Ranking very high on Amazon’s best seller list is a book by William P. Young, The Shack
Additionally Christian personalities such as Michael W Smith and Eugene Peterson (Author of The Message) have endorsed it in a positive way. Here’s what Peterson had to say:
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!
This has found many people rushing to buy the book and calling their experience in reading it, “a mind blowing experience, a spiritual stick of dynamite and a life changing book.”
So what’s the book about? Basically it’s this:
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.
In a nut shell, God asks Mack to meet in the shack for a deep and meaningful about His nature. The author was interviewed on the 700 Club on CBN and here is what he had to say:
It all sounds nice and fine and dandy until you get to meet the “god” Young introduces to Mack. You see God the Father is an African American woman called Papa. God the Son (Jesus) is a guy from the Middle East with plain looks apart from his big nose. And God the Spirit is Sarayu - a small and delicate little Asian girl.
Talking about messing with people’s heads! And the fact that Christians are out there endorsing this crap and readers are saying that their consciousness is altered as a result of reading this book, blows me away.
It really makes wonder about the state of Oprah Winfrey type, new age mentality spreading across Christianity these days and how Christians are sucking this up into their minds and souls and don’t have any idea of the vomit they are consuming.
To be honest, I haven’t read the book. But I don’t need to. There are many people holding onto biblical truth who have exposed this book for what it’s worth. Tim Challies, author of The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment
In his conclusions, Challies says:
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.
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.
One of the theological areas The Shack centres on is the nature of the trinity. And Young’s characters of a black female Papa, a plain and big nosed Son and a delicate little female Asian Sarayu spirit, struck a negative vibe in me as soon as I read it. Undoubtedly, Young’s work is in the genre of Mclaren’s work and you all you where I stand with Mclaren.
And in typical Mark Driscoll style, he nails this issue of the trinity in The Shack in his sermon series on doctrine. Below is a snippet:
As you can see. The Shack is a shocker when it comes to many aspects of Christianity. Many good things are mixed with many bad things resulting in a delightful read where you may be unaware of the realigning of your understanding of crucial doctrines. And isn’t this just what the devil wants?
If the nature of the trinity does confuse you and you want to know more about this important aspect in our understanding of God, I invite you to check out Driscoll’s sermon below.
Tags: The Shack | William P. Young | William Young | Trinity | Father | Spiritual Warfare | Son | Brian Mclaren | Mark Driscoll | Tim Challies
“To be honest, I haven’t read the book. But I don’t need to.”
Wow.
Why not read the book first and make up your own mind about it? It’s FICTION, by the way.
Read it as a story, not as a theological treatise.
Hi Jay,
I’m not about to waste my time and money reading things like this. I trust the reviews given above regarding this book and wont waste my time. But I will spend time exposing the book for what it’s worth.
What makes Driscoll and Challies more trustworthy than Eugene Peterson? I have read the book and while not agreeing with everything in it I nevertheless found it filled with wisdom.
The book may step on the toes of those who live in police-state Christianity, but I guarantee Satan will not leap off the page. If the book has no substance, then it will go the way of the Da Vinci Code–meaning forgotten.
I think you misspelled your name… shouldn’t it be “LazyGuy”?
Just kidding. Obviously I don’t know you, and would guess you’re probably not “lazy”, but I find it sad and amusing at the same time the tendency of so many “reviewers” to condemn books they’ve never read. The dysfunctional religious status quo is threatened, so you throw stones rather than taking opportunity to re-examine your presuppositions.
I wonder what kind of fictional/allegorical depictions of God would be acceptable to you - surely he can appear to us in any form he chooses, why are “the Shack”s examples so offensive?
I find it particularly interesting that you include in your criticism Jesus’ appearance as a plain-looking but big-nosed Mideastern guy, when this description is as nearly historically accurate as you can get.
Don’t get me wrong, I found “the Shack” quite challenging in some respects, and I’m not at all certain I agree with all its implications (has a book ever been written that you agreed with 100%), but such doctrinal questions were vastly overshadowed by the wealth of wisdom in Young’s words and in the power of the story itself.
layguy
this is what has been a major problem i have had with alot of people…
“i dont have to read it…but i will tell everyone else not to read it either.”
how can you?
so much of the church has hidden under a rock in fear…like Azk says, in effect, if it is Kingdom it will stand…if not, it will fail.
