All Comments for: Fiction for the Faith-Starved | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > July (Web-Only)

Christianity Today, July (Web-Only), 2008 |

Fiction for the Faith-Starved

The Shack tells a compelling, if imperfect, story.

Review by Cindy Crosby | posted 7/10/2008 09:25AM

The Shack
By William P. Young
Windblown Media, 2007

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

Call it the ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Dot from Texas

Posted: July 15, 2008 12:45 PM

Good grief, get past the theology -- if you all want theology, go read Wayne Grudem. This is a book for anyone who has ever asked why God allowed something horrific to happen. How could God just stand there and "comfort" Missy as she was being murdered -- would a real father just stand by and watch? Why didn't the murderer have a heart attack and die instead? This is Mac's dilemma, and it is our dilemma, too. Why does one survive cancer and another die, even though people are praying for both of them? Why was the young family coming home from church all killed by some fool driving 98 mph on a Sunday morning? As Mac wonders, how can he trust God with his own life if this is what God allowed to happen to an innocent child? This is what the book is about -- can God be trusted? This book is not intended to be theologically sound; and by the way, if one of you actually understands and can explain the Trinity to the rest of us, I'm sure we're all ears.

Gary Blevins

Posted: July 11, 2008 10:22 PM

I'm not going to reproduce my comments on "How to Read The Shack." However, this review further highlights the main problem we have in the church today. We are quick to criticize those who cling too tenaciously to God's Word, but will tolerate almost anything that makes someone feel closer to God. All that matters is that we "connect" with people. It's OK to misrepresent God as long as people are "reached." We must worship God as he really is or it is not truly worship. To talk about rekindling or reinvigorating someone's faith based on the distorted theology of this book is frightening. It is not enough to "reach" people if we are pointing them in the wrong direction. God is not honored by that and people are not ultimately "helped." I agree that this book should stimulate discussion in the church. But that discussion must lead to a thoroughly biblical understanding of the issues addressed. Anything less leads to idolatry.

Anonymous

Posted: July 11, 2008 11:51 AM

There is something wrong when people get all hot and bothered with God taking on a female form. Femaleness was created in the image of God. At what point are the critics insulting the image of God? If Driscoll and Mohler dislike this book, then it has to be good. These theologians have rotten fruit. They need to spend time in sincere prayer and ask God to dwell in their hearts and shape their attitudes.

Chris Oakes

Posted: July 10, 2008 8:56 PM

Why does it seem so difficult for people to accept the story as a parable. Young's intent is not to cause all readers (or any readers) to view God as a large African-American woman. Mack even recognizes ultimately that the only reason he's seeing such a representation is so he won't fall back into preconceptions which limit his understanding, and therefore his interaction, with God. The conversations Mack has with God (in all of His manifestations) are deep conversations regarding relationships and trials and faith and doubt. Mack is engaging God. I don't believe Young's intent was for anyone to see Mack's engagement with God as exemplifying what their engagement with God should be like. Perhaps the questions being raised about the true nature of God, particularly what the Trinity looks like, are questions which need to be raised. Most people just don't get the Trinity. And interestingly enough, the writers of the New Testament texts didn't explain God in trinitarian terms.

Wes O

Posted: July 10, 2008 4:05 PM

I have just started reading this, but having heard reviews from pastor's such as Mark Driscoll and reviewers like Tim Challies (sp?) I am hesitant to read and am probably going to tip toe through it as to watch for land mines. The one question I do have is why bring up theological themes and then say it's not a theological book. And if the theology is wrong then you wouldn't have Christian fiction, then right? You would just have fiction, that is either modalist or New Age in representation. Just questions that I hope to have answers to after reading.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment