such grace from him, give thanks and praise him, and join in ascribing glory to him now, in the full assurance of doing the same hereafter, for ever.”-MH
I think it’s humorous that those who didn’t care for Mr. Challies review have automatically described it as attacking someone or being unfairly critical.
Let me, in answer, just refer those of you putting that message out there to Revelation 2:2, which says “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.”
While Mr. Young may not consider himself an apostle, the definition of apostle is “messenger and ambassador”, which I think exactly fits Mr. Young and his book/message. With that in mind, if he chooses to put out a book that is being hyped so heavily, in large part by himself, then it is only fair that the group whose message it is being associated with be given a chance to test the integrity of his message. If it is found lacking, then no excuse should be made by him or for him.
I appreciate Mr. Challies’ review. It is basically right on, although perhaps influenced too heavily by Reformed views re. hierarchy, etc. Many things in Paul’s book are worthy of challenge but are not as serious as the pervasive universalism embedded in it. This belief affects what he writes about God, salvation, the destiny of the wicked including fallen angels and Satan, the person of Christ and the meaning of his death, etc, etc. I’ve known Paul Y for several years, and have read and responded to his extensive defense of universal reconciliation ranging over a hundred pages that he made in 2004. I did not want initially to read this book but finally yielded to pressure to do so when so many were praising it so much. I was surprised by the subtle but extensive espousal of universalism. I’m now finishing an extensive review with the theology as my focus (which is my area of expertise). It is perceptive to charactize Paul’s fiction as subversive; it is, and Paul has lived his Christian life and written to embody the convictions and beliefs embedded in this book, esp. his universalism. As he says in his unpublished paper, this belief effects every area of his perspective, several areas of theology. Thus I agree with Mr. Challies’ final opinion that it is not worthy to read in light of its extensive embracing of aberrant beliefs and practices. Jim
Jim, could you please publish a link to your review of the book in light of the universalism? I would be most interested in reading that. Thank you.
Just a helpful site for those of you not sure why the Universalism talk even matters:
[“Universalism is the teaching that through the atonement of Jesus, every person who ever lived will ultimately be saved. It is a relatively small movement in America. But this error can have some serious ramifications. Does the Bible teach that everyone who has ever lived will be saved? No. It doesn’t. Find out why here.”Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven.” “Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM’s purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell. Universalism is definately an error that needs to be addressed.”]http://www.carm.org/uni/uniandcults.htm
If you read his work, shouldn’t you know what the author believes?
Christians be weary: Whatever happened to “don’t believe everything you read.”
in case you go straight to the other site, try this as well:
http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm
This is an interesting, albeit very predictable review . Biased, although respectfully stated. A few counter thoughts, as a shepherd who serves within a conservative, evangelical denomination, in a church that is slowly beginning to break through the fog of self-righteousness, to see and experience the lavish love and abundant grace of the Father.
First, I read it and loved it, although I didn’t find it to be perfect (nor will anything I create be perfect, including this review). The Shack is clearly a fictional account that purposefully poked at the edges of the boundaries of what we know about the Father, Son and Spirit. It’s not a systematic theology. And by the way, we don’t know as much about the Trinity as we think we do. Further, you won’t actually find the word “Trinity” in scripture. It’s a man-derived word to describe a holy revelation of a God who has chosen to make Himself known to mankind, who cannot fully grasp who He is. There is much mystery in the Trinity.
My main response to the review is this. It appears that the sincere reviewer missed the primary point of this fictional account, which is the invitation to intimacy with a God who lavishes love on Himself and His children, and who loves to heal our wounded souls if we will trust Him enough to let him do that.
Of course if your theology precludes God speaking through anything other than His Word - or if you believe that we still live under the Law in some way - then intimacy with God is automatically viewed as fiction. I’m still trying to find the version of God’s Word, where God has permanently ceased speaking directly to His followers. In spite of extensive study for years, I have yet to find the passage of scripture that says the written Word of God is the last thing He had to say. What I do find is that if and when God does speak to us He will never contradict His Word - Spirit and truth are never de-coupled.
