Featured Lifeway

Sure, because Jews and Muslims have such a great reputation for being open-minded and tolerant of their religious figures being maligned.

 

Allah portrayed as a Black female, Mohammed Himself visible portrayed?

There would be caskets around the book store selling that!

 

Consider the loudest critics, they are calvinists. I spent about 15 minutes looking at the top rated google results and of those considering this book dangerous or heresy none were non-calvinists. (MacArthur, Driscoll, Piper, Youssef, CARM.org, etc.) Calvinists are becoming the fundamentalists of old.

See this for how a collaborator on the book addresses the controversy and the critic's claims.

 

Originally Posted by mont974x4
Sure, because Jews and Muslims have such a great reputation for being open-minded and tolerant of their religious figures being maligned.

Originally Posted by Yeshua1
Allah portrayed as a Black female, Mohammed Himself visible portrayed?

There would be caskets around the book store selling that!​

I took your meaning of 'pious' in a benevolent sense... but regardless, what is your point that you would use this argument to further your case? It is a nonsequiter.

 

claiming something is a non-sequitor does not make it so.

You claimed that the Jew or Muslim would be more open minded, and therefore tolerant, of their religious figures being misrepresented and their teachings twisted. That is far from the truth. Yeshua and I simply used sarcasm to point out the how absurd your claim is in light of historical evidence. You may be ignorant. Which simply means you don't know any better. That may be the case if you have not been paying attention to how Muslims react to their prophet being represented in any form. You would have to have missed all the news reports on threats of murder, and the murder of, a cartoonist and all the riots of Muslims in response to any picture of Mohammed being made public. You would also have to be unaware that Jews won't even spell God's name out and reject anything that might be construed as a graven image. Both groups take their beliefs about their religious figures very seriously.

Don't worry. I am quite used to liberals thinking that disagreeing with, and verbalizing that disagreement in a civil fashion, the perversion of God's Word is somehow worse than beheading a cartoonist. You are also free to claim I am guilty of whatever fallacy you want. It does not change the truth one iota.

I would hope that you can take a minute and consider the fact that a great many people do, really and truly, base their theology on fiction. For one, that is proven by the majority of the people throughout history have fallen for false religions. It is also proven by the vast numbers of people claiming to be Christian who reject biblical truth and instead base their theology on the likes of Osteen, Warren, and a myriad of books that have somehow made it onto Christian shelves as non-fiction despite their utter lack of Scriptural truth.

 

I am NOT against a Christian tellking biblical truths by fantasy, see Tolkien and lewis, but am against using bad representations for/of god, along with shoddy theology!

 

:thumbsup: Exactly!!

 

I did not claim what you said I did and all of your supposition based on that does not apply.

 

LOL OK. If you say so.

 

Then both of you make your truth claims directly without trying to poison the well.
You will have to prove that the book actually teaches what you claim and what you claim must be a heretical teaching. You will also have to argue convincingly that the book fails enough litmous tests to be deemed 'dangerous' (egad! oh my! Hide the women and childred!) by free-will adherants.

 

I wrote this some time back while reading the book. I felt compelled to do so since so many people were raving about how it helped them understand the Trinity.

A review of The Shack by William Young.
*Note: This is not exhaustive. There are other good bits and bad bits. I have chosen few issues felt important enough to address. As always, if you read anything….read it with your Bible open.
First I must say that Young is a gifted story teller. He has demonstrated a skill in presenting a story that that take your emotions on a rollercoaster, especially if you are a parent. At times, I admit, this made the book hard to read.
However, telling a good story is only part of the issue when presenting a book, even if it is a work of fiction. There has been a great many people, some of whom I know and generally trust their insights into such things, who have expressed appreciation for the theological content of the book. It was common to hear phrases like, “The book really helped me gain a better understanding of God, and the Trinity.” I have also heard some very real concerns from people that I also trust and have read a variety of reviews that came down on both sides of the “it was so helpful vs. it is theologically dangerous” debate. So, now that I have some time I thought it would be good for me to read it myself and express my thoughts.
If Young left this as a simple work of fiction and avoided the theological issues I would have greatly enjoyed the book, even though it twisted my heart as I spent so much time balanced between anger and deep sorrow for the main character and his family. However, despite there being no real purpose, as far as the story development goes, Young does dive into some theological issues and he is not shy about his agenda.
The Triune God is presented in this book as three unique people. The “God” character is a large black woman, “Jesus” is a Middle Eastern male, and the Spirit is an Asian woman ghost-like figure. “Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning” (Young 93). This serves no good or godly purpose.
I would like to ask Mr. Young to provide an example in Scripture where God would play such a game. How about where did God inspire men writing the Bible to refer to God as a woman? How about explaining why attacking conventional wisdom, and more importantly, God’s wisdom and choices in what He inspired in Scripture, has to do with helping the main character deal with his grief and anger concerning this horribly tragic event? If we afford the idea of presenting God as a woman as a valid practice, how do we handle the doctrines of the church? Abba, Father? The Bride of Christ? In an effort to stand against conventional wisdom and attack perceived chauvinism and prejudices Young has opened a door to a myriad of unintended (I hope?) conflicts. It is always a bad, even dangerous thing, to force God into our ideal images. If we have trouble with the idea of a perfect and loving heavenly Father we do not change Him to her and call her mother. We allow Him to change our heart and our understanding.

