|
| 
 enlarge | Author: William P. Young
Publisher: Windblown Media
Category: EBooks
List Price: $14.99
Buy New: $8.24
You Save: $6.75 (45%)
Rating:  2267 reviews
Sales Rank: 6
Format: Kindle Book
Media: Kindle Edition
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
Dewey Decimal Number: 813.6
ASIN: B001B8Z2S0
Publication Date: June 20, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Fantastically witten and thought-provoking story! April 30, 2008
4 out of 8 found this review helpful
The Shack is the best book I have read in quite a while. The story is gripping, and the messages it gives are very refreshing and thought-provoking. I especially liked the way it dealt in depth with some of the most stubborn question people pose to get Christians to admit their faith cannot hold water, questions like "If God is good, why is there so much evil?"
I come from a Church of Christ background, which is definitely not an "out-there" group, and I believe the author gives a great look at God when all the religious doctrine and ideologies are stripped away and all you have is the Creator of the universe. Of course we can't really know all about God, and the author doesn't pretend to. From my reading, I see no hidden agenda or ideas meant to undermine or universalize Christianity in any way. I found that reading this book, one must simply remember to pause when something seems to rub the wrong way and ask, "Does this go against what the Bible teaches, or simply against an interpretation or doctrine that we've created?" I plan to recommend this book to anyone who is looking for answers to difficult questions of life, or who is simply looking for a moving story.
 The Shack if fiction! April 30, 2008
17 out of 26 found this review helpful
I picked up a copy of "The Shack" at a local Christian bookstore. I had no idea what I was getting into. While I think William P.Young is a creative and sometimes brilliant writer, I would remind ANYONE getting this book that it is fiction.
It was easy even for me with this knowledge to get caught up with the book, it made me feel good, almost euphoric and wishing that I could be where he was in some respects.
But I had to remember that the "advice" given by the Trinity characters were fictional. The book as I look back on it is a very quasi-Christian book, some good things in there but read it alongside reading the REAL Christian book: The Holy Bible!
Interestingly and I think on purpose, when I was really getting hooked on The Shack, I got a clear message from God to read a particular message in His Bible. The notes reminded me to be aware that others can sound, look and feel Christian but aren't. I would put The Shack into this category.
Would I recommend it? No, and definitely not to an unbeliever nor a new Christian, in my view, you have to be pretty strong and mature in your faith to see through so many of the absolutes that are quoted by the Trinity characters.
I say this is yet another semi-spiritual book in the disquise of a Christian book. Reader and buyer: beware!
Beware of The Shack April 30, 2008
22 out of 32 found this review helpful
Every so often a "Christian" book emerges from the shadows of obscurity, causing major waves in the literary market. Over the past few months, The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity by William P. Young has acquired a place in the spotlight. Self-published by the author, The Shack has sold over 750,000 copies and is currently #8 on the Amazon.com Top 100 List. The Shack is quite the Cinderella story as Young's first publication which he did not originally envision publishing, but wrote only for the enjoyment of his children. Since the first of its seven printings in 2007, The Shack has enjoyed raving reviews, an enormously successful reception among Christians, and a most recent printing in hardcover. As a result, I have decided to read and review The Shack.
The Writing:
Young proves to be a decent writer, especially considering this is his first major work. Though the initial chapters are fairly amateurish, the remaining material improves in style and form. Probably, the best part of the general writing style is the pace. The story is faithful to quickly move from scene to scene. The reader is never left lagging or bored with the chain of events, which seems to be a difficult task for fictional writers. In addition, though Young's story is quite predictable from chapter to chapter and follows a fairly unoriginal murder-mystery paradigm, it does maintain a level of intrigue and interest. Likewise, Young also does a suitable job illustrating the events with vibrant terminology. However, at times his writing reads more like an over-acted episode of Dawson's Creek than a best-selling work of fiction. Now, we will turn our attention to the content, which, as I will show, is quite troubling and a fair piece down the road of heresy.
The Content:
As I mentioned earlier, the trouble begins at the start of the storyline. Let me note first, the degradation of Scripture's sufficiency and authority. The story begins as Mack receives a note in the mail which, the story at least posits, is hand-written by God Himself. This very thought draws into question the nature of Scripture. First, it indirectly suggests that the canon of Scripture is still open and growing. If this is so, it poses a major problem for Christians of all historical eras. In the 4th century, the early Christian church affirmed the completion of the canon, including the 27 books we call the New Testament. If the canon were open today, Christians would have to begin considering what they are missing, what is to be added, and when it will finally be closed. As you can imagine, this is a major theological problem because the suggestion draws into question the trustworthiness of Scripture which stands as the only rule of Christian faith and conduct. A major problematic component to the idea that God would write a modern "note" is the idea that God is still revealing Himself, which also contradicts Scripture and suggests the 66 books of the Bible are not sufficient in and of themselves.4 In fact, it is worthy to note that in all of history, we only know of one time in which God penned a document with his own hand. On this document was the inscription of the 10 commandments given to Moses.5 Therefore, it does seem a bit unusual that God would hand-pen the 10 commandments only to wait thousands of years to hand-pen an invitation to vacation with Him in the country. Perhaps this reveals a bit of the author's view of revelation, suggesting that God is still revealing Himself to mankind. If so, what does this say about Jesus who is the exact representation of His nature and the one through whom God has spoken in "these last days." In fact, Scripture states that Jesus spoke with such great clarity and finality that after He was finished, it was suitable to sit down at the right hand of God the Father, signifying the completion of divine revelation.6
Now, at this point, some may be saying, "Come on. Aren't you being a little picky?" To that, I must agree. I am being very picky. Again, this is not about the story, it is about the theology residing in the story. Theology changes lives, either for the good or for the bad. Therefore, theology that is publicly presented by mouth or pen is quite important. Remember, this book is repeatedly marketed as a theological work. In his front cover endorsement, Eugene Peterson (author of The Message Bible paraphrase) writes, "When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." Honestly, after reading the book, I am surprised by Peterson's comments, though I am not a huge fan of his. Clearly, William P. Young is in no John Bunyan and The Shack falls terribly short of his timeless classic. The purpose of Bunyan's book was presenting sound theology through the medium of allegory. Others may respond to this critique with, "It's only allegory. Your problem is that you are interpreting the book literally." Actually, it is not truly allegorical. Allegory consists of something figurative representing something real. The Chronicles of Narnia and Pilgrim's Progress are allegorical. The Shack consists of something real representing something real. Mack is a real man, living in a real time, in a real world, conversing with who is suggested to be the real Triune God. Even if The Shack was allegory, it would still not be okay to teach heretical theologies. With that said, let me move on to another major problem - which is probably the most devastating.
The Shack presents an altogether inaccurate, unbiblical, and disrespectful depiction of the Godhead. Upon their meeting in the shack, Mack realizes that God is not quite as he imagined. God the Father turns out to be an aged African American woman who enjoys cooking and mothering the other two Persons of the Trinity. Throughout the story she is called Papa, but prefers the name Elousia. However, the story does not reveal that Elousia is a greek term referring to the tenderness between Jesus and his mother, Mary. Is Young suggesting that God the Father is like a mother to Jesus? Though we could probably camp out here for quite some time, there is more reviewing to be done.
God the Son turns out to be a 30-something Middle-Eastern handy-man, clothed in blue jeans, a sawdusty plaid shirt with rolled sleeves, gloves, muscular forearms, and a toolbelt. God the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian songstress named Sarayu who enjoys gardening. The name Sarayu is derived from sandskrit meaning wind or flowing water. As a quick note on the issue of gender, keep in mind that though Scripture always speaks of the Holy Spirit with masculine or neuter pronouns, Sarayu is a purely feminine derivative of the sandskrit root "sar." With that said, let's start by considering Young's version of the Trinity in general and then deal with each Person individually.
