“The Shack” by William P. Young is a popular book – a top seller on Amazon.com and unfortunately a book that many young evangelicals are racing to often with support within the Evangelical church. We seem to see a lack of Biblical discernment within the church – often from leadership. Just like Rob Bell, Young’s book attracts the young crowd and just because “everyone is reading it” does not make it a Biblically sound book. “The Shack” has some serious theological problems that include promoting a false view of the Trinity and a heretical concept called modalism.
As I scour the reviews of this book I am amazed at the diverse support for it. There are the so called “heresy-hunters” that most on the liberal front consider “armed and dangerous” with solid doctrine and then there are those on the other end who say, “it’s just a book”.
Some have even be so bold as to compare this book with Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” for its symbolic imagery. I must disagree with this comparison as the teachings (whether intentional or not) are clearly wrong. William Young’s intentions are probably very noble in his book but that does not excuse the clear theological error the book illuminates. Today’s youth (especially in the evangelical church) are starving for truth and since the church visible seems to refuse to give them solid truth they will turn to popular books like this.
Of all the Christian book reviewers out there I must say Tim Challies always gives a solid, Biblical approach to his reviews. His review of “The Shack” is long and detailed and clearly covers the problems in this book.
Tim Challie’s in his excellent review of this book writes
Overall, I had to conclude that Young has an inadequate and often-unbiblical understanding of the Trinity. While granting that the Trinity is a very difficult topic to understand and one that we cannot know fully, there are several indications that he often blurs the distinct persons of the Trinity along with their roles and their unique attributes. Combined with his novel but unsupported conjectures, this is a serious concern.
If anything, the popularity of this book inside the church shows a constant lack of discernment and the lack of knowledge of core Biblical theology. It is so sad that we do not read our Bibles enough nor do American churches focus on good doctrine so as to equip their flocks to properly discern heresy when they see or read it.
Challies continues:
Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology.
Please take a moment to read Tim Challie’s full review of “The Shack”.
It’s time the church was more discerning in what they hear, read and see. There are those out there that will intentionally try and lead people down the wrong path and there are those that unintentionally do. I personally believe that “The Shack” falls into the latter group. But regardless of the intent, bad doctrine is bad doctrine and when it comes to essential doctrinal teachings there is no middle ground.
Update …
This post has gotten so much traffic that I have decided to also include an excellent video by Mark Driscoll on The Shack. He breaks this book down and exposes the theological issues excellently…
Another update:
Dr. Al Mohler has also put together an excellent critical review of this horrible book called “The Shack”.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Related posts:
I thank you for speaking truth. So many Christians are being deceived by this book. We need more people to stand up for truth.
In Christ,
Val Renkens
I thank you for leaving your thoughts on the Web for people to read, but I think you need to rewrite this review with evidence to show your claims.
You make claims but give nothing to stand on. If you want the youth of America not to read this book than give a reason (biblical support)
Hi Jeremy,
Not only should the youth of America not read this book but all ages. Instead of providing a lengthy review here I simply wanted to point everyone to one of the best reviews out there by Tim Challies. Tim does a superb job breaking down the issues with this problematic book on his site. I’d encourage you to follow the link on the blog post and read Tim’s review.
Jay,
I’d like to dialogue with you about your concerns of the shack. I am the Co-Senior Pastor of Crossroads Church of Denver (Calvary Chapel church) and we’ve had William Paul Young to our church to speak. Have you read the book completely for yourself?
If so I’d like to discuss a few things with you as I believe so many people are missing the point of the book as they split theological hairs.
Hi Brandon,
I have not read the Shack. (And yes, I receive much flack from that.) It’s just not a book that I would read anyway and given the attention it has received from extremely trustworthy sources (i.e. – Dr. Al Mohler, etc.) and my own pastor who have read and provided a good review, I don’t want to add this one to my shelf. There are far too many wonderful, theologically sound books for the Christian to read. The Shack is not one of them.
