Well, if anything the critiques of The Shack reveal the particular commitments and concerns of the critics.

(i.e. We all know Driscoll has a well documented theological gender fixation. Mohler is the president of a seminary--not fun when they get dismissed.)

I'm not saying everything is perfect in that book (pay attention to what I just wrote).

However, what I find troubling is the increasing and unreflective use of the word "heresy".

To often these days:
(a) heresy="I don't agree".

(b) "biblical"=I agree

OR

you say it the way I say it and are therefore right because you're like me.

Being mistaken is not heresy. Sorry. It ain't, so don't bother trying to convince me otherwise. Being mistaken is...here it comes...being mistaken.

Again, for the record, I think there are mistakes in the book--as there are when anyone (even Al, Mark, and Tim) talks about God at length. (Not John MacArthur though, we all know he's never wrong...I kid. I kid.)

This whole overwrought reacting has sadly become par for the course with the streams of North American Christianity that have made it clear they think their way is the only way a Christian can talk about God.

At the end of the day, the Trinity is not, is not, is not, an easy doctrine. It took 400 years to be put together and even then it didn't resolve things perfectly. (For starters, 1054, anyone?)

(Personally, I would venture a guess that the real issue for some folk is that a subordinationist view of the Trinity was aptly critiqued.)

At this point, whenever I hear these self-appointed gate-keepers ramp up and whine about every "reimagined" this and "heretical" that OR that God isn't fitting their own upbringing's particular social-class' image of masculinity, I just roll my eyes at the tedious and predictable sturm und drang.

By the way, I can't WAIT for somebody to make this thread, and/or the book itself, about the emerging church boogeyman.

(I'll lay bets that within 15 posts somebody will somehow attempt to tie it in. If you can tie in the amorphous labels "liberal" and "hollywood" at the same time, you'll win a prize.)

My frustration with the complainers is that they are essentially saying that it is heresy to write about God using fiction. That just seems absurd on the face of it. There are many concepts that are easier to explain and illustrate using fiction than a non-fiction method. That is why books like Pilgrim's Progress and The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe were written. Because theology is hard, and many people understand fiction and will read fiction, theologians should be thanking Mr Young for bringing about a new interest in the Trinity. The right response in my mind is not to condemn the book, but to teach about the Trinity. As with any work it is not complete, so then we should be saying, read the Shack, then come to bible study and pursue a deeper view of what the Trinity really means and how it should impact our Christian faith.

My main criticism is that the author is not a tremendously skilled writer.

Therefore, a quarter of the way through the book I was ready to be done with it. Then I was surprised by what happened next. It seems he did an about-face as soon as he came to the heart of the story. After the tragedy that forms the spine of the tale, he tightens up the writing and I didn't notice the writing problems as much after that. It is like the author himself really just wanted to get to this point in the story and realized the book wouldn't make sense and would be too short without the introductory part. So be it. From this point on, I was enthralled. His meeting with God and the subsequent discoveries of God's character and the meaning of the events he has recently lived are gripping in their poignancy. At one point near the end I actually was in tears. It may be 20 years back to the last time a book brought me to tears. I ended the book satisfied.

The reader should note that this book is not a theological work. It falls into the same category as Frank Peretti's "This Present Darkness" in its theological importance. The point of "The Shack" is the reconciliation of the main character with God. It is not a book about Goddess worship, hierarchy within the Trinity, or the personification of Wisdom as a fourth member of the Godhead. Many have criticized Young for these, but in so doing they miss the point of the story. This is a personal encounter between God and one man. It is not supposed to represent every man. And it is just a story...not an allegory or parable.

As much as I appreciated the folksy presentation of God in this story, there are parts that don't work. Holy Spirit still feels ethereal and standoffish. Wisdom's speeches are canned and the meals they eat together get repetitive and slow the story down. Major editing could have made this one of the exceptional new books of Christianity. Because of these things, I doubt anyone outside Christianity will read past the first few chapters. That's a pity, but it is true. It is not written well enough and there are still too many obviously contrived parts to the plot to make it seem real to someone who is bent on criticizing Christian writers.

Adam,

Great thoughts.

If people really held themselves to some standard of consistency then we'd have to admit that C.S. Lewis sure was a heretic when he denied the Trinity with his singular depiction of Aslan.

The Shack might not be great literature, but it's freshness is in exploring how a person might interact with all three persons of the Trinity simultaneously.

The concept of how God shows up IN THAT FICTIONAL WORLD is fascinating, and it gets you thinking about how God shows up here in my world.

Complaints that God the Father shouldn't show up in this book as an African-American woman are as ridiculous as saying Christ shouldn't show up in Narnia as a Lion.

i'll make this as brief as i can: there are things that happen sometimes in an individual's life that make him realize that his previous concepts of God are, at best, completely inadequate. he (or she) suddenly realizes that all the boxes man has tried to keep God in throughout the millenia reveal much more about humanity than they do about God. it's as humbling as it is eye-opening. i would say that, to a person, comments that begin, "oh, my God, how could i have ever thought ..." quite freely roll across their lips as they try to match up Who they thought God was with Who they know see God to be.

just the same, there are people quite comfortable in what they believe, fully convinced that God has clear edges of black and white outlining Who He is, what He does, and how we know Him.

somehow, those in the latter group feel it is their God-directed task to tell those in the former how invalid their beliefs are, to stand "in the gap" - in an uninvited manner - between the individual and God to be the filter of 'correct' worship and belief.

i don't think you should be allowed to preach or teach (or lead a seminary) until you have lost your faith at least once and climbed that steep cliff-face to find it again.

like mack in 'the shack.' (jack.)

"My frustration with the complainers is that they are essentially saying that it is heresy to write about God using fiction. That just seems absurd on the face of it."

well...hmm, I think it's not so much that the "complainers" are complaining about writers writing about G-d, but rather the lack of due regard for the diety.
Hence, the charge of heresy.
Heresy could also mean that the writer has breeched the limits of due regard, has introduced proven anathema's, and therefore is entertaining the heresy as fact.
Whether that is this writers attempt or not, I don't know, and tbh, I don't care.
However, I do agree with Nathan in that the charge of Heresy leveled too much against real, or percieved doctrinal trespasses can lead to a denuding of the definition; and thusly marginalizing any cautionary voices that would influence people to tread carefully around the suspect doctrine.
Another factor that we must guard against are flights of spiritual fancy...Frank Peretti's "This Present Darkness" which spawned the entire spritual warfare event...which imo has had mixed results doctrinally and spiritually to the extent that at least the Churches have reined in a lot of the more egregious elements of that..hmm...teaching.
I will not read this book...I'm just not into it...I picked it up a while ago while at the local christain book store, read the inside jacket, sighed, and put it back on the shelf. I've made my peace with my ignorance of the Trinity. I can wait till I get to heaven for a fuller explanation of it.

The book is theologically imprecise and messy. But heresy? Come on. Goddess worship? Obviously Mark Driscoll has not read the book or he could not possibly make that charge.

Is this a work of systematic theology? Obviously not. Nor was it an attempt at it.

It's a story, people. A story trying to get at the heart of the relationship the members of the Trinity have with one another and with us.

I am weary of Mohler and these other fellows. Who appointed them the Magisterium?

I am just finishing The Shack and found it to be very compelling. My biggest "takeaways" from the book have been a sense of awe and amazement at God's love; and a reminder that God's ways are much higher than our ways, so we will never understand everything in this world until we pass from this life into eternity. The book made me want to love others better, because of God's great love for us. I have enough common sense to realize that this is not a theological treatise on the nature of the Trinity. I will use it as an excellent springboard for discussion with friends, both Christian and non-Christian.

The Shack is one of my all time favorite books.

I'm a Bible teacher at a Christian high school and next year i'll be using it as part of the curriculum my students will go through. What it does is take our preconceived notions about the Trinity and pushes the limits to teach us more about God.

I think this article illustrates the different perspective between older, modern evangelical types and younger, emergent types. The later is not as concerned as much with keeping the status quo but rather with allowing all perspectives to grow our image of God.

I am thankful for this book and the waves it is making. Its increased my view of God (which is still not big enough) and its forced me to reconcider so many of my preconceived notions about God and life.

I love the book for it's portrayal of the loving, personal, intimate God; a view which is too seldom presented. Yes, I doubt that anyone saying it was goddess worship has read the book - as in it, 'Papa' explains the rationale for that choice.

Paul wrote the book for his children, finally, after much encouragement and then prodding from his wife. He's never written a book before and may not again. Who knows?

Jesus spoke in 'stories' for a reason, which reason(s), I believe, included the humility with which children receive truths. The proud don't quite get to asking the questions that a good parable evokes... and our relational God wants a conversation with the heart.

