;)
Christian Fiction and the Theology of "The Shack"
Posted by Dave Miller in Bible & Theology, IMPACT Features
It is possible that I am the very last blogger to weigh in on that very popular book, “The Shack,” by William Young. The questionable theology of the book has been hammered like an 80-mph fastball. A few have line up to defend the book and its author. I would like to attempt to approach the book from a different perspective.
I have loved Christian and fantasy fiction since I first discovered it thirty years ago. I found a copy of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy in the seminary library and started reading it. I think it affected my grades as I got lost in Middle Earth. I toured Narnia and other fantasy worlds. I have read George McDonald and John White and just about any other fiction author I could find. (Note: no offense intended, but this essay will pretty much ignore Christian romance novels.)
And I have written several Christian fantasy novels which I hope will be on the bookstore shelves near you in years-to-come. It is not an easy world to break into, but my mom thinks my novels are wonderful!
One of the common defenses of “The Shack” is that it is a work of Christian fiction and therefore should not be judged as harshly as theological works. Certainly, if you examine The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, you will find some pretty suspect theology (ransom to Satan view of the atonement, etc). So, should the theological deficiencies of “The Shack” be excused because it is only a work of fiction?
A Synopsis of “The Shack”
“The Shack” is about a man, Mack, who had been abused as a child and whose young daughter has been murdered. He has become overwhelmed by a “Great Sadness” becoming angry and morose, withdrawn from the world and his family. He receives a note from “Papa” (a family name for God) inviting him to come to the shack where evidence of his daughter’s murder had been found. There, he encounters “Papa” the heavenly Father, who appears as a portly black woman who evokes Oprah Winfrey to me. Jesus is a Middle-Eastern carpenter who wears jeans and plaid shirts, and the Spirit is a wispy Asian woman named Sarayu (meaning wind). In the course of their discussions, they reveal truths to Mack that help him release his anger and restore his joy in life.
I do not know if Young intended to reflect the biblical narrative of Job, but the similarities are startling. Both Job and Mack are devastated by life’s circumstances and struggle with the goodness of God. However, they meet very different Gods in their distress and found very different solutions to their tragic circumstances.
The Theological Problems with “The Shack”
I do not really want to focus on this, but it is important to mention some of these. I am going to list these problems here. Then, in the next day or so, I will try to publish a more complete listing and explanation of these theological problems at my personal site, http://thistentsjustright.blogspot.com. But here, it will simply suffice to list the problems.
1) The Shack presents a God very different from the biblical God of glory and sovereign power. The smiling, wise-cracking woman of William Young’s fantasy seems foreign to every scripture in the Bible which presents God.
2) More specifically, The Shack’s God (goddess?) is absent of all the traits of holiness, glory, and sovereign authority that are fundamental to the biblical view of God.
3) The Shack presents a twisted view of authority, both divine authority and human. William Young does not seem able to conceptualize servant leadership in home, at church, or in the godhead. God rejects all authority and only seeks relationship. Likewise, we should reject all forms of authority and seek only equal relationships.
4) Because of this view of authority, Young rejects the biblical teaching of the Lordship of Christ. “Jesus is Lord” is the fundamental assertion of Christianity. The Jesus of the shack rejects the concept of Lordship and only seeks relationship – obedience is unnecessary and irrelevant.
5) The Shack has a flawed view of the atonement. Humans are not sinners, we have been broken by independence from God. We do not need atonement for sins, but simply a therapeutic restoration of our relationship with God, which will heal all brokenness.
6) The Shack has a flawed view of the sovereignty of God. He presents a boilerplate Arminian view of God’s sovereignty. God waits politely while humans make their choices. He never forces himself or anything else on us. Calvinists will not find much to like in this book. While I am no expert of Open Theism, I think that William Young would find little to disagree with if he studied the proponents of that viewpoint.
7) The Shack promotes universalism. Followers of God are found in all systems, “Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims.”
This is just a sampling of the theological problems in this book. The list could go on. Now we must turn our attention to the question at hand. Does the fictional nature of “The Shack” make its theological problems less serious?
Types of Christian Fiction
I would categorize Christian fiction in the following ways (not exhaustive categories).
1) Realistic Christian Fiction – in which an attempt is made to present a fictional, but true-to-life story in which God works in people’s lives. While it is a movie, “Facing the Giants” may be the best illustration of this. The story is about God working with real people in the real world.
Truthfully, realistic Christian fiction has been pretty unrealistic. It does not often deal with the real issues of people’s hearts (lust, greed, violence, etc) and is often guilty of giving simplistic solutions to complex problems.
2) Foundational Christian Fiction – in which books are written from a Christian world view, but are not intended to promote doctrine or biblical principles. “The Lord of the Rings” is a great example of this. It has an underlying sense of Providence and the victory of good over evil, but there is no attempt to teach Christian doctrine.
Books like this are not held to a strict theological standard. C.S. Lewis made a point to ask people not to judge the theology of his books or to look for allegories amongst the characters. Is Aslan a Christ-figure? Almost certainly. But his story is not meant to accurately portray the biblical view of the atonement.
Books like this are meant to be enjoyed, not theologically analyzed.
3) Allegorical Fiction – in which biblical truths are illustrated by fictional characters and events. Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” is the gold standard of allegorical fiction. John White’s “Anthropos” series (Tower of Geburah, et al) is in this genre as well.
Since the distinct purpose of allegory is to communicate truth, allegorical fiction should be judged to a higher standard of theological analysis than foundational fiction, in my opinion.
4) Didactic Fiction – in which fictional experiences are used to teach biblical or theological truths. The “Left Behind” series (love them or hate them) would qualify as didactic fiction. Interwoven in the story are sermons which are the spiritual point of the books.
The purpose of didactic fiction is to teach truth within the confines of the story. So, the highest level of theological analysis applies to didactic fiction.