I’m sure that Mr. Young was an excellent speaker, but unfortunately his misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity through modalism and a one sided view of the attributes of God, namely only His love, is a serious issue in his book. My concern is that we are so permeated in the American church today with these types of books and the average Christian has no ability to carefully discern basic theological issues in what they are reading. It is concerning that we must spend so much time having to warn the church about these books when they should be able to discern rightly without such attention. This is why the Mormons and JW cults continue to grow and become accepted within Christendom since many believers sincerely believe their jesus is the same as the One true Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture.
Splitting theological hairs is important when it comes to essentials. For example, the “Left Behind Series” touches on non-essentials in eschatological issues so while I’m not a fan of those books I’m not warning people with the fervor that I do with “The Shack”. Theological hairs need splitting in many instances.
I realize I may be coming across a little harsh but I have a passion for upholding and defending true Biblical, orthodox doctrine and when a book like the Shack does a very poor job of illustrating the attributes and substance of God Almighty we need to stand up.
do you mind me asking your educational background?
I guess I would say that I am reasonably educated. :-) I attended USC in Music then changed majors to Computer Science. Became saved and began taking distance ed courses from Dallas and now enrolled at CIU with emphasis in Biblical Languages. As my “about me” page states, my goal is to one day teach theology at the seminary level.
Not sure what my educational background would have to do with “The Shack” though. :-)
At any rate, you’ve probably got some great information direct from the author of the book as I am sure he may have touched on some of the heat he’s received on the book. Would love for you to share what you learned directly from Mr. Young. I’d also be interested to know how you handle the serious theological issues in the book. I am very familiar with Calvary Chapel and knowing that your denomination is very expositional in preaching and teaching (which I greatly commend) I wonder how you deal with issues that may come up in the book.
Please understand my position on this book is purely in love towards protecting those who read it. While people of your caliber within the church who are able to read such things and discern properly exist, it’s not the norm in today’s churches. Interested to get your viewpoints on why one should read “The Shack” and why it is not problematic as Mr. Challies and others have stated quite well. You stated in your first comment that people are missing the point. What would you say is the point of “The Shack”?
It is very easy to find fault.
It is also very easy to give the impression that Christians are more concerned with “Doctrine” than living and loving (and I do not find the Trinity clearly explained in the bible).
The Shack is written by a fallible, fallen person, so will not be perfect. However, I found it to have so much that was good and helpful. Perhaps you could expound more on what you found to be good and inspiring. Personally the insight of the depth of Gods love for this sinner was wonderful……
Mick,
It’s not about finding fault. It’s about a legitimate concern for sound doctrine. Christians today are more concerned about feelings and how something makes them feel (especially with regards to “Christian” books) and have absolutely no regard for sound doctrine. Paul exhorts Timothy time and time again on the importance of doctrine.
The Trinity is clearly explained in Scripture. From Genesis to Revelation the Trinity is present in all of its glorious form. Even Jesus’ great commission clearly states the Trinity.
As for being “more concerned with “doctrine” than living and loving”, I only have this to say. If you do not have proper doctrine you cannot Biblically be loving and living in His will. It is as plain as that. For example, many of the New Testament epistles open with half the letter being glorious doctrine. Romans for example take the entire first half in doctrine. Then, Paul gives us application in the second half on how we are to live our lives in light of all the correct doctrine. Doctrine is essential my friend.
Let me give you an example. Let’s say a Mormon wrote “The Shack”. Mormon’s believe in a loving god. In fact, they believe in many loving gods. They believe the Trinity to be three distinct gods. However, all the love you can imagine is tucked away in the pages of the book. Do you see the problem. I am not at all saying the author of “The Shack” is not a Christian. He very well may be. If so, he is a Christian who seriously lacks Biblical understanding of the God of Scripture.
Many take offense to people like me who take a very strong stand on books, sermons and publications that do not present God as the God of Holy Scripture. I will not apologize for this. I understand your concerns about the fact the book was written by a fallible, fallen person. In light of this, we need to be ever vigilant to protect essential doctrines – and unfortunately “The Shack” attacks many essential doctrines.
Jay, I appreciate your passion to uphold Biblical doctrine and strongly agree with that. We can be relevant and connect with today’s youth and others without “watering down” God’s word. Jesus shows us how throughout the gospels.
However, I can not give any credence to your comments about “The Shack” as you have not read this book for yourself. You take (in your own words) “a very strong stand on books” including this one. And yet to do so blindly following someone else’s opinion/review is dangerous. I did read the book and saw no evidence of modalism. Is there room for doctrine and love?
Hi Corinne,
I appreciate your comments. I realized I would get flack from people because I wrote this post. I wouldn’t say that I blindly followed someone else’s review at all. In fact, LifeWay Bookstore has a warning posted on the shelves of their stores telling people that the Shack has views that are not in line with evangelical Christian teachings. (Now why they continue to carry the book is another story.) I personally have no interest in reading this book as I believe firmly that the many reviews (including Al Mohler, my pastor and others) out there are consistent with sound doctrine. I have not read “Your Best Life Now” either but would equally feel free to post a blog post with links to other reviewers.
There is most definitely room for both doctrine and love but not so that either is compromised. True Christian love stems from true Biblical doctrine.
I realize the popularity of this book and I also realize that many criticize me because I have chosen not to read “The Shack”. There are frankly just too many good books I could fill my mind with. For books like “The Shack”, I do enough investigation to let me know it’s simply not a book I should read. I believe firmly that as a Christian I do not have to personally read everything in order to form a conclusion on its doctrinal worth.
Even though you may not be able to take credence from my review (and keep in mind I personally never provided a review – I simply pointed people to Tim Challie’s review) – I would strongly encourage you to take seriously the in-depth review by Tim Challies that I have provided as well as the myriad of reviews from respected Christians that explain the issues with a book that is very dangerous.
Thank you for pointing me to this review by Tim Challies. I had been encouraged by coworkers to read “The Shack.” I borrowed the book from one of them, and, because these were women I believe to be good Christians, I wanted to read it. I only made it to about page 100 before I could take it no longer. When trying to explain why I could not agree with this book to the one who lent it, she could not understand and became defensive and offended. As I explained my belief of God the Father and not God the Mother, she said she knew of a scripture where God did say he was the mother and the father. I know of no such verse, but am certainly no theologian and therefore am not certain. (She could not referrence it.) At any rate, I found the idea of the Trinity being all the same with no one at the head to be false, as well as when the character who was to be god said she did not punish sin. “Jesus” also said in the book that a person can come to salvation through any one of the Trinity. The scriptures clearly state that Jesus is the only way to the Father. It seems to me that the supporters of this book are supporting it with more vigor than they would support the Bible. I do not see how anyone who reads their Bible, prays for wisdom, listens to the teachings of preachers who are sound in their preaching of the scriptures, could support anything that so clearly goes against the scriptures. I am now being called “rigid.”
Angelia,
I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said..
“It seems to me that the supporters of this book are supporting it with more vigor than they would support the Bible. I do not see how anyone who reads their Bible, prays for wisdom, listens to the teachings of preachers who are sound in their preaching of the scriptures, could support anything that so clearly goes against the scriptures.”
I’m afraid that the watered down gospel and the lack of sound expositional Bible teachings in the majority of churches in America has created congregations that have no ability to discern at all. And when you are discerning you are called rigid and fundamental. It’s a sad state of the church today when you have to fight for the absolute core doctrines of the Christian faith with church members. Very sad indeed.
Thanks for posting your comment!
The Shack may not hang well with some peoples interpretation of the “Word of God” but it certainly hangs well with what most ppeople would recognize as the “Spirit of God”.
Gerry,
One major problem with your statement – the Word of God is our authority and source of how we know God. Anything outside of the Word of God is going to be attached to what we think or even worse what we want to think about God. This is one of the real problems with “The Shack”. Since everyone wants to read it, and they say it makes them feel good about God, but they never compare it with Scripture because if they did they would quickly see the god of The Shack is not the God of Scripture.
I just finished reading The Shack. It was given to me by my two close Christian friends and recommended by my wife. We are all of the Christian faith. I found the book entertaining and thought provoking.
I think too many of the people that are critizing the book are missing the point here. Remember this book is fiction (meaning not true). If this were a non-fiction book then there would be the basis for this arguement.
