As many of you undoubtedly know, The Shack is getting a lot of attention. It’s sort of an underdog story: an unpublished salesmen writes a book for his children that was never supposed to be published. When it is published, it is done so on a $300 budget by a small, independent press. Through word of mouth, the book has grown into a best seller.

One of the reasons, I think, the book has been such a huge seller is because of the basic story line: a man endures a tremendous loss, goes into depression, finds “God” personally (and literally), and is restored to a life of joy. This resinates with a lot of people because loss and pain are parts of all of our lives.

Although this book has touched many people and, perhaps, even brought them closer to “God,” there are many people that I would strongly caution before reading this book. Others I would greatly encourage them to read it. I’ll explain my reasoning below.

Before I start, I’d like to point you to some well done (and more in depth) reviews of the book:
—Tim Challies has a free .pdf review that is very in depth and well done.
—Ben Witherington does a nice job balancing the positive and negative.
—Amy encourages people to read The Shack in order to engage critically with the theology presented.
—Steve Bishop calls us to remember the genre of the book before passing judgement.

Literary Comments

As a piece of literature, The Shack is pretty much deplorable. The writing is awkward and the entire story line is completely contrived. It seems, at least to me, that Young had an idea of what he wanted to say about “God,” but decided to put it into story form instead of simply writing what he wanted to say. As a result, we are left with a cumbersome narrative that carries (or fails to carry) along the dialogue, which seems to be what Young really wanted to say. I was less than impressed with Young’s literary talents. And, come on, “Mack” as the main characters name? I was half shocked that no 18 wheelers showed up in the book.

Theology or Fictional Novel?

Some people have gotten up in arms because this book is being critiqued on a theological level when it is self-described as a novel. I understand and empathize with these concerns. However, no one in their right mind can read The Shack and come to the conclusion that Young was not attempting to describe “God” and his (her? theirs?) relationship to humanity, creation, providence, etc. When people make theological statements, whether in the context of non-fiction, fiction, poetry, songs, Morse code, or smoke signals, they can, and should, be critiqued on a theological level.

Heresy in The Shack

As has been pointed out by others, there is, in fact, heresy present in The Shack.

The first is Modalism. Concisely, Modalism is the belief that God has been revealed in different forms (or “modes”) throughout history: God the Father in the OT, Jesus the Son in the NT, and the Spirit in both. This is seen throughout the book as the narration points out the scars on the wrists of God, which, apparently, come from when Jesus was crucified. While some might say that this is splitting hairs, I do not believe that it is. I agree with Dr. Carl Trueman who said, in a lecture in his Ancient Church course, that all heresies start with a misunderstanding of the Trinity. I fully agree. Our understanding of the Trinity is that important.

A proper understanding of the Trinity can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” To put it simply, the Trinity is comprised of three distinct persons and one substance. Not one substance and three modes. Not three substances and three modes. Not three different gods who are friends. Three persons, one substance. The Shack, unfortunately, confuses this orthodox and biblical picture beyond comprehension.

Second: another Trinitarian mistake is in terms of The Shack’s presentation of hierarchy (or lack thereof) within the Trinity. Through the characters, Young presents the readers with a Trinity in which there is no hierarchy and even presents hierarchy as a completely negative entity invented by a fallen humanity. There is truth and lies in this presentation. The truth is that ontically there is no hierarchy within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all eternally and completely God. However, functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. In other words, in and of themselves (ontically), all three members of the Trinity are equally and eternally divine. But functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. For instance, the Son does the will of the the Father, the Spirit is sent by the Father, only the Father knows when Christ will return. That is a hierarchy…and it is not negative. Hierarchies can lead to injustice and abuse; but they can also lead to freedom and peace. There are good, God ordained hierarchies in Creation, marriage, the Church, and the Trinity. This fact is left out by Young, seemingly because of his distaste for the concept of hierarchies.

Third: there are aspects of open theism present in the book. “God” is presented as someone who does not ordain all things (contra to Scripture), but, somehow, works everything out to his (or her, or their?) purpose. This undercuts the idea of a God who we can trust not only because he is in control of all things, but also because he knows and has ordained the beginning from the end. It might lighten the emotional or psychological tension to believe in a God that is taken by surprise by evil or who isn’t in control of evil, but, at the end of the day, it actually compounds that tension because the God you now believe in is not the God of the Bible, but a God of your own creation.

Fourth: sin is magnificently under stated in the book. While all the evils of the world are pinned on sin and original sin is talked about, there is no talk of how much sin angers God, how much God’s wrath is kindled because of sin. Rather, “God” is presented as someone who is just trying to salvage “his” (or her, or theirs) creation. “God” seems hurt by sin, but not furious. He seems completely pacified by the death of Christ to the point where there is no more anger or wrath. But one reading of Revelation will tell you just how far The Shack’s idea of God is from the Biblical picture of God. God is a God of justice and will vindicate himself and his people. That doesn’t mean hugs and apple pie. It means punishment…and rightly so. If God did not punish sin, he would not be just. If God isn’t just, then what in the world are we doing with our lives? People don’t go to hell because they have been forgiven. They are there because God is glorified in justice and without punishment of sins, injustice reigns.

Conclusion

Some may think that I have been too harsh on this book. Maybe I have, but I have attempted to be fair. I would encourage any one with an interest and knowledge of Scripture and theology to read this book. I would caution those who do not have as much knowledge of Scripture and theology before reading this book. I hope that this book sparks interest in studying the Trinity and that it, ironically, leads people away from its presentation of “God” towards a Biblical and orthodox understanding of God.

One final word: some will attempt to justify the theological errors by claiming that this book has touched many people, healed many people, and, perhaps, brought people to a deeper understanding of God.

Those are the same reasons that this book should be condemned. The “God” that this book speaks of is not the God of the Bible. In a somewhat ironical twist, Young chides against some Christian’s understanding of God and their preconceived notions of a God of their own creation. His answer, strangely enough, was to present a God of his own creation.

Any comfort that comes from a false presentation of God is, in the end, false comfort. The God of the Bible is the God of comfort. There’s no need to reinvent him. We only need to present him.

**UPDATE** Here’s Mark Driscoll’s take on it: