All Comments for: Reading in Good Faith | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > August

Christianity Today, August, 2008 |

Reading in Good Faith

The Shack is a tale of tragedy redeemed, not a theological treatise.

Derek R. Keefe | posted 7/10/2008 09:23AM

Exclusive for CT Online readers: Download chapter one of The Shack by William P. Young, free from Oasis Audio and powered by Audible.com.

Over the past year, word-of-mouth sales of William P. Young's The ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 29 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Kevin

Posted: July 17, 2008 10:06 AM

The author pictures the Father bearing crucifixion scars as well as being incarnated in tandem with the Holy Spirit. Not only so, but he pontificates that Jesus has never drawn upon His nature as God to do anything. Of course those who have read the Bible even once will immediately recognize the falsity of that statement, particularly with respect to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The author also has Jesus - the Jew with the big nose - declaring "I am not a Christian and I have no desire to make them" - and the them is Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, etc. - "Christians." Indeed, Young describes Christians as religious fanatics and part of a sinful world system. Of course in sharp distinction the followers of Christ adopted the word "Christian" in the midst of suffering and persecution. You can see examples of that in the Book of Acts written by Luke or by Peter, such as 1 Peter 4:16.

merry

Posted: July 15, 2008 11:22 AM


I thought the book was very moving and gave a person pause to think about his own faith, look at the world we live in, and God's instruction for us to love one another. If everyone would have this kind of love, what a wonderful world we would live in. I guess now we just have to wait for God's kingdom for that kind of love, or do we?............

Cody	Posted: July 15, 2008 11:08 AM


You must read wind blown medias defense of the shack titled "Is The Shack Heresy" in it you will find that the Authors wrote everything they know about God in it and the writing of the book actually helped shape the theology of all three involved. So yes this book can be used to test the theology of the Authors and publishers.

Jennifer W.

Posted: July 14, 2008 2:35 PM

I was very excited after finishing reading this review. As someone who has struggled with her faith for many years, it is nice to look forward to reading a book about (and from) someone who understands and knows what it is like to struggle with faith, especially after being burned (in my case, it was being burned over and over and over). I felt very alone when I was in the midst of my struggle. I think its important for Christians to know that faith can come a little bit harder for others.

Paul	Posted: July 14, 2008 11:58 AM

Many people that I know loved reading The Shack, although I could not get through it, simply because I do not enjoy allegories. It seems that someone can disagree with the premise or even critique it, but seriously, I think some people need to look at the fear which compels their comments. If we believe that we are held by the faithfulness of Christ's covenant with us, what is that we should fear? Or is it that we truly think all the responsibility for Christianity is with us?? (My theological sidenote on the Fresh Perspective) :) Someone though sharing about his journey in healing should be embraced. I disagree with some of the theological implications, but we need to hold the tension between incarnation and doctrine.

ian clarkson

Posted: July 13, 2008 6:36 AM


The Shack was agood and gripping story - pretty rare for me to get up at 2.30am and ckeep readind to 6.30 to finish it. But I was a little disappointed with the lack of glory and awe in the divine personages and the failure to deal thoroughly in redemtive grace with the person who caused the great sadness.

Keith D. Johnson

Posted: July 12, 2008 2:10 PM

I am just amazed at the editorial sloppiness of CT and their subtle efforts that infer their readers are idiots. Unbelievable that they would print the following http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/august/5.44.html !!! It is an affront to people everywhere to think that this company would somehow think their readers are so stupid!!! AMAZING! Derek Keefe is clearly not looking closely at an attempt to review the book “The Shack” (a great allegory AND parable…really, Derek, is there a difference in this distinction?). Derek shows an incredible lack of insight into any literary critical method most people engage when they read! Instead he evinces a trace of causistic thought that is strangled by his really sloppy editors! Let’s get into a dialogue, Derek, about the IDEAS of this book, without the incipient ridicule that may keep your readership happy, but totally shifts the topic from an intellectually honest observation of what CHURCH (people, remember DEREK!!!!!) is and what

Gary Blevins

Posted: July 11, 2008 9:44 PM

I understand the basic intent of this review, but it illustrates what is truly destroying the church. We must allow virtually anything under the guise of someone who is dealing with deep emotional and spiritual issues. As long as something "reaches" a large number of people it seems to be acceptable. What does not appear to be acceptable anymore is to cling tenaciously to the truth of God's Word. The first two commandments tell us that we must worship only the one true God and that he must be worshipped as he truly is or it is idolatry. The bottom line is that God prohibits misrepresentations of who he is. He actually hates it. And we should too ("Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good" Romans 12:9) This is the only way we can actually "Let love be without hypocrisy" as the first part of Rom. 12:9 says. The Christian must read as a theologian. This is especially true when a book is clearly written from a "Christian" perspective. God is worthy of such attention to detail.