I think the reason it's caught on as it has is because there is something in it that God Himself wants us all to hear. That's why it's gone as far as it has with no marketing, just 'word of mouth'.

I've given out a lot of copies - and will do so in the future.

Mark

I've read The Shack, I loved it, I heartily recommend it to my church, while at the same time can generally tell who will struggle with it (or even hate it).

I don't imagine that Colson, Driscoll, Challies or Moller read The Message much. I think Eugene Peterson nailed it with his endorsement.

Some notes:

1. One of the big differences between Young and authors like CS Lewis is that Lewis is operating in metaphor whereas Young presents his characters as personifications. This is an issue because it both puts words directly into God's mouth instead of just being a picture and it violates the second commandment about making a graven image. Yes, we all know that Aslan is supposed to represent Christ (not the whole Trinity as earlier mentioned) but he never says, "I am Christ and this is what I say." This is an important difference.

2. Young didn't accidentally make God a woman. Everybody acts like Young was just writing and then, oh my goodness, God just turned out to be a woman, when actually this was a premediated idea trying to make a point. Yes, God is not gendered, but he is clearly presented as a father, something a black woman does not qualify for, no matter what you call her.

3. Call it heresy or not, there are themes expressed in "The Shack" which are clearly contrary to Scripture and are obviously put in to push an agenda. I'm not talking even about the "God as a woman" thing, nor "mistakes" on par with discrepencies in ecclesiology or soteriology. Take the idea of modalism. This is clearly inaccurate as the Bible expresses over and over that all three parts of the Trinity exist and are distinct at all times. Or the idea that hierarchy only exists because of sin and that the Trinity exists in some sort of sinless communism. Again, this is something that is said in order to push a communal/monastic type agenda of total egalitarianism which simply does not exist in the Bible. Maybe the word 'heresy' is too strong for some people's stomachs, but we still need to be able to stand up and say when something is utterly unbiblical.

People keep saying that this is not a theological book; however, it seems to me that the author is certainly trying to make some theological points. If, then, those points are not orthodox then they deserve to be critiqued and nobody should cry "foul." On the other hand, the book can still be appreciated for what it does get right: It IS a great story and it DOES provoke serious reflection on the themes of God's love and grace. Does it reveal something about Christianity that we can no longer "trust" believers to read critically?

Heresy: A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is thus regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for faith. (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, p. 127).

In light of that definition, The Shack is indeed just that, heresy. It espouses and unorthodox position(s) of the Trinity and is thus heretical. This is not an overstatement, it is the truth.

Pomo, I fear for your students if you will be using this book as a means to teach them about god (little "g" used intentionally). If I were a Christian parent, I would view that as an affront to my right to have my child taught orthodox theology.

No surprise that Eugene Peterson endorses The Shack. He rewrote the entire Bible with The Message.

The Shack is a work of fiction. Jesus knew well that fiction is a great format for truth; otherwise we wouldn't have semester-long seminary classes devoted to the parables. (And lest anyone jump to the most extreme conclusion, I am not equating The Shack theologically with the parables.) Fiction has been in the business of making us grapple with our assumptions (and thereby gain greater insight) for a long, long time--and God has used it for as long as people have been telling stories. The Shack will do a lot less damage to Christendom than other bestselling Christian novels have done.

Fiction has been in the business of making us grapple with our assumptions (and thereby gain greater insight) for a long, long time--and God has used it for as long as people have been telling stories. The Shack will do a lot less damage to Christendom than other bestselling Christian novels have done.

I agree that fiction can be used (a la. the parables) to help us refocus and go deeper in our theology. However, I fear that when this is said that the underlying assumption is that that work of fiction actually provides its own useful insights. I believe that "The Shack" can be good for us in "gaining greater insight" only in as much as it causes us to reaffirm our classical notions of the Trinity.

I would also like to stand with Dave Stemer in his observation on Eugene Peterson's endorsement. It never ceases to amaze me how some of our less-submerged brethren seem so drawn to such a divinely uninspired reworking of Scripture like The Message, and in light of his (heretical?) work I find it hard to be moved towards things that Peterson backs.

It is still a hate crime to lynch someone for their religious beliefs even if they're a heretic (and therefore deserve it), isn't it?

I remember that Paul had strong words for the Corinthian heretics but even stronger words for the uncharitable ones, even when they were theologically correct. Yet, for obvious reasons he didn't want either burnt at the stake.

Not a hint in Paul of doctrinal McCarthyism a la Driscoll.

For far too many Christians 'orthodoxy' is just a distraction to stop people asking other questions.

It's a fictional book. The man wrote it for his children, not public consumption. God is neither male nor female, He is spirit and He is described in scriptures with both classic male and female traits. It should be just as heretical to have made God a man. The book is making a point through a fictional work. The underlying scripture within the conversations is what makes this book wonderful. You are reading scripture without even knowing it. That's a plus for the Christian community considering the vast majority of the unbelieving world thinks we are all a bunch of "do as I say, not as I do" people anyway. We say we believe one thing and we do another. I know even the apostle Paul had the same problem. We should all work as hard as he did to live a life a righteousness in joy so that people will want what we have in Him - you know, the whole set apart thing? In about 10 -20 years, those sticking to the past way of preaching and doing church will be vastly irrelevant. We have to find new ways to reach the world, The Shack is a great conversation starter that could lead us into the world with an open door of opportunity to tell them about our Jesus and how hard He rocks and that He is THE Rock. As we have learned from the book The Secret, people are searching, let's turn on a light that leads them down a path to life! (on a side note, The Secret Things of God by Henry Cloud is a must read/must have for every Christian.)

Did I miss the uproar from Driscoll, Mohler, Challies and Colson over Left Behind?

A note to would-be heretics out there: get your politics right, and then worry (if you still have to) about your theology.

Ever play "Made You Look!?" You point off in the distance and your friend gazes in the direction you're pointing and you say, "HA! Made you look!"

The Shack is a "HA! Made you look!" book. It's not holy writ. It's not definitive. It stirs discussion. And at that, Mr. Young deserves an award for acheiving his goal. He made us look.

I enjoyed reading the book. The book at times was tough for me to read. It was not tough for me because of the theological ramification - it was tough because I have a 5 year old daughter ad we love camping.

Personally, I think that he (Mr. Young) is wrongly being thrown under the bus by men who are Christians.

It is truly sad that we can not live by what Jesus has called us to do.

Love God
Love Others

I think that we should celebrate the book that it is opening up conversations about spirituality and what we can do to help those who are caught in pain and sufferring and yes ... we can even talk and grapple with a tough theological concept known as the Trinity.

I'm all for expressing personal opinions. My opinion about this work is that it provides a great starting point for theological discussions. I don't think I would pass it along to anyone without being prepared to have those discussions.

What amazes me are folks who, whenever they're confronted with something they disagree with, launch out in attack against another person's motives and intentions. How do they know Young's heart and mind? Is it a spiritual gift? Or did I just miss the chapter on "This is why I put these ideas into my work of fiction"?

I've read the book and recommended it to all the church staff so that they at least know what people are talking about it who have read it. Personally I like the book not because of the theology or even the writting, but rather that it gives us some new language to talk about our own experiences with the Devine Holiness. From the many conversations that I've had with people who have read it and passed it along to others I can attest that it opens the door to some great conversations about how we tend to limit God in our own lives. It then leads to some ideas about what it might be like to live with a God in our lives who we truly are able to relate to and with on a regular basis.
I find the Shack much more in tune with the God of the Bible who is inviting, open, loving, and desiring justice than the God of the end times portrayed in other religious fiction that somehow gets a pass when it comes to Biblical critism.

I remember that Paul had strong words for the Corinthian heretics but even stronger words for the uncharitable ones, even when they were theologically correct. Yet, for obvious reasons he didn't want either burnt at the stake.

This is a nice thought taken right out of the Rob Bell camp of "it's better to be wrong than uncharitable." Unfortunately I don't think that philosophy holds water since it seems to me that Paul's words are the strongest against those who are wrong when he tells the Judaizers who heretically added things to salvation that he hopes they chop their manhood off (Galatians 5:12). I don't think it gets anymore severe than that. (Jesus also told false teachers that it would be better if they drowned themselves, which also seems pretty severe; Luke 17:1-2)

Did I miss the uproar from Driscoll, Mohler, Challies and Colson over Left Behind?

I guess so. Listen to Driscoll on Revelation and he says repeatedly that he thinks these books miss the point on what we are supposed to focus on. Mohler too, I know, disagrees openly with the interpretations of these books. There is, however, a big difference between variances in views on eschatology and openly denying or maligning the attributes of God and the Trinity. Please see that.