It is clear to me that “The Shack” is didactic fiction. The story is told beginning and end, but the bulk of the book is this lengthy discussion between Mack, Papa, Jesus and Sarayu. The story is fictional, though one has to wonder how much of the hurt comes out of William Young’s personal life. But the point of the book is the truth spoken by the three members of the Trinity to help Mack find healing from his personal problems.
Shall We Accept “The Shack” as Fiction?
Here is my judgment, with which many will disagree. “The Shack” is well-written and interesting, but its theological problems are simply too many to pass by lightly. And the argument that the shack is meant only as fiction simply cannot hold water. It would be like saying that LaHaye and Jenkins are only writing futuristic fantasy. “The Shack” has a message to communicate, and while the story is fictional, the message is presented as theological truth.
As fiction, “The Shack” is riveting. But as theology, it is dangerous. Whether it should be sold at Lifeway Stores or in other Christian bookstores is not for me to decide.
Frankly, I learned a lot from reading the book and there were some good insights. But there is too much toxic theology in the middle there for me to give it a blanket recommendation. It is a great read and is thought provoking. It also, in my opinion, strays dangerously close to the line of heresy in several places.
I removed it from my church library, because too many people think every book on the shelves there can be trusted completely. However, I think it might be a very interesting book for a theological discussion group or among the theologically astute. It is such a good example of bad theology that it could lead to powerful discussion.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Dave,
You’re not the last to weigh in … I’ve never read it or written about it.
I was given a copy of the book by a man who had recently joined my church. He lost a 16-year-old son a few months before. The book seemed to connect wit him. He gives the book some of the “credit” in helping him recover from those dark days of loss. He is theologically grounded and was, I believe, able to separate the wheat from the chaff in the novel.
Unfortunately, I’ve never had the opportunity to read the book … I still have little time for leisure reading – too many papers to write.
“Note: no offense intended, but this essay will pretty much ignore Christian romance novels.”
I think you’d have to give up your man-card if you did write about Christian romance novels.
I usually try to respond to those who comment on my posts, but I will not be available today until this evening.
I am receiving a week of intensive treatment at the HeadacheCare Center in Springfield, MO. If you know anyone who suffers with regular migraines, this is a great place.
If I knew how many readers I have for this, I could ask for a discount on my bill for advertising!
A great chance, Andrew, to read some Janette Oke.
Geoff,
I could see how the book could help someone – it is all about God’s compassion and care.
It is the theological toxicity that concerns me.
Brother Dave,
Pretty good review, and one that has brought out the friction of the fiction, when viewed from the position of theology. Most people do not view this from a theological perspective, but to your point it should not be ignored.
I have read the book,…it was given to me by a member of my extended family. It was an emotional read near the end, and was effective at bringing out human emotion based upon appeasing self.
This book is fiction. It is clearly not the gospel, nor does it appeal to theology from the perspective of the gospel. The Apostle John may even put the substance of the work into the category as anti-Christ since it projects God beyond that of Christ in the flesh. From a theological perspective it is dangerous.
I would just say… that is is a book about how our flesh would like to see God when we are depressed. It is fiction…written by a Christian man…but it should not be classifed as Christian fiction (whatever that means).
Blessings,
Chris
My gift is prophet. I just cannot sink my teeth into fiction. One thing to consider, fiction is outselling the Bible in Christian bookstores now.
Good post. Thank you.
Geoff,
My comment above was meant to agree with you. When I saw it in print, it looked a little weird.
Chris, I love your last paragraph. “I would just say… that is is a book about how our flesh would like to see God when we are depressed.”
Dave M, please allow me to share something that I have previously written at another site:
I read “The Shack” before I knew that it was controversial, having been given a copy by a dear friend. I struggled through the early chapters and almost abandoned the ship early on. I, like I suppose everyone else, struggled with the presentation of God, The Father. That whole early shack scene with the scenery changing, etc. just seemed silly to me. However, I stayed with it and I’m very glad that I did.
It seems to me that the storyline is about the main character’s struggle with God, finding and giving forgiveness, and coming to peace with the chaotic events that had divinely interrupted his life. I read most of the book while on a family retreat to Steamboat Springs. I don’t mind telling you that I wept and grieved over the losses in my own life as I began to identify with the main character’s loss. The book took me to a place where I could identify with my own struggles, my own bitterness, and my own scars.
I recommend the book often, especially to those whom I know carry deep pain from past losses and abuses. These “broken” people seem to go where I went when they read the book, in terms of processing through some of their deep hurts. I would hate for someone to miss the comfort that The Shack offers for fear of falling into theological error. Of course, I would not want someone to fall into theological error either. I did not fall into that error as far as I can tell. My theology has not changed based on reading The Shack. I still do not believe that the Father looks (even for a moment) like a big black woman (or for that matter like a big white- bearded man). For me it was more like a prayer journey than a theological text book.
I have also benefitted by reading other books like, “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” without changing my theology to view God has a big lion. To me the book is not unlike Pilgrim’s Progress, or “Hinds Feet on High Places”. It’s simply a representation of our journey to find and know God.
While I’m confessing let me also say that I enjoyed “Bruce Almighty” and the sequel “Evan Almighty” (I should say that I don’t believe that Morgan Freeman is God either). Continuing with movies, I consider “The Passsion of the Christ” to be powerful and moving even though much of the movie comes from Roman Catholic tradition and is not found in the biblical text.
I’ll not attempt to defend the William Paul Young’s theology–his own defense in his own words is readily available on the internet to any who wish to search. I would simply encourage our readers to read the book as it is intended–as a story of God’s gracious and redeeming love.
Nice list of different kinds of Christian fiction. I have a couple questions.
1. Is The Shack meant to be theologically rigorous? I don’t get the impression that it was intended to be theologically instructive other than emphasizing the relationship to God in three persons rather than a treatise on the nature of the Godhead. But then I could easily be wrong about that.
2. The value of the book as I’ve seen others read it doesn’t seem to be in the theological rigor (or lack of it) so much as in the emotional impact. One doesn’t evaluate the theological correctness of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony as such a comparison makes no sense. I get the same feel from The Shack, that this is a symphonic or literary piece that is more about evoking an emotional response than teaching doctrine.