I am grounded solidly in my faith and my believe in Jesus (and the Trinity) although still a mystery to me. I clarify only because if you are grounded in the Truth then what is wrong with a book that clearly teaches many Christian principles of relationship, love, and forgiveness. Actually if my of us self proclaimed Christians would practice more of those ideals then we as a faith would be better off.
The fact that as our pastor continually preaches that this life is not about religion but a relationship with Jesus and helping others than I think the book is good. Like anything else if something can deeper your relationship to Christ albeit a book, a tradgedy, a dream, whatever then good can come in many forms. The ultimate test is do you have a personal relationship with Christ. This book as given me a better understanding on how to relate to my Creator. How can that be bad?
Ed Jr.,
Unfortunately a book that completely misrepresents the God of Scripture cannot be used in any fashion to illustrate the love of God. Think about it. We can talk about God’s love all we want to but if the God the book is describing is not the God of Scripture you can talk about love until you are blue in the face. The issue at hand is a critical one – regardless or not if the book is fiction it still defines a God that is not the God of Scripture. This is inexcusable at any level. I realize there are many out there who just love this book but the theology behind it is atrocious. It is a dangerous book.
I read this book and enjoyed it. I am a Christian and Love Jesus very much. I do believe that Jesus is the way the Truth and the light and noone gets to the Father except through him. I have been struggling in my walk recently not because of this book but because of religion. I fell into the rut of do this and do that and read your Bible. I am not saying that reading your Bible is a bad thing in any way and I find that is the best way to understand what God wants from us. I forgot that God loves me no matter what I do. I forgot that God loves a serial killer just as much as he loves Billy Graham because we are all his children. I started judging people and looking down on people because I could see that they were clearly out of God’s will. This book helped me come back to reality and realize that we are to Love all people and not just the people who are doing what God wants them to do. I understand that God is not a a black woman but I would think that God could be a black woman if he wanted to be. The book is not about who the person of God is but the Love of God. The Bible does say God is Love and that we should Love others as we Love ourselves. This book does say that it is all about Jesus and it is spoken from the mouth of God who is just so happen to be a big black woman. This book opened my heart to a God who doesn’t love me because I preform task , but to a God who Loves me no matter what I do. I personally do not think this is a bad thing. Thank you for reading my words and I apologize if it is hard to read because I am not a writer.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for writing. One of the problems people are not seeing with this book is the dividing line between God’s love and who God is. The major issue with this is if you separate who God is from His love, you are then creating a type of love that is not consistent with who God is. For example, you mentioned that everyone is a child of God. The Bible says otherwise. Jesus calls those who reject Him children of the Devil. It is not until we are adopted into God’s kingdom through faith and repentance in the person and work of Jesus Christ that we become children of God. God’s love is defined in Christ and in His Word and when you separate the person and work of God from His attributes (such as love) you are drawing very close to creating an idol. This is what, I am afraid, The Shack has the potential to do. The book directly attacks the core doctrines of God – who He is, His attributes, etc. The moment we do this, any definition of love that we create outside of how God has revealed Himself in Scripture is going to be wrong and dangerous. I realize you probably think I am being too doctrinal but this is exactly what Scripture charges us to be. Granted, there are
somea few good points the writer brings out in this book that settle the hearts of some of the readers but my fear (and the fear of many others who hold fast to doctrinal importance) is that the greater error of the book is far more dangerous than the warm, fuzzy feeling it creates for its readers. I’d encourage you to carefully read Scripture and compare it to the “god” that The Shack portrays and you’ll quickly see there are serious and heretical teachings in this book. I attack this book solely because I want to honor the Living God and who He is as revealed in Holy Scripture and in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Soli Deo Gloria!Thanks. I understand where you are coming from and agree with you. I am not as smart as you and do not have the bible knowledge as you clearly do. I know that I Love Jesus and he is my Savior. Weather the book is wrong or right about the God of the Bible I dont know. I had peace in my heart when I listen to it and I didn’t feel the Holy Spirit convict me when I was reading it. I have felt the Spirit tell me that this book is not the Bible and I will not use it as such. I will still read and study my Bible. I dont feel that it is so bad that this book gave me a picture of God that is more Loving and compasionate.
God is more than we could ever understand, if we could understand him then why would we need a God. Jesus told us to come to him and have to faith of little children. The pharasees knew everything and they didn’t believe but a child knows little and believes. I dont think that Jesus wanted us to be uneducated but I dont think he wanted us to over think things either.
Human’s don’t have everything right and that is why we have to rely on God and his word and have to be in a relationship with Jesus which in the end is what this book is stressing. We also have to keep in mind that this book is fiction and can’t be held to the same standards as a work of non-fiction. Just because the gentleman who wrote the book has a different prospective on God that we do doesn’t make him bad.
Hi. I am an Mdiv Student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I have read The Shack. It does NOT teach Modalism. All 3 persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously and interact with one another.
Read the book for yourself.
Elliott.
Hi Elliott,
Thanks for visiting and posting a comment. I think that this book is one example of how spiritually sick the church is today that so much emphasis has to be made to fight for good doctrine. Modalism is one of many problems with this book. The Shack avoids the doctrine of hell and basically teaches that sin is its own punishment and that God is “the best” way. How could anyone read this book and worse recommend it to an unbeliever or new believer when it so clouds and distorts the true Biblical doctrine of who God is and the true Biblical doctrine of sin and the justice of God.
I realize that there are a billion blog posts out there on this book and thankfully the hype has come down and we see fewer folks carrying this book around. But I commend the pastors, theologians and teachers out there who boldly take a stand against books that cloud and distort the Biblical doctrines of our great God. We have become a Christian culture that has lost the ability to discern and has become sick in our ability or desire to truly defend and stand up for those doctrines. Men have been burned at the stake for standing up for “lesser” doctrines than what the Shack destroys and distorts and yet droves of professing believers seem to have absolutely no problem with a book is frankly NOT Christian. Just because it is endorsed by “Christians” and is the best seller in the “Christian” bookstores doesn’t make it a Christian book. Why would so many Christian bookstores put up disclaimers over this book that they do not endorse nor agree with the doctrines of the book. (i.e., Lifeway Christian stores). Why does not ONE reputable online bookstore such as Westminster or Monergism carry this book. I would be horribly surprised if your seminary endorsed or carried this book. If this book does not have doctrinal problems why has there been so much flack over it – from well trained and theologically sound Christians?
I realize I sound like I am all fired up over this but frankly I am. This is my Savior this book distorts and I refuse to stand by without sounding an alarm.
I encourage you to re-examine your interpretation and endorsement of this troubling book.
Yo Jay. I just explained how it DOESN’T teach Modalism. Do you have reason to believe that it does? Check it out for yourself.
Peace.
Elliott.
I want to stress too that Paul Young went to 26 Christian publishers to have this book published and not a one would publish it – why? Because of bad theology. Paul personally self-published this book on his own. This illustrates just how theologically and doctrinally sick the world is today that they cannot see the theological problems in this book. Please don’t misunderstand my passion against this book – I simply want to protect people from bad theology – there is enough of that in most churches and cable tv channels today. What the world does not need is another really BAD book on God.
I would just like to encourage/thank you, Jay, for your stand on The Shack. It has taken my Church by storm and everybody is reading it. After reading a few quotes from the book I was sickened and actually mourned for my church (or whatever it is, country club). I see an honest desire to keep people from false doctrine (don’t want to throw the word “heresy” around).
Thanks.
Thanks Zach,
It is discouraging to see so many in the church who lack discernment to see the blatant errors in this book. It truly illustrates the horrible state of most churches today and shows just what happens when churches and Christians stop reading/teaching and preaching God’s Word and rather become as you say “country clubs” that prefer to tickle the ears of those in the congregation as to not offend.
Hey guys. We still don’t have any specific counts of heresy against the Shack. The arguments have been, “Some Christians disagree, therefore it’s bad.” Are we seriously blindly going to follow a crowd without checking it out for ourselves?
And Jay, you still haven’t shown how Modalism is taught.
