BOOKS: The Shack by William B. Young

  • Thread starter Thread starter deeder33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was participating in a faith formation group last night and a couple of members recommended a book called “The Shack”. They couldn’t remember the author. Apparently, it is a story about a man who is visited by three strangers who turn out to be manifestations of each of the members of the Trinity. The manifestations are a little unorthodox – they reminded me of the movie that came out many years ago starring George Burns as a cigar-smoking curmudgeonly Creator. The people who read it loved it, but I’m not real sure I want to bother with it if it’s just going to be too cute, if you know what I mean…

Thanks–

Sophie1
 
Just finished the book. I’m sure these have all been mentioned by now (I haven’t read any former posts), but I’m mainly trying to get my thoughts out. The book was great, and quite emotional, up until about page 70ish, with the exception of a few pages here and there throughout the remainder of the book. Some problems I personally found with the book:
  • Jesus doesn’t want us to imitate his own life? (WWJD? = bad?)
  • Mac (the main character) went to seminary/through theological training, yet had never been introduced to the concept of “evil as the absence of good” (he mentions he had never thought of that)?
  • Mac went to seminary/through theological training, yet had never been introduced to the idea that perhaps those who are condemned condemn themselves, and for them to be with God against their will would be even worse than hell for such a person? (Not even “Papa” had heard of this, apparently.) Again, what school did he go to?
  • Jesus chooses not to live in his glorified state? What’s more, He exists in such a way that he can choose which nature of the two he wants to live in (as if they are not unified)?
  • Wisdom is a Person? I understand the concept of allegory and metaphor, but, apparently, Papa has trouble here (much unlike the author of Proverbs, whom Mack mentions).
  • Where does the Eucharist (which is made so light of in the latter part of the book) and Baptism fall into place? How would the earliest Christians react to such disdain (I have an idea)?
  • What about the Biblical commands about the Law? Or its implications for the INSTITUTION of marriage and the Church?
  • Any religion goes? Jesus will come to you no matter what religion, and that’s just OK? In fact, He’s not interested in your becoming Christian?
  • Jesus is somewhat of a sloth (pg. 199… I admit, this could be a bit nit-picky… but it just doesn’t sit well with me. I’m glad “Jesus” is having such a good time with all of that food, while the poor suffer and monks sacrifice for his honor).
  • Infomercial-like dialogue. Very Kumbaya. “So that’s what you mean!” “I love Sarayu!” “They all laughed!” What’s next? Singing around the campfire, roasting marshmallows?
-Speaking of the character of “Sarayu”… well… I’m really not sure what to say about Sarayu.

To say the least… I don’t particularly recommend it.
 
HeyMoe, I came up with the same conclusions. I had been given a copy of this book about six months ago, but just couldn’t get beyond the image of God the Father as something akin to that woman in Touched by an Angel. 🤷 So I put it down.

Recently, though, I have heard many more people mention how this book “changed their lives,” including someone last week who was gushing to everyone in our church group about it. Two of us mentioned that we had picked it up and immediately put it back down. Several others concurred that it was a “fabulous” book that drew them closer to God.

I couldn’t put my finger on exact phrases in the book which were objectionable, so I set out this weekend to read the book cover to cover and check out some resources on the internet… which led me here.

There are specific areas which go against not only Catholic teaching, but Christian orthodoxy. Many others, however, are a mish-mash of psycho-babble that sounds great, but are actually pretty harmful on a spiritual level.

For example: (I am cutting out superflous text in order to make it shorter.)
  • Page 203: Mack (the main character) says: “Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules (the Ten Commandments)?” Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) responds: “Yes, under Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.”
1Jn5:2-3 “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”

Mark 10:17-21 *"As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’ And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” *
  • Page 179: (Throughout the book there is an underlying theme of contempt for any kind of “religion” with a hyper-emphasis on a personal relationship with God apart from any kind of direction from others.) Jesus says: “I don’t create institutions – never have, never will. … I’m not too big on religion and not very fond of politics or economics, either. …And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”
Matt 18:15-20 *“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witneses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” *

There are several more, but you get my point. There are serious errors in this book and someone who is not extremely knowledgeable can very easily miss some of the errors and believe they are correct. Worse, they can pass this belief on to others as Truth.

A great article on why we should have Discernment with regard to what we read can be found here:
catholicexchange.com/2008/11/14/114435/

To be sure, there are concepts in this book which are wonderfully illustrative of the goodness of God and which give depth to some of the more difficult aspects of our relationship with Him:

– God will never force His Will on us. (P 145)
– Being unable to forgive someone is tantamount to wrapping your fingers around their neck. Forgiveness is not forgetting what they did; it merely releases them from your need for revenge. (Pp 224-227)
– God doesn’t just want us to give Him a part of our day, He wants us to involve Him in every aspect of our day. (P 207)

While some may say it’s an allegory and shouldn’t be taken too seriously, I strongly maintain that becauses the book is written as though it is from the very Mouth of God, it takes on a much higher significance in the reader’s mind. To that end, it should be held to a higher standard. If someone is not already grounded in the Christian faith, this book can certainly lead them to believe that they have the right – or, rather the obligation – to find God on their own terms, apart from any church. :eek:

Now at least I can go back to that circle of friends and explain why I believe this book is not one they should recommend! 😉
 
I was given this book for Christmas, agree with a lot of the negative stuff said about it so far, especially the writing. I also love the bit where God says (S)He isn’t into obligations, and never wants Her followers to act out of obligation or have expectations. Love should motivate all. How do you have love without obligations. Should I not go to my crying baby if I don’t feel perfectly loving, and like it’s not an obligation? Ridiculous.

Oh, and Father Elijah, by Michael O’Brien, is one of a series of six books called Children of the Last Days. They’re

Strangers and Sojourners
Plague Journal
Eclipse of the Sun
Sophia House
Father Elijah
A Cry of Stone

I recommend them.
 
I was given the book, The Shack, read it, and hated it. Everything that the Catholic and Protestant critics are saying is true. I only finished it because of my friendship with the one who gave it to me.

However, because it is so popular, I felt I needed to spend more time thinking about what exactly it is that bothers me (and others). In one of the posts above I found the link to the 52-minute video of William Paul Young’s personal story. Watching that ended up being very helpful for me as I thought about the book.

Young is a man who has experienced deep pain. While this does not excuse his errors, it is his pain and his slow journey back to faith in God which is resonating with those who love the book.

Young was physically and verbally abused by his Protestant missionary father, sexually abused as a preschooler by the tribespeople they lived among, and was sent at age 6 to a boarding school for missionary children where he and the other first graders were molested by the older boys.

In the video, Young says “Bible school teaches you how to pretend.” I understand this, I went to a Protestant Bible college (I am a Catholic convert). Everybody wants to be seen as a “good Christian.” But if you feel the need to pretend to the degree Young did, you pretty much bring that with you. It is not hard to imagine that Young’s early experience of abuse (with no subsequent counseling) would shape how he encountered the world from then on.

In The Shack, Young has Jesus calling religion, politics and economics “the man-created trinity of errors that ravage the earth and deceives those I care about.” Well, think about it. Here is a vulnerable child who has been failed by every system he knows: his church did not protect him from an abusive father, his father did not protect him from an abusive community, his teachers/school administrators did not protect him from sexual predators, and no one in his church or Bible school is prepared to handle his pain. With this kind of conditioning, what reason does Young have to think that there is any value in systems?

To solve this deep dilemma, to cope with his pain, Young reformulates his view of God.

The God he had conceived in his mind as a child was modeled after his father - a distant, emotionally unavailable God who did not love him and did not protect him. But Young wants to love God, and wants to be loved. So he creates a new image of God, as far from the image of his father that he can think of - a soft, fat female with dark brown skin.

Remember, too, that Young’s entire religious experience is Protestant, which not only means that he does not know about the Eucharist, but he also does not know Mary, so he had no “Mother” in his experience of religion.

As I thought about all this, I was reminded of another influential person who had similar personal struggles: Martin Luther. He, too, had a demanding father who was difficult to please. Martin Luther also was gifted. And he was internally tortured. He spent hours in the confessional every day, yet was unable to receive the forgiveness of God. To solve this dilemma and relieve his pain, he reformulated the idea of salvation so that he could find assurance.

Fr. George H.Tavard, in “A Catholic Approach to Protestantism” (1955 - a great classic on ecumenism) says: “As a result of what seems to have been a deep religious crisis in the years 1507-1511, Luther unwittingly upset the poise of tradition. Christianity became for him the profound experiential awareness of being personally saved by Christ” (emphasis his). Tavard further describes this as a “shift from a faith in Christ as reaching us in historical events and institutions to a faith in Christ reaching us in an inner experience of spiritual liberation.”