From the people I’ve talked to, it seems that those who have suffered a personal loss in their life really resonate with this book. Those who are more cerebral, logical, and cognitive (and who have never suffered an emotionally devastating personal tragedy) don’t seem to connect with it as well. It seems to me that it is like talking to people who are viewing a Rembrandt depicting a Biblical theme and listening to them criticize the painting because the characters are not dressed in historically accurate clothing or that they resemble Dutch people more than Middle Easterners. The criticism is accurate but it is also irrelevant to the artist’s intent which was to evoke an emotion, not fill the brain with facts. I’m wondering if some of the critiques of The Shack are in much the same vein, i.e. they are accurate, but irrelevant given the author’s intent.
Good imput Dave,
I think your right…that we must use much discernment know matter the context and content….even some theology from seminaries could be considered fiction at times.
We should just be careful how we walk…..and test all things in the light of scripture. The Shack is very well written and will tug on the emotions,…it did mine as well. I’ll probably use it more as a teaching aide on how to discern fact from fiction though.
Thanks again for posting your experiences.
Blessings,
Chris
First of all, The Shack was written to change your view about God. That’s very clear, and that’s the way it’s promoted. It’s also called the next Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s promoted as a book that will teach us something new and wonderful about the nature of God. Thus, as Dave said, it’s fiction with the intent to teach theology. There’s no mistaking this.
Secondly, this book is so full of Biblical errors and out and out heresy that it’s not even funny. I read the book. It’s an interesting read…true. The man knows how to write. I’ll give him that. But, after reading it, I found 18 very bad errors and heresies in the book. And, it includes everything from universalism to denying the Trinity to denying that God punishes sin to calling the Bible a book with “guilt edges.” It contains everything from denying original sin in the Garden of Eden to saying that lying is not wrong. It teaches that “Church” is not about worshipping God together and learning the Scriptures together, which is definitly what the NT teaches, but instead “Church” is about just living life and having good relationships. For example, you and your wife on a picnic would be “Church.” You and your buddies taking a nature hike would be “Church.”
Dave, I agree with the things that you said were wrong with this book, and I would take it a step farther. This book is terrible. It should not be on the shelves of Lifeway. And, how anyone who loves the Lord and beleives the Book could say that this is a good book, or that the Shack is ok to sell in Baptist bookstores is beyond me. I cant for the life of me see how anyone who knows theology and cares about truth could endorse this book….sell this book…recommend this book…or call it ok.
David
PS. I guess yall can tell that I do not like “The Shack.”
I think Dave makes a point worth bearing in mind. His reading of The Shack did not change his theology. Nor did my reading of it change my theology. In fact, of the people I’ve talked to, it didn’t change their theology either. I would even guess, David, that your theology was unshaken by reading it.
Where then is the danger? The only people who seem to be at risk are those who have no real theology established. And for them, avoiding The Shack is certainly not going to alleviate the real problem. Seems a tempest in a teapot.
As I said, I can point out lots of errors in paintings by the Renaissance masters when it comes to their rendering of biblical topics. However, that is very much beside the point of the paintings. David, I would say that if someone views God as an old man with lightening bolts waiting to strike down anyone who makes a mistake, or who worships a Santa Clause style Jesus that wants us to be happy all the time, or a practical non-trinitarian who assents to the existence of the Holy Spirit as The Comforter but has no real personal experience with this person of the Godhead performing that office, then I would agree that their view of God NEEDS to change. So to condemn the book because it paints a portrait that is incomplete (as are all human attempts to explain God) or inaccurate in some of the details (as all of the illustrations in the Sunday School literature are for the simple reason we have no photographs of Bible characters)or even because the portrait does not reflect our experience with God, seems a tad bit overwrought.
As (more than) one of my Bible college profs told me, “Just eat the fish and throw away the bones. It does neither you, nor me, nor even the fish, any good to see you getting all choked up over them.”
If we could get a couple more Daves and Davids in this discussion, it would really help.
I think I agree with the general tone of the discussion – that it is a powerful, moving book that could help someone deal emotionally with a painful loss.
I think if someone is theologically discerning, they can glean what is good and leave the rest. I would be fearful for people who lack theological discernment to read the book. If you assumed it was biblical theology, I think you could be in trouble.
Rick, I think (as David said above) the Shack does present itself as a system of theological truth. that was really the reason I wrote this. I had heard several people say, “It’s just fiction, the theology isn’t important.”
But I think that the theology of this book is germaine to the discussion.
What gives me pause is not a lack of theological sophistication or clarity (ie Narnia books) but the fact that it IS sophisticated and clear in its theology – a theology I think is seriously flawed.
So I am caught between appreciating a well-written book that evidently helps people, and a deep concern about the theology of the book.
Thanks for clarifying, Dave.
Does make me wonder though. How well do we discern those who are discerning among us? But that, I’m sure, is another post for another day. See? You already have an idea for your next post!
Rick,
If I took your line of reasoning, then I guess most of the NT should not have been written; because Paul sure thought that sound theology was important. A lot of Paul’s writings were to correct errors in theology, and to put down destructive heresies. And, Rick, a lot of immature Christians are heavily influenced by such things as the Shack, and the prayer of Jabez, and Joel Osteen, and Benny Hinn, etc. Thus, it is very important to hold to sound teachings and help Christians to see the truth. Some of this stuff could even lead the unsaved into Hell…like the Shack’s teaching that God doesnt punish sin, and everyone is on their own path to God. Rick, I think that something that could lead people to Hell is pretty important; dont you?
David
David,
How does not reading The Shack, Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now, etc. help Christians see the truth?