Elliott,
Here is a small list of heresies clearly taught in this book courtesy of Dr. Michael Youssef:
1. God the Father was crucified with Jesus.
2. God is limited by His love and cannot practice justice.
3. On the Cross, God forgave all of humanity, whether they repent or not. Some choose a relationship with Him, but He forgives them all regardless.
4. Hierarchical structures, whether they are in the Church or in the government, are evil.
5. God will never judge people for their sins.
6. There is not a hierarchical structure in the Godhead, just a circle of unity.
7. God submits to human wishes and choices.
8. Justice will never take place because of love.
9. There is no such a thing as eternal judgment or torment in hell.
10. Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, and it doesn’t matter which way you get to Him.
11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us.
12. There is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because everyone will make it to heaven.
13. The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
And in addition to these, how do you get around the book’s presentation of sin:
The Shack actually leads readers astray with regard to God’s attitude towards sin. Papa tells Mack, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (ht: gotquestions.org)
My friend, this single quote from the book should cause you to want to burn it and never read it again. How can you not see this blatant heresy?
The author is clearly a universalist and the book teaches universalist notions.
As for the book teaching modalism, I believe that Mark Driscoll’s video clip on this post explains fully where modalism exists in this book. I do not need to repeat what has already been clearly taught.
I would also strongly encourage you to read the following article that is written by GotQuestions.org. It is extremely well written and illustrates the many heresies taught in this book. I pray that the Lord will open your eyes to the clear heresies in this dangerous book. Please know that our passion to fight this book is not just to be argumentative but to truly warn people about it. I am so discouraged that many within the church (even those in leadership) are blind to even blatant heresy. These are issues that men were martyred over in times passed and today there is little regard to fighting for truth and protecting doctrine. It is a clear indication that the church is sick – very sick. I commend men like Driscoll, MacArthur and others who clearly take a stand against false teachers. The author of the Shack has openly denied the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and is obviously a universalist. This alone should raise serious red flags my friend.
I urge you to compare the Shack to Scripture and you will see very quickly it is far from Scripture and teaches another god.
Here is the link to the article at GotQuestions.org:
http://www.gotquestions.org/The-Shack-review.html
Elliot,
To directly answer your question on modalism:
At times the Trinity is shown in modalistic terms. How do you handle the scene in the book where “Papa” reveals the nail scars on her hands? (And is it not ridiculous to say “her” there? I mean come on!) Paul Young has commented on this accusation quoting 2 Cor 5:19 but this would be VERY eisegetical.
The more you look into The Shack you also see that the book teaches tri-theism (three individual gods) more so than modalism but modalism is clearly taught.
Jay, thanks for the specifics. As far as the scars are concerned, it showed that the entire Godhead was connected and affected by what happened, but not that it was the Father becoming the Son. That actually then becomes abundantly clarified by the fact that all 3 members of the Trinity are present simultaneously. You can’t get more anti-modalist than that. How are you defining Modalism?
Now let’s take a closer look at that list you posted.
1. It does not say the Father was crucified. Do you have a page number and quote? It’s quite clear that it was Jesus Himself, not the Father.
2. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
3. This is heresy for the followers of reformed doctrine (goes against limited atonement). It’s fine for anyone who isn’t. Are you going to now say people who don’t believe in limited atonement are going to hell?
4. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
5. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
6. This is not against any orthodox belief. In fact, there was a debate several months ago (that Wayne Grudem participated in) over the idea of if there is or is not an essential hierarchy within the Godhead. It’s a discussion that is not settled, and you can be orthodox on either side of it.
7. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number? God allows human choices, but those choices do not mean that God obeys man.
8. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
9. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
10. There is nothing wrong with this belief (as the presupposition of the book is that Jesus is God). People come to Jesus through all different means, the important thing is that they come to Jesus. Not all of us have an identical conversion story, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
11. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
12. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
13. This is not taught in the book. Do you have a quote and a page number?
Honestly Jay, if you just read it for yourself with an open mind, you’ll save yourself a lot of trouble. Do the homework for yourself. Find the answers.
Elliot,
Instead of going back and forth in comments, I would recommend that you watch this video by Dr. Michael Youssef where he spoke to his church on the problems of this book. As I mentioned in my last comment, the list was taken from Youssef’s web site on The Shack. This video touches on William Young’s universalism as well as the major issues with The Shack.