I think that is some of the author’s point - and some of his motivation for pushing some buttons. This review is a prime example.
Submission? Jesus is God. Jesus submitted to man by serving Him (The son of man came to serve, not be served…). The Trinity does submit to each other in love. God is humble, even though He is also all-powerful. We struggle with that concept because if we had God’s power we wouldn’t be humble. When we live from the Law we cannot reconcile power, authority and submission.
God taking on the form of a woman? The author makes the point very clearly that God has no gender. This is a literary device that reveals the author’s insight into the impact of Mac’s father wound. Mac struggles with trusting God - and thus with intimacy with God - and intimacy with men in general due to his father’s abuse. A matronly mother figure is a connecting point for Mac’s wounded soul. Again, a literary device.
Funny how we have no problem seeing God as a judge or a lion or a dove (imagery from the Word), or a man in the flesh (Jesus) or a stranger visiting Abraham, and yet we can’t imagine Him representing Himself in the temporary form of a mother, if He chose to do so.
REVIEWER QUOTE: There are other teachings about the Trinity that concerned me. For example, Papa says “I am truly human, in Jesus.” This simply cannot be true. God [the Father—a term that the author avoids] is not fully human in Jesus.
Not a fair statement….a twisting of words. The author never says that Papa is “fully human”. He says that He is “truly human - in Jesus”. It appears to me that He is making the statement that the Father shared the human experience at some level through His union with His Son, Christ. As to him not using the word “Father” - not accurate. He just used a more intimate form of the word - “Papa”. ….I think Young did that on purpose as sort of an intimacy litmus test. Do we think of God as “Father” only or also as “Abba” or “Papa”? Do we think of ourselves as His three-year old child coming to see “Abba”? Do we think of Him running to us to embrace us (The Father of the prodigal -and somehow we made that story about the prodigal, not the Father)…. For most of us, no. We are more comfortable seeing God as a judge - up there in heaven somewhere, not actively living in us.
As to Christ dying for the sins of all mankind (which is NOT universalism), let’s let the Word speak for itself.
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. -1 John 2:2
18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. - 2 Cor 5
Christ bore all our sins, those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Yet salvation is a gift (Eph 2:8), and the forgiveness and Life God offers is rejected by the many. God initiates by inviting all men. We respond by receiving - which is only through the faith He gives us. So free will, or not, it is not the will of God that any should perish (1 Peter 3:9 ) and yet many do - so there is the mystery that you can’t explain and neither can I. Regardless, the Bible IS clear that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of all the world.
Young also does not avoid the topic of hell in the book - and he makes it very clear that not all roads lead to Jesus. You have to want him to be a universalist to get that out of the book, although it is clear that He did not focus on salvation in the book. This is a book about a child of God struggling to experience intimacy with God (look up the Greek term ginosko used multiple times by Paul writing about “knowing” God), not a book about a man receiving the gift of salvation.
and to know (ginosko - intimate knowing) the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. - Eph 3:19
that I may know (ginosko) Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; - Philippians 3:10
REVIEWER QUOTE: Overall, Young presents a God who is unable or unwilling to break into history in any consequential way.
Not an accurate review of the book at all. Young makes the point repeatedly that God often chooses to limit His power or intervention, not that He is powerless or uninvolved. Further, He does intervene in history - in the book itself. The author is making the point that God is not absent even when extreme evil is being committed - and that God is not the author of evil.
REVIEWER’S NOTE: “In seminary [Mac] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course…..Though common, such teaching is dangerous and directly detracts from the sufficiency of Scripture. When we admit that God has not, in the Bible, said all that He needs to say to us, we open the doors for all manner of new revelation, much of which may contradict the Bible.
Again, the great irony of this review is that scripture itself tells us that God speaks subjectively to His children, when He chooses to do so. The reviewer is contradicting scripture itself when he states or implies that God no longer speaks to His children through His Spirit, and actually seems to scoff at the biblical concept of a “still, small voice.” I never cease to be amazed….Again, let’s let scripture speak for itself.