One cannot teach discernment without giving them something to discern. I am currently teaching on the topic of Christian apologetics to the College & Career Class at my church. I told them last week that they need to be able to contend with materialists from the basis of materialism and not just the Bible. I told them that their best defense against the errors of evolution was to know the facts of evolution better than their opponents, even better than the evolutionists themselves. The reason is because materialistic evolutionists will not accept the authority of the Bible as a sound basis for argument and second their philosophy already has the seeds of its own destruction within it.
The apostle Paul demonstrated how to do this both at Lystra and most clearly at Athens in Acts 17. Clearly, Paul had no problem reading and quoting Greek (i.e. pagan) poets whether it was to the Greeks themselves or to Titus regarding the Cretans. The key is not to avoid reading them, but to follow Paul’s example and to read them with discernment.
rick
I suppose I’ll chime in…
I’ve read The Shack, it didn’t change any of my current theology. I agreed with a lot of it, doubted some of it, and wondered why others ignored the good parts of it or exagerated the “weird” parts of it. With that said, I think all this post does is affirm that Dave’s view of God may be different than Young’s view of God and perhaps my view of God.
1. Dave, when I read The Shack I did not get the impression that it presents “a God very different from the Biblical God of glory and sovereign power”, could you provide some examples or justification for that?
2. I did not get the impression that The Shack promote the thought that “God (or goddess??????) is absent of all traits of holiness, glory, and sovereign authority”. What in this book led you to believe that God did not maintain these characteristics?
3. I did not think that The Shack presented a “twisted view of authority”, in fact, I would say that The Shack displayed a more accurate and Biblical view of “servant leadership”… just not a very Baptist view of the concept.
4. Where in The Shack did Jesus reject his Lordship?
5. I also seemed to missed in The Shack when Young presented a “flawed view of the atonement”. Where did Young indicate that Humans are not sinners? Where in The Shack did it say that we did not need atonement for our sins?
6. I also missed where The Shack had a “flawed view of the sovereignty of God”. Assuming that Young is presenting an Armenian view of sovereignty than it is not surprising but yet still shocking, that you are claiming that they are wrong and you are right. I’m not Armenian, but I’m open to the idea that we’re all pretty ignorant when it comes to this doctrine.
7. Where did The Shack “promote universalism”? I don’t remember reading anything that indicated, “all Muslims go to Heaven.”
I hope you can provide examples for why you came to these conclusions, otherwise it is pretty baseless.
God Speed,
Lew
Volfan,
You really believe that a “book” can lead an “unsaved” person to Hell? Aren’t unsaved people going to Hell on their own accord? At the very most you might be able to say that a “book” is entertaining an “unsaved” person on their way to Hell.
Unless of course you actually believe that God is not sovereign. But if that were the case, I guess by your reasoning we’d have to warn everyone about reading your comments; they may too be leading unsaved people to Hell!
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
I believe that God is sovereign, and that heresy can definitely lead people to Hell. I know of many a good ole boy that thought he was ok and on his way to Heaven, because he was a good ole boy. And besides, the Pastor would preach at his funeral what a good ole boy he was. The Preacher would tell everyone that he was a fine fella.
Also, seems like Jesus had something pretty harsh to say about people who would lead others astray; did He not? And, how that legalistic, religious crowd would lead a person to Hell.
David
Volfan,
Could you submit to me a verse that says the religious crowd would lead a person to Hell? Or do you assume that “astray” means “Hell” instead of “sin”?
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
As I mentioned, I am going to write a more complete critique of the theology of the Shack, but I did not want this to just be focused on those things.
I will post that in the next couple of days on my personal blog, “This Tent’s Just Right.”
Rick,
I’m not saying that we cant learn from the bad, and the errors. But, as in your class, you are showing them the errors of different theologies and philosophies. The Shack is being sold at Lifeway, as if it were a good thing. People are reading this book at the recommendation of friends, and sadly, from even some Pastors. And, the book is promoted…on it’s own cover…as a book that will change your view of God forever….it’s the Pilgrim’s Progress of our day. When I called Lifeway to complain, I was told by the girl that answered the phone that this book was helping people find God and learn about God!
So, yea, I believe that we should show people, that we care about, about the errors of this book, and the heresies of this book. That God is not some lovable, Oprah Winfrey figure, who will let Muslems and Buddhists into Heaven. That He/She does punish sin. That He/She will not overlook lying, because it’s just a defense mechanism to help someone survive. That Jesus is not hippy, philosophical carpenter that does His own thing.
Yea, Rick, I do believe that sound doctrine and theology is of the utmost importance in our knowing God, having a good relationship with God, and in our living for God.
David
Vol,
A question: do you really want to put “A Prayer of Jabez” in with all those other persons?
Lew, I’m not David, but you might look at Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
David, as I understand God, he is a loving God who will allow Buddhists and Muslims into heaven. Either that or I completely misunderstand both John 3:16 and our missionary efforts in Muslim and Buddhist countries. I don’t think they have to become cultural American Christians in order to make it to heaven. Simply believing on Jesus Christ and his shed blood on the cross should do that for them. Just because Paul was saved, did not mean he stopped being a Jew.
Before I head back for more treatment, I want to say one positive thing about “the Shack.”
One of the things Young is trying to do is to blow up some of our misconceptions and culturally-conditioned views of God. I think he goes the wrong way in doing it, but it is a good exercise.
Do I see God as a white man with a beard?
Do I see Jesus through the filter of my personal ideas?
It is good for all of us to make sure our view of God is derived from scripture, not culture. Young is helpful in leading us to do that, though I think his conclusions are all wrong.
Rick,
Are you saying that Muslims and Buddhists are on thier own paths to God? Really?
BTW, I’m not saying that anyone has to become a Southern, redneck Christian in order to be right with God. But, Mohammed and Buddha aint gonna get nobody to Heaven.
David
Lew,
Besides what Rick gave you, here’s this one….
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Matthew 23:14-16
David
Dave,
It’s so Sad to see the Hypocrisy in what some have to say about this book called the Shack. They forget from where they come in their Brokenness before being Born Again. If this Book (The Shack) AWOKE one Person to Except Christ as their Savior it is well worth all the it
IMHO if it MATTERS.
