Did anyone read The Shack?

inkspot

inkspot

Beloved Disciple
Royal Guard
Emeritus
Did anyone read a bestseller by William Paul young called The Shack? If so, what did you think of it? My brother, who listens to a lot of conservative Christian radio, says that his radio preachers say there's a lot of heresy there, but I read it and was having trouble finding the heresy. I am just curious if anyone else read it and what you thought.

The story is, this poor man's daughter vanishes in the clutches of a serial killer, and three years later, the man gets a mysterious invitation from God to return to the shack in the wilderness where the only clues to her fate were found. The note says God will meet him there ...
 
My wife is reading it at the suggestion of a minister friend. Since it's lying around, I've picked it up and read a page or two from time to time. I can't say I've read enough to form an opinion, but the thing that makes me wary is the extensive dialogues with Jesus that I've seen. Anytime anyone puts a lot of words into Jesus' mouth, I get just a little guarded. I've seen too many of those efforts turn into some author merely projecting their own modern understanding of Jesus into their work. That typically falls short, but I don't want to prejudge the work without having read it.
 
It makes two out of God's three Persons female, which is to say that, with Jesus male, there is no God the Father, so Jesus in the Gospels didn't know what He was talking about.
 
I haven't read it but from what I understand it presents that Jesus is not the only way to God the Father. I'll pass on this obvious and deadly heresy thanks. It's amazing that christian churches are embracing this poison. The red lights and sirens should be going off for anyone with the Spirit of discernment.

"The book is like a deep ditch covered with beautiful flowers — sadly, many Christians are falling into this ditch.” –Dr. Michael Youssef

http://allsufficientgrace.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/the-shack-uncovered-dr-michael-youssef/
 
Last edited:
CF, it's true the 2 ladies are part of the Trinity, but I felt the text made clear they had just presented themselves that way because that's what the patient needed -- in fact, when he has to do a hard thing at the end of the book, the God-Person changes and becomes a male/Father for him, to go with him as a Father-figure. So the female appearance of the 2 members of the Trinity didn't bother me.

As far as the extensive dialogs he has with all three of them, I didn't notice anything obviously heretical they were saying. But it could have been me. I didn't get the idea that the book claimed Jesus wasn't the only way, either. As I recall, the patient asked Jesus point-blank, "Does that mean all roads lead to you?" And Jesus said, "No, a lot of roads lead nowhere. It just means I'd go down any road to find you." He was saying that Buddhists and Hindus and things can still come to know Christ. At least, that was the way I took it. I didn't think He meant that Hinduism or Buddhism can be a way to Christ.

But I will agree with PoTW that the dialogs with all 3 Persons of the Trinity are sort of a modern-day apologists thoughts about what God might say. They are simplistic, and to me, a kind of feel-good spirituality which falls far short of what an encounter with God must really mean. I thought the writing was not very good, and the conclusions were pedestrian compared with what one might actually conclude from an encounter with God.

I will say more, maybe, but I am curious what anyone else has to say? Roger, has your wife told you any of her reactions to it?
 
Quotes from the deity in The Shack

“Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons Baptists or Muslims. . . 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.”

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”

“Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”


The Shack is a work of fiction but so is the Book of Mormon.
 
Last edited:
I saw the link of that in Vicky_Jill Pole's signature and followed it. I didn't really read the page through though but I might try it if it's recommended and if once I take a better look at it it satisfies my interests. :)
 
“Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons Baptists or Muslims. . . 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.”
Click to expand...
Then that's when the patient asks if all roads lead to Him, and Jesus says no, most roads lead nowhere, but He will go down any road to get to you. I took that to mean, anyone from any background could come to Christ and receive their transformation.

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”
Click to expand...
I understand this to be true of Jesus: He already suffered the punishment for sin on my behalf, so now His intention is to set me free from the lingering effects of my sin, to "cure" it. I don't see this as heresy.
“Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”
Click to expand...
This part, I didn't really understand what the author was trying to say. In no way does the book imply that God will "do our bidding" or anything like that. Throughout the patient is trying to get God to explain why He didn't rescue his little girl before she was murdered, so it's clear that the book doesn't imply God is "submitted" to us in any way that would make Him do what we want.

But this is one of those places where I think the 21st Century mindset superimposed itself on a simple biblical doctrine. Submission, clearly in the Bible, means our submitting to God, but once submitted to a proper authority, we find our true freedom. To the 21st Century mindset, the whole word submission reeks of bondage, so the author seems to me to be trying, too hard, to rob "submission" of its "slavery" connotation. I think he just succeeds in making a muddle of it. CSL did much better in That Hideous Strength, leading Jane to submit first to Ransom and then to God, and then God gave her the strength to submit to her husband -- she submitted to the proper authority from a position of strength, not weakness.

DawnPatrol said:
The Shack is a work of fiction but so is the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
Yah, clearly, it's not canon. I just wondered if everyone took it more seriously than I did, or found more to despise in it?

To me, its worst failing was that the patient -- I don't know why I am calling him that, like in Screwtape! -- meets God, and he's not instantly humbled, doesn't desire to stay there with God forever, still manages to cling to his own petty concerns and demand God account for this and that ... whereas I think, I would hope, in a face-to-face encounter with God, I would be so totally eclipsed, so indelibly lost in the wonder and majesty of God, that everything else causing me heartache or joy either one would be forgotten ... crushed under the weight of glory, hey?

This book makes it more like a meeting with old friends, which I guess is how a meeting with God might go. But as I say, I didn't find the writing that good, and the conclusions were very matter-of-fact. I would have hoped for something more mystical.
 
"I have no desire to make them Christian"?