 

(CONT)
The god character states, “’I have always known fullness. I live in a state of perpetual satisfaction as my normal state of existence,’ she said, quite pleased. ’Just one of the perks of me being me’”(Young 98, 99). Has Young forgotten God was grieved, and I would suggest far from satisfied, prior to flooding the earth? What does Young think the impact of our sin on God is?
Young does a rather noble job of explaining love, and our experiencing pain within the bounds of God’s love. The comparison to a bird who could fly but does not fly was unique, and even helpful. However, on pages 99 and 100 he returns to his attack on conventional, and biblical, wisdom. In trying to explain the nature of the incarnate Christ as fully God and fully human he actually ends up denying the fully God nature of Christ. In responding to a question about miracles, “He did so as a dependant, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (Young 100). Young effectively denies the divinity of Christ while trying to explain the dual nature afforded Him as both fully God and fully man. In fact, Young continues to present Christ as human through the rest of the book, as though he never enjoyed His glorified body let alone fully taking on His divinity.
Perhaps the most distressing issue is the denial of Christ as being the way, the truth and the life. “I am the best way any human can relate to Pap or Sarayu” (Young 110). Papa is how Young has named God the Father and Sarayu is how he has named the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us the Christ is not the best way to know the Father, Christ is the only way to know the Father. This is not a trivial issue. The denial of the narrow path to salvation is a growing trend in many popular religious writers and the teachings of many popular leaders. They have chosen to be inclusive and deny the Gospel, in all its biblical exclusive and offensive nature. Broad is the way that leads to destruction, but narrow is the way to life. Christ is not simply the “best”, He is the “One and
When confronted by the main character, Mack, about wrath and God’s responses to sin, Young again misses the boat. He had an opportunity to clearly address the sin issue and God as righteous and just, in response to “Mack” asking about wrath. Instead, Young offers a false notion. “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (Young 120). To be sure God’s greatest joy is in the repentance and restoration of man as the find the “cure” to the sin issue in Christ. The problem is in Young’s whitewashed definition of sin and in his ignoring, even denial, that God does bring punishment. Our sins lead to consequences. These may be seen in discipline taken to correct us, or in the final judgment of those who reject Christ.
On pages 122 and 123 the discussion turns to authority. Mack has asked about the nature of the relationship within the Trinity and “who is in charge”. Young attempts to explain the equality within the Triune God-head, but takes a hard turn. He denigrates authority structure. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it (Young 122,123). I am led to wonder just what Young thinks of the Bible. What does he do with verse that clearly set standards (rules and law) and just recompense? If we whitewash sin and we deny the biblical standards then we have opened the door wide to relativism and anything goes. Obedience cannot be blessed, and disobedience has no consequence. Young seems to forget that relationships are defined, in part, by our roles. In the Old Testament following the Law was a key way the followers of God, those who were in relationship with Him, were made evident. We see this again in the New Testament hierarchy defined and ordained by God sets righteous standards for defining and living within a myriad of relationships. Young goes on to use the Mack character to further his agenda of attacking conventional wisdom regarding God as Father and God ordained authority. While skewing the nature of the curse following the Fall we find this statement: “I’ve always wondered why men have been in charge,” Mack pondered.”Males seem to be the cause of so much of the pain in the world” (Young 147).

 

