Certainly, I think The Shack was better than The DaVinci Code, and far more orthodox, as far as the author’s theology. But I am not one of those people that believes The DaVinci Code is “dangerous.” Misguided, perhaps, but not dangerous. It is my thought that, if any work of fiction is enough to shake your faith in the Bible, then your faith was on a pretty shaky foundation to begin with. Just my opinion, that…

Finally, I would submit to any who want to criticize any book without having read it (not necessarily directing this to anyone who has posted here): if you want to know what the fuss about ANY book is, read it for yourself, and form your own opinions. If you disagree with it, decide why you disagree with it. Along with this idea, I would also say: if you hate something, why try to dissuade others from reading it? Let them form their own opinions, too. It is high time for Christians to begin thinking for themselves, and judging fiction and non-fiction accordingly. Does that make any sense? Hopefully so.

I read The Shack shortly after it was first published. I thought it was so good that I bought copies to give to my saved and unsaved family, friends, food servers, hairdressers etc. At one Bob Evans we even had an informal Shack discussion group. It was a way to open the door to a discussion of Christ and salvation. Many people then when out and bought books for their entire family.

After I had given out 30 or more copies I read many pro and con blogs. But the one by John Mark Hicks went into great detail on the story and then he did an analysis of the claimed theological errors. Since he wrote back in October 2008 it may be hard to locate all of his blogs but a good place to start is: http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/meeting-god-at-the-shack-v-forgiving-others-self-andgod/

Thank you Michael for your post.

I’m almost finished with “The Shack,” having resisted reading it for some time, citing “I don’t have time for fiction,” as my reason. But, when a respected brother and student of theology told me I HAD to read it for its theological content, his eyes alight, I downloaded it to my iPhone’s Kindle app and got started. I approached it with skepticism, expecting to do a lot of eye-rolling. I was surprised, and pleasantly so, at the presentation and the lessons it sets out to teach.

Like you, Michael, I found nothing dangerous or seriously objectionable, though I agree with one comment above that I wouldn’t recommend it to seekers (or non-believers). I would, however, recommend it to many people I know who struggle in their walk with Christ on some of the foundational issues, as a supplemental resource to help illustrate certain principles.

Thank you for this blog. The timing was perfect for me and I’m glad I read the book after taking your introductory TTP course! God is great!

Just because some of Young’s positions in this book have been promoted in the past doesn’t mean we should promote them today. Even is The Shack is similar to CS Lewis’ writings, so what? It’s not Lewis and Lewis is no longer with us. I don’t see why the validity of The Shack must rise or fall on what CS Lewis wrote.

One thing that The Shack has shown me is that there are people hurting out there who are not being connected with through local churches. For whatever the reason this is we can do better. This also shows us not only the importance of theology, but the importance of communicating it well.

Mark

The difference is, the writers of those other books were intentionally writing fiction as fiction. Unlike the writer of the “Shack” they didn’t claim to have a visit from God prior to writing their book, nor imply that God was behind their inspiration in writing, nor did they claim to be presenting theology as it should correctly be understood (Even in Lewis’ the Great Divorce, he was only putting forward a possibility, a speculation). Those differences are marked and put the Shack into a different category. N. Geisler’s review is very perceptive and clearly shows how unorthodox and incorrect the theology is the “Shack”. Moreover, even in the Bible God the father is never given an image, and the Bible is the basis of for the belief and tradition of not representing the father with an image. Finally, the author’s claim that his theology in his book is “orthodox” is patently false and misleading, and proves him to have little understanding of what he writes about and to be unfit as a teacher.

regards,
John