Jan
27
2010
The Shack – Impressions
Over the holidays I read a good (and devastating) review of William P. (Paul) Young’s The Shack in the most recent print edition of Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010.) It was a reminder that I was one of the last people on the planet not to have read the book. So I did. So why write a blog post about it? It had sold 7.2 million copies in a little over 2 years, by June of 2009. With those kinds of numbers, the book will certainly exert some influence over the popular religious imagination. So it warrants a response. This is not a review, but just some impressions.
At the heart of the book is a noble effort — to help modern people understand why God allows suffering, using a narrative form. The argument Young makes at various parts of the book is this. First, this world’s evil and suffering is the result of our abuse of free will. Second, God has not prevented evil in order to accomplish some glorious, greater good that humans cannot now understand. Third, when we stay bitter at God for a particular tragedy we put ourselves in the seat of the ‘Judge of the world and God’, and we are unqualified for such a job. Fourth, we must get an ‘eternal perspective’ and see all God’s people in joy in his presence forever. (The father in the story is given a vision of his deceased daughter living in the joy of Christ’s presence, and it heals his grief.) This is all rather standard, orthodox, pastoral theology (though it’s a bit too heavy on the ‘free-will defense’). It is so accessible to readers because of its narrative form. I have heard many reports of semi-believers and non-believers claiming that this book gave them an answer to their biggest objections to faith in God.
However, sprinkled throughout the book, Young’s story undermines a number of traditional Christian doctrines. Many have gotten involved in debates about Young’s theological beliefs, and I have my own strong concerns. But here is my main problem with the book. Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible. In the prophets the reader will find a God who is constantly condemning and vowing judgment on his enemies, while the Persons of the Triune-God of The Shack repeatedly deny that sin is any offense to them. The reader of Psalm 119 is filled with delight at God’s statutes, decrees, and laws, yet the God of The Shack insists that he doesn’t give us any rules or even have any expectations of human beings. All he wants is relationship. The reader of the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah will learn that the holiness of God makes his immediate presence dangerous or fatal to us. Someone may counter (as Young seems to do, on p.192) that because of Jesus, God is now only a God of love, making all talk of holiness, wrath, and law obsolete. But when John, one of Jesus’ closest friends, long after the crucifixion sees the risen Christ in person on the isle of Patmos, John ‘fell at his feet as dead.’ (Rev.1:17.) The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.
There is another modern text that sought to convey the character of God through story. It also tried to ‘embody’ the Biblical doctrine of God in an imaginative way that conveyed the heart of the Biblical message. That story contained a Christ-figure named Aslan. Unlike the author of The Shack, however, C.S. Lewis was always at pains to maintain the Biblical tension between the divine love and his overwhelming holiness and splendor. In the introduction to his book The Problem of Pain, Lewis cited the example from the children’s text The Wind in the Willows where two characters, Rat and Mole, approach divinity.
“Afraid?” murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. “Afraid? of Him? O, never, never. And yet — and yet — O Mole, I am afraid.”
Lewis sought to get this across at many places through his Narnia tales. One of the most memorable is the description of Aslan.
“Safe?…Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
That’s better.
109 Comments
[...] January 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment The Shack – Impressions [...]
1John 3:1 How Great is the Love the Father has lavished on us that we should be called children of God!…
I think it’s safe to say that we all agree on the fact that “The Shack” is not the Bible! No one is trying to replace God’s word and the only place to find the Truth is the Bible!
Part of 1John 3:2 says “for we shall see him as he is” No matter what context you take this statement you can relate it to “The Shack”. Yes this book is Fiction and so many people continue to tear it down because of this, because of that, always trying to be politically correct. BUT your missing the point…Its about the Intimacy/Relationship/Love that you can imagine and feel from God. A Connection, that some people miss out on. Isn’t that what Jesus is all about, your relationship with him? What’s the Greatest commandment? It’s Love! So making that connection will inspire people to dive into the Bible and search for more of the Truth and truly find out who God is.
People relax and open your heart! This book can and will allow your heart, mind, and spirit to connect and have Intimate conversations with God! It can allow you to see and feel Gods’ Love and how He intended for it to be, will be, and Is!
Personally, since I’ve read the book I truly ask God to help me Love others as much as He Loves me!!!!!!
Also, don’t you yourself have conversations with God? Well, could it possibly be that the author is simply sharing what he has learned from God through his conversations? God plants seeds in so many ways, just believe, have a little faith, open your heart and allow God to move. If this book helps God to do that, than who are you too………..
I’ve seen several reviews of The Shack that make quite explicit the book’s biblical/theological errors. Often such critiques are quickly dismissed by people who elevate the “heart” (and not the biblical teaching about the heart)above the mind.
“Relax and open your heart”? The condescending “relax” aside, what does one do what with one’s mind in the process? Didn’t Paul say something about being renewed by the transformation of the mind? Should we take that seriously? God has revealed Himself in Scripture so we may *know* things about Him, not just so we can *feel* a certain way about Him. Or, with Mack, do we just lump Paul’s exhortation (along with his teaching) in with the rest of “rules and principles” found in the “book … an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges” and set it aside in favor of the warmth one feels inside when contemplating a God who is only love?
If all Young did was to raise the loving, relational aspect of Christianity to its proper place (alongside the aspect of learning about God from His revelation), there wouldn’t be a problem. But in the process of accomplishing the former, Young diminishes the latter. No, he doesn’t *diminish* knowledge of God; he changes the content. While trying to give the impression that he is just wanting us to understand God’s love, he also wants to change what we understand about God from Scripture to provide a foundation for the point he wants to make. Which leaves Young–through the mouth of Mack–as our authority rather than Scripture. It’s better to stick with the latter.