In addition, he has provided a line by line comparison between his list of 13 heresies along with the quote and page number from the book along with what Scripture truly says. Here is the link to view this detailed document….
http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/DocServer/SpecOffer_The13HeresiesExplained.pdf?docID=1821
I would also be curious to see how you as a seminary student handles this quote:
Papa tells Mack, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”
Is not this one amazing and heretical view from this book enough to cause you to declare it just wrong. How can you approve such a statement? I am just curious.
I would encourage you to also listen to Dr. Al Mohler critical review of The Shack as well:
http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-04-11
Here is the link to the video by Dr. Youssef:
http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sto_TheShack_13heresies
Jay, thank you for standing up for the Truth. Thank you for not backing down. Keep pressing on, brother, toward the goal to win the prize for which you have been called heavenward in Christ Jesus!!!
Terri
Jay – With the many lovers of Jesus & our Holy Father like Terry, I praise the Lord for the few who still choose fidelity to the revealed Word of God to the point where we don’t contradict what is plainly stated in Scripture. I spent 2 months on my knees wrestling over this issue before our Lord. I did read the book, for those who wonder.
Our church’s prison ministry team chose to use this book as a Bible Study tool and I have now chosen to stop attending (until they are done with this material) a ministry I know without a shadow of a doubt that God has called me into, because of I Timothy 4:16 “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (NIV), Deut 13:1-4, Gal 1:8-10, Tit. 2:7-8, Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6 & a multitude of other verses. Obedience is better than sacrifice!
There is simply no room for compromise in God’s economy. No false teacher presents himself as a bad person with obviously bad doctrine. Not that I for a moment judge or question Paul Young’s faith – that is God’s prerogative. But with the Scripture as the only yardstick, the Shack is built on sand, al be it a beautiful, pure white, soft, heavenly beach type sand that feels so very good between our toes. I do not judge Paul Young or his personal faith – he has to be a deep being to write such a profound & compelling book with such a massive effect on his readers, but his doctrine is contrary to God’s Word. Nowhere in the book does he ever qoute Scrupture directly. Yes it is a work of fiction but the intent is to teach about God per the author himself and per his subsequent teachings – so it is a teaching on doctrine set in a fictional context. Do I doubt the book can profoundly affect people’s faith & understanding of our Loving God? Not at all, it is God’s Spirit who does the work in people, regardless of the source. Thankfully a lot of people are ignorant and purely innocent enough in their faith that they will never recognize or realize the error presented, and I know the Holy Spirit can and will protect His own – but as for me, I have to strongly reject the book as a person responsible before a Holy God. I pray for God to use this to help people see the need for doctrinal soundness over emotional value.
I love the Lord more than life itself, have a degree in theology & have studied & taught the Word extensively for 20 years & yet I ALMOST fell for this sweet, profoundly touching book because it reaches specifically that place deep within us that God Himself placed within us – the desire to have a deep, open, honest & palpably real relationship with Him. It resonated deeply with what I have experienced in my own relationship with the Lord! Thus it was not easy for me to make this 180 degree turn, but praise be to God, His Truth prevailed in my heart. I humbly submitted to His gentle, gracious correction but felt deeply disturbed and pained in my own temporary lack of discernment in this matter for the several months that I read and defended the book – all because of the beautiful emotions the book ellicited within my soul!
I believe that my gracious Lord allowed this so that I would have a deep understanding of just how subtly false doctrine can creep into our hearts through such an “innocent” tool as a work of fiction. How incredibly hard it is to defend the Lord’s Truth and His Word anymore in this generation where truth is relative, love trumps doctrine & experience and emotions take precedence over obedience and Biblical facts! So keep standing on God’s Word – HE does not change!
Wow.. well said Ruth. Thanks for sharing.
@Jay Wingard
I was surprised to get such an instant reply. Do pray for me as I stand alone before the ministry team this Sunday and boldly state the Lord’s case! No apologies! Pray that others who have doubts about using this tool will stand up with me and that the Lord’s Name will be glorified!