Adam Talbott

Posted: July 11, 2008 12:25 PM

There ought to be no division between those who care about people and those who care about theology. I'm disturbed by Keefe's critique that we should give Young a pass because he's a troubled soul who strikes a nerve. I read The Shack, I empathized with the struggle of the author, I found several passages that I loved (such as the "walk on water" scene), but at the end of the day I could not overlook dozens of false statements about God. False ideas about God are not substantively helpful, regardless of how they make me feel. All of us are accidental heretics because we're always learning, but Young intentionally breaks with orthodoxy on several points. Even TIME can call this book "unorthodox;" why not CT?

Dale	Posted: July 11, 2008 12:02 PM


After hearing such raves about The Shack, I picked up a copy. The theology doesn't bother me as I have a seminary training as well as arts training. I know parables and the need to refresh. What bothered me more is the poor writing in The Shack. Slogging through a sea of needless words and unnecessary similes kept me from moving to chapter two. Young needed a better editor.

K.	Posted: July 11, 2008 11:30 AM

Even though I don't quite agree with the universalism hinted at in The Shack, overall, I really enjoyed the book. Now, people who are offended by femaleness in general will not like this book. Certain theologians don't either, but then again, these theologians preach Christianity, yet they don't actually get it. Read The Shack for the powerful things it says about God's love. Have a handly supply of tissues on hand too.

Kelly Vickers

Posted: July 11, 2008 10:53 AM


Thank you for the most balanced article I've read on The Shack. The book's wide readership speaks volumes---people are hungry for a deeper understanding of God. I devoured this book in two sittings and immediately ordered copies for my pastors.

don bryant

Posted: July 11, 2008 8:05 AM

The negative reactions to the The Shack remind me why, though Reformed, I chose to not immerse myself in the Reformed community. They remind me of scientists who cannot tolerate fiction and seek to apply the laws of physics to poetry. A lot of people seek to express their appreciation for The Shack by making sure they apply the caveat that it is not theology. (Will someone come and get them and take away their seminary degree if they say otherwise?) I think that there is more insight into the Trinity in Young's book than you will find in Platonic formulations of most seminary classes on the subject - and more healing, too.

Michael

Posted: July 11, 2008 6:33 AM


Please take the time to listen to Albert Mohler's review of the book: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-04-11 "un dliluted heresy" "deeply troubling"

Dan Porter

Posted: July 11, 2008 6:23 AM

The only way that we can even have this conversation is if God is an idea which we can manipulate or split up as we will (ala the Cartesian-Kantian reality split). To even suggest that the book is not a theological treatise implies that there is no coherency in truth or reality. We are playing Wittgenstein's word games! Jesus' real incarnation, death and resurrection put the lie to God being an idea. Let us turn to Him, please.

Bob Simmons

Posted: July 10, 2008 10:21 PM

I have read the book, have lost a spouse at an early age, have stood with others dying- so it would be easy to allow emotion to color and blind one to think this is a healing and wonderful book. I beleive in fact it is very dangerous as to remove the AWESOME nature of a Holy God, to create a false image of the Godhead and confuse who God is in His holiness. Yes there maybe a use for discussion, but it may be more along the lines of what does being a Christian mean. In other places of the world this poor tehology won't be allowed, nor would it be the stuff by which strengthens or enables one to withstand the firey darts of the enemy- to bad in soft America we allow this to become a standard to accept.

Al Cruise

Posted: July 10, 2008 7:09 PM

I have read the book and I feel your review is excellent. However, I disagree with you when you claim the author is not at peace with the Church. He is at peace with the Church, he is not at peace with Western institutionalized religious organizations. Just because you put up a building, and put a Cross on the roof, and have a 1000 people coming every Sunday morning, doesn't necessarily make it a Church in God's eyes. Read Amos 5:21-23. Western Christianity is mostly about personal power. Jesus never intended His Church to be a place to give power to the status quo, or self appointed elite. He intended His Church to be a place to give hope to people who don't have any. I think The Shack addresses this clearly. I feel the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna should be read in conjunction with The Shack.