Sorry for the typos in the above. My amanuensis was off today.
While much of what Dr. Tim points to can be of great concern, the book can be used to be more biblical in a group setting. One of our Pastors put together a discussion of the book via a Sunday school class and was able to draw people to truths about our Savior, Sanctifier, Healer and Soon and Coming King. He pointed to doctrinal issues for us to ponder and emphasized the aspect of the book that truly sees God as loving. A child like faith is important for us all to grasp. Dr. Tim is right in looking at our God as incredibly large and complex and yet HE wants to be our friend, despite our stupidities and quirks. While I receive Dr. Tim’s comments with great attention, this book has opened up so many people in our area to go deeper and for the first time realize how forgiving and loving God is. Every book ever written by man should cause us to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. May the Holy Spirit be ever present in our lives as we face the uncertainties of this life on earth so that we may one day be throwing our crowns at HIS feet in heaven!
C.S. Lewis, Tim Kellar, William P. Young & I don’t always have it right.
God is Love!!!!!!!
We can build our lives on that… and the Spirit of the Truth that sets us truly free!!!!!!!
In Christ always,
AEG
And what is love? Is it just about God feeling good about us? (which is basically all that the Shack leads you to believe) It is so much more than that! God’s love is that while we were sinners Christ died the death we should have died; punished in our place, so that we might behold and experience the wonderful glory of God.
The Shack had a good story to be sure, but not one I would read again (and I re-read good books several times.) The problem I had with it was the hype–it seemed that some were more excited about the fictional story than about the Bible itself and that’s scary to me. If you’re going to promote a book and spread a message, then the Bible is the one to spread. Furthermore, and perhaps it’s just my silly opinion, but MY God is Alpha and Omega, I Am, Heavenly Father. Papa just doesn’t cut it for me. ;)
Papa works for me – like Abba
Tim, thanks for a fair and balanced review. I’ve always felt that The Shack was a book with a lot of strengths and a lot of flaws. You point both out quite well without descending into the panicked attacks that some have leveled without logic or foundation.
[...] Read the whole thing at the Gospel Coalition blog. [...]
I understand your concern about the Shack but I found it to be in the character of God to reach out to man since the beginning of time in order to connect with Him and it is His unconditional Love that covers a multitude of sins in our lives and brings us to judge ourselves, repent, and desire to live lives that are pleasing to Him by the power of the Spirit He deposits in us. I believe that we can’t become pharisaical with this book because I have seen the Lord use it to bring people into a relationship with Him. I see your point but if this book allows someone to seek the Risen Savior, then all the other things shall be added to them as they get into a good church and study the word and receive His Spirit once saved.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is the (only) image of the invisible God. God is not embodied by any other image and to do so undermines the Godhead and weakens the understanding of the Trinity’s relationship. As a fictional piece of literature it is great fiction on may levels but the fiction seems to cause a greater connection to the readers then the represented “truth”. Ultimately it is hard to understand what the author is trying to do with the plot, either weaken the orthodox Christian view of the Godhead or promote universalism. What it does not do is show God’s attributes in a scriptural point of view.
Your reply is the reason why so many turn away from religion! Why do so many christians think that if people don’t see things exactly the way they do, then they are 200% wrong?? This book is a conduit to God and the complexity of the bible and this “truth” you speak of only result in more people believing that “your” brand of christianity isn’t for them! I think it’s funny how people judge those who don’t see things the way they do, then claim to be devout christians! Wake up and realize that you stand to gain a greater share of an audience by finding ways to draw them in, than by constantly reminding them of the reason they run from “your brand” of religion!
Wow. Pretty much the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen. We must let people know what we’re against just as much as we let people know what we’re for.
Ridiculous? Because not in agreement with you? Sounds arrogant – which love is not. Is your view above this one? Only One is lifted high. God hates a proud heart.
Many turn to “religion” also when they “find out” that “God” is mostly concerned that they have health, wealth and really whatever they feel that they want out of this world. And when they discover this “truth” they begin to really “love” God and go to meetings and shout and sing, etc. Don’t be fooled – the natural man hates God and only loves himself. It does no good to provide teaching that only “tickles the ears” and has no real power because it is a different god being presented.
WE were created in His image.
First of all I would like to say, there is no such thing as a good church. Churches are a place to go where ‘friends’ are made after you continue to show up after being ignored and treated like you’re invisible by the ‘popular’ people. The pastor usually says hello a couple of times, but churches are not unlike high school for Christians. I’ve been to many churches, educated in Christian scools, and the hypocrisy I have experienced shook my faith in God in just about every way possible. I have come to learn that yes there is a higher being, I do believe in Jesus Christ, and if he didn’t die for our sins of the old testament then exactly what did he die for? God is love, God is compassion and comfort. This book opened my eyes to possibilities I had not thought of and allowed me to start the process of forgiving my mother and father for the abuses I suffered as a child and adult. I have no right to judge them, that’s God’s job and maybe others in my place will be able to feel the same catharthis that this book provided for me. It taught me I need to let go of the hurt and anger … the judgements I was laying on them, and let the holy Master take care of my path in life.
This book teaches that there is no true religion, just the believe that Jesus died for our sins, stop trying to be judge and jury of people who hurt you and learn to love and see the best in everyone. In my honest opinion, no one should force their beliefs on anyone else, there are so many religions, so many wars and deaths in the name of religion. Someone has to be right as far as organized religion goes. What if it is isn’t your particular religion? Too bad for you! I dont believe God intends this at all. It makes no sense, and the All Knowing All Powerful knows more than any one religion, group.
Lastly, I have read the Bible, don’t you think that after Jesus’ death we should just make the Old Testament an nice story but unapplicable? He died to save us from our sins, he took it all for us so God wouldnt HAVE to take his wrath upon us. Hell is total independence from Abba. Many have chosen this path by their pride, greed, etc.
Just my 2 cents!
Thanks for listening
Nice post Susie! Nice to have some support on this issue.
I think this is a very balanced review on The Shack. I think the question that comes to mind, and that we continue to wrestle with, is how do we balance a God of unconditional love with a God of holiness and judgement? Both are true of the Triune God throughout Scripture…and I don’t know that this is something humanity will be able to reconcile this side of heaven.
However, I do find it interesting that all of Keller’s references are to figures in the Old Testament, save the one reference of John. How do we reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, where Jesus has ushered in a new Covenant? I agree with Keller in that we cannot portray one side of God without the other…The Shack may not portray the complexity of God, but it presents a side of God that people who read may need to hear.
Thank you Tim Keller for a balanced view that acknowledges both the good and the flaw in The Shack…too many church leaders have felt threatened by the love of God that is portrayed in the book, thus leading them to condemn instead of examining what felt threatened in their own hearts that would cause them to respond so harshly.
Great comment here Erin – I agree with pretty much everything you’ve written.
It seems to me that Keller relied on the old testament examples because they were narratives, stories that portray some attribute of God as this book offers to do. The new testament portraits of God come largely in the epistles, which are not stories but doctrinal teachings. I think Keller was being artful with his response by comparing narratives to narratives rather than throwing didactic teaching into the mix.
I would also add that I find it helpful to remember that it’s the same God in both testaments and so there’s not a pressure to reconcile ‘two Gods’ but rather to see God holistically and realize the magnitude of Christ’s work in taking all of God’s wrath and judgment on Himself. It is not God’s unconditional live that covers our sin, it is Jesus’ blood. Because of sin, we have rejected God’s love and incurred his just anger. But Jesus restores us to peace with God.
Great reminder about seeing God holistically…and that is what causes the most wrestling for me! But we do have to look at the entire narrative of Scripture and see how the work of Christ fits in, and how the gospel sheds light on our view of God.
Only thing I may disagree with is “It is not God’s unconditional love that covers our sin…” I think God’s unconditional love for us is what sent Jesus to the cross. But I guess you are correct in that in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, it was His blood in His death that covered sin. I think the resurrection is what brings new life and restores our relationship with God.
I find this to be a very balanced view of a view.
[...] Tim Keller on “The Shack”… H/T: Thinking Matters 28 January 2010 No Comment http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/01/27/the-shack-impressions/ [...]
[...] Tim Keller’s impressions of The Shack From The Gospel Coalition. [...]
Thank you, thank you, thank you for re-iterating thoughts I had been having about this book.
[...] 28 tags: The Shack, Tim Keller by Tom Browsing the Gospel Coalition site today and found this review of the Shack. Here’s an extract from Tim Keller’s excellent and balanced [...]
I am a believer and I loved The Shack. I also know that people have come to know God through reading this book. I love the discussions that I’ve had with friends as we ‘continue to work our salvation’. This was written as a fictional book and we should always go back to God’s word – the bible – old and new testament, for greater understanding in every area.
Thank you for writing a balanced critique.
I appreciated this balanced review by John Piper of a book I have read, studied and pass to on to many. Piper has provided a very succinct overview of the main messages within the book. I also appreciate the comparision with the Narnia series and Lewis’ ability to capture that awe and holiness for God along with His love. I do believe the main issue that people need to take into account when reading The Shack is that it was never written for, or intended to be an all encompassing picture of Christian theology. It is lopsided in one direction, but for a specific reason, that being that the writer was depicting his journey from the other end of the theological spectrum where God was not loving or just but only to be feared. That is where I have seen the power of the book to minister to people. When someone’s view of God is warped far to the negative side from life experiences in the past, as was Young’s, then they need that extreme view of a loving merciful God to help open them up to a journey back to a place of balance and relationship. I’ve seen God use it too many times to bring healing and salvation in lives to ever consider keeping it hid on my bookshelf. I’ll continue to encourage people to read it.
I like Tim Keller, I really do. But sometimes I think he can ‘tradition-wash’ timeworn relics that really ought to be discarded (kind’ve like how very environmentally UN-friendly companies ‘greenwash’ a product or service that’s actually detrimental to the earth). Take God being ‘multidimensional’ for instance. Well of *course* God is multidimensional; who would want a cardboard God? But ‘multidimensional’ in this instance, I’m afraid, is a euphemism for ‘bipolar.’ I don’t think God is bipolar – George MacDonald taught me reject such fictions for what they are. The Trinity as depicted in ‘The Shack’ is plenty multidimensional, thank you very much.
“But ‘multidimensional’ in this instance, I’m afraid, is a euphemism for ‘bipolar.’”
I’m not clear on what you mean. A God who is both loving and wrathful, both merciful and just is bipolar? Am I understanding that correctly?
Mike Morrell is refering to George McDonald’s belief that God regards all humans as his children, and would never eternally condemn anyone. That’s where the Shack thinking leads…to deny the doctrine of jesus Christ, which some regard as timeworn relics.
FYI; The “trinity” in the Shack is a heresy, also the book is anti-church. I think it has 99% heresy and 1% Bible. Not a good book really.
I really appreciated this review. I have read some reviews and this one is definitely the best. The thing that needs to be remembered, however, is Paul Young is not writing a theology book. He wrote this book at the suggestion of his wife who said he should write down his thoughts about God to his children. While it may not portray all the character and nature of God, it would be my hope that it would break through with people so that they would see the unconditional love of God and want to know more about Him.
[...] Check out the whole thing. [...]
[...] Read the whole article here. [...]
[...] The Shack – Impressions – A Review by Dr. Tim Keller [...]
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
What in the world are you people talking about! Whenever you write anything that portrays God, you are writing a theology book (theology literally means a word about God), fiction or not. Young did not do what Lewis did, which was use a character to represent Christ (Lewis never calls Aslan Christ), Young calls out all three of the “god” characters in The Shack as members of the Trinity (a doctrine he totally obliterates in the book, and unashamedly so). If you have friends coming to God as a result of this book, my question is, “What god?,” Because Young does not properly represent the God of the Bible.
Does the God of the Bible respond to this question Mack asks in the book, in the way the Jesus of The Shack does – do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” Put down your fictotheology book and pick up your Bibles and read John 14:6!
Yes!! My thoughts exactly…when you write a book with God as a main character, you’d better be careful, because you are writing Theology
Unbelievable!! Have you given any thought to what it takes to get people to start thinking and to begin to search themselves and possibly decide to seek God? Your “closed-minded” analysis is just another reason why people seek God through other channels, and not through the bible! And before you give us your opinion that, “the only way to God is through…..,” save it, cause that’s YOUR opinion, and “judge not lest you be judged” my friend!
Joe, what Scriptures are you referring to? How does someone decide to seek God? What causes man’s search for God? As for being close-minded, you are being the same way. Who are you to declare what is truth and what is not? Where did you find the “truth” that determines who is closed-minded? People don’t find God through the Bible as much as God reveals himself through it. As for the typical response, “judge not lest you be judged”, have you ever wondered why Jesus constantly confronted the religious leaders? It’s because they were teaching an incorrect theology and doctrine. They viewed themselves as righteous and holy, yet they were holding the people in bondage to good works. If there is not only ONE way for salvation, then why did Jesus have to die?
I find it interesting that people tend to get pretty riled up when their point of view is challenged on theology, both liberals and conservatives. It makes me wonder if we truly find our salvation in Jesus’ death and resurrection, or if we cling so tightly to doctrine that we allow no room for the saving work of Christ and the development of our own faith. We would benefit from having conversation and learning from both sides, instead of attacking, because I believe that there are things both sides need to learn from each other.
Something else I would also keep in mind…theology is the “study of God.” Theology is a way of thinking about God…but theology is not God. We would be pretty arrogant to think that our way is the right way, since we will never be able to completely understand the mind of the Creator until possibly heaven…and even then I’m not sure I’ll understand!
I would be curious to know Jason how you think the book obliterates the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps Young was again trying to portray an aspect of the Trinity, instead of laying out a complete doctrine…which I highly doubt Young was trying to do, given this is a fiction book, and was a story he just used to tell his kids at night. I do think we get lost in the Trinity…I know that I definitely cannot explain the whole 3 in 1, equal, the same, yet seperate thing! But I do think that Young portrays the relational aspect of the Trinity well. But would love to know where you disagree and why.
And, as to one of the other above comments, I think when you are writing a fictional book with a character that is portraying God, it would be a pretty safe thing to NOT call it theology.
Erin,
I don’t know if Jason will respond, but I will give it a shot because he and I would probably line up similarly.
The reason to get fired up about doctrine is because right doctrine comes from the Bible and if those doctrines are challenged by arguments that are not biblical then we are charged to contend for the faith (see Jude 4). Also, knowing that the different doctrines (such as the Trinity, Justification, nature of man, etc.) are defined in the Bible by a number of similar texts helps in explaining the need for doctrine. Doctrine defines specifically what the Bible says about a particular subject found in Scripture. God has put it there for us in the Bible and we should want to know that as people who owe everything to him yet have nothing to give. I’m not saying the ways we or even I defend and explain doctrines are always the right ways to do it because there should be an obvious care for the offender’s joy in the Lord and if there is only a desire to win an argument then that argument should never be started. Out of a heart of compassion and joy they should be defended. Does this mean I find my salvation in doctrine? Of course not, there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved than the name of Jesus. But the doctrine comes from the source that makes it possible to know God and understand who he is and what he has done through his Son that is so magnificent. So we should not hold fast to doctrine, but we should hold fast to the word, the Bible, which is where the doctrine comes from.
The way Young deals with the Trinity is not the way Bible explains it, which I’m sure Young would say that he was not trying to present the Trinity biblically because judging from the words he puts in different character’s mouths he did not strive to write a biblical book (I believe he has a right to do this, but I don’t believe he is right in doing it because of the deception involved, intended or not). For example, Papa makes it a point to say there is no hierarchy in the Trinity. The Bible however, clearly states that the Holy Spirit subjects himself to the Son and the Son to the Father (see 1 Cor. 11:3 for the Son under the authority of the Father; John 3:16-17, John 10:36, John 6:38 for the Son’s submission to the Father in eternity past; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 for the Son’s submission to the Father in eternity future; Psalm 2:7-9, Ephesians 1:9-10, Revelation 5:1-5, Revelation 5:8-9 for the Father’s purpose to sum up all things and subject all things to the Son; John 14:25-26, John 15:26, Acts 2:33, John 16:12-15, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 John 4:1-3 for the Son’s authority and primacy over the Spirit; 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Luke 24:24-27, Luke 24:44, 1 Corinthians 1:18,
1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Galatians 6:14 for how the Spirit always points to the Son in everything). Does this mean we know absolutely everything there is to know about the Trinity based on these verses and others? No, but the Bible does give us everything we need to know about the Trinity because we can trust that God will not misguide us in his Word.
To sum up, Young’s portrayal of the relational aspect of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Yes, Young’s book is fictional, but it walks on to thin ice when dealing with such a subject as the nature of God while portraying itself as a Christian book that ignores what God teaches about himself in the Bible. For an example of fiction that stays true to the Bible see John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (which, by the way, The Shack holds no candle to, despite what Eugene Peterson says).
What are “we” people talking about? You mean the ones not as smart as you? I can’t help but notice the tone of pride. Could it be, possibly, that there is a side of God you can’t see right now? Or do you just have it all figured out because of your supreme wisdom? If you could figure out God completely, you would be God.
Veronica, I don’t think anyone is arguing that we can see God in all His fullness. After all, Paul said, “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” But that is not to say that we are unable to see anything.
God has made certain things abundantly clear in His Word. Things that are simple and easy to understand; it is not a matter of intelligence.
We should not seek to make unclear what God has plainly stated. It is not pride to accept God as He has revealed Himself in His Word. It is pride to reject the revelation of Scripture because we find a false idea about God more palatable.
Very much appreciate your analysis on this. I do think some people have made too much of The Shack, because it is a work of fiction and never claims to be otherwise. I blogged about this eighteen or so months ago, and at that time I was just marveling at the dialogue that the book instigated. Everywhere I turned people were talking about the book. I still think that’s good. Of course, it would be preferable had Young taken the precautions that Lewis did to be more accurate in his theology, but I also just appreciate the story told and Young’s own story. If the masses will grapple with these ideas at any level, then that should serve as a reminder to Christ followers to be ready to defend the true faith, as 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to be!
http://kristiejackson.blogspot.com/2008/08/especially-fond-of-shack.html
“‘Afraid?’ murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. “Afraid? of Him? O, never, never. And yet — and yet — O Mole, I am afraid.”
Lewis sought to get this across at many places through his Narnia tales. One of the most memorable is the description of Aslan.
“Safe?…Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.’”
Yes!
Exactly! You (and Tim Keller) quoted two WELL WRITTEN lines. I could not bear to read The Shack because it was so poorly written. The trees blocked my viewing of the forrest.
[...] 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment We’re back to the Shack and this time it’s Tim Keller with some good [...]
Please don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. While I TOTALLY agree that there are aspects of God that aren’t brought across in the book, there is ONLY ONE book that REALLY shows all GOD is and it’s the book written by HIM! Only the Bible can really show us ALL of who God is. EVERY human book that tries to show who God is is flawed… even C.S. Lewis. I do think that “The Shack” makes you think… it made me think.. God is neither man or woman…He isn’t “out to get me” and he does allow things to happen that are evil to draw us to Him. Now don’t get me wrong I also know that God is Holy, Just, and should be feared. For THIS BOOK that wasn’t the aspect of God he wanted to convey. If you want that aspect of Him read “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” and realize how unworthy we are and how HOLY HE is!
It just bothers me when people try to degrade what someone does when their goal is to bring God glory! There is NO OTHER BOOK that measures up to the Bible!
The Bible was written by man interpreted by man, and while it is indeed the best book ever written, can and probably has been misinterpreted in some ways. Unless God himself has spoken to you I don’t think it’s acceptable to quote scripture to other people to show your superiority over them. No one knows what God thinks nor should they be so proud to believe they do.
Thanks Dr. Keller for your thoughts. We have had some good discussions of late with our Youth and Young adult ministries with some of the “doctrines” of Young’s book:
http://erol.posterous.com/is-jesus-the-best-way-or-the-only-way-to-god
[...] Tim Keller [...]
[...] Tim Keller – Classic Keller. Finds good things but is clear on the cautions [...]
I appreciate the review and I will use it as a model for critique in the future. As to those whom say that this book is not intended as a theological book, my understanding of theology is how you live your life. How you live your life is your theology. Therefore we cannot simply write off such pieces of literature as not intended as theological scripts. I could argue the same for Nietzsche and Kant. Although not intended as a theological script the unintentional consequence is that it attacks and sounds like a theological rebuttal to those whom preach and teach the Sovereignty of God. The Bible tells us we will be judged by every word, not every “intentional” word.
[...] Posted by hanguk859 on January 28, 2010 The Shack – Impressions [...]
[...] To read all of his impressions about The Shack, click here. [...]
I somewhat agree with Tim’s review. The problem I see with most reviews like Keller, Piper and others it that they fail to understand the context of the book. This book is not just a “narrative” meant to explain away ideas that are complex. Young writes this book using a poetic-narrative- this is something most people completely miss / don’t understand. This book is a creative and imaginative poem. This book is not an exposition on systematic theology, nor does this book ever claim to be.
Reading this book with the presupposition that one will delve deep into a theological study will completely ruin the point of the poetically written book. It would be like taking the Psalms, or Hosea literally without considering the context and authors intended purpose / writing style.
Read the book it is fantastic. I am going to read it again.
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
Keller’s arguments are good and valid.
However, it would be impossible to ever write another book that truly represents every single aspect of God in it. How many of the thousands of ‘outraged’ Christians have tried using a creative art to portray God, or an aspect about Him they find beautiful, or a point they want to share that will help people understand something about Him?? Young says himself that the book isn’t pure, complete truth, just an account of fiction. I was impacted greatly by the thought of the God of heaven- do you think that the God who I will know in heaven will still be expressing His wrath? Will He need to? Does He really express the wrath of the Flood and Old Testament etc. upon those He has saved today? Great Theologians often forget the simplicity of the Kingdom of heaven, and the simplicity of God- the one children ran to and had fun with- you ‘Theologians’ never seem to get that point across- something that Young did.
Apologies for long post!! Trying to learn how to make my thoughts more concise! :) We prophecy in part- and share in part the glory of God- that’s why getting together with other Jesus lovers is so important- each brings another aspect or beauty of God that builds each other up!
When people tell lies about my friends, it tends to bother me. Should we be any less bothered when people mis-represent God? Is it loving to pass over such big errors? Yet love should greatly affect how we pursue that discussion.
Good analogy cavman.
I know of a storyteller who failed to reveal all aspects of the Father’s character in his stories as well. He also neglected to adhere to much of the accepted doctrine of his times. However, some of his stories, like the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan went on to become big hits and influenced people to begin their conscious journey with God.
If we spent less time trying to ‘correct’ the inspired works of our brothers and sisters and more time seeing our lives in Christ as living poems and genuine adventures we too may create something that others might be inspired by.
Be careful Mark. Comparing Jesus to Young or Young to Jesus is dangerous ground. One thing Jesus never did was go contrary to Scripture, which is what the accepted doctrine of his times did. Going contrary to Scripture is what Young does, and that is something that needs correcting for his sake and ours (2 Timothy 2:24-26 and 3:16-17). Rest assured though, Jesus’ parables may not have revealed all aspects of the Father’s character when taken individually or as a whole, but the life he lived and the words he spoke shows us what the Father is all about.
What Noah said.
It is being said that many have come to know God from the Shack. But have they really come to know the true God or merely an idol of their own wishful thinking?
A God who is merely of Unconditional love, and not of Justice, wrath & judgement against sin and all the evil it produces is no God at all.
Also, those who think one must tone down the true gospel talk of sin and wrath in order to get someone’s attention to make them turn to God are far away from biblical truth. It is the Holy Spirit who searches hearts and points people to Christ. One need not “tone down” the gospel, one only need preach the whole true gospel, and the Holy Spirit will take it from there. Anyone who does not realize the true sinful nature of man and how unworthy they are to be anywhere near God’s presence can never come to know God. It is a prerequisite.
Also needed to be understood is Young’s background and history with theology. He is trying to convey one aspect of our God that was not taught to Him, this is the loving and forgiving aspect. It is not a flaw of this book but a conscious choice to present God in this way. As far as the use of Papa. That conveys a closeness with our God. In the Bible there are many translations associated with the word Father and at several times Jesus referred to Him in the equivilant of dada
That’s fine as long as the aspect of God’s character is being coveyed faithfully and consistently (see Noah’s comment above). The issue here appears to be that in Young’s desire to convey this aspect of God he has unfortunately misrepresented other aspects of the God of the Bible and/or included commentary which is contradictory to our understanding of the Bible.
One more thing, those representing Jesus as all lovey-dovey are misrepresenting Him as well. What about Matthew 23 , His words to the sadduccees? How about in the temple, His anger flowing freely, throwing over the moneychangers tables?
What about when He talked about “what father would give their child a snake or scorpion when he asked for a fish, yet YOU, WHO ARE EVIL, would not even do such a thing” He called everyone evil right there. Do these things just go right over the heads of the people who seem to think Jesus never showed any anger at sin?
There are too many more examples to list. It’s quite obvious that people merely suppress what they don’t like about the revealed God of the bible, and make a false god from their own imagination.
I’d suggest James, that if it upsets you so much that no one talks about the wrath of God and His anger at sin, that you write a novel, or stand on street corners or better yet join God TV and ‘send the Good News of the Gospel’ out. God’s anger and wrath are aspects of Him, but they are not totally Him. The Bible says GOD IS LOVE, GOD IS LIGHT, and has a host of names for Him, God is burning wrath doesn’t feature- it’s a reaction, and something I love Him for, but it isn’t Him.
JP, It’s important to note that most of those whom Jesus rebuked were those who considered themselves closest with the organized religion of the time, precisely those who thought they had the most insight to the truth of God the Father…
[...] Keller has a typically good number of impressions about the book. He mentions some positives about the book (including the use of narrative to [...]
[...] to sometimes read my blog. So it’s for them and any one else that I’m going to post a much better review (though he calls it “just some impressions”). It’s by my favorite preacher, Tim [...]
Over the last year or so, I’ve begun to be given a passion for writing — sharing God given things I’ve seen and heard, both through non-fiction and fictional accounts. This is not as easy as it sounds … yet often becomes a prayerful communion with Christ even during the writing process — consisting of much repentance on my part for desiring to become famous or praised because of taking the credit for some sentence God gave me. The point is, it’s very very difficult at times. Even now, part of me wants to be praised for this comment.
With that said, there are times that I create fictional characters (ie like Mack) who I very much identify with in my past or current God given understanding (heart and mind) of Christ. Yet, there also might be aspects of a character that I completely disagree with — even am repulsed by, or better said, am grateful to God for given me new eyes, new ears, and a new heart so drastically changed from the character I am creating.
Ideally, I always want to strive with doing whatever I can not to intentionally leave someone drowned with “heretical” theology. This takes much intention — and I’m certain there is much room for improvement. Yet at the same time, it is just not within my capacity to include a detailed systematic theology in every short story I write. I can’t answer every question. I want to, but I can’t — so I write another story … and another … and another.
At the same time — I can’t imagine ever writing a detailed account of God as a fictional character in a story without it being completely saturated in Scripture. Still, whatever I wrote, each day that went by there would be more and more to add — an infinite process. I learn more, and so I share more. My current understanding of God is always lacking — yet as immature as I can be, he still loves me and gives me more understanding.
When I read The Shack, God seemed to use it to help me see Christ as closer than before — more personable — as previous years before I was consumed with “god” as a distant deity, something that I’m still being brought out of from Eckhart Tolle type teachings. Now, I must mention I had also been saturated in scripture before, during, and after reading the book. I knew going into it, during it, and after it that anything said about God (just like any other book written by man) must be confirmed by the Scripture. I faintly even remember asking God to show me who he was, and to show me who he was not — as I read.
Finally — though I seemed to benefit from parts of it and loved the dialogue it began with many man people, I do feel that the God represented was exactly how Keller put it — a half God. Unfortunately, I think we’ve swung so far on the pendulum away from fire and brimstone all the way to the other side of peaches and cream. Piper said it best on a Tweet today:
“Submission to Christ without submission to the Scriptures is submission to a self-made Christ, not submission to Christ.”
Without Christ, I am an enemy of God that is entitled to nothing, and deserves infinite destruction for my infinite rebellion.
I used to believe that if I lived during Jesus’ time, I would have definitively been one of his followers, even fighting against the Pharisees — then God showed me that I would have actually joyfully beaten Jesus’ body to the ground and nailed him to the cross with my own hands as I spat in his face. I believe I would have enjoyed watching him suffer.
In a way, I crucified Christ — and I need more than a relationship, I need a Savior. I need new eyes to see him for who he is, even if I’m reading a fictional book with carpentry and walking on water jokes.
I appreciate the dialogue.
PS: If the Gospel isn’t considered repulsive at times, I’d question whether the Gospel was being preached at all.
I happen to be a fan of the book. I’ve read it several times and have encouraged friends and family members to read it. THE SHACK ISN’T THE BIBLE, SO RELAX!
The Shack has helped me with several issue’s in my life:
-It’s helped me forgive my father who was abusive while growing up.
-It made me realize how badly I was judging others when I had no right to judge.
-It helped me realize the importance of having a genuine relationship with God and loving him like I love my own family.
-Before I read The Shack, I had a big question. If God is such a loving God, then why is there so much suffering in the world? Why doesn’t he stop all these bad things from happening? The concept of “free will” makes sense to me. I’ve made some very bad decisions in my life that have caused people around me a great deal of suffering. God gave me the gift of “free will” and I made some really bad decisions.
Yes, the book has sold 7.2 million copies in 2 years! So what! If others can benefit from the book as I’ve done, what’s wrong with that?
There’s also a good follow-up called, “Finding God in the Shack” which was written by professor of theology, Roger E. Olsen. It’s an easy read.
Very well said Scott. Thank you.
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
[...] Read the rest [...]
The people who fill our pews seem to have lost the ability to discern theological issues, indeed. But they, along with their pastors, seem to have also lost the ability to discern literary genres.
“The Shack” is a work of fiction. I place it in the same category of literature as CS Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” “The Great Divorce,” and “The Screwtape Letters.” Yet, the same evangelicals who pick apart “The Shack” seem to love the fictional works of Lewis. Go figure.
Maybe its time we taught our people how to discern theology AND literary genres as well. Then they wouldn’t have so much trouble refuting the argument that the book of Genesis is metaphorical rather than historical.
Tim Keller wrote:
“The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.”
That is a serious indictment. That alone should be enough to alarm anyone who is concerned with the glory of God. Anytime we misrepresent God, it is idolatry. Anytime we present a false god, we present a false gospel. A false god and a false gospel cannot save.
The Shack misrepresents the essentials of the Faith. That is no small matter.
[...] Hier seine Eindrücke: thegospelcoalition.org. [...]
Ye be scrawling: “Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible.”
yet it be a better and more complex God than many be sailing with. many Christians I meet in the States have a Fourth Grade understanding of God… which is okay, if you’re in the fourth grade! Surely this book can’t do the job that the Bible does with it’s multiple views of God; like found in Job, the prophets, and esp. the Gospels and Paul. Yet this is better than the prosperity God who smacks you when you’re bad and rewards you when you’re good. better than the All Love God that has no doctrine of sin. better than the All Judgment God which has no doctrine of grace and salvation.
this book be no threat as whoever is no against us is for us me hartie.
you need to understand the difference between the old and the new convenant. Paul says and I paraphrase “we live under a new and better convenant” and you only have to read 1 samuel 6 – 50000+ killed just for staring at the ark of the Lord! Now i Dare say the Lord is greater than the ark, how is it then not only did men behold him but they put him to death too? God didnt change but the timeline for judgement was changed – Jesus “I judge no man..”. Bottom line everything in the old testament has to be filtered through the life/death of Our Lord Jesus. For you Religion minded dudes – New Testament Pure religion acceptable before GOD is defined by James – GO READ IT! with love Bros & Sis!
