The Shack, by William Young

I forewarned you the other day that I had lots to say about The Shack so be prepared for this review to take a wee bit of time. I know that in this day and age people like things short and sweet but the other side of that is that in this day and age people are apt to say quite a lot while thinking quite a little. Sometimes it's important to sit and really hash a book (or the thought represented therein) out thoroughly. The Shack demands nothing less because of the rather huge implications it has for the Christian culture.

I would put this book in the same category as Blue Like Jazz (see my review here) in that it's become highly popular and influential within the church and therefore demands that we take note of it. It's true that I resent the demand that I read this book because I don't think it's worth reading. I would really rather be spending my time reading something else. Instead, I felt like I must take the time to read this book so that I could take the time to make a proper response to what I thought (and discovered) it was. So, since "you" (the generic reading public) deem this book worthy of a good read, study and even a screen play (!), I retaliate with a long review. So there.

Before hitting "publish" to this review, I should also state that I followed up my reading of The Shack by re-reading various scripture passages (some of which I have noted below) and have begun to read The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, by Tim Challies. I made ten pages of notes, had many personal conversations about the book and have generally been irritated. I hope to write that irritation out of my system (to some degree) with this review. I'm probably posting this review too quickly, actually. However, I have to let this book go and I'm hoping if I finish this review I can do just that.

The primary reason for my annoyance is this:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.* Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

*the gospel

I believe this book is full of senseless arguments that distract from the truth of scripture and Who God Is, rather than drawing people towards it/Him. It is as if a two year old were insisting that a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies (for breakfast, lunch and dinner no less!) was entirely healthy and appropriate. While I can certainly agree that they might wish it to be so, I can reasonably argue that that is not actually the case and if they eat nothing but chocolate chip cookies they will suffer in life and die a premature death. Still, the two year old still insists and we're forced to go on arguing that you need to at least pop a vitamin in every now and again to maintain a decent balance. This book, The Shack, is insisting that chocolate chip cookies are adequate. Much of scripture is outright ignored if not manipulated for Young's personal purposes of which I know not what they are. Once again Christians have been handed a book which demands a firm answer.

While I do understand that life is not always black and white and there are many Christians who do view some gray, that does not mean that all the "gray matter" is worthy of consideration. Some books are tolerable in their existence and it is easy to take them or leave them. I am going to argue that The Shack is not one of those books. Rather it is a book that demands a firm answer from it's reader. Either you agree or you do not agree. It is important to know why you feel the way that you do about this book. This book demands that you be discerning, to weed out the fact from the fiction as you look closely at what Young has to say.

Is it a bad thing to examine something to determine whether or not it is right or wrong? Many would think that awfully judgmental. However, Solomon himself asked God for the ability to be discerning. He prayed, "Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil..." (1 Kings 3:9a) Sure, he was asking for help in governing a whole people. Our job is no less daunting in that we need to learn to govern ourselves and those whom God has placed in our care (i.e., spouses, children and dependents). God didn't make Solomon to be a unique man in being the only one who would be required to be wise. We all have the responsibility. (Heb. 5:14) William Young is just presenting us with an opportunity to practice. For that, I suppose, he is deserving of some thanks.

The most notable person to have taken a stand against The Shack (that I have discovered) is Tim Challies. He took issue with a few fallacies in Young's book, most notably Young's "use" (and accused misrepresentation of) the Trinity. I don't want to re-argue his points (because he did a fine job) and if you are curious, you can read what Tim Challies had to say here. I would encourage you to do so, particularly if you have already read The Shack. I KNOW that people who do not agree with me will tell me that I'm too close minded and/or that I didn't understand The Shack and/or that they felt very moved and healed in the reading of it. Well, I knew that none of that would be true for me and I read it anyway to "try to understand." If you would like to return the favor of attempted understanding, go read Challies' article and don't comment on it until you've read it. It's the least you can do. Note: I have not said anything at all about The Shack until I read it. You can check my archives. I kept my opinions to myself. However, I no longer feel the need.

There are a great many quotes from The Shack that I would love to share and dissect. As I said, I wrote out ten pages worth of quotes and notes on the topic. If I shared everything, you might think I was writing my own book. (You might think that anyway.) Instead of belaboring the point, I'll focus on the two topics I found the most important (after the point about the misuse of the Trinity; refer to Challies, please).

Point of contention #1:

Young is subtle in his misuse of scripture. So subtle in fact that I think unless you intend to read into this book deeply, you will likely miss some of his choice of words and skim over them as being "unimportant."

One example (I have several) is the following:

Young sets up a scene were the god character (I'm just going to keep god lowercase here because I want to.) has made a delicious dinner to be shared and enjoyed by the Trinity and Mack (the main character). The character of Jesus is carrying the meal dish to the table and drops it, breaking the dish and ruining the dinner. The god character laughingly forgives Jesus, calling him "greasy fingers." (pages 104-105) The following paragraph appears, relating what Mack thought of these events:

"He knew it didn't matter whose fault it was -- the mess from some bowl had been broken, that a dish that had been planned would not be shared. Obviously, what was truly important here was the love they had for one another and the fullness it brought them." (pages 104-105)

On the surface it just looks like Young made Jesus clumsy in order to show God's forgiveness of sins and to encourage us to overlook one another's faults for the sake of perfect fellowship with one another.

However, in Hebrews 7 we read that Jesus, our High Priest, is ". . .one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." My disturbance is caused by Young's use of the word "fault" in the above quoted paragraph. It implies that there was fault to be laid at the feet of someone but that ultimately it didn't matter. But there was fault to begin with that belonged to someone. I'll say it again - Young implies fault was to be had, but was selected to be ignored for the sake of love. But Jesus is above fault. He is pure. He is blameless. Scripture says so.

There are a few more examples in the book (use of the word "impossible" when it comes to talking our ability to following the 10 Commandments on page 202) but this is just one instance that I will highlight to say that I'm bothered that Young weaved in little remarks all throughout this book that are subversive and attack the very essence of Who God Is. It is frequently so slight as to become unnoticeable unless you are reading to understand Young. Since most people, I would assume, are reading this for entertainment purposes, they are going to be caught in this little trap which is something I find repulsive and therefore I find this book rather dangerous.

In Challies' book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, he talks about the White Witch in Narnia and how "she could make things look like they aren't." Challies quotes Thomas Howard, (as quoted in Devin Brown, Inside Narnia, page 65) saying:

"It is a counterfeit, exactly like the real thing but a cheat . . . Evil can only parody goodness, it cannot invent new forms of real beauty and joy. That is why in fairy tales you have to be aware of attractive disguises -- nice old crones selling apples in the forest, say, or angels of light."

(Or jolly African American women posing as God Himself and baking lots of yummy food in a cozy shack kitchen? I'm just asking.)

Again, we are supposed to be in a constant practice of distinguishing between good and evil. (Hebrews 5:14) And what is evil? Things which stand directly opposed to scripture should be attacked. We have a calling to protect the gospel which is entrusted to us (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Timothy 1:14). It's a non-optional job.

That brings me to my Point of Contention #2:

The Holy Spirit character is explaining to Mack that he is no longer under the law. Mack asks, "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?" to which the Holy Spirit character comments: "Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful." (page 203)

"You can't be serious! You're messing with me again," moaned Mack. "Child," interrupted "God the Father", "you ain't heard nothin' yet."
"Mackenzie," "the Holy Spirit" continued, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control."
"Is that why we like the law so much -- to give us some control?" asks Mack.
"It is much worse than that," resumed "the Holy Spirit", "It grants you the power to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse." (page 203)

This almost fries my brain (and not in a good way).

Matthew 5:17 translated in various ways (just to make this as clear as possible):

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them. . ." ISV

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." NAS

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." KJV

"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true." God's Word translation

Deuteronomy 5, specifically looking at verse 22:

These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

God gave the laws to Moses for us to follow. Furthermore, He came down on earth and fulfilled them all perfectly. He did not remove the law, He fulfilled it and lived the law perfectly. He gives us His Holy Spirit to help us to follow the law.

Now, it is true that Young said that law was given so that we could see our own sinfulness and need for a Savior. I agree with that 150%. But I cannot believe or agree with him in saying that it now only exists because of me for my own comfort in judging other people. Nowhere in Scripture have I been given reason to believe that the only reason there are still rules to follow is so that I can think mean thoughts about my neighbor. (I was given another rule by Jesus Himself as to how I am to treat my neighbor, btw.)

But let's just be practical. Young comes across as anti-establishment and makes the declaration that God is forced to operate in human government and with human establishments because we are forcing him to out of our own sinful natures. (This ignores the fact that if you read 2 Samuel and ONLY 2 Samuel you will discover that God actually appointed/anointed David as king over Israel and established a human government Himself.) If we lived in a perfect world, like, say, Heaven, we would NOT have need of rules. However, here on earth we do. It's just the way it works. And it's not a bad thing that it works that way. We are specifically instructed to obey and honor our parents, submit to church authorities and again to governing authorities (read Romans) in so much as it is Biblically acceptable to do so. But Young implies that we should buck all systems of authority and if we did we would be more enlightened humans, non-judgmental and always loving and kind.

Young implies (if not outright says) that the law only exists to point out sin in others but that God is above the law and never references it personally. Young appears to believe the law is outdated and all need for law follows suit. It's like saying that red lights and stop signs only exists so that police officers will have a reason to give out tickets. There is a need for stop lights and stop signs (for the public safety these days) just as there is a need for God's law. It helps keep us in line. It refines us and shapes and molds us. When it comes to God's law, keeping it makes us more holy, just as He is holy. (1 Peter 1:15-16) Following traffic laws not only helps to keep you alive, but others also. (For that matter, the same could be said of God's laws.)

I'll stop.

It is IMPORTANT to read into things. It is especially important to read into books like The Shack. It is NOT just entertainment. It is subversive and distracting and therefore not worth the time of day. It is a passing fad and it will fall by the wayside. It cannot survive because it is not truth and, in the end, it is the truth that will remain standing. But that doesn't remove our duty to read, know, understand and obey to fulfill our responsibility of protecting the gospel.

I'm truly sorry that this book exists.


******
A note on commenting on this post. Obviously I have a strong opinion about this book and no doubt you do also, be it pro or con. My opinion is my opinion and I believe it to be well thought out. Perhaps you do not agree. That's ok. You can leave a negative comment. I'm prepared for them. I likely will not respond to any or all of them, so don't camp on the comment line hoping I'll do so. I've spoken my piece which is all I wanted to do. Feel free to do the same. I just might not (probably won't) comment back.
******