“I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. - John 10:16
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; - John 10:10
’ He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’ - Rev 2:7
’ He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ Rev 2:29, 3:6, 3:13, 3:22
19’Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20’Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. - Rev 3 (by the way, this passage is written to believers, not unbelievers - most people use it inappropriately as an evangelistic text)..
Obviously, from these few samples of New Testament scripture, God expects His children to listen to His voice, and to understand it in light of His Word.
What is the barrier to hearing God and knowing Him intimately? Fear. We perpetually hear the word “dangerous” used when we talk about a God who still whispers to the hearts and minds of His children. Yes, there are other voices - but is not sovereign God powerful enough to speak more clearly and to make Himself known to His children over the other voices? Again, I never cease to be amazed at this bizarre position taken by so many “biblical” people. Yes, there is danger of subjective revelation being abused and mis-used if we do not know the Word of God, or if we are misled by other voices. It’s also dangerous to drive our car to work but we do it anyway because it’s valuable. Listening to God is an absolutely vital part of His invitation to walk in Spirit and Truth. The Spirit speaks to God’s children, when He chooses. The Word of God never says that God ceased to speak once the canon was completed! That is an opinion of man, based on a very shaky interpretation of a very vague passage in 1 Cor.
Paul identifies this struggle, and he quotes an Isaiah passage that appears in every gospel as well as in Acts.
FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES;OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES,AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”’ - Acts 28:27
The modern church does not hear God anymore, nor do we understand healing of the soul. Young is making the point in this book that the same Jesus of Revelation 3 will come and sit down and “dine with us” - one of the most intimate things you could do in 1st century Jewish culture. He is also making the point throught the book that God will heal our souls, which the Psalmist reminds us are wounded by sin.
For I am afflicted and needy, And my heart is wounded within me. -Psalm 109:22
He heals the brokenhearted And binds up their wounds.-Psalm 147:3
As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.” - Psalm 41:4
By the way, Jesus DID teach that politics and religion have ravaged the earth and deceived mankind. Jesus constantly preserved His strongest words for the religious crowds. Jesus did not come to bring us religion, but Life. Religion is man’s substitute for walking intimately with the Holy Creator of the universe. If that offends you, then again I gently invite you to go back to God’s Word and re-examine the gospels.
Here’s a quote directly from Jesus to the religious people, and it is one to which my biblically vocal generation should pay careful notice.
39”You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. -John 5
Final question. If you look around the Church in America, what is the fruit of Orthodox Christianity? Divorce rates as high or higher than “the world”. Pastors continually falling into immorality. Youth leaving the church after high school at ever increasing rates. Soaring addiction rates (alcohol, drugs, pornography, shopping, career success). An almost total absence of generosity. Pastoral divorce rates ranking in the top 5 of all professions. Materialism beyond description. An almost total absence of compassion or interest in the poor. An obsession with managing sin, but so little capacity to do so. Much Bible thumping, but little true understanding of the character of God. And so on the list goes… This is intended to be a statement of reality, not an attack on the Chuch.
Something is broken in the Church, friends. Maybe Orthodox Christianity NEEDS to be challenged and re-examined. Not about what is truth, but about who is Truth? Maybe we are teaching people to know the truth, but are not leading them to know the Way, the Truth and the Life. I think that’s what The Shack was after - and I pray to God that millions of people read it and find themselves unsettled enough to dig into God’s Word and discover for themselves a holy Abba whose love for His children is overwhelming and lavish and whose grace seems absolutely foolish in its abundance.
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. - 1 John 3:1
Grace and peace,
Allen
allan,
you didn’t leave a way of contact so i hope you check back. i have not yet read ‘the shack’ and have been following this discussion since reading tim’s review. your words brought so much grace and life to the conversation. until reading your words i felt fearful about reading ‘the shack’ (not a very Godly way to feel, obviously!) and now I feel free to read it - you reminded me of the security we have in the Way, the Truth and the Life in our lives and that the Spirit will continue to teach and speak and correct where necessary, under His wonderful cloak of grace and love.