I have read the book, and while there are some very compelling and unique parts, I find that the author is presenting Truth much in the same vein as Joel Osteen and others who are popular today: 80% or so sounds very good and the other 20% is deplorable!!

I understand those who say that this is a work of fiction and not meant to be a systematic theology, but it is clear that the author means to minimize (and even attack) the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, present a modalist view of the Trinity, and advocate universalism.

This book is very dangerous. I am surprised and disappointed that so many Christians fail to see how dangerous this book is. Too many people seem to advocate the loving nature of God in this book over the clear teachings of the Bible about the love AND holiness of God.

Maligning the attributes of God and the Trinity? Really?

Or is it just characterizing the attributes of God and the Trinity differently than some people might.

One of my recent posts didn't make it through to here, but I still think it would be interesting to hold the Shack up to Nicea-Chalcedon.

If I can be shown that the Shack stands at express variance to it, then I'll be interested in language about agendas, maligning and heresy.

chris,

You said "I understand those who say that this is a work of fiction and not meant to be a systematic theology, but it is clear that the author means to minimize (and even attack) the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, present a modalist view of the Trinity, and advocate universalism."

It is not clear to me at all, please explain, as generalizations such as this don't seem productive.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

Page 65-66 - Mack was taught in seminary that God no longer has any “overt communication with moderns. God’s voice has been reduced to paper” Then later in the paragraph he says that access to God has been “mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.” That we want God bound to a book with “guilt edges.”

That is not a high view of Scripture. The book goes out of the way to make revelation of Scripture to merely be one way to experience God (p.195, 198), when in reality the Bible THE authoritative way we know God and his will. All subjective impressions about God speaking to us are to measured against the Word.Young does not affirm a high view of Scripture and almost every time the Bible is mentioned, it is referenced negatively.

As far as the universalism goes, it is not just the Young opens the door to universalism, but he presents a very watered down soteriology all the way around. Page 120 - God does not punish sin??? “I don’t need to punish sin at all. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” This is a complete denial of the wrath of God against sin (Eph 2:3, Rev 19:15). It is his part of his purpose to punish unrepentant sin, and in some ways He delights in it (Deut 28:63)... PART 2 Coming

Mark, Here is part 2 continuing on universalism...

Page 182 - This is very vague and like I said, opens the door to universalism. Mack asks if all roads lead to God, and He (she!??!) responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere.What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” That’s not true. First of all, Jesus was very clear that there are really only two roads: a wide one that leads to destruction and a narrow one that leads to eternal life. Second, while God has reached people through the Gospel in many ways, He will not travel “ANY” road to find us.” Again, this is dangerous because it opens the door to universalism by not affirming that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father.

Modalism is the belief that God only exists in one mode at any given time. In other words, The Father and the Son are the same person at different times and expressions. So, a modalist would believe that God the Father existed during the Old Testament, became the Son and died on the cross and now lives in us as the Holy Spirit. Page 95 - The Father had the same scars from the cross as Jesus and said, “We were together.” On page 99 - “We spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.” This is not right. Not to mention that Young denies the hierarchy of the trinity as well.

All of this is not just a little off. It denies orthodox theologies of the Trinity, Gospel and the Scriptures.

Sure The Shack is fiction. But that doesn't mean that theology isn't being taught. The power of fiction is that it allows for an exploration of ideas, themes, and experiences in a new setting; but that doesn't mean fiction then gets let off the hook for the themes and ideas that are endorsed.

I'm not sure that the Out of Ur column did the best job of representing some of the criticisms of this book. Certainly some of those who took aim at someone such as Tim Challies would do well to read some of his reviews and note his efforts to make both positive and critical comments.

It also troubles me to see a dichotomy being drawn in some of the comments between truth and love. Kinda runs against the grain of the New Testament, doesn't it? False doctrine can land you in hell as surely as an unchanged heart. Enough examples have been cited in the comments to suffice to show that point.

The lack of awareness of church history and historical theology disappoints and frightens me a little. Any Christian school that used The Shack to do anything but illustrate how easy it is to slip into modalism should not call itself Christian. Once we go the modalist route, we break communion generations of Christians spanning back 1700 years (and 2000 given that orthodox trinitarianism and not modalism is indeed the teaching of the New Testament). The apostles John and Paul both have terrible things to those who deny doctrines this close to the heart of the gospel.

The book wasn't meant "for public consumption"? This book is available for purchase all over the place, the very definition of being meant for public consumption. Please, everyone, stop leaning on the "it's for his wife/kids" defense--by offering it for sale, Young has made it available for critique.

[*SPOILERS FOLLOW*]

My problem with "The Shack" is not at all for the theology--it's for the substandard writing style and the *SPOILER* never-resolved fact that Mack is a murderer.

It's right there, in the Introduction: Mack had a father who abused him physically and verbally, so Mack put poison (I believe it's referred to as "varmint poison") in all his father's bottles of booze and then took off.

I spent the whole book waiting for the ironic resolution that would come about when Mack--who murdered his father (or at least attempted) --had to deal with the murderer of his daughter. I wanted to see how Young would deal with that.

Instead: yawn. Pages and pages of dreaded "telling" (instead of showing), surface-level "revelations" of God that don't tell me anything new, and a heartily unsatisfying climax/resolution.

These tendencies of the story point to a hoary, self-oriented faith that's already prevalent in the Church today. Regardless of how edgy or new proponents of "The Shack" claim it to be, it's still just another product in the long line of me-first bestsellers in the Christian entertainment industry.

chris writes:
but it is clear that the author means to ... advocate universalism.

and later,
Again, this is dangerous because it opens the door to universalism by not affirming that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father.

and if this book teaches universalism, what's the problem?

i think everyone who rants against universalism needs to see the unwarranted logical leap being made. Jesus can be the only way to the Father, and everyone can (and, i would argue, was/is) still be saved through Him. and just because God claims He can save some and condemn some doesn't mean He did. (after all, there are a lot of things He says just to mess with our heads anyway...)

somehow, certain groups' fear of universalism seems less rooted in concern for others than it does in losing what they think is their privileged standing against others in the world for being 'saved' while others aren't.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Wanted to like it.
Didn't.

Chris,

Thank you for your gracious and detailed explanation of the objections you have to various aspects of The Shack. It's much easier to see where you are coming from as a result.

I have to say - in most cases I interpret the points you reference differently - and that's probably why my perspective is a bit more positive.

I cannot speak for Paul, but I can repeat what he has expressed, in addressing some of your points.

First - Paul says he is not a universalist. For reference, see his web page (http://www.windrumors.com/). It's near the bottom. Now, perhaps that's not your point, given your reference to "opening the door", so this just stands as a counterpoint and Paul remains, perhaps, vague, as you say.

Second - I've heard Paul describe how the many roads text came to be. An early draft didn't have that text at all, and one person e-mailed Paul and asked "so, are you saying..." In an effort to address that persons question and be more clear that he was *not* advocating "ALL roads lead to God" - He wrote the additional text into the final version; the goal being, "no, there is only me (Jesus)."

While you say that God will not travel any road to find us, Psalm 139 argues that He is always with us, and the parable of the 99 tells us He will leave the 99 to go and find the lost one. If that isn't going down the other roads to find us, what is? The fact that He hunts us down does not endorse the path we travelled until He found us.

As for modalism - I still don't see it. All three were in the same room at the same time (four, including Mack) for meals. That is not modal. The point in sharing scars and knowledge of what the other knows is - I believe - a reference to the mystery of God being both three and ONE...

Again, I appreciate your response - thank you.

Mark

I tried to like it but never got past God as Papa played by a black, southern nanny.

Too much agenda for me.

And finally, as others have said, you just can't write speeches for the Trinity. You just can't. They write their own.

Chris,
You said: "Modalism is the belief that God only exists in one mode at any given time." Yet all three appear simultaneously in 'The Shack' and the author affirms Trinitarian doctrine on page 101, "I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one." In context the quotes you give are affirming 2 Corinthians 5:19 "That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". Jesus remained a full member of the Trinity even while on the Cross, the didn't split at that moment. As for Hierarchy the early Church Fathers affirmed that the Father, Son and Spirit were co-eternal and co-equal. And the Pharisees knew that Jesus was claiming quality with God when he claimed to be the 'only begotten' (monogenes) Son of God.

Everyone has an opinion about someone. You agree with Driscoll and disagree with Peterson, or vice versa.

You spend far too much effort at trying to sound intellectual or theological in order to provoke or impress strangers with your profound conclusions. Blah, blah, blah...

Pride.

Maybe YOU should spend more time in the 'shack' and less in places like this.

Thanks for your sound advice on reviewing The Shack. It holds not a few concerns for me as well and for those I know who have read it. Sadly, many (perhaps most) who read it do not have a sound theological grid to pair it with so little concerns might be raised. I was especially sad to see Peterson's endorsement and critical acclaim. It was truly over the top!

As for Stackhouse's comments: Granted a book, any book, cannot speak to all the issues/concerns it raises, but when it does speak to some, it must fall within the lines of orthodoxy. When it does not, then it should be called out, as Mohler has done, for instance.

Mike,
I agree with you on the point that a type of universal salvation could be fathomable (that being that God predestined everyone for salvation). However, the only God ordained means of salvation is belief in the Gospel (John 14:6, Romans 10), and so this is where a Christian version of "universalism" must break from traditional Universalism, the latter saying that ALL roads lead to salvation (and not just the exclusive road of faith in Christ).

Beyond this, I think we can discount the Christian form of universalism also since it certainly appears that we already know just from the Bible that there are people who were not saved (say Judas; John 6:64-65, 13:11,27, 17:12).

People who lack the power of metaphor should probably refrain from artistic discussions.

"The Shack." What is the big deal with this book and why do professing Christians pay more than glancing attention to it? We have the most amazing and satisfying Book this world will ever see. The Bible is incomparable; it is the source for truth about everything important. I read "The Shack" in about an hour and promptly placed in my stack of books worthy of the recycle bin. Anyone who finds it worth more than an hour should pick up their Bible more often and reacquaint themselves with the Word of life and truth. The author of the "Shack" might try this too, especially before he writes another "Christian" book.

As a father who just four weeks ago lost his 18 year old son, I found THE SHACK to be comforting ... to offer some perspectives on death and God's love ... and suffering. I appreciated Young's writing and did not regard it as an attempt at systematic theology. I'm grateful for THE SHACK. I would go there any day to see my boy.

Well, I tried to read the book. Tried to like it, too. Read it hopefully, expectantly, prayerfully, but was too saddened by the author's low view of Scripture. Still, I plugged along, but learned nothing new about my grace relationship with Christ (my Bible set me straight on that).

As with many books nowadays, the language is intentionally "broad", if you know what I mean, as to appeal to the masses. Good job there, I suppose.

Btw, the excuse for any error as being, "well this was written for my family and not the public" doesn't excuse the author when it comes to poor theology. Blurring the lines so as to leave people wondering about universalism is either poor writing or agenda-based. You decide.

I don't understand how, even in this fictionalized account, that the author couldn't better articulate that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He wants us to understand and know the love of God, yet leaves this out? I'm not a preacher, a leader, or anyone with seminary training at all. Nuances at times smacked of New Age, but hey, I just sayin'....I finally put the book down.

Get in the Word, dear friends. The lifesap is in the Vine, not The Shack. If you're blessed by any part of it, then just know that God works in spite of man's blundering attempts, not because of it.

if Jesus is the 'only' way (and we can't open our imaginations to a black nanny), then what happened to all the Jews before and after Christ? did G-d change his mind about his 'chosen' people? or was there one G-d in the OT and one for the NT?

that one always gets me.

Regarding a 'low view' of Scripture - given a certain inclination, I suppose you could interpret passages in The Shack as holding such a view. However, if instead one considered the perspective of a person harmed by legalism and poor interpretation of Scripture by those in authority (historically), one might also conclude that the low view is, in fact, a low view of the performance of men and not related to Scripture at all.

Saddling The Shack with a low view of Scripture seems to me more of a reflection of the readers 'filters' than the writers intent.

Of course - that's my opinion, through my filters.

Mark

A point of observation -- I found Challies musings on forgiveness (a critique against Young) faulty (Challies asserts that you can't forgive someone who doesn't ask it or repent). How does this square with Matthew 6:14-15 and Romans 5:8? It seems Challies confuses forgiveness with reconciliation.

Many folks have opinions about The Shack, and it's dangerous to pontificate about what Young intended, especially if you haven't had a chance to speak to or listen to him outside of his book.

Furthermore, how far do we really get smacking one another around about our personal experiences (edified or disgusted) by Young's work?

Lastly, go here to read answers to some of the flawed assertions being made (i.e. - its universalist or new-age) -- http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html

I read The Shack. I'm reading it over again out-loud to my wife.

If I was blind I would usually appreciate people telling me what they see. Often some parts of what people with sight tell me would be wrong because not everyone with sight sees clearly or accurately.

I appreciate Mr. Young telling me what he thinks a person would see if The Shack situation would happen to them. I do not expect accuracy from Mr. Young any more than I would expect accuracy from someone describing the Grand Canyon to a blind person.

It is interesting what Tim wrote above "Does it reveal something about Christianity that we can no longer "trust" believers to read critically?" This is obviously a Protestant discussion. Catholics never did trust believers to read critically. That's why there was a list of forbidden books. And I guess they were right; Believers read and came to conclusions contrary to what "The Church" taught and now we have non-Catholic Christians; lots of varieties of them.

Many folks have opinions about The Shack, and it's dangerous to pontificate about what Young intended, especially if you haven't had a chance to speak to or listen to him outside of his book.

I get so tired of this excuse (yes, that's what it is is an excuse). So many people are using this these days to avoid having to actually take a real stand anywhere, or to cover their butts when their stand appears to lie on the wrong side of heresy. We need to quit apologizing for an author's bad doctrine by appealing to the readers inability to have a face-to-face with them.

if Jesus is the 'only' way . . . then what happened to all the Jews before and after Christ? did G-d change his mind about his 'chosen' people? or was there one G-d in the OT and one for the NT?

Try reading passages like Romans 4 and Hebrews 11. I believe that these verses, among others, show us that the faith of the OT Jews was the same as the faith of the NT Christians, that both were saved through their faith in the Messiah that was to or has since come.

Young is not writing as an established author; his book a personal gift of testimony to his family that was not intended for publication (read the whole book including intro and endnotes). His writing is not worldclass but the book does not stand on that basis.

It is a wonderfully intimate and insightful story that I very much appreciate.

All of us approach the concepts of theology limited by our own imaginations, intelligence, spiritual maturity and humanness. Young's imaginative insights into the inexplicable interactings within the Trinity are refreshing - and challenging to my theological complacency.

May we take the book for what it is.

I visited a member of our congregation at the hospital and took a copy of the shack for her to read. A nurse came in and saw the book on the table. She had read it and when she found out I was a minister she asked, "Do you think that God is really that wonderful?" I said, "He is more wonderful than what Young, or any author can depict."
Papa appeared to Mack as a woman until Mack forgave his earthly father and then Papa appeared to Mack as a Man when they retrieved the body of Missy.
I love the book.

Greg, I am so sorry you lost your son.

Oops-that comment was meant for John. John, I am so sorry you lost your son.

Here's what appears obvious to me. Most normal, God-honoring, Bible-believing and Bible-teaching Christians read The Shack and find it interesting, encouraging, thoughtful, challenging, life-changing, entertaining, or some combination of the above. It's just a book. It's a piece of popular Christian fiction. But it has the imprimatur of an authentic Christian author searching for biblical truth and understanding through a simple story. Most who read it take it simply for what it is.

But not the militant Reformed types! Oh no. They read The Shack and declare it to be heresy. Heresy?! So the rest of us are just misled culturally Christian lemmings running off the cliff and into The Shack. How arrogant! How prideful! And don't be fooled--their beef isn't really about the trinity at all; it's really that a more Wesleyan view of God is more popular right now than the cool and detached propositional God of Reformedism. I guess all us non-reformed types just can't understand the heresy of The Shack because, hey, we just must not be the Elect!

Frankly, the MR reaction to The Shack is so totally knee-jerk and lock-step that it really makes me wonder if there is some kind of collegial collusion at work to create a high-profile, unified Reformed voice of opposition to The Shack. It just reaffirms my growing concern that the militant Reformed movement in America, if not actually dangerous to the health of the church, is undoubtedly divisive. They really need to spend some time in The Shack (since it appears some of them have not yet done so).

This is the absolute first that I've heard of it. However, from your description, it doesn't sound like it would interest me.

But not the militant Reformed types! Oh no. They read The Shack and declare it to be heresy. Heresy?!

I'm not wanting to comment much on this, since this horse would need to be resurrected in order to be beaten any more, but I think it is funny that you are attacking "militant Refomred types" (by which I assume you mean Calvinists) for having problems with The Shack and yet those problems we have here have little to do with the distinctions of our "militant Reformed theology." The controversy over modalism was dealt with in the 6th century Catholic church; Universalism was opposed by Augustine and Tertullian, both of whom lived in the first hundred years AD, long before Calvin or Luther; the authority of scripture, sola scriptura, though arising during the Reformation, is more a tenant of Protestantism over Catholicism than just an idea of Calvinism; gender issues have only become a real problem since the feminist movement of the 1960's, this time, long after the Reformers.

Maybe the reason all these "Bible-believing and Bible-teaching Christians" have been so influenced by The Shack is not because they aren't Calvinists, but it is because they really aren't as interested in pursuing the truths of the Bible as one would be led to believe?

I just read the Shack and would rate it as along the lines of Mere Christianity - a defense of faith. If I ever meet Monsieur Young face to face I will give him a big kiss. Most of the "heretic" things he espouses are things that are taught falsely by theologians dating back to the 2nd and 3rd century. I get my theology from the Bible and from the Ruach HaKodesh. (Holy Spirit) Whether Monsieur Young's theology is sound or not, I do not know. I really did not read it to learn theology. I read it to experience the healing stream of deep restoration. Monsieur Young - You did an admirable job of teaching people how to embrace deep restoration. Thank you for exposing your heart to us.

There are many interesting comments on this blog. The thing that is interesting to me is that the negative ones show the bias of those and the nerve it touched. It is almost as if they were afraid that he might be right. What if G-d was completely unlike our pre-conceived notions of Him? What would happen then? Would our lives be destroyed or would we finally put down all our false systems and embrace the Creator in a way that shows we are more concerned with Him than with our ideas? Maybe we would stop building buildings and start taking care of the poor, the orphans and the widows like The Word instructed us to. Merci Monsieur Young - Un puits du travail - fait - a job well done. Blessings and shalom to you.

I just wanted to make a side note about Mark Driscoll's comment about "God as Father." Sometimes it feels like he doesn't think things through when he's making a criticism. While "Father" is the dominant metaphor for God, Isaiah depicts God as a mother in Is. 49. It's pretty absurd to criticize someone for using a similar metaphor as the prophet Isaiah.

I just wanted to make a side note about Mark Driscoll's comment about "God as Father." Sometimes it feels like he doesn't think things through when he's making a criticism. While "Father" is the dominant metaphor for God, Isaiah depicts God as a mother in Is. 49. It's pretty absurd to criticize someone for using a similar metaphor as the prophet Isaiah.

Really? Really? Are you sure about that? I just read that chapter again and somehow, through my chauvanist pig eyes, I was not able to see this. You mind giving us a glimpse at just what you are talking about? (And just so you know, where it says "Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?" (v.15a) this is not saying God is a nursing mother, since if you read the rest of the verse it says "Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you." (v.15b), which would not make sense if he had just claimed to be one).

Also, I don't think Driscoll is just some lone wolf heretic out there proclaiming that God is "Father" and not "Mother", since this seems to be the declaration of most everybody going all the way back to Jesus, who called God "Father" an awful lot, yet never "Mother."

Ben G,
Where is God depicted as a mother? I'm not seeing it...I see a rhetorical question about a mother's love for the children she nursed. But I don't see God as Mother.

Ya'akov,
Maybe it is as you say about some people...we have preconceived notions about God that are false and the Shack challenges those. But would a strong response be justified if a work, like the Shack, challenges or contradicts the character of God as revealed in scriptures? It may be a difference of opinion on the relative shading of a gray matter. You see it mostly white/black, I see it opposite. We argue. God judges between us in the end.

All,
Perhaps the Shack is 90% wonderful. But a question stands...if the Shack is to be ingested and used for our spiritual nourishment like a fine meal, would not 10% rotten food cause quite an issue? Would it not at least warrant a warning to those consuming it? Just thoughts. I don't have, at this point, a strict opinion of the book. Many books fall into this gray category, even ones by beloved authors like C.S. Lewis (e.g. Susan's role in the Last Battle).

I'd hate to see the warnings of theologically discerning brothers go unheeded...perhaps the book can be "consumed", but if some here are right, it should only be done so with caution.

Would it not be correct to say that God is neither feminine nor masculine in geneder and neither male nor female in sex?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that God accommodates to our human restrictions by using gender, physical, relational, images and metaphors for self-disclosure?

And if that were the case, then would it really be heresy to use the methaphor of a "mother" God? Again, always holding tight that this is a work of fiction?

Critiquing the critics doesn't invalidate their arguments (though the comments about Driscoll and Kohler in many posts are right on the money).

It's true, putting words in the mouth of God, whether God as Trinity (The Shack) or monad (Oh, God! or Bruce Almighty or others), is just plain difficult. And to sustain a conversation with God for the major part of a book is almost suicidal for an author. That's why the Aslan scenes in the Narnia books are so few and far between. Lewis, who was a far better writer, knew that the less he wrote, the closer he could stay to the truth.

So, of course, The Shack struggles. Young attempted something most writers fear to do. And yet, he did it fairly well.

I do prefer the more majestic view of God we see in Lewis' Aslan to all of the hugging and kissing Young has his Trinity doing. But I think I got the point: He wanted to show intimacy. We already get the majesty, so let's focus for a bit on the intimacy.

A novel isn't required to do everything and Young doesn't. It's fiction, an artistic representation of the truth.

And didn't we laugh back in the '70s when we watched "Oh, God!" and God showed up in a grocery store as a large black woman? He's God! He can show up however he wants! Even as Morgan Freeman.

The Shack is a PICTURE. No more heretical than DiVinci painting a feminine Jesus in The Last Supper. Just a beautiful PICTURE. We really need to stick to the Word for our theology. The Shack is just a beautiful PICTURE. Just a PICTURE like any metaphor or allegory. Just a PICTURE. A PICTURE. Got it?

Paul,
Can you explain the reference to Susan in the Last Battle? The more controversial reference is usually Emmeth's worship of Tash as being acceptable to Aslan. How is Susan's choice to not "play Narnia" (as she might say) theologically gray? (in that she "loses" her salvation and doesn't join them in Aslan's country? But I don't think she was in the railway accident, so wouldn't have died.)

Off topic of the shack (which I haven't read), sorry...

A book must stand by what is written in it, not on outside interpretations, commentaries, blogs, or web pages.

What is written in The Shack is what the author has written, and that is how it should be judged - not by any personal conversations with the author nor by any explanations on a website.

The claim that we cannot critique it because it was written for the author's family was invalidated as soon as the author self-published the book and made it available to the public. It was again invalidated when the author signed a contract with a publisher and then accepted royalty payments (regardless of what he might or might not have done with the proceeds).

The Shack is, in my opinion, at best an OK "read" (not great fiction, not the worst). However, I think it is at best a poor allegory, parable, or illustration of how the Bible portrays itself or of how the Bible portrays God (the Trinity). God is reduced to a non-judgmental ("sin is its own punishment") being who does not speak objective truth (Jesus is not the only Way, subjective and individualistic communication regarding salvation).

Call that what you like. To some, the word "heresy fits". To others, this is a positive form of "universalism".

One of my greatest concerns is this: From those who really like The Shack, I hear it quoted far more than the Bible relating to our walk with Christ and relating to the Church. This is not the first "Christian book" with which this has happened, nor will it be the last.

Because of its popularity and impact on so many Christ-followers, The Shack must be critiqued - but not against my beliefs but against the standard of the Bible.

Unless, of course, you would judge the Bible by what The Shack says ...

The Shack is a PICTURE. No more heretical than DiVinci painting a feminine Jesus in The Last Supper. Just a beautiful PICTURE. We really need to stick to the Word for our theology. The Shack is just a beautiful PICTURE. Just a PICTURE like any metaphor or allegory. Just a PICTURE. A PICTURE. Got it?

I thought all of these pomo/emerging/liberal types were supposed to be so artistic in nature, and yet they all seem to be missing the boat when it comes to The Shack. An artist doesn't just produce a work of art for art's sake. No, an artist produces that work of art as a means to conveying a message. To say that Young has only made a picture and that we shouldn't be so critical is foolish. There is something he wants to say through this piece, whether you like it or not, and as good art critics we must spend time evaluating the truth of his message.

I really enjoyed this book. In order to fully enjoy it one must remember it is fiction. No where in the book does Young claim it is a commentary or to be used to interpret scripture or to change a persons understanding of theology, the trinity, grace, salvation, or other biblical concepts. Biblical understanding should come from scripture- alone. The Shack is a wonderful unique metaphor- metaphors of even simple concepts breakdown at some point so how could anyone possibly expect a metaphor about the Trinity to be comprehensive. When God is portrayed as a female the writer takes some creative journalistic freedom- much like the journalistic creativity employed when Aslan is used as a metaphor for Jesus- obviously that breaks down too but for some reason it's OK to use a big lion but not OK to use a black woman...hmmm....