Wayne
PS: I have not read this book and do not need to as my Lovely Wife read it and shared the opinion of what it must do for the none NON-BELIEVERS or maybe point a JW to the our TRIUNE GOD.
Wayne
Rick,
I fail to see how that verse indicates that religious officials lead people to Hell. It sounds to me like it’s saying that religious officials are sending themselves to Hell.
Which doctrine does The Shack teach improperly (and where) that will cause someone to be confident that they are going to paradise when in reality they will be in the Lake of Fire?
Perhaps we should ban the Bible… there have been tons of people who have read the Bible and come from it thinking that Jesus was not the Messiah or that God is not sovereign. Maybe the people who think The Shack teaches these same things suffer from similar problems?
Lew
David, where did I say they were on their own path to God?
Paul was on his own path on the way to Damascus. He then had that path changed in a radical way. Interestingly enough, he was not required to relinquish any of his Jewishness to be on that new path.
Accordingly, we do not have to relinquish our Western culture to be on the path to God. Nor do Buddhists or Muslims have to relinquish things like praying 5 times a day or giving alms to be on the path to God.
Lew, go with the verse David gave, then. As for banning the Bible, I fear that most of our churches have done just that from a practical perspective. I cannot count the number of times I’ve discussed a passage of scripture and folks have said, “I’ve never seen that in there.” If they can’t discern even what the Bible says, how can we expect them to discern what The Shack says. In other words, I’m not sure the threat of error is that real because I am not confident that most people are even comprehending what’s in there. It’s pretty clear that even you have some doubts about the things Dave have seen in The Shack. Is it because they aren’t in there and Dave is just seeing things, or is it because they are there but just aren’t that apparent to everyone else?
Just for fun, here’s an interesting couple of paragraphs on C.S. Lewis found on Wikipedia:
“Lewis has also received criticism from some Christians and Christian organizations who feel that The Chronicles of Narnia promotes “soft-sell paganism and occultism”, because of the recurring pagan themes and the supposedly heretical depictions of Christ as an anthropomorphic lion. The Greek god Bacchus and the Maenads are depicted in a positive light (with the caveat that meeting them without Aslan around would not be safe), although they are generally considered distinctly pagan motifs. Even an animistic “River god” is portrayed in a positive light.[37][38] According to Josh Hurst of Christianity Today, “not only was Lewis hesitant to call his books Christian allegory, but the stories borrow just as much from pagan mythology as they do the Bible”.[39]
Lewis himself believed that pagan mythology could act as a preparation for Christianity, both in history and in the imaginative life of an individual, and even suggested that modern man was in such a lamentable state that perhaps it was necessary “first to make people good pagans, and after that to make them Christians”.[40] He also argued that imaginative enjoyment of (as opposed to belief in) classical mythology has been a feature of Christian culture through much of its history, and that European literature has always had three themes: the natural, the supernatural believed to be true (practiced religion), and the supernatural believed to be imaginary (mythology). Colin Duriez, author of three books on Lewis, suggests that Lewis believed that to reach a post-Christian culture one needed to employ pre-Christian ideas.[41] Lewis disliked modernism which he regarded as mechanized and sterile and cut off from natural ties to the world. By comparison, he had hardly any reservations about pre-Christian pagan culture. He disdained the non-religious agnostic character of modernity, but not the polytheistic character of pagan religion.[42] [43]”
The applicable money quotes:
Lewis is criticised for, “…recurring pagan themes and the supposedly heretical depictions of Christ as an anthropomorphic lion.”
and
Lewis, suggested that modern man was in such a lamentable state that perhaps it was necessary “first to make people good pagans, and after that to make them Christians”.
Volfan,
That verse doesn’t teach that Pharisees lead people to Hell. It teaches that Pharisees disciple unsaved people to be even worse than the Pharisees themselves. If it wasn’t for the Pharisees those people would still be going to Hell and even with the Pharisees, God is perfectly capable of saving them.
I have a hard time believing that Jesus is teaching that the Pharisees were taking people who are on their way to Heaven and changing them to be people who are on their way to Hell – God protects his children.
Lew
Rick,
You said, “It’s pretty clear that even you have some doubts about the things Dave have seen in The Shack. Is it because they aren’t in there and Dave is just seeing things, or is it because they are there but just aren’t that apparent to everyone else?”
Good question… which is why I asked Dave for justification for his accusations. I am willing to admit that I did not see those things and that I might be wrong about the book.
Lew
In Galatians, Paul said that if anyone comes preaching any other Gospel, let them be accursed. Why? Because any other Gospel would lead people to Hell. Only the right Gospel will lead people to God.
Also, Jude 3-4…
And, the list really goes on and on and on, Lew. Passages that show how important it is to believe the true Gospel. Passages that show how a false Gospel will lead people astray, and even into Hell.
David
Dave,
I have only the time to mention briefly how much I appreciated this article. Just this past Wednesday I found myself attempting to explain to members of my congregation about different types of fiction. I concur with you that communicating a concept of God and relationship with him seems to be the main point of The Shack, and that this fact differentiates it from some other works of fiction.
Lew,
Some pages for you to look up….
p. 146…man didnt sin in the Garden of Eden. He just went independent.
p. 149…we’re told that Jesus doesnt want us to look at His life as an example.
pp. 161-165 hint very strongly at universalism.
p. 182….Jesus is not the only way to Heaven.
P. 187…lying is not sinful. It’s just a defense mechanism for surviving.
p. 192…universalism is clearly taught.
p. 31…The Great Spirit of the American Indians is just another name for the same God of the Bible.
p. 94 denies that God is our Father.
p. 99 denies that the miracles of Jesus proved that He was God…Diety.
pp. 119-120….we’re told that God does not punish sin.
And, there are many, many, many more things severely wrong with this book that is clearly promoted as a teaching book…to help change our view about God.