Many blessings upon you, your family and your tribe as you walk out in this wonderful anointing that seemed to glow out of your words on my screen.
lovelovelove
bea
ps. time, if you are able, could you email this response to allan. many thanks.
allan,
you didn’t leave a way of contact so i hope you check back. i have not yet read ‘the shack’ and have been following this discussion since reading tim’s review. your words brought so much grace and life to the conversation. until reading your words i felt fearful about reading ‘the shack’ (not a very Godly way to feel, obviously!) and now I feel free to read it - you reminded me of the security we have in the Way, the Truth and the Life in our lives and that the Spirit will continue to teach and speak and correct where necessary, under His wonderful cloak of grace and love.
Many blessings upon you, your family and your tribe as you walk out in this wonderful anointing that seemed to glow out of your words on my screen.
bea
ps. tim, if you are able, could you email this response to allan. many thanks.
tim - apologies for double posting - i felt it important to spell your name right!!
Allen,
You clearly have no understanding of what it means that Jesus was the propitiation for sin.
If you did understand what that means, you would never put forth the He actually died for the sins of every human being.
Scripture is clear that Jesus IS (third person present indicative) the propitiation for our (the Christian’s) sin. There is no condition placed upon John’s statement about this.To propitiate literally means to appease, to pacify, to satisfy…to win the good will of.
If Jesus did this for every human being, if He appeased God in behalf of all humanity, then it makes absolutely no sense that there is anyone suffering in hell for their own sin, because their sin has already been appeased by Christ.
For Allen or any one else, go to the author if you have questions about his book- or in what he believes: Universalism or Biblical salvation/eternal punishment. He should be able to answer those questions.
windrumors.com
Allen,I’m thankful for your comment and I fully agree with your thoughts. If you have your own blog, I would like to get the link to it. If you don’t have a blog, you may want to think about getting one!Thanks again!
Dear Brian,
Although I’m no systematic theologian, as a teacher I’m pretty familiar with the Greek term we translate as “propitiation” (you can see Vines Dictionary’s explanation/definition at the end of this post, although I don’t agree with the interpretation Vines applies to 1 John 2:2). Again, where the Word is clear, why not let it speak for itself?
If the Word doesn’t clearly align with our particular party line of theology (such as Christ only died for the sins of those He chose), then wrestling with it honestly and without defensiveness is a wonderful opportunity for sovereign God to make His written revelation more clear to us. If in the end we as brothers do not agree, then be careful of mis-representing what the other person is saying. In my case, universalism (i.e., everyone goes to heaven) is the last thing I would ever believe or teach.
Let’s re-examine 1 John 2:2 and examine what John is actually communicating.
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. -1 John 2:2
Context: John is writing to who in v1? He (as welll as the Spirit) is speaking directly to believers “little children who have an Advocate, along with John (thus “we”), along with all other believers who will receive the Word of God in future centuries (us included).
Who is He writing about? Jesus Christ the righteous, our Advocate with the Father.
What is John writing about in v2. Propititation “a means whereby sin is covered and remitted”
When is John writing? After the death and ressurection of Christ, under the New Convenant.
For whom did Jesus serve as the propitiation for sins? Two groups, according to this passage. First, believers. “Our” sins - meaning those to whom John is speaking - meaning the “little children” who would read this text (inlcuding us) and meaning John himself.
Who else does John include in this propitiation? He makes the point that “not ours only” - which specifically means also some other group, someone else.
Then John goes on to specifically identify who that someone else is -“but also for those of the whole world” (whole world is “holos kosmos” in the Greek). In this particular context, there is no way that “whole world” means only believers, because John has already made the specific point that God’s children (including himself) are covered in the first portion of that verse.