Kurt,
No, I don't get it.

I'm not commenting about your characterization of the Shack as a beautiful picture...I'm concerned about your argument. How deviant a picture, pleasing though it may be, before we consider the picture wrong? Would any metaphor or allegory do?

this is a great book. I think people are trying too hard to make the book out to be something that it is not. The book is fiction. The last time I checked, none of our views of God is big enough. We are broken people talking about an unbroken God, Yet he desires to be known by us. God the father is the best father/mother ever. If he is not also mother where did eve get it from[mother characteristics] God is not male or female, only creation is that. He is the best of both. The author of this book is trying to help us see God as close and not distant. He does a very good job of helping me to see that God loves me more than i can imagine. I think that people should stop looking at this book as a how to book, but look at it as a loving picture of God [incomplete like all pics would be] and somewhat of his great love for us[impossible to fully know the love of God]. This book needs no defense. We in the church have been pushing people away from God with our doctrines anyway. This book might help people see that God indeed loves them, and that they are included in christ already eph 1[ adoption] acts 17 [live move and have our being in christ] we interpret scripture through our doctrines and beliefs rather than through the creeds written by the people that put the bible together.

I'm all for utilizing the Word to slice the Truth more thinly - using semantics to sharpen our focus while narrowing our spiritual aperture - as I think the critics are TRYING to do....

HOWEVER - to say that Young is attempting to paint God as a feminine (which he clearly addressed in the book as NOT who He is, but a venue to address a need Mac had) is ludicrous, much less to employ the term “goddess worship”.

Was John Bunyan trying to say you can’t have a relationship with God without going on a walk? God Himself has inspired hundreds of illustrations that are not meant to be literal - from chickens, wind, lions, and lambs to trees, rocks, rivers, wells, vines, smoke, clouds, and fire. Young is illustrating the love of a God who meets us at our point of need, graciously reveals Himself at our level of receptivity, and paints a variegated picture of Himself in the hope that the finite might begin to grasp the Infinite.

To broadly dismiss a Truth revealed because of the venue in which it's revealed is mistaking the FUNCTION of God's revelation (showing the depth and relevance of His love) for the FORM He chooses to use (in this case, the FORM of a woman).

If we as the Church can embrace God's sovereignty in all kinds of calamity to point people to Jesus, surely we can use such an out-of-the-box portrait of a holy, yet tender-hearted, Father, to point people to a greater intimacy with Him.

Shouldn’t that be our only our goal anyway?

Okay..so I haven't read the book (probably not unlike many other folks blogging about it on this site). So I don't claim to be an expert on the book, nor do I claim any expertise on the Trinity. What does spark my interest is that maybe we're missing the point. Have we overlooked the fact that this book is somewhere around #7 on the bestseller list and that it's content is blatantly Christian? Maybe we should spend less time arguing about the theology of a non-theological book and start focusing on the conversations that may arise from the reading of it. Heresy is a tricky word - in its simplest form, heresy is any thinking that makes God out to be less than what He truly is. But heresy can't be any thinking that makes God out to be MORE than we think He is. Isn't that the nature of God? Just when you think you've got Him all figured out- He slams you with a new insight into His character that turns your tables upside down. God's bigger than any bad representation (or good one for that matter) of Himself- He's been forced to do it with too many Christians over the centuries (Okay...ouch.) If God can use this book to draw people to a renewed or brand new connection with Him - who are we to argue about? Stop blogging and point someone in the direction of the personal God that this book accurately/inaccurately depicts.

I'm french and I read the schack twice.

Sure when we try to adress subjects like The TRINITY is humanly imperfect.

But, Young is clear : the greater lack is the loose of fatherness. It's not contradiction that god reveals as he did in the novel. In a specific process, GOD guides Mackenzie to know God as The real Father, He is, whose image was distorded by his human father.
Es 49 speaks of God'care like care of a mother. God'name, El SHADDAÏ, is a another aspect of this. Nevertheless, God has not gender and Young is clear there.

Clearer, in the schack, the fact that Jesus is the real explanation (exegetis) of GOD.

This book is disturbing perhaps, because it presents God not as an "article" of faith (I heard divines speak about the Holy Spirit like the "third article"), but the real being who is all we need to understand our humanity as individuals and more as a community image of the Trinity. The church is to reflect this divine relationship between the three hyspostasis of the Trinity. This is the challenge, among others great deals, I perceived in the Schack

As all human works, it's not perfect but to those who have eyes and ears, God can speak through this book.

As the saying goes, "ideas have consequences" the truth of the statement is we have to wait and see what will come. That will take patients, a virtue that the church in our time and culture is in need of.

When God is portrayed as a female the writer takes some creative journalistic freedom- much like the journalistic creativity employed when Aslan is used as a metaphor for Jesus- obviously that breaks down too but for some reason it's OK to use a big lion but not OK to use a black woman...hmmm....

hmmm... the Lion of Judah... hmmm

Es 49 speaks of God'care like care of a mother. God'name, El SHADDAÏ, is a another aspect of this.

What?

"Can a woman forget her nursing child,
that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget,
yet I will not forget you." (Isaiah 49:15)

You would have to twist this up a bit unnaturally to claim that it equates God with a nursing mother. And El Shaddai means "God Almighty (who is all sufficient)." Again, how does this lead to a metaphor of God as a mother?

It appears we just say silly things trying to defend something which is clearly off base.

With all the hype, I bought the book. About half way through I quit reading. I found it boring. Sorry! I'm a pastor and won't recommend it.

The Shack made for a good read. It is an intriguing attempt at Apologetics in the form of an Allegory of sorts. The lengthy theological conversations that the main character has with God almost work. I am sharing this book with some family and friends, but I didn't find it to be life-changing or riveting. The attitude towards traditional Christianity is rather weak and the understanding of the Trinity portrayed leave much to be desired, but I pray that it has some positive influence in leading some skeptics to check God out some more.

I would be curious to see Todd take on my earlier comment posted above about God being neither female or male in gender, despire the language used.

Unless of course he racks that comment up under the "people saying silly things" coloumn.

In reading the various blog entries, I can see how the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and the McCarthy hearings unfolded. Time and time again, the Christian church and many of its leaders have been guilty of "heresy" in their misguided interpretation and application of Scripture. Give Mr. Young a break. He has written a work of "fiction" (look it up in the dictionary) with an encouraging message of forgiveness and some insight into the fact that God (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit)loves humankind beyond measure. His intent is much more commendable than the pontificating Pharasees who too readily attempt to criticize and crucify those who dare to praise and honor God as the Spirit moves them. It seems to me that this same junk yard dog mentality assailed Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" in a like manner. Jesus said "It is kindness that I want." We would all do well to do just that. I enjoyed "The Shack" for what it is - a work of fiction with some food for thought.

Simply put:

God has already shown Himself humble enough to come in the form of a man. (God is neither male/female but both in Spirit. Male and Female reflect one God. For our understanding and order He revealed Himself as Father first.

God in this book didn't want to prove anything but His love to Mack first sooooooooooo He could appear temporarily in any form He chose. Just as with Moses - revealing/giving the part that was needed and not killing Him by full revelation. Just as Christ endured the cross because of the JOY set before Him ... God the Father can feed me and you and Mack mana until we can handle more. He's always waiting on us to catch up. It is comforting to consider that He takes pleasure in the process as He did with Mack's progressive understanding.

How great our God -- who loves us first and will do whatever it takes to relate unto us and for us to know Him. Simple + practical Mack was that important. God is bigger than me in everyway and will take on the responsibility of revealing Himself to me at every step so I may grow in the knowledge of Him.

"The Shack" is fiction and isn't presented w/ any authority for doctrine. Mack's journey is a challenge to walk by faith. It was written to represent simple-analytical-wounded-faithless Mack. I enjoyed being directly inside Mack's head and comparing it to my own journey.

Props to the author for expecting the reader to be intelligent and demanding him/her to get simple with regard to faith issues.

I would be curious to see Todd take on my earlier comment posted above about God being neither female or male in gender, despire the language used.

Unless of course he racks that comment up under the "people saying silly things" coloumn.

Elle,
Surprisingly, if you look back to June 17 at my very first comment on this post, you will see I have beat you to the punch:

2. Young didn't accidentally make God a woman. Everybody acts like Young was just writing and then, oh my goodness, God just turned out to be a woman, when actually this was a premediated idea trying to make a point. Yes, God is not gendered, but he is clearly presented as a father, something a black woman does not qualify for, no matter what you call her.