Azk - police state Christianity is not what I’m about. And if you think the Da Vinci code hasn’t made an impact in the minds of people, you are truly off the mark.
maryann - I couldn’t care less about a church hidden under a rock. What I care about is subtle attacks upon doctrine which, on their own, may not amount to much - but as a collective make a huge impact.
Kyle,
“The dysfunctional religious status quo is threatened, so you throw stones rather than taking opportunity to re-examine your presuppositions.”
I’m sorry buddy, but when it comes to doctrine, there is nothing dysfunctional except man’s interpretation of it.
“I wonder what kind of fictional/allegorical depictions of God would be acceptable to you”
I like allegorical interpretations - as long as they don’t contradict scripture and don’t contain pagan/New Age ideas.
“I find it particularly interesting that you include in your criticism Jesus’ appearance as a plain-looking but big-nosed Mideastern guy, when this description is as nearly historically accurate as you can get.”
For the record, I don’t have an issue with this description.
I’d be keen to know which areas of the book didn’t sit well with you. As for the wisdom contained therein and how it “overshadows” the crap doctrinal issues, well my friend, give me doctrine over man’s wisdom any day.
LayGuy,
Do you have any idea what modalism is? Are you familiar with writing styles/genres? You might want to re-read John 17:21-23 before you make too many comments about the book and the claim that it is modalistic. Unity, participation and oneness are not the same as modalism, but they are exactly what Jesus said was shared in the God-head.
The author paints a picture of a God that equally agrees with/shares in the immense sacrifice of the Son dying for all mankind (Remember, it was the Father who sent His only begotten Son, He wasn’t angry in heaven and put up with the Son dying). The fact that the three God characters/depictions (not “graven images” as Driscoll so ignorantly states) are THREE distinct characters seems to suggest the trinity, not the Father manifesting in three modes, as modalism suggests.
I wonder if a person like you would sit in front of a painting like “The Return of the Prodigal Son” by Rembrandt and find worship flowing from their heart to the God who gave such painting gifts and would love so deeply as to receive people like me back into “his house”, or if you would critique the painter and question his theology. So very sad!
Matt,
First of all, thanks for stopping by and sharing your views.
For starters lets get the definition of modalism: “the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.”
Secondly, it was Driscoll, not me, which commented on modalism. If you check out his video, you will see his point - which stands strong despite your words. Sorry.
How could the Father say that He is fully human in Christ? even a simple person would see that as a stretch. Did the Father die on the cross? i don’t think so. It’s this type of mish mash of different doctrines which makes The Shack a “trinity shocker”.
As for the Rembrandt painting - I saw it and it didn’t do anything for me. The style of painting is not something I admire. But does that make me a lessor person? I don’t think so. For me to wonder about how the Father welcomes back such people, I don’t need a painting to inspire. I read. I sit back back and am blown away. I don’t need Rembrandt. If you think that’s sad then so be it.
LayGuy,
It is not a matter of whether or not one “needs” Rembrandt, it is about whether or not a person can appreciate the gift that Rembrandt brings to the table. Millions of people have been awestruck by God without Rembrandt. The discussion has to do with how God uses a particular art form (writing being one of them) to teach and inspire us. If we are unable to appreciate the art form for what it is, to let God work in our lives, not as a substitute for the Holy Spirit but as a frail human agent; that is sad.
As far as you passing off the comment about modalism on MD as if you didn’t agree, you might want to read your own blog. It is pretty apparent that you agree.
Wasn’t God (triune) fully human in Jesus? Was not God (triune) present in the Son? Was not the Son fully God (triune)? Our minds have a hard time with the distinction of the Triune Persons which are fully one, but none-the-less it is true. Line 36 of the Athanasian Creed - “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.”
The book did not portray God in three modes. The book, using human language and human frailty, feebly attempts to put into language the distinctive persons which are all one. Just as no painting can fully capture the beauty of what the eye can see, so no book can truly express the beauty of the Triune God. But, “a graven image”? “Modalism”? Sorry, way way off and an poor excuse for a critique. Worse yet, another way for a very dogmatic person to “justify” their disagreement with someone because they see relationship as more egalitarian than an excuse for male domination.
Matt,
I don’t get inspired by Rembrandt - full stop. Doesn’t mean I bag it OK? Personally my kids are the best “art form” God uses to teach me about Him. Don’t need paint spots on some canvas to replace this. And I don’t see it as sad to think like this. As for his picture, there is nothing in it to contradict scripture so to use this as an example is pretty silly.