Though the Persons of the Trinity have interests such as cooking, gardening, and home improvement, each member seems to equally enjoy and partake in the activities of the others. For instance, Jesus, though he enjoys "working with his hands," equally enjoys gardening and cooking.7 This ambiguity severely undermines the Trinitarian integrity by eliminating their distinct roles and relationships to one another. Though Young has attempted to humanize each Person by assigning a race and gender, neither of which are accurate except for the masculinity of Jesus, he fails to recognize that the most important component to Trinitarian theology is found in the distinct roles of each Person. Therefore, if each of the members maintain the same interests and, perhaps, roles, then the logical conclusion is an egalitarian version of the Trinity. What I mean by egalitarian is that all of the Persons are not only equal, but the same in role and function. A similar error in Young's depiction of the Trinity lies in his statement that "When we (the Godhead) spoke ourself (singular) into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human."8 Do you hear the error in this? Young is teaching that the entire Trinity experienced the incarnation, which is not consistent with Scripture, logic, or reason (not to mention the fact that no one in the Trinity was "spoken" into human existence). This error is also obviously intentional because in Young's story Papa has scars on his wrists along with Jesus. Therefore, according to Young, God the Father died upon the cross. In reality, Scripture explains that God the Father sent Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin on behalf of the world.9 This is impossible if God the Father also died upon the cross. In addition, it seems this also convolutes the Christian understanding that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. According to Young, God the Father gave His life on calvary as well. Though its difficult to pin down, what we have here is some kind of inverted modalism in which the entire Godhead act synonymously.
From my perspective as a reader, Young's entire theology grows stranger with the turn of every page. In addition, his view of the Trinity is furthered by the concept of mutual submission in which all the members of the Trinity, because they are not truly distinct, submit to one another. This is clearly not biblical either. Throughout Scripture, Jesus submits to the Father and the Father sends the Holy Spirit to help His people.10 This does not occur within The Shack's Trinity. In fact, at one point, Mack expresses confusion over the concept of mutual submission and Papa responds, "What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. That's your problem, not ours" (suggesting that headship and submission is a result of the fall).11 Hierarchy would make no sense among us? Scripture teaches it makes perfect sense among them. In fact, the entire world is supposed to be ordered according to the picture the Trinity paints through the gospel, in which the Son submits to the Father, man submits to the Son, and his wife submits to her husband, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the context of the church.12 Obviously, in a similar vein, the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the man, and the man loves his wife. That is essentially the gospel order which Scripture provides as the blueprint husband/wife, parent/child, and master/servant relationships. As we will see, Young's view of the Trinity deals a devastating blow to the rest of the book's theology. Reasoning out from his view of the Trinity, Young attempts to answer the age-old questions of sovereignty and free will, the existence of evil in the world, political injustice, among others. Since none of these can be adequately answered without sound biblical doctrine, Young's treatment does not help the reader. However, the problems do not lie merely in a faulty general understanding of the Trinity, but in part and parcel as well. So, let us take a moment to consider the individual members of the Trinity as Young portrays them.
As mentioned earlier, Young paints each member of the Godhead in an extremely disrespectful and unbiblical light. First, Young portrays God the Father as a heavy-set Aunt Jemima-like African-American woman who wears a long flowing African gown, complete with a multi-colored headband. While some may find this interesting, insightful, or cute, I found this depiction highly distasteful. God the Father/mother, whose name is oddly Papa, fits a highly stereo-typical view of African-American culture. Most notably, we find her in the kitchen, wearing headphones, shaking her hips and shoulders, while listening to blatantly non-Christian music. In addition, Papa uses poor grammar saying to Mack, "We is all you need," "Guess that's jes' the way I is," and "Sho'nuff."13 And if that is not stereo-typical enough, she also makes very tasty collard greens. Seriously? Seriously.
