The Shack

Find Similar Products Like The Shack 2 at Amazon

The Shack, by William P. Young, has been a bestseller. It has also been a lightning rod for criticism and unfairly so, I believe. I reviewed The Shack in 2008. But what I did not recognise was that there is much more to this book than meets the eye. Much of it’s message has been misinterpreted. No few reviewers have called it heretical. Thankfully, I was not rather as hard on this book as other reviewers have been. But, after reading the paperback review by Roger Olson, in his Finding God in the Shack, it is time for me to, of a sort, eat crow, with a side dish of modest pie. Here is why I think I mainly misjudged The Shack.

When The Shack came out in paperback in 2007, it received critical acclaims and critical reviews. Some even called the book heretical and un-biblical. They, and I, to an extent, could not have been more wrong. The Shack was not intended as a theological study of the triune nature of God. Much of this unfair criticism was because it was too abstract. The personages of the story are intended to resemble, but not be incisively like, the Holy Trinity: God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. All God and All co-equally God.

For centuries Jesus’ Divinity has been questioned. The Bible says (John 1) that He Is God, The Word. Some might asked how may Jesus have been wholly humane and completely God at His coming to world in a manger? How could Jesus have been completely 100% humane and still 100% God. That is 200%, right!? But if we use an analogy, we may clear this up. I was born in America, in Wichita, Kansas. If an individual asks me, if I’m a Kansan, I would say yes…100%. But I am likewise 100% American. That doesn’t add up to 200%. I am both an American and a Kansan.

The Shack, I believe, is the author’s try to clarify the kinship amid humans and the triune God. It describes the kinship amongst mankind and the Trinity, cohabitating inside of the believer. I believe in my firstborn review of The Shack, I was unduly influenced by the criticism of others. I believe it is my obligation to rectify and grant that my own view of this book in an earlier review left out a heap of critical issues. Basically, I am saying that I could not have been more faulty regarding it. But I had a big number of others who I had company with. This concession is credited to Roger Olson in his book Finding God in the Shack.

My introductory fault was giving to much weight and credence of other’s who have been critical of The Shack. I did not see what is apparent to me now, that the author was describing the intimate involvement of God, in each of the three distinguished personages of God. The characters in The Shack have queer characteristics that are representative of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

In The Shack, Mack grieves the loss of his cherished daughter, Missy, for the duration of a mishap on a lake. Mack partly blames himself for the rape and murder of his youngest daughter by his inattentiveness for the duration of the lake accident. The Shack, addresses specific issues over the grieving routine that persons endure when they face tragedies, and exceptionally when losing a child. Mack is angry that God has permitted this to occur and He wonders why does God grant such suffering in the world?

What is now apparent, was not earlier so, until I read a book that reviewed The Shack. Roger Olson’s, Finding God in the Shack, does a marvelous occupation of reading amidst the lines. An exegesis of extraordinary proportions. It will have to have been evident to me that each reputation represented each fellow member of the God family. The Shack was intended, I believe, to be a story; an analogy much like Jesus used in His parables while instructing His disciples difficult issues (Olson, P. 13).

In The Shack, the author plainly is attempting to show how very difficult a loss of such magnitude is to endure. What Mack calls the Great Sadness. To lose, perhaps his most prized earthly treasure, the youngest of his three, was more than he could bear. And anger was the result. A lost sense of trust in God.

Roger Olson’s, Finding God in the Shack, points out that there are a heap of problematic areas in The Shack. Mr. Olson says that “…we are supposed to believe that God actually appeared to Mack as a Trinity of the Three distinct personages of God” (Olson, p.12). However, The Shack’s real point might be that God is worthy of our trust. This change in perspective is life-changing, in that we must endure times of seemingly unbearable grief. Jesus is ever with us and is along side of us, always present, even if we feel Him there or not.

The Shack, is not biblical theology necessarily, but the story flows so well, you aren’t even conscious that you are learning regarding God and His trustworthiness. You get so involved in the story that you are learning of God’s nature, in incidental ways. You learn of God’s compassionateness and love without even realizing it.

One example of this was Mack’s own forgiveness of his father, who was terribly hard on Mack. A fantasti story of forgiveness, and reconciliation with his abusive father. This recognition of Mack forgiving his biological father is representative of The Father’s forgiveness of our sins, due to the atoning, supreme sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The Father has forgiven Mack and all Christians. It speaks of God’s forgiveness, unconditionally and His acceptance of us. Mack’s forgiveness of his father is reflective of our being forgiven through the propitiation of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

If you have ever read The Shack, the you might see how this story exudes a strong sense of God’s sovereignty. That “all things work out for the best” (Rom 8:28) and that today’s suffering is “not worthy to be equated with the glory that will be revealed in us” numerous day (Rom 8:18). It doesn’t say all things are good, but all things will work toward the good in us.

Even the bad things that take place to us work efficaciously for us in this life. Even tragedies will work themselves out, but we are at present among the here (and from time to time hell) and the heaven. If our perspective is that God is sovereign, and that Jesus is present with us, and those dearly departed children right now, allows us to endure this present life with trust in God and filled with hope of a joyful reunion with our dearly departed loved ones.

I agree with Roger Olson’s point of view, in his book Finding God in the Shack, the Mr. Young is saying that Jesus is ever present with us and that God, “…can fetch good out of…” our present suffering (Olson, P. 16). The healing balm of God’s trustworthiness, the modify to an eternal perspective, and today’s grief is placed versus the backdrop of heaven.

There is likewise ease in knowing that God genuinely suffering with us. I had never even thought with regards to this before. God suffers with us. The Shack likewise speaks directly of the evil and suffering in the world, coming as a result of humane aftermaths or persons choosing their own way. God’s non-intervention is His respect for humane freewill. As was said in ancient Israel’s period, just prior to the kings, where everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Mack asks a question in The Shack that humans have been asking since they were created. Why does God concede suffering? Why doesn’t He stop it? Because this would interfere with human’s freewill (Olson, p. 26). God is respectful of mankind making up their own minds. Innocent children and babies die, like Mack’s own little princess. He begins to question God. Since God is sovereign, and knows the future, is this part of the plan of God? Taking a young child’s life? In His sovereignty, does He plan and aid to carry out such things?

I in truth believe that The Shack is intended to, as Mr. Olson says, “…correct our folk images of God and replace them with more biblical images (Olson, p. 33). God is not a harsh judge, or a grandfatherly “hands-off” God. In Mr. Young’s The Shack, he seems to “…want to modify our effigy of God (Olson, p. 34). God’s reputation is not unsearchable. Mr. Young gives us a glimpse at His Divine Nature, His knowable attributes, His traits and His character.

The Shack states the oftentimes quoted, “Where were you God when I necessitated you most?” Why all the tragic events, rape, murders, torture and death? Mr. Young at long last sees God’s perfective love as not forcing His will on others (Young, p. 145). Mr. Olson says it is “out of love [that] God limits Himself” (Olson, p. 46).

There are a good deal of problematic areas in The Shack. For example, it’s hard to accommodate the author saying that God’ love doesn’t strength our own freewill to fit His. And The Shack’s character, Mack, saying that God is submitted to us. I, like Roger Olson, think it ought to be just the opposite in that we will have to submit to God and trust the outcome to Him, who knows the ending (Olson, p. 47). Jesus came to serve, yes, but not to become subservient to us. He is Lord of Lord and King of Kings: Our Master, not my Master. But this may have been Mr. Young’s way of saying that God is here for us.

An important portion of The Shack is that God has no pleasure in the death of anyone. He says, “turn and live” and choose life (Ezek. 18:32, John 3:16, II Pet. 3:9, I Tim. 2:4). God gives us a clear warning to choose life; no evil. We are asked to pray for God’s will, but Mack asks indirectly, why we need to pray if God has already predestines everything? He concluded that God is in charge, but not responsible for evil.

Mr. Young’s story is almost like Mack putting God on trial for crimes versus humanity. But God is unfazed by this. In fact, He points the finger right back to humans who own obligation for going their own way (Olson, p. 59). God is not responsible for evil in the world, Every humane who has ever lived is responsible, including me. Regardless, Mack says that God has a outstanding fondness for uncertainty and so asks how may an all-knowing God, knowing the ending from the beginning, grant evil?

Mr. Young, by appearance, seems to say that Christ passed away for all humans, Christian or not (Olson, p. 71), even Missy’s rapist and murderer. It sounds like God has already forgiven Missy’s murderer, called Lady Killer, even if the murderer has not asked for forgiveness (Olson, p. 72). That is a hard conception to swallow. God is, in effect, telling Mack that the cross is supposed to mean that all humans are forgiven, irrespective of what sins they committed or whether they are repentant or not. I say it seems that way. But is Mack genuinely saying this? I don’t believe so.

Mr. Young might be genuinely saying through Mack that “…implies that God doesn’t consign anybody to hell” (Olson, p. 77). The author would have God still carrying out or participate in humans in hell and hoping they’ll relent or that God never abandons the sinner, even in hell (Olson, p. 78).

If we look amidst the lines, The Shack seems to be when it comes to evil and redemption. That in our fallen state we “…need God’s power to alter us” (Olson, p. 79). Absolutely right on the mark, theologically. Evil is described as the absence of evil and darkness is the absence of light (Olson, p. 82). Humans are to a complete degree dependent upon God, but the further and further that we depart from God, the more evil and darkness grow. “Sin is humanities declaration of independence from God” (Olson, p. 82). It is actually called self-idolatry to announce what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. We then become judge and jury over God, just like Satan tried to usurp God’s authority and was caste out of heaven.

What I noticed is that The Shack emphasizes voluntary free will responses by humans, rather that God’s work developed in us (Olson, p. 87). Paul says that it is by God’s spirit and power that we may have good works, so we can’t genuinely brag with regards to it (Eph. 2:8-9). But Mr. Young makes is sound like it’s voluntary and human-caused, which conflicts with God’s drawing us to Christ first. God is loving us first, even while we were sinners and drawing them to Jesus by His spirit (John 6:44).

Part of trusting God is leaving payback to Him (Olson, p. 96). The Shack’s author implies that God merely forgives people, disregarding of the condition of their hearts (Olson, p. 96). This theology is not biblical. But Mr. Young isn’t writing a book on doctrine. He is writing a book on humane suffering experience. It’s okay to stay angry at a person and be angry or questioning God, even if you’ve forgiven the offending party (Young, p. 227). Is God angry with us? Not if we have come to Jesus as our Savior and Lord. He is angry with the unrepentant thought but this angry is actually righteous indignation.

In The Shack, Mack closely sounds like church is not important. It’s only necessary to follow Jesus (Olson, p. 120). However, the Apostle Paul wasn’t building a long list of Jesus followers, he was planting churches. His letters were to churches, not individuals. Even the book of Revelation, a Revelation of Jesus Christ, not John, refers to a message to the seven churches, not the list of Jesus followers.

I think the biggest concern for Mr. Olson, in his review of the Shack, was that of church is not necessary for salvation. True enough, but churches are what Paul planted, and Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail versus it; not versus Jesus followers.

The conclusion is that I would highly commend The Shack and the book review in paperback of Finding God in the Shack by Roger Olson. He, like I do, think this is just a story of evil and repentance and why God allows suffering and that He may at long last be trusted. Mr. Olson says that The Shack is “…inspiring but not inspired” (Olson, p. 142). It is not intended to be a theological study, but an analogy for why there is pain and suffering in the world. It is not “blatantly heretical” (Olson, p. 144). It is not designed to be systematic theology by a systematic analogy (Olson, p. 147).

I principally misjudged The Shack. I was wrong. I would mainly commend this book to any Christian or non-Christian. Even the paperback, Finding God in the Shack, which is a review of The Shack.

If you’ve read The Shack, then you will have to read Finding God in the Shack. I believe it is both of these writers desire that you do seek, and do at long last find God…anywhere you might be. The Shack was not written to be taken in a literal sense on each point of theology, but to show how God deals with people in a fallen world, by analogy (Olson, p. 147). How He redeems humanity. And how this salvation has been provided by Jesus’ supreme and extreme sacrifice for all of mankind. Not that all of mankind will seek and acquire redemption, but that God desires to have an eternal kinship with all humans. Now, if they will only receive it.

Olson, Roger E. Finding God In The Shack. Copyright, 2009. Intervasity Press, Downers Grove, IL.