Pine Grove Christian Fellowship

A Review of The Shack

By Steve Sorensen

I recently read the hugely popular novel called The Shack by William Paul Young. Having sold more than 6 million copies, it brings a positive benefit to bookstore revenues and a negative effect on the theological worldview of many readers.

Some reviews praise it for getting non-religious people in an increasingly non-religious society to think religiously. Others issue grave warnings about this book, and some denounce it and recommend against reading it. Of course, that has the unintended consequence of making people curious enough to read it.

For those who may not have read it, or heard of it, you need a little background. It's not a happy story. A little girl was abducted, taken to a wilderness shack, and murdered. Her father (MacKenzie, or Mack) was burdened with guilt, "the great sadness." He was not a believer in Christ. He felt guilty for the tragedy and was blaming God. His wife (who was a believer) had a pet name for God -- "Papa."

One day Mack got a note, signed "Papa," inviting him to the shack. Of course, he went, and Papa (or God the Father) turned out to be, or to appear to be, a large African-American woman named "Elousia." She was jovial, a great cook, and very hospitable. The purpose in appearing as a black woman was to challenge Mack's stereotypes. Also present was Papa's Son, a middle-eastern carpenter, and the Holy Spirit (personified in an Asian woman named "Sarayu.")

God sometimes gets through to people by smashing stereotypes. So, when I say that the theology on which The Shack is built is wrong, I'm not talking about unconventional ways of communicating, or the unexpected ways God reveals himself (such as in appearing as a black woman.) God is sovereign and he has a right to smash our stereotypes. In fact, most of us need that from time to time.

In talking about what I'll later call "Shack Theology," I must say that the book is only a novel. No novel is above criticism, and even a "Christian" one will not reliably offer a biblical worldview. In other words, The Shack offers spiritual ideas, and some of those ideas conform to the spirit of the age. They are false.

At one time, ideas in The Shack would have been freely called "heresy." The problem with calling it that nowadays is that heresy is admired by some people. So, just let the reader be aware that much of what the book teaches is "not Christian theology."

Other reviews have approached book length in itemizing all the missteps that the author (who happens to be trained in Christian theology) takes. My aim is much more modest. I cannot write an exhaustive critique, nor would my readers want to read one. (Still, this review is longer than I wish.)

Simply put, The Shack is a popular novel that uses some Christian ideas and terms in order to explain mysteries that are beyond us. It falls far short of being sound theology, mostly because it picks only the biblical ideas that support the author's preconceived universalist theology. (Yes, universalism -- the idea that everyone will ultimately be saved -- is its chief area of "not Christian theology.")

Just a couple of points. First, The Shack tries to explain the doctrine of the Trinity by offering a distorted view of God and of Christ. I didn't catch much in the way of a distorted view of the Holy Spirit (although "Sarayu" seems more new-agey than the other persons of the Trinity), perhaps because the author is willing to allow the Holy Spirit to remain a mystery. Rather than allow God to remain a mystery, he totally overlooks God's holiness and his transcendence, and seriously damages God's attributes of justice and love -- concepts our limited minds can only hold in tension. Instead, he strips God of justice in saying "mercy triumphs over justice because of love" (page 166.)

But the Bible does not teach that God's love conquers his justice, nor does it teach that believers fear God's justice. Psalm 98 tells us that God is our judge, and that those who love him find joy rather than fear in his judgment:

8 Let the rivers clap their hands;

         Let the hills be joyful together

9 before the LORD,

         For He is coming to judge the earth.

         With righteousness He shall judge the world,

         And the peoples with equity.

Both justice and love are two attributes that God must fully retain if we are to believe in the God of the Bible. In fact, the chief reason heresy exists is due to man's attempt to resolve theological tensions that are humanly unresolvable. The attempt goes wrong because a limitless God won't fit into our small cranial containers. Let's keep both God's justice, and his love, or we risk distorting God to fit our fears and our misshapen preconceptions.

Second, I'll speak to the doctrine of universalism itself. It's an attractive doctrine, often expressed with the words, "I don't see how a loving God can send anyone to hell." Well, I don't see that either, but then I do not believe in a God who is merely a loving God. I believe in a God who is both loving and just, and I don't deny that some people go to hell. Does God send people to hell, or does he give them room to choose alternatives against him? Would we call God loving if he compelled people to live in his presence when they insist on living outside his presence, and in hostility to him?

In classic Arminian theology, hell must be real in order for people to have free will. And in classic Calvinist theology, hell must be real in order for God to be sovereign even over evil. Either way, for the Bible to be the source of our theology, we must recognize its teaching that hell is a reality. Though everyone may not agree that hell is a literal place of eternal fire, nothing could be worse than a place where God is totally absent. The horror is that some people choose just that. The real question isn't whether hell exists. The real question is, "Can we reject God's presence by persisting in our own self-will and be coerced into his presence? Can we choose the daily hell of rejecting God and still gain heaven in the end?" (Incidentally, universalists recoil at the determinism in Calvin's theology, but universal salvation is every bit as deterministic as Calvin's view.)

Partly truth and partly fiction

Kris Kristopherson wrote the famous line in a song about Johnny Cash, "He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction." That's an apt description not just of Johnny Cash, but of humans in general, and of The Shack. With that in mind, here's a short list of concepts that are "Shack Theology," or fiction, and "Biblical Theology," or truth.

Shack Theology: "...both evil and darkness can be understood only in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence" (page 138). Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but evil is not merely the absence of good. The Bible teaches that man's sin puts him at enmity with God. To say evil doesn't exist is to say sin doesn't exist. If sin can be rationalized away, then what the Bible teaches about God's holiness, Christ's atoning death, his resurrection, redemption, forgiveness, and reconciliation amount to nothing.

Shack Theology: All roads do not lead to Christ; some roads do not lead anywhere. But Christ will travel any road to get to you (page 184). Do not find comfort in this attractive but false idea. Christ traveled one road to get to us -- the road of the incarnation and the cross. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6.) It's dangerous to think that Christ will find us through any religion or worldview that denies him. Christ can reach people by showing them the falsehood of any faith, but millions die without Christ in every anti-Christian faith including Islam, atheism, and secularism. 

Biblical Theology: "If you could only see how all of this ends and what we will achieve without the violation of one human will -- then you would understand" (page 127). Here the truth shines through that God is sovereign over history. We ultimately cannot understand the paradox of God's sovereignty versus our free will. Yet both sides of that paradox are still true -- God is so sovereign that somehow our free will does not limit his sovereignty. ("For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" Philippians1:6, NASB.)

Biblical Theology: Humans, having chosen the ravaged paths of independence, don't even realize they are dragging the entire creation along (page 134). In Genesis 3:17 (NASB), because of Adam's sin God said, "Cursed is the ground because of you." St. Paul picks up the theme, adding a redemptive note in Romans 8:22 (NASB), "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."

The greatest truth of all

Papa, early in his (her?) conversations with Mack, pointed to the middle-eastern carpenter, and said, "Mackenzie, the truth shall set you free and the truth has a name; he's over in the woodshop right now covered in sawdust. Everything is about him."

The Shack gets this biblical truth exactly right (although it derives some flawed Shack Theology from it.) Everything is about Christ. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8, NIV. See also 3:8) The truth will set us free. (John 8:32) The truth has a name ("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6, NIV.) He's in the woodshop. He's covered in sawdust. And everything is about him. He's dirty because he entered the world and accumulated our dirt. ("The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" John 1:14, NIV.) And he carried our dirt to the Cross.

And when the Holy Spirit makes our dirt (let's use the unpopular word, sins) known to us, he convicts us (John 16:8.) We can confess our sins and know "he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9 NIV.) He loved us enough to die for us, exhibiting God's love and satisfying his justice without compromise.

And so, God indeed works "incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies" (page 184.) "In all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28.) We have no human idea how this happens, but it's a promise given only to people who love God. Neither The Shack nor any heresy adequately explains it. We just accept that he is the sovereign redeemer, and all who love God can safely leave the resolution of all issues up to him as we hunger and thirst for his righteousness and hold onto the promise that he will fill us.

Two things to realize and four reasons The Shack is popular

So, if you read The Shack, realize first that it's only a story, and second that its theology is unbiblical and unreliable. It's popular for four reasons. It's an easy read. It speaks to the things many want to believe. It makes spiritual falsehood easy to believe. And it makes no call to moral living. Unfortunately, like many popularized "spiritual" books, it doesn't always speak the truth.

There, at 2000 words, is where I stop. Many reviews are much longer. If interested, see some of the 3565 (and growing) customer reviews at Amazon.com . If you're interested in reading a lengthy and comprehensive review of The Shack by a personal friend of its author, download it at: James DeYoung's Review of The Shack. Another fairly long review is available at Challies.com by Tim Challies, a Christian blogger. (Both of these are in .pdf format.)