Reviewing “The Shack”

8 07 2008

 

Occasionally in evangelicalism there appears a book which somehow sweeps the American church off of its feet in a flutter of word of mouth and praise.  Think “Prayer of Jabez” or “The Purpose Driven Life.”  Sometimes such books are good, more often than not they leave something to be desired.  This is undoubtedly a result of a dilution of the importance of God’s revelation in the life of the modern American church.  As God’s word concerning Himself is devalued, man’s thoughts become elevated to the detriment of the body.  Man therefore begins to reconfigure and reconceive God according to his own whims.

 

“The Shack” is a relatively new work which is becoming quite popular in the world of American evangelicalism.  It has recently moved to the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback trade fiction.  In addition, at least one church has taken to pass out the book to all of her members.  I have heard a number of reports about the book with very contrasting analyses.

 

 

  • Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, says it “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim Progress did for his.”
  • Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, “This book includes undiluted heresy.”
  • Singer and songwriter Michael W. Smith says “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.”
  • Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, says, “Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical.”

 

 

As we have had a few inquiries about the work, I spent the last week reading it.  I found the story to be quite engaging, but the theological content was very concerning.  While the work does not claim to be a theological treatise, the subject matter is inherently theological in that it deals specifically with those grandest of Christian doctrines (the nature of God, the nature of revelation, the nature of salvation, the relationship of suffering to God’s sovereignty, etc.).

 

Due to the numerous theological inaccuracies which the book contains, I urge readers to be very cautious and critical (in the sense of active interaction) if they choose to read it.

 

Below is an in-depth review of the book with which I would generally agree:

 

http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf

 

 


Actions

Information

4 responses

11 07 2008
Cheryl

I really appreciated this blog. I have had similar thoughts, but hesitate to voice them because I do not want to discredit the fact that God could use such books. I guess the issue is not whether God can use these works but why we do not turn more often to His word, which He promises He will use.

This reminds me of Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

15 07 2008
Melissa

Geoff –
I love reading your blog and hearing your point of view. I read The Shack a month or so ago on the recommendation of a close friend and was drawn into the story but appalled by some of the content.
I’m sorry that I missed the 1 John study tonight. I got caught up in something that had to be completed today at work. I’ll be doing the homework to catch myself up and be ready for next week. Be sure to send out more homework if you have any.
Have a great week – see you next Tuesday.
Melissa Allen

17 07 2008
Suzanne

Geoff!

Thanks so much for posting this…I’ve heard so many radically different reactions to this book, that I really wanted to know what people at the Village though about it. I actually found this review about a month ago and am about to start reading the book. I think it’s a bit scary how some books like this can draw people in and contain such a great story, but such questionable theology.

Thanks again for addressing it!

Suzanne

18 09 2008
Clint

Geoff,

You are so smart! I love your blog! Will you marry me?

Clint

Leave a comment