Last week, I read The Shack by William P. Young. (For that matter, I read Cross Purposes by D. James Kennedy last week, too.)
The Shack has been both a bestseller and a lightning rod for criticism.
Let me give you my take on the book…
2 Reasons to Read It
- If you can think for yourself — I didn't agree with everything I read in this book. For that matter, I don't agree with everything I read in ANY book except the Bible. The Bible is my final authority. EVERY other book I read & message I hear is human & can/does have errors. But if you're the type of person that doesn't think…that forwards me your internet rumors without checking snopes.com, don't read this book. You can't handle it. And stop forwarding me your email rumors too! 🙂
- If you're OK having your assumptions challenged — I am human. I have a limited, imperfect view of our wonderful, infinite God. I have so much farther to grow. I'm OK with that. I want that. This book helped me see the love & relationship within the Trinity in a new light…and prayer in a new light…and the relationship between God's goodness & human suffering in a new light. I like that. But if it threatens you to have your preconceived ideas challenged, don't read this book.
3 Reasons to Avoid It
- If you think you have all the answers — If you think you're "the expert" on all matters of faith & practice, you don't need anyone else. No books for you. No messages for you either. Don't read any books or listen to any messages. (P.S. If this is you, you are deluded.)
- If you are not mature enough to learn from people you don't fully agree with — Some people can't handle this. If they find 1 thing they disagree with, they chuck out everything…including the good. (P.S. If this is you, you need to grow up.)
- If you don't know what the word "fiction" means — This is a complex concept. "Fiction" means "something invented by the imagination or feigned." It's not real. :-) The Shack was not meant to be a discipleship primer or theological treatise. It is "fiction." (P.S. If this is you, you need to buy a dictionary.)
P.S. My favorite part of the book? When he named the cat on p.231 "Judas." Yes…cats are "Judases" (betrayers). I'm a dog-man myself. 🙂
That’s all well and good…but tell me how you really feel. 🙂
Just read the book yesterday. I couldn’t put it down. I found it so intriguing and it really made me think about how I see God. I found the clear message in this book was all about having a relationship with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Isn’t that what we should believe? Why would anyone disregard this book to those who claim to know Christ and why wouldn’t we encourage those who don’t know Christ to read it. What a great way for someone to see what living a life with Christ is about and being able to discuss and share more.
A friend of mine is beginning to read The Shack, and I expressed some concerns that I had heard on a radio program from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (I recommend their writeup of their concerns here: http://www.carm.org/more-stuff/features/shack ). She sent me this link with your review, Tim.
To begin, I want to say that I don’t have all the answers, and my view of God is necessarily limited by my finite and fallible mind. However, I’m troubled by your review.
You make fun of those who would have concern for the departure from the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures. We, as frail humans, are prone to deception (and to modify one of the lines in your review, “If you think this isn’t you, you are deluded.”) so we have to examine everything in the light of the revealed Word of God. The above-linked CARM review shows more than just a couple of departures from a Scriptural view of the nature of God and even more than a few instances of heresy contained in the book. To say this is fine to engage in as long as you can think for yourself (and don’t we all think we can?) seems irresponsible.
You said, “But if it threatens you to have your preconceived ideas challenged, don’t read this book.” Well, if our ideas are not “preconceived” but rather conceived from the pages of Scripture, we should have grave concerns over the distorted presentation of God contained in the book.
Lastly, even if such material would be acceptable fiction (which I think a very strong case could be made that it is not), the writer himself, in the Afterward, implies that the book is not fiction (regardless of his saying elsewhere that it is): “Well, there you have it–at least as it was told to me. I am sure there will be some who wonder whether everything really happened as Mack recalls it, or if the accident and morphine made him just a little bit loopy. As for Mack, he continues to live his normal productive life and remains adamant that every word of the story is true.”
I believe that we should have great reason to be concerned for the church if she embraces this book to shape her understanding of God.
I’ve not had any comment on it one way or the other because I’ve not yet taken the time to really read the book. I appreciate, Tim, you actually picking up the book and reserving any judgement until you’ve read it.
I think many times within Christian culture we jump on a bandwagon listening to the talking heads (yes…we even have them within Christian media) before we take the time to explore it at the source.
I still feel this was a great review!
Jeff & Ben — Thanks for the feedback on the book. I love the discourse!
this is a great book abour love, and if you can not see how this message will make people better than you need to read it again… if people were to live this way then there would be an ultimate utopia!!!!