• Welcome!
• About Us
• Our Church Staff
• Our Ministries
• Sermons
• Sermon Downloads
• Prayer Requests
• The Rock Student Ministries
• Church Calendar
• Spiritual Temperments Survey
• Book Reviews
• YEFC Blogosphere

The Evangelical Free Church of Yacolt
509 W Cushman St., PO Box 175
Yacolt, WA 98675
360-686-3322

E-mail us
Make home page
Add to favorite
Print this page

© 2008 ICG Link, Inc.

Book Reviews

Norman Schwab
March 6, 2008

Book Review for The Shack by William Young

What is it?
The Shack is a book that has become popular in Christian circles. It especially hits home with those who have experienced a tragedy in life and have questioned God asking, “How can I trust God when terrible things have happened to me?”

The book begins with an emotionally gripping story of a daughter who was abducted from a family campout and killed by a serial murderer. This terrible tragedy sends the main character, the girl’s father, “Mack” reeling from pain of loss and angry at why God would allow such a thing to happen. God then invites Mack back to the scene of the crime, the Shack, to help him understand why tragedies happen.

God and Mack spend a weekend together at the Shack helping Mack understand better who God is and how a vibrant relationship with God is not only possible, but is exactly what God desires. The story is a series of conversations between Mack and God, or God-head, explaining who He really is and what He is really about.

This book is not so much an allegory along the lines of CS Lewis. The Shack is a theology book that is wrapped up in a story. Just as a historical-fiction teaches history through a story and fictional characters, William Young is teaching theology, through a story and fictional characters.

What I appreciated about The Shack:

Just as I prefer learning about history through historical fiction, I enjoyed learning theology through a well-crafted fiction story. I wish more of my seminary theology books could be written in this manner. Theological-fiction (sounds like an oxymoron) is by its very nature devoid of any sort of biblical support.  That makes decoding the theology a bit more of a challenge to determine if what is being taught is in agreement with God’s Word. There is both truth and opinion in The Shack and this review attempts to strain out for you both the things that are right on and some of the things I see that are of concern. Here are some of the things I appreciated.

* God is presented as inherently good. God is not evil and is never the author of evil. This is clearly in line with James 1:13. All that God does is for our good. He does not orchestrate tragedies and yet can work incredible good out of them should he choose to do so (p.185)

*  I love the way this author reveals God’s special and individual love for each of us. I loved the description of an intimate relationship between God and man. Just to think that God would choose to spend an entire weekend with Mack to help him through this tragedy is warming to my soul. I liked how God whispered to individuals saying, “I’m especially fond of that one”. What a great thought to know the creator of the universe has a special delight for me.

* This book presents trust and love is the basis of all relationships. Love casts out fear.

* I appreciated the emphasis on the relationship of love and working together of the Trinity. Father, Spirit and Jesus. Though he uses different names and personifies them as Father: “Papa”, A large African-American woman, Spirit: Saruyu: Indian word for wind personified by smallish Asian woman. Similar to Greek, pneuma for wind, spirit. And Jesus, a Jewish decent man in blue jeans. The Bible refers to God as our Father, but tells also us that God is neither male nor female. Any attempts on our part to “humanize” God will fall short. After I got over the “shock” of God personified in the form of a large black woman, I found it refreshing the author crafted God meeting Mack in a way that helped him overcome a personal struggle with his own picture of an abusive “father”

* The author exposes human’s tendency to try and understand God from things that we know. We tend to put the unknowable into a box and God refuses to be contained.

* God allows and uses pain in our lives for reasons we may never know. That pain is caused by our own sin and others, sin and fear, self-centeredness and selfishness. Just as the garden in the story was torn up to make room for new growth to take place. Pain in our lives will tear up areas that will ready our hearts for God to work and bring about new growth.  God will work for the ultimate good that is born out of a love for us. We cannot ever fully understand the wisdom of God. (p.133)

* God took the risky step of giving humans choice. God did not create robots. If God took away our choice then he would destroy the possibility of love for forced love, is no love at all. (p.190)

* Williams exposes mans foolish desire to try and play God and become judge of others and even God himself. (p.158)

* I believe this book could be very comforting to those who wonder if their loved ones in the face of tragedy have been abandoned by God. “Never!” says God, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” There is comfort knowing they are far better off than us in the afterlife and that God is always with them especially in the midst of their tragedy. (p173)

* This book helps those who are struggling with forgiving people who have caused them so much pain. Forgiveness does not requires me to pretend it didn’t happen, but it does “by God’s help” let me “release my grip around their neck”. Restoration of relationship comes only if that other person repents. God calls me to forgive them even if they do not, or cannot respond. This is in line with Jesus words on the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Here are some of my concerns about The Shack:

* The Shacks theology calls for elimination of any roles or hierarchy whether found in the Trinity, marriage or family and church life. “Chain of command sounds ghastly and binding” says Jesus. “You can’t have relationship if there are roles.” (p.212) The author states there can be no relationship if there are roles or hierarchy. He seems to miss the biblical roles of parents and children and how plenty of love seems to exist. He wants to scratch out the uncomfortable verse in Ephesians 5:23 that tells how God clearly made Christ the head of the church and placed the husband in the role of leader over the wife. Not that the Bible says the man is any better than the woman. And the Bible calls both husband and wife to mutually submit to each other. Both are equal in God’s eyes,  both have been given different roles. The Bible says the elders of the church are to be male. Angels have roles and even hierarchy in heaven, “a little lower than the angels” is not talking about height on the platform. There are degrees of rewards in heaven. Even in the Godhead, the Spirits task is to lead people to the Son, indwell and convict people of sin, the Son then gives glory to the Father. Equal in value and importance, but different roles. Certainly people have abused power given, but the Bible does not see inherent evil in roles. Indeed the Bible calls those who are leaders (a role) to become the best servants of all. Pagans lord it over others, Christians are called to lead in love.

* The Shack also has a very strange idea about submission. He says “Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience, it is all about relationships of love and respect.” (p145) I would agree submission must be founded in relationship or it becomes either oppression or rebellion. Certainly the Bible teaches us we are to submit to each other in love (Eph. 5:21, “one another” passages in NT). It also is very clear from Eph. 6 that children are to submit to parents, Slaves to masters, church members to elders, Christians to God. The Bible very clearly teaches roles and a respect for them with love and leadership. It is by our obedience.

* The Shack teaches that God the Father is fully human in Jesus? Impossible. (p.99) Only Jesus is the part of the Trinity that came to earth and became a man. Jesus is fully human and fully God. Contrary to the book, the Bible describes scars only on Jesus, not God the father.

* The Shack declares that the reason Adam was created first and Eve came out of Adam initially was to maintain a balance of power being the sexes. The rational given is that after the initial creation, men come from the woman via birth and if woman was always first, she would have been put in the dominate position. If  man was always first it would have made him dominate. God wanted a proper balance of relationship with neither dominating??? This in interesting “circle of life” feminist theology but not biblical. On p147 he writes that most of the problems in the world are caused by men and the world would be a more peaceful place if only women could be the leaders. Again, there are many good women who are leaders, but do they always make better leaders? That is not what God decided. Certain leadership roles God has reserved for men. Why? Ask God. We are not allowed to change what God has commanded just because its not culturally correct, doesn’t make sense to me, or may make me uncomfortable.

* The book minimizes God’s sovereignty and over-elevates man’s free choice. “If you want to do your thing…have at it, time is on our side.”

* Weak view of scripture. “moderns prefer to listen only to Scripture as if interpretations of God’s voice could be limited to paper.” People are encouraged to hear his voice in dreams. Certainly God can speak to us in many ways, including nature (Rom. 1) and God has spoken to people through dreams. But the Shack seems to elevate these “experiences” and downgrades the revealed Word of God found in the Bible.

*The Shack says Jesus has no interest in making people Christians. “Can all faiths lead a person to Christ?” “Out of all faiths God can redeem and save anyone?” Mormon, Buddhist, Baptist, people who come from every system that exists can come to God I have no desire to make them Christian.” Huh??? (p.182) The author does not go so far as to say “all roads lead to Jesus.” But he says that “God will meet us on any road were on”, with no challenge to get out of a system or road that may be leading elsewhere. Supporting his argument of why Jesus has no interest in making people Christians, the author has Jesus saying, “I’m not a Christian” Of course not! Why would Jesus ever become a Christian? He is Christ, not following Christ. In Acts 11:26 “at Antioch they were first called Christians.”

*  On p.149 After ridiculing WWJD followers, Jesus says, “My life was not meant to be an example to copy, but my followers are ones who kill any independence.” Die to self? Yes. A follower of Christ must die to self. But certainly Jesus came as an example to lead people to obey God, submit to Gods leadership, example to love in relationship, communication. Romans 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son..."

