There’s been a spate of recent critiques of The Shack (three in the last week). I wonder why?
Most interesting (to me) was Tim Keller’s article offering his impressions of the best-selling book. Personally, I was pleased to find him articulate similar concerns I voiced when the book came out a couple of years ago. While I certainly understand the pastoral attraction and emotional appeal of the book, the underlying theology and the soft, cuddly, non-crunchy God who, perhaps, comforts but cannot save, left me disappointed. So, here’s a snip of what Keller had to say. By the way, note that Keller references a recent “devastating” review of the book to which I’ve linked – and below I link to another recent review (27 Jan 2010) of The Shack by Al Mohler, and still further below, an older and exceptional critique written by Tim Challies. Ok, back to Keller:
Over the holidays I read a good (and devastating) review of William P. (Paul) Young’s The Shack in the most recent print edition of Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010.) It was a reminder that I was one of the last people on the planet not to have read the book. So I did. So why write a blog post about it? It had sold 7.2 million copies in a little over 2 years, by June of 2009. With those kinds of numbers, the book will certainly exert some influence over the popular religious imagination. So it warrants a response. This is not a review, but just some impressions.
Sprinkled throughout the book, Young’s story undermines a number of traditional Christian doctrines. Many have gotten involved in debates about Young’s theological beliefs, and I have my own strong concerns. But here is my main problem with the book. Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible. In the prophets the reader will find a God who is constantly condemning and vowing judgment on his enemies, while the Persons of the Triune-God of The Shack repeatedly deny that sin is any offense to them. The reader of Psalm 119 is filled with delight at God’s statutes, decrees, and laws, yet the God of The Shack insists that he doesn’t give us any rules or even have any expectations of human beings. All he wants is relationship. The reader of the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah will learn that the holiness of God makes his immediate presence dangerous or fatal to us. Someone may counter (as Young seems to do, on p.192) that because of Jesus, God is now only a God of love, making all talk of holiness, wrath, and law obsolete. But when John, one of Jesus’ closest friends, long after the crucifixion sees the risen Christ in person on the isle of Patmos, John ‘fell at his feet as dead.’ (Rev.1:17.) The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.
Mohler wrote this review last week.
Finally, another fine author, and contributor to The Gospel Coalition, Tim Challies has written a thorough and an exceptionally helpful critique of The Shack. You may view it here.
![The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B002N2XI02.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Related Articles
13 users responded in this post
Never understood the “magic”, because the God of the Shack didn’t appear as only a warm fuzzy but also shallow and trite.
Steve, thanks for posting this. In the middle of reading the book, and feeling conflicted on several levels. This was perfect timing.
Thank you for posting this..a friend gave me the book as a gift and never read it!!
Understandable critique, though I think if you read The Shack more in the vein of something like The Great Divorce by CS Lewis–as a loose allegory that does not intend theological precision–then The Shack becomes much more spiritually helpful and non-threatening. If you read it as a theologically treatise, then yes, we’re going to have some issues. But the same could be said of much of Lewis’ work (even though we tend to venerate him).
Thank goodness. Now I feel like I’m not crazy. When this book came out everybody told me that I HAD to read it and how amazing it was…so I did. It left me cold and I felt like the author reduced the Trinity to the level of trivial. . I didn’t get the hype.
I generally put aside (supposedly spiritual) books that come out with a lot of hype….now I guess I HAVE to read it.
I agree with Colin. I don’t think it was meant to offer theological exactness, merely a way to present the Trinity in an allegorical way. If you go into it expecting some sort of precise theological education you have chosen the wrong reason for reading it. Go get a book on ascetical theology if that’s what you want. One needs a sense of imagination and be able to see deeper than the obvious…………That’s the problem nowadays so many people don’t want to read for simple enjoyment. They want to critique as if they are all knowledgeable.
There was too much for one book. And altho I temp. was open to the interpretation, much of it was too pat and too thin to be relatable. This book did not stand out as a really insightful one.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by revstevewood: New post: Tim Keller Offers His Impressions of “The Shack” http://treadinggrain.com/?p=2145...
I also agree with Colin. The book was never meant to be a treatise on systematic theology. Yes much of Lewis’ work could be equally criticized, as well as many others such as Paul Bunyon’s the Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s a story; and it a story that makes some very valid points, one of which is that he reminds us Christ instituted “the church”, NOT organized religion. Some people take offense at being reminded of such things and perhaps that is why some are so harsh with their criticism. Just a thought… However the book has many good points, it highlights the importance of faith rather than religion, also it very wonderfully answers the question of why do good things happen to bad people, how do we deal with grief and loss and very importantly as Christians, what should our response be toward those who cause us harm. Such things are woefully conveyed through a cold theological treatise.
On more thought, yes he focuses on love and relationship. What’s wrong with that? That is certainly no wimpy namby pampy watered down topic! Love requires forgiveness. Forgiveness is something even the wisest and most devout struggle with. In world where families have become so disconnected in all ways, faithful loving relationships and happy marriages have become rarer than “unobtainium”, and most people’s thoughts are only about “self” and we shamelessly use power to satisfy those selfish desires, I think highlighting that love and relationship bound together with forgiveness is a fairly important topic in our day. Just another thought…
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
The story seemed promising, but Young also worships adverbs, and nobody can tell me that’s not at least a minor sin.
Leave A Reply