Okay, so I finally finished The Shack. Like I said earlier, it is not popular here in India, and I was not going to spend the money to buy it and have it shipped to me. So I waited until one of the youth at church was given a copy and asked her to let me have it. Even though I wrote an earlier post about a few things I was concerned with, I have been busy and just now go around to actually finishing it.
I stand by my earlier assertion that the book strongly devalues important Christian doctrines, especially Sola Scriptura. William P. Young also spins Adam’s sin in the garden to just trying to be independent. Actually, it makes one think that sin is really just us foolishly wanted independence from God (p.165,190, 191, 202). It seems overly concerned with the “potential” of mankind (p.132, 154, 158, 167), even going so far as to insinuate that we are worthy of God’s love (p.163). There are many other things I noticed, but I will just focus on one.
One of my biggest concerns over the book is that it seeks to redefine sin to just mankind wanting “independence.” As I look back over my notes, I fail to see one instance where the author talks about our lawlessness, depravity, and sin. Compare this with what Paul writes about us in Romans 3:10-23 and Ephesians 2:3
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature, children of wrath, like the rest of mankind
My question: If this guy is wrong on his understanding of sin and our total depravity, how can he properly explain the Gospel? The Gospel must be understood in the context of our deep and abiding depravity. It is because we are wicked, evil creatures who rejected the Creator, that there is a Gospel message. Jesus came to die for sinners, not people who wanted independence!
The sad thing about the state of the church in America is that I wish that I could recommend it to everyone. I would like everyone to see the extreme errors contained in the book. But then I look and see how many “Christians” are actually embracing this book, and I realize that we have far too many “novices” in the church that a book like this can negatively influence . Also, in my humble opinion, the book is not well written and leans toward the highly emotional to overcome it’s literary shortcomings.
I am linking to Tim Challies very thorough review on The Shack. Tim rightly recognizes the influence of the book and has a well-documented defense against it. I highly recommend reading this, especially if you do plan on reading The Shack. Click Here for Tim Challies review of the Shack (PDF file at bottom of page)
Also, check out Mark Driscoll’s take on The Shack:
With that being said, I strongly discourage anyone from reading this book.
But hey, this guy approved it!