To expand on this further, it is almost undeniable (completely undeniable if we get the interpretation of Isaiah 49 right) that God is pictured throughout Scripture as a father. Note that I didn't say a male, which would be the constraints our knowledge would place on this, but a father. It is telling in such places as the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus instructs us to pray "Our Father..." (Matthew 6:9) using the unambiguous word 'pater'. Moreover, in Matthew 6 alone, God is refered to as the believers Father a total of 12 times. Clearly this is how Christ would have us to see God.

I'm presently reading "Orthodoxy" so my comments may be slanted. "The Shack" was one of ony 2 or 3 books that actually changed my thoughts about God and His kingdom. Not saying it was all good change, but it's always good to expand my box more into the "Mystery" realm. I've purchased 15 copies of the book to give away and have recommended it to many others. Here's why:

My education over the past 60 years keeps teaching me more and more about less and less due to me concentration of interest. Books like this help restore my childlike faith.

I loved The Shack. Now, people who are offended by femaleness will not like it. Overall, I'd say that if these particular guys (Mohler, Driscoll, et al.)dislike The Shack, then it must be a really good book!

The Shack would have been better titled the outhouse. It is a crime and it will come under the judgment of almighty God. Everyone who endorses this book is in great danger of serving a false god who they make up from their own imaginations! Following the imaginations of your own heart and a cross dressing god called papa is grounds for great discipline from the High and Exalted One who sits on a throne, He is served and waited on by myriads of angels. Is anyone else troubled that God our Father is portrayed as a gender bender! God help us and maybe Zephaniah 1:10 will speak to your heart. "The Lord is searching Jerusalem with lamps to punish the men who are stagnant in spirit and who say in their heart that the Lord will not do good or evil." Repent before the hammer comes down!

CS Lewis portrayed Christ as an animal. Tolkein portrayed him as a Wizard. Come to think of it, Jesus told a story in which he presented the Father as a calloused and unresponsive judge until pestered enough. God even told this bizarre story where all the glory, truth, and righteousness of all the ages was limited to the confines of one human body.

I am struggling to keep myself from sitting in critical judgment over those that sit in critical judgment of this book. Is it completely, thoroughly, precisely accurate? Of course not. But it's insightful, interesting, and thought provoking. My only real criticism is rooted in the envy that I didn't write it.

El-Shaddai means God Almighty. El points to the power of God Himself. Shaddai seems to be derived from another word meaning breast, which implies that Shaddai signifies one who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies (As ES:49, Image and image only of a woman nouriching his child. But again the man and the woman together are God's IMAGE. Not Adam alone). God with a large breast. Sorry for the image but : "when the arch was in the temple, the poles, against the veil, were like the breats of a woman" - Rabbins' commentaries.

I love books that make me think, whether I agree with everything in them or not. The author wrote this as a work of fiction, therefore I don't agree with anyone calling it heresy. He didn't even intend to publish it in the first place, so he had no previous intention of trying to persuade his audience of anything. I'm recommending it to everyone I know and some of our staff members are using it for a book club.

Our pastor got so excited reading it that he encouraged everyone to read it and even bought many copies to pass to others. When I read it, I didn't like it and found it mildly disturbing. I wouldn't call it heresy, but we must be careful not to label or generalize God/the Trinity, need to read through the lens of Scripture, and not over emphasize the value of fiction.

The first post by Nathan cannot be improved upon. It said it all.

However, I would like to say that the Shack is a covert attempt by the Emerging Church to use Hollywood to promote their liberal postmodern liberalism (note I am aware that I said liberal liberalism, but I think it's important to use the word liberal in a negative fashion as often as possible).

In saying all that, I spent seven years in seminary and most of it was not wrong, but if I went to Mohler's I'd probably feel differently....

I bought and read the Shack just to be able to understand for myself why I had such a bad feeling about it. I see why - it's the same reason I got a sinking feeling when a friend at work gave me her copy of Conversations With God to read - it is demonic!!! I know a lot of people hate to hear this kind of thing, but it is true. I went into a Christian Bookstore and on the shelf were dozens of The Shack and inserted in each one of them was a disclaimer by store management that they in no way recommended this book and if one chose to buy and read it to please use "extra" discernment and go to talk to their pastor. I asked a worker, why would they carry a book they considered dangerous to a customer. He said they were in business to make money and their parent company insisted they carry it because it is a best seller. May God have mercy on them and every pastor who uses this garbage as a resource. The church must discern good from evil -even if evil comes cloaked in coziness and easy words. The men that endorsed this book Peterson (whose Message Bible is highly questionable itself), even a producer at CBN either have no discernment or they are getting a kickback. God have mercy on us.

I am overwhelmed by the amount of response this book has generated.

I feel that the author's main statement in this book is that God is Love and that we are to forgive one another and love one another. And if that isn't scriptural then Christianity has no basis.

It is sad to me that so many people can spend hours of time quoting this and that and proving this and that rather than applying their time more positively perhaps building others instead of themselves. What is the perk other than maybe you get to be right. How does that benefit anyone.

With great enthusiasm and an honest love for the lord, a good friend of mine gave me a copy of The Shack. I read it over the course of a day or two; and, although the core message of relationship is undeniably worthy, I found the book arguably unbiblical and subversive. Whatever, there’s no shortage of biblical criticism for the scholars (which I am not) to debate. However, what really struck me was the obvious pattern of freshman academic multi-cultural curriculum talking points such as girl power, male bashing, earth the abandon child, and kudos to the uber liberal. That pattern alone made me giggle and make me pine for the old college days when two plus two wasn’t necessarily always four. If one was to deconstuct the novel on its characters alone, one would find all the female characters (God, a large African-American woman; the holy spirit, an Asian woman; the judge, an olive skinned Hispanic woman, and Nan, Mack’s wife) as strong, wise, and, in the case of the judge, stunningly beautiful. If one did the same for the male characters one would find them confused and broken (Mack and his father)–that is with the exception of Jesus; he’s short, unattactive, and has a big nose. The book muses on what the world be like if women were in charge(it wouldn't be so violent) and God even goes so far as to say “Men! Such idiots at times.” We’re also reminded by Jesus that “Our Earth is like a child who has grown up without parents, having to guide and direct her.” Mack even considers he might be an ecologist. Finally, Mack is a Bill Moyers and Bruce Cockburn fan. Even God digs Bruce in The Shack. Couple all of this with the book's ideas on circle of relationships, no hierarchy, God’s summission to you, “I don’t punish sin,” and no mention of authority or sovereignty, and there is no doubt this novel will soon be the darling of English departments across the country.

I didn't read "The Shack" with an eye toward ascertaining Mr. Young's theological leanings. For me, "The Shack" is a story about a loving Father who takes the initiative to reveal Himself in a deeper way to someone in the midst of intense pain and suffering - a story that resonates with my spirit in light of what I've experienced over the past 3 years. I'm sure Mr. Young and I don't see eye to eye on every point of doctrine, but that's not a problem for me, and in no way detracts from the powerful impact the story has made on me. Simply put, Father has touched me through "The Shack" and enabled me to understand the depths of His love and compassion in a new way. That is a work of the Spirit through an imperfect book written by an imperfect man. The question for me is not whether I completely agree with Mr. Young's portrayal of the Godhead and His ways, but what Father wants to communicate to me about Himself through the story. For me, "The Shack" is life-giving and revelatory

What is idolatry? Is it not making a god in our own image, or some image that is pleasing to us? Clearly The Shack is an attempt to fashion a god that we would be comfortable chatting with over a cup of tea. It fits perfectly with the long-standing shift from the transcendence of God to the immanence of God. This book, however takes things to a bizarre extreme. The Jesus of this book is NOT the Jesus of the Bible. It is hard for me to believe that a true follower of Christ could dream up such a disrespectful image. This is not the Jesus that John falls at the feet of, overwhelmed by His holiness and glory. The "Jesus" of The Shack is a bumbling incompetent that I would not trust to pour a cup of hot tea for fear of his spilling it on me.

Reading these comments causes me to grieve for the state of the community of believers. Is it really necessary to tear down (and accuse of heresy) someone because they see theology through a different lens. God is God. The Trinity is the Trinity. Young nowhere appears to deny that. I find it especially heartbreaking that most comments here are upset over the appearance of God as an African American woman, but seem to have no problem with the Holy Spirit being seen as an Asian woman. The premise is not one of goddess worship despite the phobia seen from the many comments given, but instead one of the diversity of God as a father to all nations. The Word tells us that their is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek nor Jew in the body of Christ. What is wrong with viewing the Trinity through the eyes of ethnic diversity? The body of Christ is to be a reflection of the God. Are we so confined in our image of God that we only see the body of Christ as Caucasian males?