* The Shack declares the miracles Jesus did do not prove His deity but rather the miracles proved that Jesus was fully human?  Jesus never drew on His divine nature to heal or cure, He was able to do those things because he connected perfectly with God the Father who worked through Jesus. We too can be like Jesus, God and do these same miracles? Smells too much like Mormon theology where we can all become god’s. The Bible says Jesus is the God-man, fully human and fully God. The miracles He performed were proof in part as to His Deity, done in the name of the Father. (John 10:25)

* Gods wrath and judgment against sin is downplayed. In p120 God says, “I don’t need to punish people for sin, sin is its own punishment. My joy is to cure it.” Once again, partly true. God does delight to redeem broken sinners. Sin does have consequences humans must endure. But at its core, the Bible says sin is missing the mark of God’s perfect standard. Sin is offending a righteous and holy God. Sin breaks relationship that needs mending. If sin is excused, there is little need of a Savior.

* The Shack has God describing the church as a man-made unhelpful institution. God is saying “I don’t create institutions, I never have, never will.” (p.179) “The modern church we know today was not built by Jesus. The church is not about programs and buildings, but people and lives in community.” (P.177)Again, part truth mixed with unbiblical thoughts. True, the church is about community and people. The church of God has never been a building. No one believes the church of God is a set of programs. All those things are designed to help people connect with each other and grow in their love for God and each other. The programs will change, must change to bring people together. If they are not fulfilling their purpose then they need to be changed. The Shack strongly implies that people are better off if they ignore church as we know it. Ignore the elders, the pastor, the teaching, the communion, using the spiritual gifts of the body. The Shack calls the reader to reject anything that smacks of a program, plan, of leadership, of organization. Instead, simply focus on relationships and people and sharing life together, instead of “sitting in meetings staring at the backs of heads of people you don’t know.” (p.177-8) It is ignoring the fact that much of the New Testament that was written to churches. Yes, churches have problems and are not perfect, but Jesus came to help imperfect people live together in community. It was God’s Word that set up church leadership. It was God’s Spirit that gave gifts of administration, Pastoring, teaching etc. I am sorry that the author has had bad experiences in the church…I know many who have. But that does not give freedom to scratch out half the New Testament that refers to the local  church and redefine “church” in a way that makes it comfortable. In the author’s website personal biography he mentions being a pastor’s kid in13 different churches in a few short years. He mentions currently not being a part of any “church institution” and that “no one would probably want him anyway.” On p248 of his book he seems to be referring to George Barna’s “Revolution” that calls people to reject the failed church and discover a church without walls, without programs,  that simply shares life with people they love who love Jesus.  I find this disturbingly sad.  Jesus loves the church so much, he gave His life  for the “church” warts and all (Ephesians 5:25). God’s plan was to use the church to spread His good news. Even if we think there might be a more effective way to do this, God offered no more simple plan “B”. The local church is God’s one hope for reaching the world. Could the church do a far better job? Indeed! May this be a challenge to us!!!

* P.197-202 says “the Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules, it merely tells you what God is like. Religion is about following rules and getting the right answers. Jesus is the living answer.” P.203 “In Jesus you are not under any law, all things are lawful.” Once again, partly truth. Jesus is the living answer. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Jesus did come to fulfill the Law, referring the Old Testament laws, regulations. Romans 5 God used the law to show us we were sinners. There was no sin apart from the Law. That opened up the opportunity for grace. We obey God out of love and obedience bathed in relationship. We are no longer slaves to the law but free under grace. Should we continue in sin that grace might increase? Ridiculous,  says Romans 6:1. Yes it is true we are not made righteous by keeping rules. Yes its true we can never be made righteous on our own. We are made righteous by Jesus blood and His grace and we then want to live for him by the “rules” laid out for us in the Bible. The ten commandments given to the people of Israel were born out of love, not a desire to control. Have God’s rules ever been misused and abused? Yes. But when they are exercised in love and relationship they are holy right and good and bring freedom. God’s rules are never oppressive, but kind and freeing.

Final Comments:

I can see the attraction to this story. Many people reeling and stunned by tragedy need to be reminded of God’s special love for them. Many need to be reminded that human’s can never fully understand God’s plan. Many need to know God will never leave us and will also be with those we love in the midst of tragedy. We need to foster a vibrant relationship with God and other believers in genuine community. The church of Jesus Christ would do well to encourage relationship over program.

Frankly I am surprised that Eugene Peterson has given this book such a rave review, “this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim Progress did for his. It’s that good.” No…it’s not even close to that good.  I have appreciated much of Petersons work but this recommend is one I would pass on. There are far too many bones to spit out in order to enjoy the good meat. I would not recommend this book to anyone who is a new believer and would throw up many yellow caution flags to those who are solid students of the Bible. Pass on the hype and read Pilgrim’s Progress instead.


We would love to hear your comments. Click on this link to add your thoughts.