David
Again, Lew, I am planning to publish all my notes. I went through the entire book and noted everything I thought was theologically suspect. I summarized it for this and will present a full accounting of every problem I had with the book on my own blog.
I will tell you I tried to be fair (always subjective) and not overreactive.
I hope to write that this evening and put it up later tonight.
Dave Samples,
It would be interesting if CS Lewis was modern and he published those books today, how we would respond. I suspect that many in today’s Christian world might well not like those books.
Lewis made a great point that he was NOT writing theological works in his novels.
I enjoyed your entry into this discussion.
Dave – Why don’t you post it here on Saturday??
I’d be glad to, Geoff, if you think that is best.
Hi Dave,
I enjoyed you commentary on “The Shack” and the discussions surrounding it.
This is probably way off the main topic of the theology of “The Shack” — my apologies if I have violated protocol — but I did want to comment on what you said about C.S. Lewis. You mentioned a theological point and indicated you thought that C.S. Lewis indicated a “ransom to Satan” idea in the way he wrote The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Although not specifically about “The Shack” it is related to the whole theology as presented by an author within a story idea.
Despite the fact that I am a fan of Lewis I am not blind to his theological faults. In particular he was * weak * (although perhaps not fatally so) on his view of the penal substitutionary atonement if what he says in “Mere Christianity” is any guide. He certainly prefers a different ‘model’. However, I don’t think Lewis was teaching (even accidentally) a “ransom to Satan view of the atonement” in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.
I quote fully from the relevant part of the story end the end of my comments but briefly I think it illustrates that Lewis was trying to make something else clear.
From what Mr. Beaver says: “Oh,” said Mr. Beaver. “So that’s how you came to imagine yourself a queen – because you were the Emperor’s hangman. I see.”, and from what he has both the White Witch and Alsan say about the Deep Magic, that whatever the White Witch might imagine about ‘her rights’ it was really the law of God (the deep magic) and God himself (the Emperor) that demanded the blood sacrifice. A “hangman” is not obliged to have the victim for themselves; the hangman must operate under the authority of the law of the king.
Ray
>>>> The relevant section reads: **** QUOTING ****
“You have a traitor there, Aslan,” said the Witch. Of course everyone present knew that she meant Edmund …
“Well,” said Aslan. “His offense was not against you.”
“Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?” asked the Witch.
“Let us say I have forgotten it,” answered Aslan gravely. “Tell us of the Deep Magic.”
“Tell you what is written on the very Table of Stone which stands beside us? Tell you what is written in letters deep as a spear is long on the fire-stones of the Secret Hill? Tell you what is engraved on the scepter of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea? You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.”
“Oh,” said Mr. Beaver. “So that’s how you cam to imagine yourself a queen – because you were the Emperor’s hangman. I see.”
“Peace, Beaver,” said Aslan, with a very low growl.
“And so,” continued the Witch, “that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.”
“Come and take it then,” said the Bull with the man’s head, in a great bellowing voice.
“Fool,” said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, “do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”
“It is very true,” said Aslan, “I do not deny it.”
“Oh, Aslan!” whispered Susan in the Lion’s ear. “can’t we — I mean, you won’t, will you? Can’t we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn’t there something you can work against it?”
“Work against the Emperor’s Magic?” said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.
****** END QUOTE *****
[C.S. Lewis quotations from The Chronicles of Narnia; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. (New York: Harper Trophy) ]
Ray,
Wouldn’t the fact that Aslan owes a death to the White Witch be a sort of “Ransom to Satan” thing.
Also, I am at Darin’s Sunday – Wednesday. You should sneak away from Eric’s to hear some GOOD preaching for a change. (It’s no fun if you don’t tell Eric I said this)
I’m preaching Proverbs again (their request) so don’t expect anything new. But, I’ll buy a meal if you show up!
When the words Muslim, Buddhist etc are used in the book, it is not speaking of the person’s religion but where they live, what area they are from. William Paul Young said that he was brought up from boyhood in another country, and the United States is the only place that would read Muslim, Buddhist, and think it was referring to religion and not where that person was from. So it is not promoting universalism. Remember this was not to be published worldwide but written for his children only.
Debbie, you say, “When the words Muslim, Buddhist etc are used in the book, it is not speaking of the person’s religion but where they live, what area they are from” and that it’s only Americans who “would read Muslim, Buddhist, and think it was referring to religion and not where that person was from.”
Sorry, I don’t buy that. There are too many Buddhists in too many different parts of the world to give a clear, simple picture of what a Buddhist is like and where they are from. Buddhists live in too many different places with a wide range of socio-economic, political, linguistic and cultural norms. The same goes for Muslims.
One of the most troubling things about William Paul Young’s book is that it appears he wants us to believe that even in a religious sense, someone who calls himself a Buddhist or a Muslim is just as close to God as someone who calls himself a Christian.
Katie, you said: “One of the most troubling things about William Paul Young’s book is that it appears he wants us to believe that even in a religious sense, someone who calls himself a Buddhist or a Muslim is just as close to God as someone who calls himself a Christian.”
Isn’t that what Paul said in Acts 17:27 to the Athenians when he told them that God is not far from any one of us if only we would seek him out?
I would agree with this sentiment that there are many in this country who call themselves Christian who are just as close to God a Buddhists and Muslims. Alternatively, I think Buddhists and Muslims are really no further from God than the cultural Christians in the West.
In that, Young does speak truly.
I think if we would recognize that, it would turn our personal evangelism from being adversaries of those in need of saving to being advocates for the One who can save them. And isn’t that where we should be anyway?
Katie is absolutely right in what she said. This was not a reference to Muslims and Buddhists who had become Christians. If you dont believe that, go read the book again. It’s very obvious that Young is saying that people are on different paths to God.
Rick, I really dont understand why you keep saying what you’re saying. Of course, somebody in Greece does not have to wear the same clothes and speak Southern English and eat Southern cooking in order to be saved. That’s not what anybody is talking here. The book is very clear that it’s talking about everyone being close to God, just in different ways,ie, Muslims are close to God and on thier own journey to God; Buddhists are on thier own journey to God; etc. This is out and out universalism. We are not talking about reaching across cultures here. The book is pretty evident that it’s talking about universalism.