This emphasis on the “inner experience” is what I was raised with as a conservative Evangelical, and it has a lot of value. But this emphasis on individual experience now has become the primary focus of the so-called emergent church.

You can see this emergent theology in The Shack. Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, “I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn’t know you.”

But to set knowing Christ against the institutions that bring Christ to us is a false dichotomy. It was wrong when Luther did it, and it still is today. The physical, visible, institutional Church brings us Jesus in the Eucharist, AND the Church can help lead us to experience a deep awareness of God’s love and Christ’s salvation.

It seems to me that by rejecting systems, Young endorses a popular new “sola” - sola relationship. But just like sola scriptura, this is a mistake.

Systems and relationships are in a kind of symbiosis: they need each other, they strengthen (and weaken) each other. Systems are full of human beings, so they (like us) are always prone to corruption, always in need of reform. But that does not mean we do not need systems.

Religious, political, economic systems: these are good and necessary, and are intended to serve the purposes of good, the common good. Can they serve the purposes of evil? Certainly. But to reject them is to reject human experience.

It is my prayer that all those (but especially Catholics) who read The Shack come away only with the good: that is, with the desire for more of God. And I pray that to find Him they turn to, embrace, and do their part to improve our religious system, the one, true, visible and physical Church and the Sacraments, given to us by God. Through this system we learn more about God, we are reconciled to Him and each other through confession, we find consolation and comfort in the gentle embrace of our Mother, Mary, and we fill our heart’s desire with Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.
 
Wow, I have really enjoyed the insightful discussions on this board. Thanks Hungry1, and Moe and ATL. Our book club just had our discussion on this book last night.

I was the only Catholic there, and there was one Ukrainian Orthodox. There was one strong Protestant, and the rest had grown up protestant but weren’t interested in their faith.

Myself, and the Protestant and one other lady took a lot from the book and were immediately changed by it. The rest said it fell flat on their spirituality. I was quite surprised at that. Personally, how can you not be moved by this book?
 
Sina said:
Wow, I have really enjoyed the insightful discussions on this board. Thanks Hungry1, and Moe and ATL. Our book club just had our discussion on this book last night.

I was the only Catholic there, and there was one Ukrainian Orthodox. There was one strong Protestant, and the rest had grown up protestant but weren’t interested in their faith.

Myself, and the Protestant and one other lady took a lot from the book and were immediately changed by it. The rest said it fell flat on their spirituality. I was quite surprised at that. Personally, how can you not be moved by this book?
Click to expand...
I felt that too much of the book was creating God in the image of the author rather than what God has shown us through the Bible. It helped me a lot to go back into the book’s website and look at the author’s history – it’s pretty telling.

For those people who have a weak understanding of Christianity, it can lead them down the wrong path. For that reason, I can’t recommend it. :dts:
 
Sina said:
I was the only Catholic there, and there was one Ukrainian Orthodox. There was one strong Protestant, and the rest had grown up protestant but weren’t interested in their faith.

Myself, and the Protestant and one other lady took a lot from the book and were immediately changed by it. The rest said it fell flat on their spirituality. I was quite surprised at that. Personally, how can you not be moved by this book?
Click to expand...
I think it is significant that the ones *not *moved in your book group were the ones not interested in their faith. Paul Young himself truly loves Jesus and for those who share this devotion, it comes through in the book. Apparently those who do not have any personal level of devotion to God themselves are not able to see it or be moved by it.

To me, that’s another reason why simply promoting faith that is only personal, only relational, only emotional (without structure, obedience, sacrifice, the sacraments) is not enough - it’s good and important, but not enough. Not everyone is “wired” to be emotional or sensitive, but that does not mean they cannot be a devout believer with a passion for God. They can engage with their intellect and their will and never find the end of all God has to offer, without ever getting sentimental. That’s the beauty and richness of the Catholic faith and intellectual tradition - it embraces us all.
 
I thought the book got a lot wrong/confused, and was hilariously ironic in that the author so opposes religious institutions, yet clearly this book would never have even been written had those “bad” institutions not kept the message of Christ coming down to us the last 2000 years.

That said, it raised one very important point IMO that a lot of people need to take much more seriously: That God loves everyone, that He truly is “very fond” of everyone, and that it is therefore not our place to judge or condemn others no matter how right we personally believe we are. Very dangerous to ourselves to do so.
 
We listened to the book on the 11 hour ride back from the Pro-Life Rally. I think it left us going “Huh?” more than anything. Yes it did have those sweet moments and listening to it you get a certain enhancement.

There are a lot of other books I would recommend before this one. I can’t understand the attraction to it other than some shocking revelations.
 
LeroyCRHP said:
I can’t understand the attraction to it other than some shocking revelations.
Click to expand...
A lot of people just never consider having a personal relationship with God, and I think that’s the attraction.

But also the whole idea of how one would deal with the brutal murder (and I’m going to assume sexual assault, though its never detailed) of their own young child. I hear a LOT of people say things offhand like “well I would just have to kill the guy and spend the rest of my life in prison.” I’ve asked my own husband to read the book for the sole purpose that I’ve heard him make comments like this and asked him not to joke around like that, but am never sure he’s totally joking. I want him to read it so we can discuss that aspect of the story, the concept of forgiving someone and moving on with your life.
 
I have been reading this book and hearing a lot of buzz around it I thought I would come on here to see what some other Catholics (and other people of Faith) were saying about it. I first want to say to those who use this forum to remember that we are all people of God and trying to become close to the Truth through our community of believers, even if it is online, so there is no need to talk down to anyone or get offended when we are all trying to help each other. But I think there are so many good things to be found in this book. Yes, it does not follow our Catholic faith to the ‘t’ but that doesn’t mean we should turn our backs to it completely. The idea of a personal relationship with God is what this book strives to help us with, I believe. Is that not a Catholic view? Do we not all strive for a personal relationship with the Lord? I guess I don’t have anything too insightful to say, just really didn’t like the way some people seemed to just blindly and hatefully shut this book, and anyone who tried to defend it, down. I believe that it is true that this book is dangerous when read by someone weak in their Faith but we must remember that it is a book of fiction and we should admire the heart of the author. How many of us have reached the numbers he has with a message of love? and I believe that is all it boiled down to.
God Bless
 
Avood said:
I have been reading this book and hearing a lot of buzz around it I thought I would come on here to see what some other Catholics (and other people of Faith) were saying about it. I first want to say to those who use this forum to remember that we are all people of God and trying to become close to the Truth through our community of believers, even if it is online, so there is no need to talk down to anyone or get offended when we are all trying to help each other. But I think there are so many good things to be found in this book. Yes, it does not follow our Catholic faith to the ‘t’ but that doesn’t mean we should turn our backs to it completely. The idea of a personal relationship with God is what this book strives to help us with, I believe. Is that not a Catholic view? Do we not all strive for a personal relationship with the Lord? I guess I don’t have anything too insightful to say, just really didn’t like the way some people seemed to just blindly and hatefully shut this book, and anyone who tried to defend it, down. I believe that it is true that this book is dangerous when read by someone weak in their Faith but we must remember that it is a book of fiction and we should admire the heart of the author. How many of us have reached the numbers he has with a message of love? and I believe that is all it boiled down to.
God Bless
Click to expand...
Good points, good first post. Hope you stick around.
 
relationships not based on the truth are worthless
**
You wanna relationship with Jesus. make sure it’s one based on all revealed truth.
 
This thread has been v interesting, and I want to thank many of you for giving your insights, both favorable and not!

I have taken on starting a library in our parish, and am committed to stocking only books which uphold Catholic doctrine and teaching, fiction or non-fiction.

A lady who is helping with this project just read The Shack, and she thought it was “good”, so I thought I should do some research. I am not going to accept this novel and will warn others about the bad/mixed theology.

MY MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION TO CATHOLIC ANSWERS WILL CONTINUE – I get so MUCH info here that I would probably not have, or would have had to spend much more time doing so if it were not for these forums!!

It is SO worthwhile to be able to come here and be educated!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for all who work to keep this site alive and all who contribute their time and also financially.

And if any of you forum veterans out there WHO DO NOT YET DONATE $$, please consider doing so. And if you already do --THANK YOU!!

God bless,
Mimi
 
As to the thought that “remember this is a work of fiction” –

That was what the “Duh” Vinci Code book was, too – fiction, but look at what happened. We’ll never know the extent of the damage that book did to pull Catholics out of the Church, but we know there were some, perhaps esp. young people, those who are not firm in their faith.