Maybe we should also get together and have bible studies that discuss pornographic magazines and see what we can glean about God from them? Excuse my sarcasm but come on….fill your minds with truth, not half-truths and misleading truths that appeal to our self-worshiping / God-made-in-our-image hearts. Satan quoted scripture when tempting Jesus. Something that looks and smells like truth may not be. Don’t be deceived.
that’s totally innapropriate, you should take your Bible thumping totally wrong thoughts about what God means and keep them to yourself. People like you are why I’ll never step foot in another church. Have you not read the New Testament? Shame on you.
[...] The Shack – Impressions – The Gospel Coalition Blog [...]
[...] Tim Keller on The Shack [...]
[...] The Shack – Impressions – The Gospel Coalition Blog. [...]
How can anyone completely describe God in a book? I think this book does a great job of representing certain qualities of God, which is all any book can do. The writing is not exactly my style, but I appreciate that it’s accessible to a very wide audience.
Of of my favorite descriptions of God:
“Think now, my comrades and beloved, of a heart that contains all your hearts, a love that encompasses all your loves, a spirit that envelops all your spirits, a voice enfolding all your voices, and a silence deeper than all your silences, and timeless.
“Seek now to perceive in your selffulness a beauty more enchanting than all things beautiful, a song more vast than the songs of the sea and the forest, a majesty seated upon a throne for which Orion is but a footstool, holding a sceptre in which the Pleiades are naught save the glimmer of dewdrops.
“You have sought always only food and shelter, a garment and a staff; seek now One who is neither an aim for your arrows nor a stony cave to shield you from the elements.
“And if my words are a rock and a riddle, then seek, none the less, that your hearts may be broken, and that your questionings may bring you unto the love and the wisdom of the Most High, whom men call God.”
-Khalil Gibran, The Garden of the Prophet
Let’s focus on love, friends. :)
[...] Keller gives a review of the ever-popular book, The Shack: Sprinkled throughout the book, Young’s story undermines a number of traditional [...]
[...] Read the whole thing. [...]
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions [...]
After watching Piper share in detail how much of a “incalculable” impact C.S. Lewis has made on his life (http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2230_john_piper_lessons_from_c_s_lewis/) — my mind went back to this article and how Mr. Keller at the end plugs Lewis as pulling it off better than Young.
There seems to be a possible parallel to me with this review and the review that C.S. Lewis received in the 1950′s where he was criticized — and Lewis’ response to the criticism was along the lines of wishing the critic would have provided some solutions to the things he pointed out wrong.
With that said, as helpful as your impressions were to me Tim, what advice could you give other Christian writers attempting to approach such difficult topics? If you were to write a fictional book — how would you do it? What would you NOT do?
I’m really hoping your answer extends further than to strive to be just like Lewis (though not a terribly bad idea). If that’s your advice, I’m sorry but that’s not very helpful for a person like myself who does desire to write for the glory of God. :)
Thanks brother.
Most reviewers don’t know Paul Young’s back story to why he wrote The Shack. He wrote for his kids as a way to tell them his story of the pain of depression and anxiety he was feeling after being removed from his church for having an affair. His intention was never to create a theology of the trinity or of God nor does he ever claim that the book has correct theology. Therefore making the claim that The Shack teaches bad theology is ridiculous because it’s not meant to be a theology and it’s not meant as a set of canonized propositional truth claims by Paul Young about God. The minute we take literature and make it something it isn’t, we are then doing the book a disservice and creating things about it that are not present.
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
Many of these comments are disturbing. So what if “The Shack” isn’t meant to be a theology book? It uses theological concepts and terminology in it – and WRONGLY. Do you not realize that this is using His name is vain? And if the author isn’t trying to completely display the “real” God, why are the names of God used? To not portray God rightly is to bear a false witness about Him to everyone who reads the book. Especially in our Biblically illiterate American culture we don’t need ANY help confusing people about what the Bible teaches.
Is it a decent book because people “came to Jesus?” Folks, people have been drawn to the Father in part because of faulty atheist arguments and sudden moments of intrigue by members of the occult. Are we to push forth every piece of trash “just because” God in His sovereignty can use it for His glory? By all means, no. We don’t need to use stupid, man-made tools in order to try to “save people.” GOD saves. He uses His GOSPEL to save His children, regardless of their immediate circumstances.
Please, PLEASE try to understand that God is Holy and that there is nothing proper about using His own words for our own vanity. If you don’t particularly care about God’s holiness, you need to repent and believe in Christ, who is the ONLY Savior FROM GOD’S HOLINESS.
Oh Dear Lord save this man.
[...] A (De)Motivational Poster I thought this might be apropos, given the controversy over The [...]
Even though I found “The Shack” very good reading, it did take me awhile to finish it. Unfortunately, it has been awhile since I have really enjoyed reading a Christian book or novel. I truely enjoyed the “Joshua” series and Jan Karon’s “At Home in Mitford” series. I recommend both of these series of books!
“The Shack” definately made me think and rethink about my own ideas and beliefs, theologically, hermanuetically and homoletically (as Jessie Duplantis says it so eloquently). However, my ultimate belief does come from the Word of God. But it is nice once in awhile to pick up a fictional book and enjoy reading for the sake of reading. The Bible for me is to be studied and hidden in my heart and later to be shared to those I come across on a daily basis. The Gospel is the “Good News”. Blessings to all of you during your “quiet time” with HIM. Check out the “Lectio Devina” on the web. Great way to read the bible and meditate on it!!!
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]
Go see The Human Experience- http://www.seethx.com you will be so blessed by this film!!!!!
[...] to or for me. I also questioned some of the theology in the book (for some reasons why, go read Tim Keller’s review of the book. I’m sure he knows much more about it than I do). Also somewhat distateful to me [...]
[...] Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions“ [...]