Will do Ruth. Be sure to take advantage of the great resources on this book by folks like Albert Mohler as well. (The links to the resources are provided in the post.) May the Lord bless you as you boldly seek to bring all glory, honor and praise to the Lamb who was worthy to be slain! Soli Deo Gloria!
Thanks. I have read them all & listened to most. It was the author’s own words and his teachings on CD that showed me the truth about the deeper intent & message of the book. But it took bowing my knee and my head to a Holy, unchanging God and submitting my emotions in obedience to His Word and eternal will that brought me here!
http://rock-life.com/KAYP.html the full interview – in his own words!
I am deeply saddend and in mourning over the weakness in the body of Christ in these times – I also see my own whimpering fear to go before a ministry team of 70, most of whom are enamoured by the book, soaking up the teachings of its author like it is the Word itself! That alone should alert us as God’s children…
You will know them by their fruits, why do people argue over doctrine. Has the book brought people closer to wanting a relationship with God or has it pushed them to a Godless lifestyle. I have not met anyone who did not feel closer to God and a stronger desire to know Him after reading the book. Obviously the book is fiction. Readers are not taking it as the BIBLE. How sad and judgmental. This is why people RUN away from the Church. They don’t run from God, they run from from the judgmental people who over react to a book who was just trying to help people shake their stereo typical view of God. He is so much more than any of us can imagine. Eye hath not seen….
Hi Mary,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment. One thing I would ask you to ponder. Let’s say a friend tells you that they have found a book that helps them to grow closer to God and therefore assume that the book must be good because it produces the effect of someone believing or feeling like they are growing closer to God. Do you realize that every Mormon you run into will tell you that the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price has brought them closer to God. The problem is – wrong God! Same with the Shack. This book downright describes and portrays God in a way that is not Biblical and by most accounts heretical. We have got to be more discerning and return to fighting the good fight of faith with regards to orthodox doctrine – otherwise you might as well read the Book of Mormon or the Watchtower. You mentioned in your comment that we are being judgmental. Absolutely I am. We are called to judge very carefully what we read and listen to. We are called to be extremely discerning for the god of this world disguises himself as an angel of light and loves to use 99 percent truth with 1 percent error.
People argue over doctrine because the Bible tells us to.
Soli Deo Gloria
Hi Jay –
I just read Dr. Mohler’s article on this book.
I freely admit that I have not read it, however, I will say I have had a disquiet in the pit of my stomach from conversations with people that have recommended this ‘great book’ to me to read.
The disquiet comes from the way they present it to me, what they say about what it says about God.
If Dr. Mohler is only half-way accurate in his review of this book, then I think you’ve been very reserved in your criticism.
This is heresy of the first order. It is the author creating a Trinity that fits his un-Biblical view of salvation; a God that has no wrath toward sin or sinners? Really? Where did the author read that in the Bible? A Jesus that have never exercised anything about his divine nature? Really? Ever? How about when He created all existence? Was that just ‘the son drawing on the Father’ like some parasitic being?
This is a violation of the commandment to not make an image of a god and worship it.
The bad representations of the persons of the Trinity reflect a poor understanding of exactly what the Bible teaches about the persons of the Trinity; and it says a lot about the author’s heterodoxy.
Yeah, the idea that this is harmless because after all ‘it is just a book’ as one commenter relates shows the lack of serious thought and discernment often goes for the reader as well as the author.
I can think of several books that have caused great harm – Mien Kampf and Das Kapital leap to mind without much effort.
Far from dodging doctrine, it is time for the church to start teaching it without apology or compromise. It is time for the church to start telling the “anything goes” crowd of Christians, “Nope, sorry. The only truths that are going to be accepted around here are the truths that are spelled out plainly and clearly in Scripture; and the church expects all Christians to adhere to them without compromise, or you must admit to yourself that you are, after all, not an adherent to orthodoxy; therefore not a Christian at all.
Oooooh, that sounds exclusionary doesn’t it? Yeah, kind of like Jesus in Matthew 7.
Glad I didn’t waste my money on this book, and thankful I didn’t get my head full of these heresies.
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Randy