Steve

Posted: July 10, 2008 7:08 PM

Two years ago, I lost my 18 year old son in a car accident. I was not then and have never been angry at God my Father, with whom I have had an active relationship since I was six years old. I am a deacon, adult Sunday School teacher, with a deep and passionate love for my church (Baptist) and the Church (Christ's). I am an active and deep student of the Bible and theology. After my son's accident I found myself for the first time totally dependent every day on spending time talking with my God and listening, always listening in a way I had never really listened before. My God walked with me and talked with me through the power of the Holy Spirit. Others have responded powerfully to my teaching as I have let God speak through me. I picked up The Shack having never heard of it and before all the furor. As I read it I felt the truth of the image of God I encountered there including his grace, love and holiness.

Jenny Wells

Posted: July 10, 2008 6:01 PM

But the book is not well-written! The fervor surrounding the book concerns me not because of theological implications, but cultural. I haven't found anyone talking about it from that point of view. Why is the church so enamored by this book? Because they haven't read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. We can waste our energy defending or discrediting this book, but why not see it in the light of why it's worth our time? I felt the same way about The Da Vinci Code.

Linda Crabtree

Posted: July 10, 2008 5:54 PM

My husband and I, both long-time Christians and Bible teachers, were given a copy of The Shack during a time of our own personal “great sadness”. As we read it together, we were touched over and over again by the fundamental truths about God’s love, His sovereignty, the preeminency of Jesus Christ and His desire to have a relationship with us. Young shows clearly that our desire for ‘independence’ is what interferes with that relationship. Young also does an excellent job of providing answers to the hard questions of ‘Where is God in the midst of evil?’, and ‘Why does He let bad things happen to good people?’ I suggest that we Christian leaders pickup on those eternal truths so clearly portrayed in The Shack and make the most of it as a tool to discuss the wonder of the God of the Bible. Young has given us fresh vocabulary and allegory. Let’s run with the immense truth in it and leave our critical spirits behind.

Jerry Beaty

Posted: July 10, 2008 5:28 PM

Young's book is not of the literary quality of Georges Bernanos' "Diary Of A County Priest" but I thought it asked some of the harder questions and did not hide behind a handed down belief pattern. It is interesting many holyreverendpreacher types pick it to pieces and so many (outside the church?) find it extremely relevant. I recommend the book to friends with this comment: "When you finish it let's talk." And we talk about God in Christ. Where did I read the suggestion that God is a verb and not a doctrine?

Howard

Posted: July 10, 2008 3:37 PM

I appreciate the spirit and thinking in this review. I would be one probably in mind by the author as "spiritual but not religious." The quote: "I'd love to see the book become an occasion for open conversation with 'spiritual but not religious' folks burned by church experience." In my case, not at all "burned." I was in Evangelical church and counseling ministry for many years but gradually, after extensive study, came to realize that the Gospels are mainly a fictional work, within some limited and impossible-to-decipher historical framework. And Acts I see as a similarly creative spin job within some valid history. My immediate and extended families are mostly Evangelical still. But both there, and in most other cases, as non-combative and cordial as I try to be, if/when I bring up such core issues as these, they are not willing to maintian "open consersation." Apparently it is too threatening to re-examine and look more deeply. So more true conversation would be great!

Double Echo

Posted: July 10, 2008 3:28 PM


I have not read the book, and do not think I will. Being a tent maker, I have trouble finding enoutg time to do my tent making plus the studying, administration, counciling, and keeping up with life in general.

Andrew

Posted: July 10, 2008 3:09 PM

OK, fair enough. We should view "The Shack" as a work of fiction rather than theology. However, since the fiction is clearly attempting to describe/define/discuss God's nature/attributes/character, we must consider and critique the author's theology. I, for one, am glad to see the controversy surrounding this book! Let us never be weak-minded Christians when it comes to who the sovereign King of the universe is. He has already revealed clearly to us who He is: the great "I AM." If we are not zealous for the truth of God's character as revealed in His Word, we will be nothing but spiritual weaklings who will be moved by every book that strikes some emotional chord within us (Shack, Jabez, Left Behind, etc.). I applaud every noble-minded Christian who examines everything to see if it lines up with the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul would be happy with your efforts (Acts 17:11).

Raymond Takashi Swenson

Posted: July 10, 2008 2:57 PM


I have not read the book, but the basic elements--a puzzled and suffering man, an extended conversation with three other people, confrontation with God--carry obvious echoes of the story of Job. Have any of the reviewers made this comparison? If so, is the comparison favorable or unfavorable?

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment