# The Shack



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 22, 2008)

My wife had her cousin over yesterday and apparently she couldn't stop raving about a book called "The Shack."

The title was familiar to me, and I remembered that in a recent edition of Reformed Perspective it was used as an example of dubious titles that can be found in "Christian" bookstores.

Wanting to point my wife towards some even-handed reviews I spent a little time searching the Internet and the best critques that I have found so far are:

A review on Tim Challies blog which I read last night.

An Albert Mohler radio show that I have yet to listen to.

Any other must-read critiques on this book? That this book is poison seems self-evident, but I guess it's a big hit with the "I'm Christian, but I don't believe in _the Church_" crowd.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 22, 2008)

I've read this book. It is seriously bad. Seriously bad.

I've been amazed at men that I know who seem to be sound that find some redeeming merit in the book. 

It smacks at the very nature of God.

Mark Driscoll did a very good job in discussing the book. Part of it is here: [video=youtube;pK65Jfny70Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y[/video]


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 22, 2008)

Al Mohler did a review on it which is at his site.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2008)

You might check out this other thread on the PB: Anyone read "The Shaq"?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 22, 2008)

This is what my co-pastor and I are publishing in our church bulletin this coming Sunday:

*From the Pastors*

In a recent edition of BC Christian News, there was a front-page article promoting a novel by William P. Young, “The Shack.” It appears that this book is quite popular in broader Christian circles and has been making the rounds in our own circles as well. As pastors who care for the flock, we must be honest with you: this book is full of dangerous, erroneous teachings about God. It contains a perversion of the gospel. 

This is one of those books were someone meets with God in person. In this case, two persons of the Trinity are represented as women. “Papa” is a large African-American woman. The Spirit is Sarayu, an Asian woman (Sarayu is a river in India invoked and venerated by Hindus). Jesus is represented as a Middle-Eastern man. However, there is also Sophia, an off-shoot of Sarayu. This book revives ancient heresies regarding the Trinity. One of those heresies is patripassionism, the teaching that the Father suffered with the Son on the cross. Another false teaching is found when “Papa” says, “I am truly human, in Jesus, but I am a totally separate other in my nature.” (p.201). God the Father did not become human in Jesus. That is the sort of mixing of the persons that the Athanasian Creed stands against. Next, we might also point out that the “God” of the Shack does not send people to hell – he/she has no concept of justice or wrath. Consequently, the grace offered in this book is cheap. Finally, the novel is explicitly Arminian (or Pelagian, which is even worse) throughout. For example, Young promotes unbiblical notions about the freedom of the human will. We also find the false teaching that the atonement of Christ was intended to save all (and going one step further, does in fact, save all). On page 225, we read “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sin against me, but only some choose relationship.” All these erroneous teachings are not incidental to the book but pervade it – and we could add several more. 

Some have argued that this book is a work of fiction, that it is allegorical and is not meant to be taken literally. However, when the author was recently at Regent College for a book talk, it became very clear that William P. Young is not an orthodox Christian and his book was not written to convey orthodox Christian theology, but rather the opposite. Brothers and sisters, because the gospel is at stake, we are obligated to warn you: please do not waste your time and money on books such as this and please do not encourage others to read it.

You can also find a full review of this book (and many others) at this helpful website:

The Shack by William Young : A Discerning Reader Review

At that website, you’ll also find many reviews of good, helpful, and true books. 

Other helpful online resources that deal with this book include:

"The Shack" by William P. Young :: books, emergent, reviews, theology :: A Reformed, Christian Blog

byFaith Magazine - Arts & Culture - "The Shack": What God Should Have Said?

vanpopta.ca: The Shack

vanblogta.ca: The Shack


----------



## py3ak (Oct 22, 2008)

Driscoll misrepresented the Puritans, to make one note on the video: he states that they objected to images of God the Father. And then he goes on to say that human images of Christ and avian images of the Spirit are all right: without qualification, that makes it sound like the Puritans support his view all the way down the line. 

Just didn't want to give the impression that the critique is itself above criticism.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 23, 2008)

Good job Ruben. I should have pointed it out. Thanks.


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 23, 2008)

Helpful thread. My wife just started this book in her book club. She doesn't know anything about it as one of the other ladies recommended it. The club doesn't read just Christian books, but when one does read a book that one believes to be Christian, one's guard goes down a bit. We know, more or less, what we will get from secular fiction, and consequently can more quickly recognize error. We are much more "forgiving" to those "Christian" books we read, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 23, 2008)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Any other must-read critiques on this book? That this book is poison seems self-evident, but I guess it's a big hit with the "I'm Christian, but I don't believe in _the Church_" crowd.



