Ray Ciervo Ministries

My review on The Shack, by Wm. Paul Young, some months ago, posted here on this site, was subsequently reposted on two other sites. Both garnered some comments and discussion. Most of the discussion was positive, although some whimpered at my mistreating this blockbuster novel. Today, I still have strong feelings and would make some adjustments to my recommendations.

Reading back through my assessment of Shack, I believe I should have been more direct and not so forgiving. I even made the comment to “read with caution.” Knowing what I know now about the author, I would write, “Do not read,” and if you have a copy - “Go straight to trash and dispose.” If you think this is harsh, you may want to read on.

Since my review of the book, (I read it twice and listened to it in an audio format,) I’ve been amused to read some of the other comments and reviews. After a while I began to think maybe I ought to make some adjustments. 

Just recently, I came across a couple of insightful, if not, telling reviews. One was written by a friend of William P. Young, author of The Shack. James De Young wrote an extensive review of which I will just mention a few quotes. His review is telling and confirming. Although I gave Paul Young a pass, that he was not a “universalist,” De Young asserts that he most assuredly is. [That’s what I get for being a nice guy. I should have gone with my gut.]

Someone who is a “universalist” believes in universal reconciliation. That is, there is no final judgment, no hell, which obviously affects the destiny of humanity. Everyone is reconciled to God in the end according to this view.

De Young describes Young’s portrayal here, “ 

“Paul has written a creative, provocative novel.  Unfortunately, it is creative 

theologically in the sense of reinforcing universal reconciliation that distorts the 

evangelical understanding of God, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the meaning of the death 

of Christ, the necessity of belief in Christ, the final judgment, and the destiny of all 

humanity.  In the sixth century the church called universal reconciliation heresy, and it 

has treated this belief as such ever since.”

And, 

“While he frequently disavows general universalism, the idea that 

many roads lead to God, he carefully affirms that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, 

and that all will be reconciled to God either this side of death or afterward. 

Yet a careful reading uncovers universal reconciliation remains as a strategic focus of the book.  And this is not unexpected when the author (in his “Acknowledgments”) attests to having  been influenced by many writers that include several universalists.  He cites one at the beginning of chap. 14.  His own earlier claims were that Christian universalism changed his life and his theology. “  ( I quote this as is from De Young’s review, “At The Back Of The Shack A Torrent Of Universalism: A Review” (Revised ed., May, 2008. http://theshackreview.com/content/ReviewofTheShack.pdf)

Most of De Young’s comments are similar to what I wrote in my review. Creative writing is to be welcomed and encouraged. Creative theology is another story. The popularity of  The Shack, is indicative of the church’s overall theological demise. The church has become theologically ignorant - stupid, in plain speech. Abandoning theology is not the answer for an anemic church. It is misunderstanding theology and its purpose that has led to this powerless, self-centered, purposeless church. Not knowing what it is we believe and why we believe it is the sound of death to any movement.

Today, evangelical theology has been abandoned for a “mystery” theology that is feeling and experientially based. If we are not emotionally moved, it can’t be God. If our ears are not pleased - it’s boring. The idea of “studying” is repelled because that is “modern.” We are more esoteric in our approach to Bible study than we care to admit. Most people do not know what the Bible is for, misread it, and misinterpret its meaning. Some of the worst statements I’ve heard are things like, “I don’t want a God I can explain.” Huh? I think the person who says that means they don’t want a God they can fully explain, but that’s not what is said. No evangelical theologian has even attempted to say that they fully understand all that there is to understand about God. However in response, any attempt to explain anything about God is rejected. To say I don’t know everything about God is not saying I don’t know anything about God. 

 Somehow the idea of studying the thought and ideas of past theologian/churchmen is “putting God in a box.” We don’t want a God restrained in a box; we want a God cloaked in mystery - why? So, we can worship what we don’t know? We do not read to understand today. We read to be “surprised” by a zinger of a statement that moves us emotionally. We don’t read to reason through someone’s arguments.

Admittedly, I’m conflicted over the attention Shack receives. Conflicted because I think it is rife with heresy and garners great approval. No doubt it is a moving story - but it is also the biggest pile of popular theological rubbish written. I’m also conflicted that so many cannot perceive the biblical and theological corruption. It is worse when people say they don’t mind the corruption - it’s a good story. That’s like excusing Hitler’s atrocities because he was a good speaker and leader. Where are the moral and ethical components necessary to make decisions?

Another example of a good reviewcomes from Paul Grimmond in We Need More Shack Time. This reviewer made a tremendous insight. 