As far as the trinity and modalism is concerned, you say it perfectly yourself:
“The book, using human language and human frailty, feebly attempts to put into language the distinctive persons which are all one.” Frailty and feebleness results in comments such as the Father saying, “In Jesus I became fully human.” Jesus dies on the cross - not the Father. The Father sent the Son - the Father stayed in Heaven, the Son went to earth. The Father forsook the Son as He died on the cross - the Father did not forsake Himself.
I’m not going to argue this point with you any longer because whats the point?
As for your rant on Driscoll, well that’s just so sad. Only misguided people label him as a male dominator. Real women love his take on things. And real men are humbled by the responsibilities given to them as men.
Well, that is that. Thanks for the brief dialogue. As for your final paragraph, “Have this same attitude in yourselves that was in Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant…” “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER…” I wonder if your “real men” are willing to submit themselves as servants to their wives as Christ was willing to submit Himself as a servant to His Father and ultimately to all mankind when He laid down his life? You should probably at least ask the question of what this means to you and other “real men”.
i finally did get to read the book. i LOVED it.
it is a FABULOUS picture of the Trinity and how they are seperate, yet One.
I loved this so much i bought so many extra copies to give away.
sure…its not straight out of the Bible with chapter and verse markings….but the concepts can be traced back to a chapter and verse.
so many of my friends have read it and it touched each of us in different chapters…as it does connect with each of our points of “great sadness” and wonderings if God really is there and knows how much we hurt…and to put it in fiction makes it work…its a story…with biblical concepts…
I’m a pastor of a church with a very conservative doctrine and practice. I read the book and, while I do believe the author presents ideas that were already rejected since the time of Christ as bad theology, most of what the author seems to had done is try to present God as more relational than the vast majority of people (including Christians) percieve HIM to be.
I LOVE Mark Driscoll — even his rantings on Emergent Theology (which I agree with Driscoll) and femanism phobia (kidding — but Mark does come of hyper macho at times). I also love Driscoll when he comes back to cnetr and apologizes for rantings that go way over the line — show him to be passionate yet human.
The point Mark Driscoll makes that leaves me feeling he missed the point is that God the Father first appears as an African American woman just to break the preconconeptions of the Mack. Later in the book God the Father appears as a man because Mack will need a father figure to face that days revelations.
I guess the whole “graven image” argument would be mute for Driscoll of at The Shack we had the Middle Eastern figure, Jesus, and the Asian chick, Holy Spirit, without the Papa figure, God. Maybe it would have been better to give the Asian figure wings — preferably white like a dove - and just let God the Father be the booming voice from the sky like at Jesus baptism in Scripture.
As for the modalism argument, I really think the authro just used sloppy wording and imagery to try and correct a misconception that some may have through reading the book that the 3 are so separate they lose their oneness. But hten again, I am assuming much on the side of grace for the authro with limited vocabulary to work with.
My final assesment - the more you tell people, including Christians, NOT to read a book the more they will actually do so. The same was true fro the DaVinci Code book and movie. (What is it about forbidden fruit that we love so much?)
Avoidance of controversy and issues like this are norm for the church. The TRUTH will survivie any challenge and any debate. I do not agree with some of the doctrine and theology presented in the book. I am THRILLED that several people in my church who have lived at distance from following Christ as well as many more who have never attended church and been turned off by church and faith in Christ as they have witnessed in being lived or not-lived by others are reading the book and asking questions and reconsidering their views of God and faith and church that have kept them away.
I tedn to approach these things like the Apostle Paul in Athens. I don’t set out to slam the teachings of false religions (Greek Mythology and Paganism) or even the cultural artists of the day (like the Greek poets) but search for a connecting point that serves a launching pad to help direct and guide people to the TRUTH of God and man and sin and salvation as revealed IN SCRIPTURE. The Shack is giving me lots of connecting points.
“Men of Athens, I can see that you are religious people…let’s talk about the UNKONWN GOD.” (Acts 7)
And let’s face it, as a pastor and one whose life is devoted solely to the mission of helping people living far from God to connect with Him through the salavation of Jesus Christ, it can sometimes be more effective to tell some, “why don’t you read The Shack and then let’s talk” instead of “why don’t read THE BIBLE and let’s talk”. Sad but true — too many have formed opinions about the BIble without ever reading and the set out to dicredit it to others who have not read it.
How is what we are doing different if we fail to read The Shack and persuade others to do the same?
The Shack is interesting and may be an entry point to someone really starting their pursuit of God as long as the BIBLE is next on their list of books to read. Wonder if Amazon has thought of packaging the two together?