(CONT)
Chapter 11 takes on the scene of a rather odd courtroom. Here Mack encounters another person, also a woman. She helps Mack deal with a judgmental heart and brings him to an understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus. There is an emotional pseudo-reunion that would tug at the coldest of hearts. I admit I spent much of this chapter trying to determine who the woman was supposed to be. In chapter 12 the Jesus character tells Mack that her name of Sophia. Young uses Christ to deny this is a fourth person of the “Trinity” but then says Sophia is simply a personification of the God’s Wisdom. The circular reasoning presented is awkward as Sophia is claimed to be both God and not God as on page 171 Sophia is then attributed to Sarayu. Either God is Triune, or He is not, and Young is either playing a very dangerous game or he is very confused.
Young briefly drops into an ecological statement. He uses the Jesus character to speak against man’s abuse of creation. There is a brief, even slight, implication that caring for and restoring creation is the end goal of God. This discussion occurs on pages 144 and 145. It is short and vague enough to be unable to pin the author down to a solid stance, but enough is there to warrant suspicion. Young hints at a denial of hell and the acceptance of universalism, but never outright makes the claims. I am sure these will be denied by him and his proponents, as that would require rejecting him and his work as Christian. On page 182 the “Jesus” character does say that most roads lead to nowhere, but he does not say all other roads lead to nowhere. Further, while talking about Buddhists and other faith groups, He does not call them out of those false religions. There is vagueness Young’s addressing what it means to follow Christ, in fact he dances around it on occasion essentially denies that is what we are called by Scripture to do. He dresses it up in language about love and relationship, but he never calls anyone to repentance or to truly follow Christ. Young does have the “Jesus” character deny his lordship. “Have you noticed that even though you call me Lord and King, I have never really acted in that capacity with you” (Young 145)? So, what does Young do with all the Scriptures that talk about His Lordship and calls for our obedience to Him? From page 149, “Being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus’, it means for your independence to be killed”. Now, for sure we need to recognize our dependence on Him, but Young speaks against the biblical call to grow to be like Christ. Of course, Young relegates the sin problem to being just a matter of choosing independence. Oddly enough, I do not see that in the Garden of Eden when Adam chose to sin and allowed sin to enter the world, or through the rest of Scripture. So, with sin as being whitewashed Young can justify almost anything in regards to the relationship between man and God. In fact, in the area of relationship Young continues his attack on biblical standards. Now, I am no fan of legalism or dead meaningless religion. To be sure the core of our faith is about relationships. The problem is Young has is various “God” characters actually working against Scripture and actual biblical standards. God is righteous and just and He has set standards and He has a right to expect obedience. As much as Young fights against it, relationships are supposed to have certain expectations. My bride, for example, has a biblical foundation to stand on when she rightly expects me to be faithful to her and to expect me to love her as Christ loved the church. Likewise, I have a biblical foundation to expect her to respect me. Just as I have a biblical foundation to expect my sons to honor me and their mother and they can expect me to raise them and provide for them in accordance with Scripture. As unpopular as these things are in today’s world, especially as Young and others have painted the world and distorted God’s world, these are biblical truths. Who will you obey, God or man?

 

(CONT)
Chapter 15 is an account of Mack being “healed” temporarily so he can see “reality” in its fullest. This starts out as a cool starlit scene that most of us would probably find something to envy. This quickly changes into a weird new age themed event. The people and angels being seen emit light, akin to the auras proclaimed by New Ager’s and other pagans. Even the animals emit these auras, and talk in some fashion. Why? Besides being completely unbiblical what possible purpose was there in including this in the book?
Young finally has “God” bring Mack to the point we have been expecting, and that is forgiving the man who has destroyed his family. It is an important thing and Young does an OK job of bringing it about. However, I think he has neglected to consider the ramifications of his theology. He has “God” talking about forgiveness and relationship. He asserts God has given all men forgiveness but not all men have entered into the relationship with Him. “When you forgive someone you certainly release them from judgment, but true change, and no real relationship can be established” (Young 225). This certainly sounds OK on the surface, but what Young is asserting in these pages is that because God has forgiven all men then we are all free from judgment. This is, absolutely, counter to Scripture. Nowhere is man free from the natural consequences of our sin. Further, and most importantly at this juncture, there is a day of
So, many people have claimed that this book has helped them understand and know God better. I am led to ask, what god? It cannot be the God of the Bible. Young has spun a good story, and he has done an admirable job addressing some difficult theological issues, but he has denied and twisted some very important biblical truths and other decisions he made are short sighted, having not adequately considered or addressed the further theological implications resulting from his, shall we say, artistic license. Some others who have commented on this book have talked about it as evidence of the decline of discernment within the Church as whole. Having read this book, I now know why. Some proponents of Young, and the book, have suggested that we read it while setting our theological eyes aside. This is simply impossible as at almost every turn we are faced with a theological issue, at times multiple issues on the same page. Some may want to deny the implications of the ideas presented some clearly and some only in vague passing, but they exist. The sheer popularity of this book makes me sad. It causes me to wonder at how far the Church must have fallen for this error to be not only allowed but accepted. Then there is the completely irreverent way Young presents the persons of the God-head. The “Jesus” character, for example, chases a fish like like a little boy, “God” calls Mack an idiot. The giggling and carrying on is more akin to a preteen girls sleep over party, you expect a pillow fight or tickle war to break out any minute.
As a literary work, again it is a well told story. I admit to even tearing up a couple of times. However, the theological issues remain, and cannot be ignored. I urge caution and reading it with your Bible wide open.

