Many of you have asked me to read and comment on the book The Shack. Before I offer my analysis, I thought you would like to read what others are saying about Paul Young’s book:
Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Seminary, calls The Shack “deeply subversive”, “scripturally incorrect”, “undiluted heresy” and downright “dangerous.”
Michael Youseff, pastor of the Church of the Apostles’ in Atlanta, Georgia commented, “The book is like a deep ditch covered with beautiful flowers — sadly, many Christians are falling into this ditch.”
Mark Driscoll, pastor of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle says, “If you haven’t read The Shack, don’t!”
My biggest beef with The Shack is that it is theologically misleading.
One might argue since The Shack is a novel it is fictitious in nature and, therefore, does not necessarily have to be theologically accurate. And there may be some merit to that argument, if the author had not written this statement in the back section of his book titled, “The Story behind The Shack”:
There are some publishers that appeal to various religious marketplaces, often with pat answers and empty rhetoric, and other who appeal to secular audiences avoiding books that speak positively to issues of faith. There seems to be a huge missing that would address people’s spiritual hungers with integrity and intelligence, even if the message risked offending religious powerbrokers.
If Mr. Young’s desire was to address people’s “spiritual hungers with integrity and intelligence”, then he should have depended more on Scripture and less on his own imagination. It is one thing to write a work of fiction for the purpose of entertainment. It is quite another thing to write a work of fiction to influence the beliefs of others. And this was Paul Young’s stated purpose in The Shack.
While reading The Shack another author’s quote, Larry Crab’s, kept running through my mind. Crab says, “There is a god of your imagination and a God who is; and there is a world of difference between the two.”
To Paul Young I would say the same. I am concerned that he believes this “novel” is a work that will address someone’s spiritual needs with due diligence. Instead, it will greatly deceive them.
Although I appreciate the author’s attempt to answer the question “Where is God in a world full of hurt and pain?” I find Paul Young’s work, to be theologically damaging.
Again, The Shack is weak and it is filled with many doctrinal holes. Paramount among those gaps is the author’s false view of the Trinity. His portrayal is not biblical. God the Father is portrayed in the form of a large African American woman who is always cooking in the kitchen. Jesus is a middle-aged Middle Eastern man, dressed in a plaid shirt, with a tool belt around his waist. The Holy Spirit appears as a delicate Asian woman named Sarayu, who loves gardening.
Nothing could be more misleading or deceptive than to describe the parts of the Trinity as fully human. The Bible is clear: God is light (1 John 1:5), God is love (1 John 4:7), God is Spirit (John 4:24). To reduce God to the stature of a human is heresy.
Additionally, to make God out to be three characters—an African American woman, a middle-aged Middle Eastern man, and an Asian woman—appears to be the description of three gods rather than one. The Bible is clear in this respect, also. Deuteronomy 6:4 teaches, “The Lord our God, is one.”
Finally, it may benefit you to know a few things about the author I discovered after reading the book. USA Today Online provides this alarming description of the author:
Emotionally distant from his missionary parents. Sexually abused by the New Guinea tribe they lived among. Grief-stricken for loved ones who died too young, too suddenly. Frantic to earn God’s love, yet cheating on his wife, Kim.
Young functioned by stuffing all the evil done to him and by him into a “shack” — his metaphor for an ugly, dark place hidden so deeply within him that it seemed beyond God’s healing reach.
His adultery, 15 years ago, finally blew the doors off that shack, forcing him to confront his past. “Kim made it clear,” he says. “I had to face every awful thing.”
‘Shack’ opens doors but critics call book ‘scripturally incorrect’
By Cathy Lynn Grossman
News >> Religion Section
May 29, 2008
Now I get it. More than a theological treatise, The Shack is a confession of heartache and pain. Instead of stating his reasoning for writing the book as theological in nature, I would have preferred Mr. Young to depict the story as a drama of true heartache. That way the reader would not be so prone to be misled.
I think you should also know this about Young. Although he grew up in a missionary family, the author professes today to be a Christian Universalist. For those who do not know, Christian Universalists believe that Jesus Christ is “a way” to God and not “the way” to God. Perhaps that will explain some of his weak insight into the Scripture.
There are other areas of theological waywardness in The Shack. Young’s understanding of the cross, sin, salvation and forgiveness are all man-centered and humanistic in understanding.
For those of you who desire to read The Shack, I invite you to read it with discernment.