Tom,

I have read the book because many of my friends came and told me enthusiastically to read it. I began to have trouble with the book even before Mack got to the shack simply because I do not like the context in the early chapters. Christian’s get enough of that type of exposure in the media, television and the movies. We don’t need it in our literature

Theology aside, it seems the book really is attempt of Paul Young to come to grips with his unfortunate experiences of life. Stepping back and evaluating the book as a whole, it seems that Paul has unfortunately made God into an image of his (Paul's) own creation. In a sense, he has made a simplistic graven image that answers all his question in the way author would like. It simply isn’t that way, God clearly gives us boundaries for our faith (biblical based doctrine) and we have no leeway to cross over into the uncharted territory of our imaginations. Simply saying it is fiction simply doesn’t make it OK.

Well, I'm just starting to read "The Shack". I'm really looking forward to it, but have to admit I'm truly sorry I read the previous comments. Amanda, you said it all - for disciples of Jesus who are to represent Him in love and fellowship, the slamming and splattering that has happened on this site because of different points of view is truly sad. I'm a graduate of a seminary - I understand theology - I also understand profound pain that only God Himself can heal. Apart from Jackie, who noted that John Dobbs had lost his son and found that the book ministered to him, this profound sadness of a brother in Christ passed by everyone else debating theology and who knows what else. John, I'm so sorry of your loss...I pray that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as the God of John Dobbs will wrap His arms around you and comfort you and heal you. Now, I'm sure I've given some additional food for rebuke by some seminarian expert to slam me and my "theology". As for me, I'm closing this site, and will begin to read "The Shack" and will take away what I need to from a fictional book, and then hopefully becoming more effective to minister the love of Jesus Christ to the lost and dying of this world.

A friend asked me to read the book and to give my opinion. My initial response was that, based on the current market for entertainment, this story will probably be made into a movie. A clumsy story line loaded with action, beautiful scenery, occasional humor and foul language, and vague references to Scripture (but not enough to challenge, offend, or convict anyone). This was my impression throughout the book. Then I read the author's comments on the page entitled The Missy Project: "Film producers have already expressed interest in making this story into a movie for general theatrical release....". Guess time will tell.

So sad reading these comments. One man shared the loss of his son, and only one of you chose to acknowledge that fact. To that man: God grieves with you. If this book has brought you closer to our Lord and His comfort, I am glad.
Are we so caught up in our need to be right that we ignore the suffering in front of our noses? Shame on you! If nothing else, you've missed this point in The Shack - God is a God of love who is more concerned about communicating that love to individuals than about how many angels dance on the end of a pin. Unbelievable!

Is it really necessary to tear down (and accuse of heresy) someone because they see theology through a different lens.

Um, yes!?! Is it not the role of a reader to be discerning and try and get at the author's intent. Isn't that what they always push in school, critical thinking? And, if the claims and intentions are as far off base as this books are, and if the response to the book by people shows an utter lostness in the fog of the authors machinations, then doesn't it behoove us to stand on the Bible and "give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1.9)?

I find it especially heartbreaking that most comments here are upset over the appearance of God as an African American woman, but seem to have no problem with the Holy Spirit being seen as an Asian woman.

I find it surprising that as liberal as the "praise" crowd for this book appears to be, they don't seem to have any problem with the obvious racial stereotyping in it. A spiritual Asian woman? Is that PC? Yet nobody seems to be in a hurry to condemn Young as some white male bigot. I wonder what would have happened if this book expressed an orthodox position (besides the fact that nobody would have read it)?

The dance between "art" and "theology" is always fraught with the potential for misinterpretation. Let's not forget to add grace to the mix when we are sifting for "theological error". God is very big and operates outside the box, using the willing heart and the surrendered life. If just one person sees the Lord for the loving father He is because of The Shack then give the Father praise.

I read the book 6 months ago and was immediately struck by several things:

1. He's not a skilled writer and it was hard to read at many points. Thank God it was short.

2. I immediately went into my default "theological" mode when I began to run across things that I thought might be problematic. I quickly decided to switch into a mode of not being critical and just see what the author wants to say. Here's what I found -- a timely reminder for me that God is more gracious and loving than we can imagine. Those of us who grew up conservative and leglistic need that reminder.

For me, the book was very helpful in that regard. Obviously, however, it's not (from my perspetive) a theological textbook.

The most dangerous deceptions are those that contain the most truth. While “the Shack” contains some truth about God and His amazing love, it omits His wrath and judgement on sin. Little is written about repentence necessary for salvation. While the book states that Jesus is the best way to know God, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the ONLY way to know God. A huge distinction. The book (and yes, I did read it) paints a very incomplete picture of the Trinity. If we really want to understand God, we must read and study HIS word. THe writings of anyone else should be secondary in our search for wisdom.

Thanks to Gracylou, Lori, Nancie, Lindsay, Amanda and Don Little for your balanced comments. And my prayers for John who lost his son and found this book helpful.I am nearly finished this book which was loaned to me and otherwise may never have read. My hope is that it will open discussions on faith and spirituality that will turn people towards Jesus and that through the controversy regarding the book's theology that we can guide people to know God through His Word first and foremost, and learn to see everything through that lens. It is my expectation that God will use this book and all of its foibles as He would any imperfect human creation. Thank you to those of you who have taken the time to list your theological concerns which have been helpful to me in sorting through this book and will be helpful in future discussions.

I read it and loved it, although I can understand why many would be freaked out by it. It's not meant to be theology, it is meant to be provocative fiction. It is meant to inspire. The deeper question in the book is "Why do you believe what you believe." Some may be disturbed because the character looked down upon his seminary education, but to me that is trusting in the institutions of man above God. The plain and simple truth is this, that every once in a while a book comes along with challenges the norms of the day, and uses language that the establishment takes issue with. If we live off of the theological expression of the Reformation forever then we will never seek understanding for our generation. In short, if we trust in the systematic theology of the Reformation too much then we will not be able to explain truth in a way that the modern audience can understand. We must explain eternal, unchanging truth in a way that a modern audience can understand without compromising true doctrine. I think that is precisely what The Shack does.

I just read The Shack a couple of weeks ago, and was, for the most part impressed. What I get tired of? Being treated like a mindless idiot who can't pick up a book and apply a drop of my own discernment. All these professional, well-established writers have so much precious wisdom to bequeath to the clueless masses. It would be nice if a book could be released and folks just be allowed to read it and come to their own conclusions. Instead we are always treated to the hysterics of the critics who can't handle anything that's a bit out of the status quo. I was even troubled by a story headline I saw in Christianity Today -- How to Read The Shack. Thank goodness -- I know I could never have done it on my own!!
Sorry to sound frustrated, but I see this finger-wagging trend so much in the Christian world and it's getting pretty tiresome.
Mark Weber

After reading many of the posts, I must say that I am like those who tire of the "finger wagging". We each have a mind that God is wanting us to use to wrestle with issues of our faith rather than blindly accepting what someone else tells us we should believe.

One underlying theme that came through incredibly strong for me is this: An invitation, if not challenge, to return to the relational base of the Christian faith. We are designed to be in relationship with God and others. When our faith becomes boiled down to arguing over who is right and who is wrong, where is the relationship in that? There is so much that we miss out on in the Christian faith when we are more concerned with "right beliefs" (most of the time "right" is depending on who is deciding what is "right" i.e. Mohler and Driscoll).

I admit there are themes that I, too, am wrestling with in this book, but, I walked away with a renewed sense of staying relational with Christ rather than religious. Religion has caused so much damage to generation after generation. Is theology important? Of course it is. However, why are spending so much time drawing hard lines in the sand over a book like this? Would it be so hard to find some common grounds and even look at the intention of the author and what he was trying to do with this book?

Stories speak in powerful ways and in many ways more powerfully then a step one, step two, step three approach. There are other authors attemping to do similiar writings in story form. The fact that this book has had this kind of response, I think, speaks to the way many of us are drawn to powerful stories.

Look at Dante's Divine Comedy. It's not theologically or biblically accurate - but there is something in the heart of God expressed as you read. I think this book is the same way. Not something to build your theology on [like the lyrics to some worship songs!] but something to encourage your heart and stir your faith.

I would not recommend this book. It is blasphemy to say the least. I think it comes too close to universalism. I could not even finish the book. I think it is very dangerous for a young or immature christian to read. This book was recommended by my ladies Bible study group. Needless to say, I am no longer attending church there. If you are to read this book, I think you should read Matthew 24:4-5
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Take heed that no one deceives you. (5) "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,'and will deceive many."

I would also read Hebrews 5:14
But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and