God the Son is not much better. Though he is properly portrayed with His true gender, He is also easily distracted, awe-struck by the sight of shooting stars, unable (by his own illogical choice) to catch a large trout, and spends his time walking on water for fun, skipping rocks across the lake, or woodworking in the shed. Jesus is also depicted according to stereo-typical characteristics such as his big Jewish nose (I'm not making this up).14 Finally, Sarayu, the female and Asian Holy Spirit character does not play a huge role in the story, but does sing a lot, works in a disorganized garden which reflects Mack's disorganized heart, and cleans everyone's dishes by hand.15 Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit, who is in reality most often neglected among the Trinity, is depicted in vague terms, unlike her counterparts. Mack says to Jesus, "Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?" Jesus responds, "Yes. She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit." While that may contain a kernel of truth, the Holy Spirit is not just the Spirit of Jesus, but a distinct Person Himself. There are certainly a number of other issues within each of these personification which I do not have time to discuss right now such as Papa loving surprises, Jesus' use of the phrase, "true that," and Sarayu singing a Gaelic tune.16 I would also like to discuss another person who is almost mistaken as a fourth member of the Trinity. She is named Sophia and seems to represent Proverb's Lady of Wisdom.17 Perhaps this will have to wait for another time.
Nevertheless, consider with me what this version of the Godhead is presenting to the reader. Young is presenting, in the context of Mack's life, a God of his own design. Throughout the book, one cannot help but notice the similarities between God and Mack. They listen to the same music (i.e. Bruce Cockburn, a pacific northwest musician who played Woodstock), enjoy the same food, and both express an aversion to organized religion. God does everything on Mack's terms and time. When they first meet, Papa senses Mack's unwillingness to deal with life and says, "Not ready? That's okay, we'll do things on your terms and time. Well, come on in. Can I take your coat?" Chapter after chapter, God merely yields and accommodates to Mack. For instance, in light of the abuse Mack suffered at the hands of his father, Papa chooses to reveal Himself as a woman, so as to not turn Mack off.18 He even takes on the character of Mack's culture in language, dress, and thought life. This brings us to another major problem, the exaltation of Mack. Throughout The Shack, Mack's circumstances dictate everything God does. In fact, all of life and all of God revolves around Mack. The purpose of life is to help Mack "fly" as he was created to fly.19 Mack is even recognized as having the power to change the world. In chapter 17, Sarayu says to Mack, "Because you are important, everything you do is important. Every time you forgive, the universe changes; every time you reach out and touch a heart or a life, the world changes; with every kindness and service, seen or unseen, my purposes are accomplished and nothing will ever be the same."20 I don't know how that sounds to you, but it sounds to me like Mack and the God of the Bible are eerily similar.
Additionally, the very nature of God conveniently coincides with the kind of God Mack would "want to worship."21 This is not merely a case of the creation worshiping the creation, but even more twisted. The Shack emphatically presents the Creator worshiping the creation. A number of times, God praises Mack, but not once does Mack praise God. Instead, Mack speaks to God in profanity, with sarcasm, and in disrespectful tones, which are all approved of, and even encouraged, by God. At one point, when Papa points out the obvious, Mack replies with, "No kidding, Sherlock."22 In the midst of it all, God pursues one thing, a journey with Mack. The theology of The Shack basically presents a God who is concerned above all else with Mack's well-being, Mack's happiness, and Mack's recovery. Even in forgiveness, the God of The Shack is preoccupied with Mack. Encouraging Mack to forgive his daughter's killer, Papa says, "I want you to. Forgiveness is first for you, the forgiver, to release you from something that will eat you alive; that will destroy your joy and your ability to love fully and openly."23 At one point, Mack is encouraged to talk to Papa only if he wants to24 and on the day Mack is to forgive his daughter's killer, Papa transforms into a male stating "this morning, you're going to need a father."25 In fact, God's preoccupation with and service to Mack is so great that it is to the neglect of the rest of the world and His own glory. Truly, throughout the story, God expresses concern for no one other than Mack. It is as if Mack has acquired the undivided attention of God, as if he is the only man on earth. While I understand that Mack's experience may be a mere dream, this Mack-centered scenario deserves pointing out. Whether it is a dream or not, the circumstances in which Mack lives are all about him. God does what Mack wants, when Mack wants, and how Mack wants. As a result Mack never has to repent of his ways or his opinions because they are quite consistent with his God's - rather, I suppose I should say that God's ways are quite consistent with Mack's. Likewise, we should note that Mack is never accused of sin regardless of how he behaves, feels, thinks, or reacts to his experiences. Then again, why should Mack be held accountable for anything in light of Papa's non-responsiblility as stated in chapter 14. Papa says to Mack, "Honey, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else...And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me."26 This is even carried to the extent of Papa claiming to be thrilled when Mack doesn't listen to her because it means she needs only to speak forty-six more times before Mack will pay her attention.27 Again, the demands of the true gospel are virtually absent from this story. Enough of that. Moving on...
Though I have not spoken with him, I assume that William P. Young is a Christian anarchist. At least this is the impression he gives through his book and his bio. Young says of himself, "I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere. The truth is that I doubt anyone would want me. From my perspective that is a very positive thing...for both of us."28 Again, I am only speculating this on the grounds of his book and online bio, but I assume this includes involvement in a local church as commanded in the New Testament. 29 To fill you in, "Christian anarchists believe that freedom is justified spiritually through the teachings of Jesus. This has caused them to be critical of government and local church authority."30 The concept of Christian anarchy runs consistently through the story and is embraced by both Mack and God. At the beginning of chapter 6, Young quotes famous Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul who wrote, "...no matter what God's power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself."31 Mack's Christian anarchy is expressed through his disenchantment with church all together. He rarely attends and is critical of the "rules" of church and religion. Mack's love/hate relationship with church and God is expressed through his desire to have the benefits without commitment or submission. Likewise, his God holds the same view. Remember that Mack's Trinity does not include hierarchy between the members who all despise authority. Jesus explains his entire purpose in the world this way, "Mack, the world system is what it is. Institutions, systems, ideologies, and all the vain, futile efforts of humanity that go with them are everywhere, and interaction with all of it is unavoidable. But I can give you freedom to overcome any system of power in which you find yourself, be it religious, economic, social, or political. You will grow in the freedom to be inside or outside all kinds of systems and to move freely between and among them. Together, you and I can be in it and not of it."32
This position, combined with the egalitarian Trinity considered above, certainly coincides with Mack's view of government and church authority. In chapter 10, Jesus explains to Mack that most of the world's problems are caused by men who try to lead.33 In other words, men should stop trying to find their place in the hierarchy of life, even within marriage, and should instead just seek equality with everyone else.34 Jesus suggests that all authority is manipulation. In contrast to a Complementarian view of biblical manhood and womanhood in which men and women are deemed equal, but different in role, it seems Young adjusts the account of creation a bit to release the tension between authority and anarchy. Jesus explains to Mack that "From the first day we [Godhead] hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him...Our desire was to create a being that had a fully equal and powerful counterpart, the male and the female. But your independence with its quest for power and fulfillment actually destroys the relationship your heart longs for."35 Not only has The Shack attempted to redefine God, but also redefine man, woman, and their relationship to one another.