What does the word “those” refer to in “those of the whole world”? It refers to “sins”. Of who? The whole world. There is where I think Vines is wrong in his interpetation. What else can “those” mean? The sins of the whole world were propitiated.
Be patient here. I am still not advocating universalism.
What else do we know about reconciliation with God?
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. - Romans 5:10
Pauls writes “if - WHILE WE WERE ENEMIES - we were reconciled to God throug the death of His son….Again, we were reconciled while we were enemies - and then once we responded to that reconciliation “having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”. Were were reconciled as enemies, but were still enemie as long as we rejected it. When we received that reconciliation, then we became children of God.
19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. -Colossians 1
Again, Paul writes that it was the Father’s good pleasure “to reconcile all things to Himself”. All things. All things that were not previously reconciled to himself. Whether on earth or in heaven.
So, as Young points out very clearly in his book - reconciliation requires both parties to agree to reconcile. God did His part through Christ’s blood.
But this propitiation/reconciliation/forgiveness is ONLY effective for those people who repent (turn from their independence and turn to Christ as their Savior) and receive the gift of the Life of Christ. Now they have responded to God’s initiative and have chosen to receive God’s reconciliation. We do nothing but receive - and even that is God’s work - but we HAVE to receive Christ’s gift of reconciliation/propitiation to be reconciled to God. Otherwise, we remain dead in our sins, under the power of sin - even though at any moment we can choose to respond to God and become ALIVE and FREE. Grace is never de-coupled from truth. John says that Jesus came full of grace and truth.
Those who reject God choose to spend all of eternity separate from Him, in hell. They reject God’s grace and God’s reconciling work. But their sins WERE propitiated by the blood of Christ - they just didn’t accept the gift. Their bill was paid, they just refused to accept the payment - and chose to continue to live as a debtor and to bear the cost of that eternal debt. That reality is another element of the stunning wonder of grace, and it also further compounds the horror and tragedy of hell.
Question: Which sins of the world did Jesus not die for, if it’s God’s will that none should perish?
Universalism says that everyone goes to heaven…and in the “Christian version of universalism” because Christ died for the sins of all. The Bible never teaches that every person will go to heaven, any way you read it. In fact, it teaches that most people will not.
However, believing that Christ propitiated the whole world is not universalism.
I hope this is helpful to someone.
Propitiation:akin to hileos (“merciful, propitious”), signifies “an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted.” It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as “the propitiation,” in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His Death, is the Personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided. In the former passage He is described as “the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” The italicized addition in the AV, “the sins of,” gives a wrong interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the “propitiation,” however, is made actual for those who believe. In 1Jo 4:10, the fact that God “sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” is shown to be the great expression of God’s love toward man, and the reason why Christians should love one another. In the Sept., Lev 25:9; Num 5:8; 1Ch 28:20; Psa 130:4; Eze 44:27; Amo 8:14.
Allen, like I suggested earlier- ask the author for a sit down and discuss what he believes on this issue- it might change they way you are backing his story.
Also, ask to read his 100+ page paper on universalism!! Just a suggestion-
“So, as Young -points out- very clearly in his book - reconciliation requires both parties to agree to reconcile. God did His part through Christ’s blood.” Does he?
“Those who reject God choose to spend all of eternity separate from Him, in hell.” Your words, but probably NOT Mr. Young’s.
Allen,Amen! The book was absolutely wonderful. The book represents what everyone should know about God. God loves me(every person). This book changed my life. I honestly can say that God loves me. This book broke down some walls for me that made that clear. This book is simple. God loves us and our job as christians is to have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. It is that simple. I would recommend that everybody read this book as well as your review of this book. I do have to say one thing about Tim’s review. I do not believe at all that Young implied in any way that we should or have to forgive God for anything. In fact, I think his point was that we as humans may feel like God has wronged us and with that feeling comes the idea that God doesn’t really love us and that he has done something to us that he shouldn’t have. The main character Mack was angry at God for his loss. This is a normal feeling that realistically most humans would have (whether they admit it or not) . Young clearly shows that this is an incorrect human response to tragedy. Romans 8:28
;
Allen, You clearly have a gift for reading and “unpacking” (to use a currently popular expositor’s term) scripture. I am puzzled therefore that you either didn’t notice, or chose to ignore that when Jesus upbraided the religious leaders for their understanding of scripture, He first chastized them severely for adhering to man’s addition to God’s Word (i.e. oral tradition; rabbinical additions to scripture, etc.) far more than to Moses and the prophets (i.e. the accepted inspired Word of God). Their failure to see Christ for Who He was, the prophesied Messiah, was due to this wandering from God’s Word and leaning on their own understanding. This seems to me to be the same thing Mr. Young did in his book, and is certainly the thing which scared me when I read it. I would urge any Christian to be very wary of this book, and definitely not to recommend it to any fragile or unsteady person, who might be led easily down Mr. Young’s deceptively charming but all together Godless path.
I spent a long time reading everyones comments, and this is the first time I have seen this site. I have to say I almost feel sorry for some of the people who have given their comments and been so judgmental. I pray I am not guilty of that myself as I state my opinion. I am 60 years young & seemed to be experiencing some sort of emotional crossroad in my life. A person I have never met or befriended happen to give me “The Shack” as a gift. I have to tell you I was a little skeptical at first and was just going to toss the book on a book shelf. I decided to read it. Once I started I could not put it down. My husband who may be more of a skeptic than myself also read it. I am now reading it for the 2nd time and my husband will do the same. We both were of the same opinion after finishing the book. We have never had a book affect us the way “The Shack” has. It has changed our long time marraige (for the better). We are more patient with one another and others. It has changed the way we perceive people. We are much more forgiving (unconditionally), and believe this is the way GOD intended it. Yes, of course their is no doubt that the Scriptures are sacred. But, by reading this book one does not denounce or doubt or turn away from the Scriptures. This book helps an everyday person (Christian) understand in simple terms how to simply live their life. We both feel cleansed of old grudges we had seemed to be hold on to. We were able to “let go”. We have more empathy towards our friends, family & co-workers and understand that past experiences may have brought them to say or do things that are hurtful. And we love them. We would both agree that this book has taught us to be more forgiving or may I say “softer” (for the lack of a better word) towrards the people in our lives. It has reminded us to pray more often. To mediate for often. To be in touch with our God and our beliefs and slow down a bit. It has helped both of us to remember our priorities in such a busy world that we all get so caught up in. And most of all it has taught us to love us as God loves us and not be so hard on ourselves. We think the majority of you have over analyized the book and over thought the book. Take the good that you are able to get from the book and apply it to your life. If it makes you a better person , helps you to handle life in a more gentle fashion and most importantly not be afraid of your own mortality. Than why not!!! We will read it again and again and mark the pages so we do not forget the simplicity of the book and what it has taught us. We will pass it on to each of our 7 grand children and their parents and our friends and hope they read it. We will pray that they can see it for what it is and not pick it apart. We would like to end by saying to you, don’t be afraid to open your minds. Sometimes it does not pay to be so rightous and so narrow in your thinking. We applaud the author and cannot wait to read this book again and again. A quick note: by reading it a second time you even gain more insight to what the author was trying to express. The first reading, it seems you are so anxious to find out what happens, ie: does Mac see Missy again etc. etc. that you miss some of the message. The second reading gives you a completely different insight to the book. Open your mind people. P.S. Thank you Mr. Challies for rtaking the time to review this book. Although we do not agree with all of your thoughts, we feel if you read it a second time you may come away with a not so “set in stone” opinion. Happy Reading
Tim’s review of The Shack is excellent as far as basic Christian theology is concerned. However, The Shack is based upon far more than just traditional Christian theology. The underlying religious concepts presented in this book are New Age; based upon Eastern theology…Vadanitic in nature (Hinduism). To those who have not studied Eastern religions, The Shack presents a subtle message of ancient Hindu philosophy. To those of us who have studied Eastern religions, it is clear what this book is [all] about.
The author, Paul Young, knows what he was writing, and nothing was accidental. His philosophy is based upon Hinduism. He even admits that he got the name Sarayu (pronounced Saw rrah oo) from a Hindu. Simply stated, it is a name for the spirit of Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction.
Elousia, as the book confirms, a name that “Papa” prefers, refers as well to Hindu philosophy (religion). It is as follows: El, is Hebrew for God, i.e. El Shaddai (Almighty God). Ousia translated is Being. It is very important that one understands what Being, with a captial B, is. It the essence of the Hindu, Buddhist and New Age, collective godhood…The ocean of Being. It is Nirvana, the collective cosmic consciousness of the universe, the state of Being that all pilgrims of Eastern religion hope to obtain at the end of their re-incarnation cycles (lives). It is the “Force” of Star Wars, the final god in all that reaches its climatic state.
Make no mistake, this collective state of Being is not our Creator… the One and only personal supreme God, El Shaddai, I AM, Jehova, of the Bible. The trinity presented in The Shack, doesn’t even ressemble The Holy Trinity of our Bible. To relate these two concepts, trinity vs. Trinity, is nothing short of blasphemy. The trinity, as presented in The Shack, is based upon a concept of the godhood that’s inspired by Eastern religions/philosophy. This concept is pantheon in nature and dates back to the ancient mystery religions of Babylon. I.e. Semiramus and Nimrod, whose god and goddess names are Ishtar and Horus. Also known as Isis and Osirus, the Black Madonna, and… Kali, Shiva, and Sarayu of Hinduism… (Sara la kali, the spirit of Kali).
The theme of the book, The Shack, has everything to do with Eastern religious theology/philosophy, and little of anything to do with Christian theology. It is couched in Christian terminology, thus making it sound Christian. The message presented by the “trinity” in The Shack, minus Christian terminology, is the same message presented by the Dalai Lama and a multitude of others (gurus, etc.) of the same pursuasion. It is Hindu, it is Buddhist, it is New Age… Yes, it presents a message of love and peace, but not the same message of love and peace that can only be found in and through Jesus Christ. The message of The Shack, also presents unconditional acceptance, tolerance of all religions and lifestyles, the doctrine of “diversity” acceptance of all, united as one, and, universal salvation—a doctrine that sidesteps the cross of Christ—all of which is contrary to the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, given to us in the Holy Bible, the Word of God.
“There is a way that seems right unto men, but the way thereof is death.” Jesus Christ
Regarding my first post… I edited the preview and changed some of the spelling, but it didn’t change in the final essay.
Corrections are as follows:
Vadantic should be VedanticOsirus should be Osiris
Also, there are other names for these gods and goddess in different cultures… All go back to ancient Babylon. Read in Gensis about Semiramus and Nimrod (real people). If you do some research, you’ll find a plethora of information concerning the pantheon of gods and goddesses and of the ancient mystery religions in which they were worshipped.
I was at a Bible book store in Hanover when I picked up this novel. The man at the register began singing it’s praises, and telling me that it was life-changing. Intrigued, I took it home and began reading it as soon as I could. It wasn’t very long before I began to question the author’s Biblical integrity. By the chapter where “God” appeared I threw up my hands in disgust and abandoned the book entirely. I searched on the internet at that time for some Christian review of the book, and could not find any. It was some months afterward that I found it rippling through the apostasy warning networks. Gratefully, I received confirmation from other trusted sources about the book’s inherent fallacies. So dutifully, I e-mailed one such review to the man at the Bible Book Store in Hanover, and got an enlightening response back. He did not appreciate anything said by the reviewer, Bjert Kujos, and in fact implied that she was a sort of vigilante going after the likes of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and Eugene Peterson, as if they were above reproach. I see this as a sign that there is a very definite split between those who believe the Bible is God’s holy and inerrant word, and those who feel they are at liberty to edit and reform it at will to suit the tastes of their audience.