Yes, I could read, and perhaps enjoy this book as a novel, but there are so many other good and worth authors to read which HELP me sustain and deepen my Catholic faith, why would I want to bother using the short time God has granted me on this earth to do so?

If YOU liked it, fine. I wish you well, and pray you will find the Truth (and maybe better novels).

God bless
Mimi
 
I just read The Shack last week and came away knowing it did not coincide with my Catholic upbringing and studies. However, it did give me a different vision of God and it helped me understand how one might deal with the death of a child. I think it is good for someone who already has their feet firmly planted in their faith, but I would be a little leary of someone who was wishy-washy allowing this book to sway them in any direction. There is absolutely NO book that could lead me away from my Catholic faith - I made that decision while working on my master’s in English lit. When you start reading about English history, you are going to read the UGLY side of Catholic history. I made a decision, then and there, I would not let any part of that history or any book like The Shack or daVince Code convince me that my faith is not the ONE faith. I just worry about young people, who are questioning themselves, reading The Shack and feeling that God doesn’t hold them accountable.
 
Mimi said:
As to the thought that “remember this is a work of fiction” –

That was what the “Duh” Vinci Code book was, too – fiction, but look at what happened. We’ll never know the extent of the damage that book did to pull Catholics out of the Church, but we know there were some, perhaps esp. young people, those who are not firm in their faith.
…

God bless
Mimi
Click to expand...
Those who say it’s only fiction and, therefore, “harmless” remind me of something I was told about a dozen years ago when I was defending a movie I liked because it was (as I saw it) “harmless.” It was a good Catholic who challenged me with this: (And I’ve NEVER forgotten it!)

A father’s pre-teenagers ask him if they can see a specific movie, which they know he’s already said they can’t see. When he tells them “No” for the umpteenth time, they whine that all their friends are seeing it and their parents don’t seem to mind.

He tells them that he will think about it and let them know his decision the next evening. To the kids, this is a SURE sign that he’s softening in his position! 👍

The next day he calls his brood into the kitchen and asks them to sit at the table so they can talk about his decision. As they gather, Dad comes over to the table with a fresh batch of warm brownies.

This has GOT to be a sign that Dad has softened!! Elated, they all reach excitedly for the brownies, but Dad holds up his hand and says…

“Wait! I want to let you guys know that I took an itty bitty amount of doog poo out of the yard and mixed it in with the brownie mix. It’s just a little bit – not enough to really hurt you. I doubt you’ll even be able to taste it! I just thought you should know.”

Totally disgusted, the kids recoiled in horror and asked him what in the world possessed him to do that. He replied…

*“You want to convince me that even though this movie has things in it which I know are harmful to your mind, that it’s 'No Big Deal.” I’ve been given the responsibility by God to teach you and lead you – which is something I will have to answer to God for when I die.

“Even though you may not see or taste the dangers, it is my responsibility to point them out and keep you safe. Just like these brownies, that movie may look good and even make you feel wonderful at that moment, but it is harmful nonetheless. I can’t say ‘Yes’ to something I know is not good for you.”*

This is the same way with The Shack. Yes, there are definitely some wam fuzzies which give you a glimpse of God’s love for us. But, they are interspersed with many harmful things that could seriously injure the spiritual journey of someone who is not grounded in Christianity. Because The Shack speaks in the first person – as if it were really God speaking – this is even more dangerous.

As Catholics, we will have to answer to God for the ways we led people TO HIM – and that includes those ways that we looked the other way when we knew something had dog poo in it! :eek:

Does that make sense?
 
ATL_Granny said:
This is the same way with The Shack. Yes, there are definitely some wam fuzzies which give you a glimpse of God’s love for us. But, they are interspersed with many harmful things that could seriously injure the spiritual journey of someone who is not grounded in Christianity. Because The Shack speaks in the first person – as if it were really God speaking – this is even more dangerous.

As Catholics, we will have to answer to God for the ways we led people TO HIM – and that includes those ways that we looked the other way when we knew something had dog poo in it! :eek:

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, ATL Granny! We must be on the same wavelength - my sister-in-law D read the book (a friend had it and didn’t want to read it, so she offered to). Now D is a devout Catholic, and she clearly recognized the problems with the book. But she tried to point out that it has some real pearls in it, too. And I said, “yeah, but you sure have to dig through some doggy poo to find them.” !!

I want to be charitable about the book, but I don’t think we can ignore it’s dangers, either. Thanks for your insights!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top