As one would expect, with all these changes, the face of Christianity is severely distorted by The Shack. For instance, there is no mention in the book of eternity (except in the sub-title). There is also no real consideration for the gospel, repentance, or sin. One of the two references to sin goes like this, "I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside out. It's not my purpose to punish; it's my joy to cure it" (Papa speaking).36 Papa also says to Mack, "I don't do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation. They don't produce one speck of wholeness or righteousness, and that is why they were nailed to Jesus on the cross."37 Again, though I have not spoken to him (though I would like to), it seems to me that Young has attempted to totally renovate Christianity. In light of this, considering the views held by Mack and his God, we can easily see that Mack is probably not a Christian and neither is God. Probably the most striking evidence of this is to be found toward the end of the story. In chapter 12, as God continues to revamp Mack's theology, freeing him from all authority, both religious and secular, their discussion turns to the true nature of Christianity. Jesus says, "Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are fee to live and love without any agenda." Mack asks, "Is that what it means to be a Christian?" Now, listen to Jesus' response.
"Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian...Those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions...I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."38
Essentially, Young is proposing a veiled form of Universalism. After all, this makes sense if God has no need to punish sin, as stated on page 120. Likewise, in chapter 16, Papa states, "In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me..."39 You should also notice that Young quotes Unitarian Universalist, Buckminster Fuller at the beginning of chapter 14. Additionally, in chapter 14, Papa diminishes the value of Scripture claiming it is only a picture of Jesus and then encourages Mack to look in the Bible not for principles, but for "a way of coming to be with us [Trinity]."40 I am not sure if Young is a universalist, but it sure seems plausible. On the other hand, if this is the case, the book certainly makes a lot more sense.
Overall, whether intentional by the author or not, the theology of this book systematically dismantles Christianity by bringing God down to practically human, raising man up to practically divine, rejecting God-given authority, disorganizing the church, and creating a purely man-centered and highly experiential universe. All in all, it is a sad day when Christians read this book and call it Christian.
Conclusion:
Throughout this review, I have attempted to provide a general overview of the main theological failures within The Shack. An exhaustive treatment of the work's remaining errors would require me to comment on virtually every statement. Regrettably, I do not have time for that. I would, however, like to note that there are a handful of superficially accurate points of interest which I could discuss. Instead, I have chosen not to discuss these because they are, for the most part, undermined and conflicted by the surrounding heretical errors. I have also chosen not to discuss a strange experience for Mack in which Sarayu enables him to see the emotions of his father as bright flashing colors which is presented as the invisible manifestation of all interpersonal communication. In this, the colors people emit in their relationships change based upon the nature of their conversation, their feelings, and their level of conflict. Honestly, I do not know what to make of that yet. If I figure it out, I will amend this review.
With that said, I close with a suitable conclusion drawn from Mack's final experience with Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. As you read this excerpt, listen for the errors covered in this review, especially the debasing of God, the exaltation of Mack, the self-serving and inverted portrayal of the divine-human relationship, Christian anarchism, and rejection of the New Testament church model.
"Without any ritual, without ceremony, they savored the warm bread and shared the wine and laughed about the stranger moments of the weekend. He knew it was over and time for him to head back and figure out how to tell Nan about everything. He had nothing to pack. His few belongings that had appeared in his room were gone, presumably back in his car. He changed out of his hiking attire and put on the clothes that he had come in, freshly laundered and neatly folded. As he finished dressing he grabbed his coat off a wall hook, and then took one last look around his room before heading out. "God the servant," he chuckled but then felt a welling up again as the thought made him pause. "It is more truly God, my servant."41
You see, The Shack is not just a story. It is a statement of theology. This is why your parents taught you never to sign before reading the fine print.
[...]
The GREATEST book I've EVER read besides THE BIBLE April 29, 2008
3 out of 7 found this review helpful
If you don't read another book in your entire life - PLEASE read The Shack. It IS life changing. Finally those 'tough' scriptures and the life experiences which didn't seem to fit the God of love have been reconciled--FOREVER. For the millions who agree with Oprah and don't understand why God is jealous, please give Him one more chance. Read this!! You WILL get it!!!
The Shack April 29, 2008
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
This book kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. It had some very interesting ideas about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that although I don't completely agree with the writer, made me stop and think about what I do believe.
|
|
|
|