It is. The author as well as the two former pastors who helped him publish it are part of that crowd.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 23, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> Helpful thread. My wife just started this book in her book club. She doesn't know anything about it as one of the other ladies recommended it. The club doesn't read just Christian books, but when one does read a book that one believes to be Christian, one's guard goes down a bit. We know, more or less, what we will get from secular fiction, and consequently can more quickly recognize error. We are much more "forgiving" to those "Christian" books we read, if you know what I mean.



Exactly. I would hope that more churches would place inserts in their bulletins, as per the one from the CANRC church in this thread.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 23, 2008)

I actually talked with folks about this book on that very youtube video. I basically said that, regardless of whether or not it's fiction, it distorts the truth about God Almighty. Anything that distorts God or His nature is trash and should be exposed and disdained by those who fear God. 

And _of course_ many alleged Christians like the Shack. They are the same group that loves The Message! Gah I hate Romans 9 in that paraphrase...it's such rubbish (as in, the near expletive kind in Phil. 3:8). People need discernment... (oh no I said the "d" word ).


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 23, 2008)

> "I'm Christian, but I don't believe in the Church"



Actually, with the Shack, it's more like ""I'm Christian, but I don't believe in the Trinity as delineated in Scripture."

(By the way, the Al Mohler show on it was great.   )


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 23, 2008)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> > Helpful thread. My wife just started this book in her book club. She doesn't know anything about it as one of the other ladies recommended it. The club doesn't read just Christian books, but when one does read a book that one believes to be Christian, one's guard goes down a bit. We know, more or less, what we will get from secular fiction, and consequently can more quickly recognize error. We are much more "forgiving" to those "Christian" books we read, if you know what I mean.
> ...



I visited a church in another city a few months ago that had copies of the Challies review of the book available.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 24, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > "I'm Christian, but I don't believe in the Church"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's actually worse than that. Not satisfied with misleading people on one critical aspect of the Christian faith, the author also dispels "the myth" that Christ is the only way to the Father (apparently he's only the best way), helpfully explains that God isn't in the judgment business (there's no hell, since sin is its own punishment) and bashes anything institutional about Christianity such as the visible church or a seminary education. 

I listened to the Al Mohler show on my way home from work yesterday and I agree, it was great. I'd never listened to him before.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 24, 2008)

You're right, of course, it's just the whole Trinity issue was the ugliest bit of the iceberg sticking out of the sea. I thought Al Mohler did a great job - quite balanced in view of the garbage contained in the book.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 24, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> Helpful thread. My wife just started this book in her book club. She doesn't know anything about it as one of the other ladies recommended it. The club doesn't read just Christian books, but when one does read a book that one believes to be Christian, one's guard goes down a bit. We know, more or less, what we will get from secular fiction, and consequently can more quickly recognize error. We are much more "forgiving" to those "Christian" books we read, if you know what I mean.



I know exactly what you mean. It is one of the great tragedies of the Christian church that very few people recognize that we need to be every bit as discerning when reading books written by "Christians" (or even by those who espouse or own particular positons on disputable mattes within the church) as we are when we read the writings of rank heretics or those who take differing views on legitimately disputed matters. The biblical requirement is that every teaching should be tested.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 24, 2008)

Deus Pro Nobis: The Shack (October 2, 2008)


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 24, 2008)

*Why people should listen to Bahnsen and Van Til*



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Deus Pro Nobis: The Shack (October 2, 2008)



From the article:



> If God is all-powerful and loving, then why is there suffering in this world?



To re-word:

If God is all powerful, and God is all good, why is there evil in the world? Either God is not all powerful or God is not all good. Bahnsen's answer in his audio series "Practical Apologetics", There is a necessary reason for the evil which God allows. He further explained that God uses the evil which *men* do to further show his grace and mercy.

Liked the article. Seems from the article that if you don't answer the question correctly you will end up with bad theology.


----------



## john_Mark (Oct 28, 2008)

Sorry for the late response.

One review on my blog that continues to get a lot of attention. 
Shack Attack-or A Call To Discernment 

This review was published in our church newsletter. I have also made a widget that links to several reviews of this book.


----------