David
volfan007,
Just wondering… Did you read the book, The Shack? The reason that I ask is that your previous comment directly contradicts something that is in the book – in the very passage that you quote.
You said, “This was not a reference to Muslims and Buddhists who had become Christians. If you dont believe that, go read the book again. It’s very obvious that Young is saying that people are on different paths to God.”
But, this is what Young actually wrote in The Shack:
Again Jesus stopped. ‘Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jes and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and isters, into my Beloved.’
‘Does that mean,’ asked Mack, ‘that all roads will lead to you?’
‘Not at all,’ smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. ‘Most roads don’t lead anywhere….’ (pg. 182)
-Alan
Thanks, Alan, for finding this. I couldn’t locate this passage.
David, I hope this puts to rest your suggestion that the book is promoting Universalism.
Volfan,
Thank you for providing me with this list. I will respond inline with quotes from those passages.
p. 146…man didnt sin in the Garden of Eden. He just went independent.
“The world is broken because in Eden you abandoned relationship with us to assert your own dependence. Most men have expressed it by turning to the work of their hand and the sweat of their brow to find their identity, value, and security”
Where in that quote did Young say that man didn’t sin in the Garden of Eden? It seems to me that Young merely explained Adam’s sin.
p. 149…we’re told that Jesus doesnt want us to look at His life as an example.
Speaking of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do”:
“Jesus chuckled. ‘Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works for you, if that’s the way you choose to go.’ He paused and grew sober. ‘Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to “be like Jesus,” it means for your independence to be killed. I came to give you life, real life, my life. We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But we wil never force that union on you. If you want to do your thing, have at it.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but I interpret this in a religious sense. The Pharisees tried to act holy, but they were merely whitewashed tombs. Here, Jesus is saying that merely acting like him isn’t what he wants. He wants true followers of him, people who allow him to live in them. The difference between trying to be like Jesus by our own power and allowing Jesus to live through us.
pp. 161-165 hint very strongly at universalism.
I’m going to skip this one… because it’s 4 pages. Let’s just say that I don’t see it there.
p. 182….Jesus is not the only way to Heaven.
“Again Jesus stopped. ‘Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jes and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and isters, into my Beloved.’
‘Does that mean,’ asked Mack, ‘that all roads will lead to you?’
‘Not at all,’ smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. ‘Most roads don’t lead anywhere….’”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t get the sense that Jesus is saying that he is not the only way to Heaven. In fact, I get the strong sense that Jesus is saying that people need to be followers of him to go to Heaven. That he desires to transform people to be children of God. Especially since he says that all roads DO NOT lead to him. The key is where Jesus said, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists…”
P. 187…lying is not sinful. It’s just a defense mechanism for surviving.
“‘But, what you said. I mean, about hiding inside lies. I guess I’ve done that one way or another most of my life.’
‘Honey, you’re a survivor. No shame in that. Your daddy hurt you something fierce. Life hurt you. Lies are one of the easiest places for survivors to run. It gives you a sense of safety, a place where you only have to depend on yourself. But it’s a dark place, isn’t it?’
…
‘Lies are a little fortress; inside them you can feel safe and poweful. Through your little fortress of lies you try to run your life and manipulate others. But the fortress needs walls, so you biuld some. These are the justifications for your lies….’”
Where did Jesus say that lying was not sinful? Just because Jesus explains to Mack why we lie, doesn’t mean that he is condoning the activity. At least, I don’t get that impression.
p. 192…universalism is clearly taught.
“‘Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully rconciled to the world.’
‘The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?’
‘The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, comletely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.’”
There is a difference between this view of reconciliation and the belief in universalism. I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross solved the sin problem (reconciled God to the world). In fact, Scripture teaches this – 1 John 2:2. But I don’t believe that all roads lead to Jesus or that everyone will be in Paradise. Clearly Young isn’t teaching universalism here. Afterall, he does say that it is a “two way street” and now it’s up to us to do our part.
p. 31…The Great Spirit of the American Indians is just another name for the same God of the Bible.
“‘Did the Indian princess really die? Is the story true?’
Mack thought before he spoke.’I don’t know, Kate. It’s a legend and sometimes legends are stories that teach a lesson.’
‘So, it didn’t really happen?’ asked Missy.
‘It might have sweetie. somtimes legends are built from real stories, things that really happen.’
‘Again silence, then, ‘So is Jesus dying a legend?’ Mack could hear the wheels turning in Kate’s mind.
‘No honey that’s a true story; and do you know what? I think the Indian princess story is probably true to.’
Mack waited while his girls proessed their thoughts. Missy was next to ask. ‘Is the Great Spirit another name for God – you know, Jesus’ papa?’
Make spiked in the dark. Obviously, Nan’s nightly prayers were having an effect. ‘I would suppose so. It’s a good name for God because he is a spirit and he is Great.’”
I don’t think it is absurd that another religion would have a redemption story similar to a Judeo/Christian story. In fact, this is quite commonplace. I don’t think Young is saying that the Great Spirit that the Native Americans follow is the same Great Spirit (God) of the Bible… but that the stories are related. Again, I could be wrong… maybe it’s just the part of the book that isn’t really theological in nature and just some dumb dad talking to his daughters at night.
p. 94 denies that God is our Father.
“‘why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.’
‘Well,’ responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the kitchen, ‘there are many reasons for that adn some of htem go very deep. let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are needed – but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.’”
Did you even read the book? Where does Young deny that God is our father? The same God named “Papa” in this book? At the most, you can say that God is saying that he’s not limited to being our father, but clearly Young is saying that God knew our need for a father and that is why he is revealed to us as our father.
p. 99 denies that the miracles of Jesus proved that He was God…Diety.