“Just like Adam and Eve in the garden, we have thrown God away. As we have done so, it has become necessary to make our own decisions about right and wrong. What is the only basis that we have for making such decisions? It is the presence or absence of pain. So the existence of pain has become the problem that God must solve in order to be credible in the eyes of judgmental humanity. A key to The Shack's Christian appeal is that many of us now think this way too.” (http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5395/)

C.S. Lewis compiled a group of essays in God in the Dock. Way before his time in assessing culture, Lewis pointed out that before the 20th century the idea of questioning God would have been unheard of. I don’t mean asking God questions, but the idea of God being “in the dock,” basically means putting God on trial. That is what is happening in our culture and in the church. We have begun to prosecute God and the Scripture.  

I agree with Grimmond, The Shack is Young’s attempt to make God account for pain and evil in the world. Why do the righteous suffer? Why do bad things happen to good people? Or, as in Shack,  how can these atrocities happen to innocent children? The setting for this story is brilliant in that it grabs you by the emotions right from the start. This gives one reason to not be observant of other considerations like “Is it biblical,” or “Is it theologically or doctrinally sound?” Those questions are eclipsed by the grief stricken Mac as he reluctantly responds to Papa’s note. One might say those questions aren’t even on the radar.

I just have one question: “What about Job?” Does this biblical account of pain, evil and suffering not matter? Did Job suffer the loss of everything dear to him - his riches ransacked, his family massacred in an unbelievable accident? After Job’s interactions with his “friends” and then a brief rebuttal by a younger man, God spoke to Job . . . 

Then the LORD said to Job, 

“Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?

Let him who reproves God answer it.” 

Then Job answered the LORD and said, 

“Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?

I lay my hand on my mouth.”  (Job 40:1-4)

The next passage is really telling . . .

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said, 

“Now gird up your loins like a man;

I will ask you, and you instruct Me. 

“Will you really annul My judgment?

Will you condemn Me that you may be justified? (Job 40:6-8)

“Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?” that is the question to ask Mac. Do we really believe we must make God account for His actions? In a world of “down-sizing” have we down-sized God to a manageable deity? Our rejection of the ancient paths have led us up a dead end creek to a human size God, one without wonder and mystery.

I reject the unbiblical view of God crafted in a heretical imagination.This is “every lofty thing raised against the knowledge of God.” This is no real surprise as the mood in the church is welcoming to something like this book. Biblical illiteracy has led to this embrace of non-biblical stories in place of an authentic biblical worldview.

People are so starved for a relationship with God they will feed on anything. The problem is they have rejected God’s means of feeding His people. So, they think The Shack, is great! [I shudder to write it.] We can approach God as if he were a warm-hearted woman. 

When we fail to recognize the centrality of God’s sacrifice in Jesus - the price he paid, we lose redemption and the very nature of the redeeming God. God is not so brokenhearted over man’s sin that He will excuse anyone’s behavior. To say “God is love” and forget “God is holy” is a huge mistake. Al Mohler says in effect that we live in a world today where holiness is not popular. Where we once sang, “Holy, Holy, Holy” we now sing “Jesus is my buddy; he’s a good ol’ boy.”

The idea that God has somehow changed to accommodate our modern or postmodern mood is ridiculous. Job gives the answer to our suffering and grief when God puts things in the correct biblical theological perspective. The rest of Scripture answers the question on the character and attributes of God. We don’t need novels to make us feel good about ourselves or to help us get a grip on God. We need to receive the transmitted revelation from God’s “word.” 

Finally, what Shack demonstrates is the church’s inability to know the truth. Jesus said it simply, “. . . If you continue in my word, then you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. That ought to be enough for us. However, because we don’t “continue” in his word (s) we go sniffing for something “new” and “fresh.” The result is something like Shack  which is so far off of Biblical revelation that it appears like a newly discovered or uncovered view of reality. Please, don’t tell me it’s just a novel. Oh, but wait . . .

It is novel in that its approach to conveying ideas is new. In a generation that lives by its emotions it grabs your insensible emotional reactions first. Once you’re emoting for Mac’s daughter and Mac himself you are already had. You’ readily inhale the rest of this misinformed misleading repertoire of conjured theology and doctrine. It is a “gotcha” moment.

Shack has garnered way too much attention. Again, it ireveals the shallow understanding of God and His word in the church today. A compelling story ought not be the criteria for good literature when it conveys heresy. For those who would like to move the boundaries of heretical thought and doctrine I would only say go back to the Scripture and see what it says about such actions. I believe you will find the results are devastating.