Tim Challies overviews a review of the best selling book, The Shack.
In the book, Burning Down The Shack, James De Young gives a startling revelation regarding the theological moorings of Paul Young, author of The Shack.
In April of 2004 De Young attended a Christian think tank and there Young presented a 103-page paper which presented a defense of universal reconciliation, a Christian form of universalism—the view that at some point every person will come to a right relationship with God. If they do not do this before they die, God will use the fires of hell to purge away any unbelief (notice the issue is not our personal sin but our unbelief). Eventually even Satan and his fallen angels will be purged of sin and all of creation will be fully and finally restored. This is to say that after death there is a second chance, and more than that, a complete inevitability, that all people will eventually repent and come to full relationship with God. De Young believes that Young’s belief in universal reconciliation is absolutely crucial to anyone who would truly wish to understand The Shack.
Sure, The Shack tends toward a flavor of universalism. But I still think it’s a good example of tackling the problem of evil emotionally and not coming totally unglued from Biblical bedrock.
Jeffrey, I agree to a point. How much emotional satisfaction should be acceptable when truth is being sacrificed in the process?
You see, I don’t think that Young necessarily sacrifices truth in The Shack. His emotional arguments smack of coming from a universalist perspective, but don’t actually teach or embrace universalism. While I’m not very comfortable with how close it gets sometimes, I am happy to see someone making rather successful emotional reasoning about the problem of evil without wholesale denying Christian truth.
The Shack is about more than just the “problem” of evil. Young uses the book to present a view of God and particularly the Trinity that cannot be reconciled with the scriptures. In The Shack Young has created a god of his own understanding and one cannot get much further from truth than that.
I admit to not having read this book. But I have heard/read quotes from it cited by a few
critics. The author should not be commended for conceptualizing God in a way that completely misrepresents His nature as revealed in Scripture. No Christian should be recommending this work to others. It does not convey the truth. It is the work of one man’s imagination running amuck.
I TOTALLY disagree!!! This book is a great novel and describes VERY WELL our Father’s nature! And it has helped “countless” people FINALLY enter into a real, true “relationship” (which is what HE has ALWAYS wanted….from the beginning!!! )
Jane, thanks for jumping into the discussion (albeit a little late). Just one question. Are you saying that the representations of each member of the Trinity represent the very “nature” of the Godhead? The picture of God as a matronly African American Woman (later turning into a pony-tailed grey-haired man), Jesus – a young middle aged man, and the Holy Spirit as a small eclectic woman of Asian descent.
Dan, there are plenty of other points in the book regarding the nature of God to address besides the literary device used for representing the Trinity. That’s like saying, “Are you saying an egg or pie represents the very nature of the God-head?!” whenever someone uses those illustrations to communicate something that can’t be completely comprehended.
No, no one is saying God is a black lady, an egg yolk, or a piece of pie.
I agree. I am simply beginning to ask questions to try and find the basis for asserting confidence that this book accurately models a Biblical view of the nature of God. If I had said, I have only one question and one issue with this book’a representation of the nature of God and then posed this issue, I would be open to the criticism of aiming at the wrong thing.
Then address the real issues instead of a literary device.
“Did you like Chronicles of Narnia?
No, Jesus is not a talking lion.”
😛
Would rather ask my question and not bring another book into this … Had too much coffee today, eh?