|
The Shack by William P. Young First of all let me state that I can see how some would find value and comfort from this book, but there are major theological issues that would have to be explored with folks who are ignorant of solid theology so that they don't get even more confused. And, sadly, in my experience I have found that about 95% (or more) of the members of the average church are theologically illiterate . . . even though most of that 95% think that they really do know theology. One reviewer said that this book was not about the Trinity. Really? Then whom was Mack hanging out with for that weekend that took away his Great Sadness? The word Trinity in reference to God being 3 persons and 1 substance (i.e., deity), was mentioned at least two times as I recall (p. 98 & 100), and that's two more times than even the Bible uses the word. Plus, the theology of the Trinity was infused throughout the full last half (or 3/4) of the book. There are three main characters in this book: Mack, the Trinity, and Mack's daughter. So, to say that this book is not about the Trinity is to miss a major section of the book. Now, indeed, the “thread line” of the book is not about the Trinity. Rather, it is about Mack's Great Sadness and how through the efforts of the Trinity, he overcame it. But, this book does, indeed, implicitly teach theology about the Trinity, and in many cases it is a terrible, and even heretical representation of the Trinity. Is the Trinity fully human? Something that absolutely astounded me was when I saw a discussion on-line about this book, and some “Christian” actually poo-poo'd the trinitarian issues within this book! The person said, in essence, that the Trinity was a non-issue. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a non-issue? Friends, when we allow our emotions (which is really what this book is about) to dictate our theology, we will always end up in heresy. I struggle here to go or not go into more detail, but time for both you and me is precious, and I've already got too much else to say to go into too much detail. I think that Eric Odell-Hein's statement is spot on and can summarize my theological statement on this book: “Yet, it teaches with such carelessness. It goes from teaching very solid doctrine one minute to just disregarding biblical truth the next . . .” (Personal email from Eric Odell-Hein, Ph.D. candidate.) The whole book up to this point (about page 75) was nothing more than an Emotion Premise . . . The author is trying to DRAG his readers into Mack's pain so that he can then SELL the remainder of his story. “Oh, It's Just a Fiction” Let them at least be honest about this fact: this is a book about God and the relationship a man (Mack) has with God. Theology is as interlaced in this book as eggs are in a baked cake. If you remove all of the theology from this book, there would be no book. Is the book a fiction? Of course it is. But why can those who like the book (that's an emotion) have a positive emotion from the book but then deny the person's right to his feelings who does not like the book (that's an emotion too)? In essence what they are saying is that they have a right to their emotion but those who do not like the book do not have a right to their emotion because, after all, it is just a fiction. Well, whether they like it or not, that blade cuts both ways. How in the world can that phrase, it's just a fiction, legitimately and logically be used to argue against the theologian who does not like the book? Fiction or not, the book has bad theology; it's as simple as that. This is all the more problematic when one recognizes that those who disagree are basing their emotions in the truths of God's revelation about Himself in the Bible, and those who are advocates of this book are basing their emotions in the fact that “it is just a fiction.” I find this “it's only fiction” not only a strange, illogical and inept argument, but I also find it a bit hypocritical. To some who have defended the book to me by saying, “Oh, it's just a fiction,” I have asked, “What did you like about this book”? In every case that I've asked this question, the person has said that he or she liked the book because it has helped him or her understand God better. This is exactly the issue. This book is ultimately teaching people about God! When they say, “it is just a fiction,” they imply that we should not take seriously what the book says about God. Yet, this is the very thing that they say they like about the book, i.e., that they now have a new view of God! Again, that blade cuts both ways. The other thing that some say is that “it's all just a dream.” This is the same argument as this “it's only fiction.” However, after the “dream,” Mack is able to lead the authorities to the place where his daughter is . . . so, it had to be more than “just a dream” because he received a revelation as to where his daughter's body lie. In the end, this is what I personally would say: This book is sort of like a nice spot on the beach where one can lay back in the sun and have a relaxing time. However, to get to that spot on the beach, one must walk through landmines scattered throughout the journey. So, unless you are adept at spotting and avoiding the landmines, or unless you have someone holding your hand who is adept at spotting and avoiding the landmines, this spot on the beach is probably not for you; lest you blow yourself to kingdom come. In the final analysis, I might recommend the book to some people, but only with some very strong caveats. For others, I would never recommend the book at all. However, to openly recommend this book indiscriminately to all Christians—many young or theologically illiterate who have no clue of the doctrine of the Trinity and the fact that it is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith—is to be guilty of the same sort of carelessness that is the earmark of the William P. Young's theology in the Shack. ================================================= Also, for those who wish to go even deeper into the discussion about the theology of The Shack: The Shack: The Good, the Bad, and the Controversial ( A Very Informative Discussion) ====================== Readers Respond:
Ric's reply: Thank you Anthony. And, I agree with you in part as well. This book has some good points. To be reminded "just how much God cares about us in our pain, and he goes to great lengths to show just how much he cares" is good indeed. I also liked the fact that the character Mack found grace to forgive the man who had killed his daughter. And, there were some other good points as well, but one cannot say it all in a short book review. But, this is why I subtly named my review, "The Shack is Somewhat Cracked" and not that t is "Completely Cracked."
Ric's reply: It's not the metaphor or use thereof that I have a problem with. I use metaphors all the time in my own teachings. My issue is with the erroneous doctrine that those metaphors espouse. In the case of H2O being a metaphor for the Trinity, we do not hear the solid, liquid, or vapor say, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human . . . . we now became flesh and blood” (p. 99). And this is just one of many theologial errors.
Ric's reply: While The Shack has its good points, which I would not deny, it is too laden with theological error to be a good book: again, The Shack has good points, but it is not a good book. I'm just surprised that we need this much discussion about this book. It's obvious to me that this book is problematic. I guess I think it should be obvious to every Christian who knows even basic Christian theology. I wonder if the author ever took a solid systematic theology class in his life. For those of you who might want a review with a more technical look at the theological errors in this book, check out this review by Norman Geisler and Bill Roach: The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? Another Review: This is perhaps the single best review I've heard so far: “The book is superfluous”—Rick Bjurstrom I appreciated your review of The Shack. Thanks for being up front, not only about the theological errors, but also about the duplicity of those who are so moved by it, then exclaim, "It's only fiction!" every time someone points out how erroneous the book is about the one true God. I also find the author's general attitude to be duplicitous. He says, "Oh, it's just a story I wrote for my children," (as if that excuses the heresies), but then he travels the world promoting it?! Hardly consistent. An acquaintance/friend of mine (a professing Christian) had recommended the book to me last Spring, and I never got around to reading it until this winter. By the time I did, I was so horrified I felt I had to write to her to warn her about the heresies in the book. Praise God, I'm glad I posted that letter on my blog, because a good friend of mine from church then received the book as a Christmas gift, and happened upon my post the very next day. He was almost going to burn the book after that, but I asked him for the copy to retain it for apologetic purposes.... While reading the book, I had a similar reaction to you. I could just see and feel from the very beginning how emotionally manipulative this book was going to be, as soon as you begin seeing interactions between Mack and his children. I had a very difficult time investing the energy it took to read the book. Thank you again for your excellent work, including your enjoyable articles. Greg Demme
|