“‘Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded. That is why his name is Immanuel, God with us, or God with you, to be more precise.’
‘But what about all the miracles? The healings? raising people from the dead? Doesn’t that prove that Jesus was God – you know, more than human?’
‘No, it proves that Jesus is truly human.’”
How can young deny the miracles of Jesus when he admits that Jesus did miracles? The miracles prove that Jesus is truly human. This might be a little hard to grasp, but you and I are not truly human – not with Jesus. Jesus is what Adam was meant to be… since Adam creation has been messed up. It may not be the most “scriptural” idea, but it’s not against Scripture. Jesus himself says that we will perform greater miracles than he did. Unless of course you think Jesus is saying we are all gods. (Matthew 10:7-8, John 14:12)
pp. 119-120….we’re told that God does not punish sin.
“At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadneess in her eyes. ‘I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. Its not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.’”
Where did Young say that God does not punish sin? Young said that it is not God’s purpose to punish sin… and it is God’s joy to cure it. And God did cure sin, with Jesus.
So to sum up, after reading your response I have serious doubt that you read the book. You probably did, but I cannot comprehend how anyone could read into these words so much. It is really a shame that Young is being attacked the way he is for saying things that he never said. At least, not in these quotes.
Young does deny that authoritative church structures are biblical. I’ve been surprised that few people have mentioned that.
God Speed,
Lew
Oops. that last part “but you and I are not truly human – not with Jesus.” should have read “but you and I are not truly human – not without Jesus.”
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
- Exodus 20:4-6 ESV
“To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare Him to?” Isaiah 40:18 ESV
“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” – 1 John 5:20
“He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation.” – Colossians 1:15 ESV
So far in my wanderings I have not heard promoted by the pro or con of this work any comparisons of the depiction of God in the Shack to the above set of verses. God is not a Southern gentleman drinking sweet tea – yet He is not depicted accurately in The Shack either. Is this then in violation of the Second Commandment?
“Whatever forms of God man devises are diametrically opposed to His nature; therefore, as soon as idols appear, true religion is corrupted and adulterated.” – John Calvin
Rick,
Sorry if I was imprecise in characterizing what I believe William Paul Young thinks about Buddhists and Muslims and their relationship with the One True Living God of the Bible. I may be wrong, but I believe that Young thinks (and is trying to spread the acceptance of this idea by publishing it in a book), that the path of a Buddhist or a Muslim in his/her spiritual journey is every bit as valid as the path a follower of Jesus Christ chooses.
When Paul says in Acts 17:27 “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” do you think Paul pictures the seeker searching for God by reading the Koran? Or that we should seek to become “enlightened” in a pure Buddhist sense, even while acknowledging that Buddhism teaches that believing in gods not useful? Like Paul, I believe that God is not far from each one of us. But I cannot concede that the converse of that statement is true: that each person is not far from God. Although He may be near to us, there are those who are very far from God. For Young to imply that we are really all on some kind of path to God is not helpful because it is not true.
As I said Katie, no he isn’t. Having heard him speak for an entire weekend on the book and hearing him preach confirmed my comprehension of his book.
BTW Katie: Read comment 48.
Katie,
You said, “I may be wrong, but I believe that Young thinks (and is trying to spread the acceptance of this idea by publishing it in a book), that the path of a Buddhist or a Muslim in his/her spiritual journey is every bit as valid as the path a follower of Jesus Christ chooses,” and, “For Young to imply that we are really all on some kind of path to God is not helpful because it is not true.”
Lew quotes Young as saying on p. 182, “‘Does that mean,’ asked Mack, ‘that all roads will lead to you?’
‘Not at all,’ smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. ‘Most roads don’t lead anywhere….’”
I’ll leave it to you to explain how the phrase, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere…” harmonizes with universalism.
rick
Rick,
In the gospel of John, Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That’s pretty clear, wouldn’t you say? There’s no other way to be near to God or to have relationship with God, except through Christ.
When Young puts these words in Jesus’ mouth, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons…” without explaining how they came to love Christ, how they rejected Buddhism or Mormonism (or IF they ever did), it’s not very clear. Syncretism is a big enough problem in the world already!
If you want to give Young the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s not promoting universalism, that’s fine. There are probably many who agree with you. I can’t because Young himself leaves it unclear.
Katie: Out of curiosity, and you may choose to ignore me…again, have you read the book?
Yes, Debbie, I have read the book, thought about the book, discussed it with other Christians, and listened to other Christians discuss this book online. Like Dave Miller here, I find a few positive things about the book, but in my mind, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Sorry if you thought I was ignoring you. I’m not exactly sure how I gave you that impression, though. In all your comments here (44, 54, 55 and 58) I don’t see where you previously asked me if I had read the book.
Rick,
Young’s glariing omission is that there is only ONE road that genuinely leads to God.
There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
I am THE way, THE truth and THE life.
Not only do some paths lead nowhere, but all paths lead nowhere, except the path through Christ.
I don’t know if Young believes this, but his book fails to state that.
I agree with Lew A here….I didn’t think it was well-written either. Up until now, I felt like I was drowning alone in a sea of praise for The Shack. I thought the dialogue was gooey. I read it early on before all the hoopla and I just dismissed at as bad fiction. I didn’t realize people were going to take it seriously!
And I think this reinforces a point I made earlier that The Shack resonates for a certain population, most notably people who have suffered a tragic and unexplainable loss. Those who have not suffered such a tragedy in their lives will remain largely unaffected by it.
For that reason, I think arguments about the theological errors in the book are akin to arguing about the theological errors in Renaissance paintings. They miss the whole point of the artwork due to their attachment to rationalism.
Patty, I think the book is riveting and interesting, The literary quality is not my concern. As much as i disagreed, I was drawn in by the story.
Rick, I would agree if all we were talking about was a work of fiction. But this book purports to present theological truth, therefore its theology must be examined. I would agree with your point in reference to Lewis or Tolien, But a book cannot assert theology then ask not to be theologically critiqued.