 

ok, the first critique: sure it does. The whole reason and meaning of this was to communicate that God is not what we stereotypically expect Him to be... that is, a white aged male with a long beard, etc. It serves a great purpose. It's a work of fiction...

This is silly. In no way was the author meaning to convince people that God is a woman.

Mathew 12
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Really, this is just a silly accusation... "NEXT..."

 

Okay, wait... and I thought the author was making a calvinist claim... are you saying that God is not in a state of perpetual satisfaction for His default state of existence? I had you mistaken for a calvinist, my apologies.

He does not deny the 'fully God' nature of Christ. The book actually establishes this claim and is congruent with this passage in John: 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;

So far you're batting 0.00

Are you saying that Jesus is no longer human? That he no longer has a physical body?

I think this criticism is a 'miss' as well...

No, contrary to your accusation, the book claims that all roads DO NOT lead to God.

Missed again.

Are you saying that God feels obligated to punish His children for each sin? So, He cannot receive glory for overlooking any offense, regardless of Proverbs' claim that "it is to his glory to overlook an offense."

You also say, "Our sins lead to consequences.". That is the point the book makes.

Yet another miss... and these are hardly even controversial! Everyone beware of the evil, heretical book "The Shack" indeed!

Okay, the book is promoting the idea found in "Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (Phil. 2:6-7 NASB) combined with the idea that Jesus communicated to Phillip, "The person that has seen me has seen the Father too." and the idea in Hebrews 1:3 3 "The Son is... the exact representation of his being...".

Would you say that Jesus demonstration of servanthood does not represent the Godhead? Really?

So, let's see.... still not heretical or dangerous.

Okay, no problems here really... Jesus said the first shall be last, that He was servant of all, etc.

missed again...

 

lol OK, at least now I know your consistent in claiming I say things I did not say and ignoring things that he does say in his book.

 

No, you must be confused. Young specifically states that Sophia is basically the same as how Proverbs 1:20 and passage personifies wisdom as a female: "Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square;" In no way should one be confused as to whether the Sophia character is one of the Trinity or a fourth person of the "Trinity". The book expressly states that she is not.

Missed again...

Then your bar is set very low and you must be suspicious of much and many people...

An admitted miss but still a miss all the same...

They are denied at least by a collaborator on the book and maybe even the author himself. This verges on slander and character assassination, poisoning the well, etc.

missed again...

Still, what is said here is accurate... most roads do lead to nowhere.

Miss...

Okay, so we have Jesus in a conversation with one of His hurting children and you find blame with the book because 'Jesus' does not call out the other people? I mean really... let's honor some poetic license here... The 'Jesus' character in no way acknowledges Buddhism as legitimate.

Okay, and do you not find fault with Jesus for many times using words to communicate his state of servanthood and his actions demonstrating that He is servant of all? Wow...

Swiiiiingggg! Miss.

So, are you saying that Adam's sin was NOT an act of independence? Really?

Miss.

God does not have any level of expectation for that which He is certain. This is the point that the author was making. God gave the law to man for man to realize what God already knew: that man needs God. That obedience to rules did not equal relationship with Him. That rules are simple and relationships are messy. That to be in a love relationship with God and man renders the law unnecessary.

Missed again. I'm not sure if you've unearthed a single controversial truth claim that the author of the book was making. Keep looking though, I'm sure you will find a heretic under one of the rocks... Even a broken clock can be correct twice a day.

 

There was very good purpose for such a usage of imagination. It drove home the point that whatever heaven is like it is going to be amazing. The book should not be interpreted to promote New Age ideas... really, this is a stretch.

Dangerous... nope. Another miss.

This speaks to the issue of limited atonement which of course Arminians and Calvinists disagree on... The author does not promote the idea that all men are free from judgement.

Miss...

Really, you make a truth claim that if one person actually has had an increase in their understanding of the God of the Bible then your porposition is false. I propose that many people have increased in there understanding of the God of the Bible. (This reminds me of preachers claiming that "if someone got saved by use of a bible other than the King James then they were not saved at all!") Would you say that Arminians do not worship the real God of the Bible (or if you are Arminian then the reverse)?

I disagree. The dialogue is of an intimate nature and of course an outsider who is not privied to the relationship might think it wierd. However, I think of the many things Jesus actually did and said that would be 'weird', including washing the disciples feet, being their 'friend', being a servant to all, coming to the defense of a prostitute, being associated with tax collectors and prostitutes, etc. The dialogue between the characters can work for sure but if one is already disposed to suspicion and distrust I can see how it would obviously fail.

And such is how we should read all literature, with caution and our Bible wide open, even 'friendly' literature.

 

Mont974x4, would you please present a work of fiction that you would recommend? Perhaps you have written some of your own?