Any author who puts those words in God's mouth is ashamed of the gospel. Even _with_ a belief in God making _allowances_ for ignorance, to call it NOT EVEN DESIRABLE for people to know Christ is to _contradict_ the gospel.

That is a heathen book, peer-ee-odd.
 
It's universalism and part of the doctrine of the emerging church - all mankind will be saved whether they want to be or not and regardless of what they believe because a loving God would never condemn anyone to hell for their sins. I'm sure that's great comfort to christians throughout history who have been beaten, imprisoned and killed needlessly. It's the ultimate example of tolerance, compassion and non-judgmentalism that fits perfectly with today's PC culture.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons
1 Timothy 4:1
 
Copperfox said:
"I have no desire to make them Christian"?

Any author who puts those words in God's mouth is ashamed of the gospel. Even _with_ a belief in God making _allowances_ for ignorance, to call it NOT EVEN DESIRABLE for people to know Christ is to _contradict_ the gospel.

That is a heathen book, peer-ee-odd.
Click to expand...
OK, I am one of those people who, because of my work, has begun to take a different view of this word, "Christian." In the beginning when believers were called this because of their love for Christ, it had a certain meaning: Christ-follower. Today, it has come to mean not-Muslim, not-Jewish, not-Hindu and tons of people who classify themselves as "Christian" really mean the church they don't attend is a Protestant one. So, I am not too bothered about a Jesus who says He doesn't want everyone to be a "Christian." It's clear, to me anyway and maybe I bring my own prejudice with me, in the book that Jesus actually wants to live through you, which to me is far more of a "commitment to Christ" than simply saying you are, or being, a cultural Christian.

The intimate nature of relationship with Christ implied in the book to me overwhelms this one problematic area ... especially because Jesus says, in the book, that all roads don't lead to Him. As he says this clearly, I don't think we can say this is universalism -- if it were, then he would, I think, have agreed that all roads lead to him. He does not go as far as saying, "Once a Muslim falls in love with me, he has to denounce Islam," which I think is true, and which I think if Jesus were trying to please a conservative Christian audience, he would have said.

So, again, I don't see this as heathen, when you take the statement about "Christians" in the context of what Jesus goes on to say ...

OK, if others read it let me know what you think.
 
I read it..I thought it was blasphemous..portraying God as a woman,ect..


No offense meant to anyone.:)
 
Oh, well, see, that didn't bother me too much as I saw it as God presenting Himself to the person in need as just what that person needed -- later on He did present Himself as a man also. I don't think we need to think of God as a man. We can think of Him as a lion if we want, and I don't think it bothers Him. But that's just me.
 
SongsofLife said:
God cannot be limited by us calling God male or female or lion. God is God, Spirit is spirit. Only Jesus do we know for real was male.
Click to expand...

Except God refers to Himself as "He", Jesus tells us to call Him "Father" - the Lord's Prayer doesn't open with "Our Parent, who art in Heaven .. "

I agree with DaydreamBeliever, portraying God the Father as a sort of Aunt Jemimah is blasphemous.
 
I don't think "blasphemous" would be the proper word here, since blasphemy has to have an intent associated with it. Someone has to mean it for it to be blasphemy. I think "ignorance" is a better term for that kind of portrayal.

That being said, I do think it was ignorant of the author to portray God the Father as a woman, for the precise reason you state, dawnpatrol: God the Father has revealed Himself to us as Father, and that through the Son. It may be true to say that God goes beyond father - in fact, so far beyond that our minds cannot comprehend the magnitude - but that's all the more reason to stick to the revelation as provided. We cannot improve on that revelation; in fact, we'll spend our whole lives (and beyond) just plumbing that. Any other representation is a step down from that.

This seems to be confirmation of the wariness I spoke of earlier, how I'm not comfortable when any modern puts too many words in Jesus' mouth. This would be another example: if the author thought he was somehow improving on the revelation of God as Father by portraying Him as a woman, that indicates that the author wasn't understanding the revelation. For one thing, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have no incarnation - only the Son has been incarnated. It seems to me that to portray either of them as physical beings is - well, unwise.

To me, this also confirms the wisdom and prudence of C.S. Lewis, and the influence of the Holy Spirit on his works. Aslan is his version of the incarnation in Narnia, and notice as the series goes on, Aslan appears less and less, and His words are fewer. It's like Lewis doesn't trust himself to have Aslan say too much, which I think very wise of Lewis.
 
I agree with that. For a believer in a postmodern world to actually make up words for the Three Persons of the Trinity, words designed to sort of soften up the rougher edges of the perception of God for postmodern people ... is unwise. To me it isn't so much that the book comes off as blasphemous, as that it comes off as simple, far too simple, to be a real picture of an encounter with God ...

And I'm sorry, the book doesn't say God is like Aunt Jemimah, just that He appears as a large black lady. If I made that inference, I was wrong -- I was thinking of the picture of Ms Jemimah on the syrup bottles; to me she seems very welcoming and loving, which I think was what the author was trying to portray, perhaps more like Della Reese in that "Touched by an Angel" TV program.
 
i have mixed feelings about this book. i liked the Jesus character because he was real and i was able to relate to him. my favorite part was when mack and Jesus were laying on the dock looking at the stars, and then they were laughing and crying together. that part made me feel physically closer to God and i cried and cried. it made God more real for me.

however, i think the rest of the stuff about God and the Holy Spirit was just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. neither God or the Holy Spirit said anything outright. there was a lot of paradoxical philosophical nonsense.

yes, this was a work of fiction, but too much of it was off and wrong and there are plenty of people who would rather read a feel-good book like this and take quotes from it than look to the scriptures.
 
Back
Top