Challies concludes his review by warning his readers, “That The Shack is a dangerous book should be obvious from this review. . . . I urge you, the reader, to exercise care in reading and distributing this book. . . . Read it only with the utmost care and concern, critically evaluating the book against the unchanging standard of Scripture.”

Although I do disagree that The Shack is a dangerous book to read, I agree that we should all read it with care and concern, prayerfully and critically evaluating the book against Scripture. What concerns me most about The Shack is not the book itself, but the negative reviews I have read about the book. Most of these reviewers are very influential among their respective church cultures. They have turned a whole society of Christians against Young without ever laying an eye on The Shack. Claiming that Young is promoting Goddess worship, universalism, inclusivism, modalism, and more is just inaccurate. When I read these reviews I always wonder if the reader had actually read The Shack or if they skimmed through it looking for what could be wrong with it.

In the introduction of this series, I mentioned that a recent Facebook conversation resparked my desire to write this review. During that conversation I said, “I would be interested in finding out how many people commenting on this thread have actually read the book.” I find it interesting that none of the people giving The Shack a negative review said whether or not they had read the book. The only people who actually read The Shack were the people giving it positive reviews.

What I found most scary was when someone told me that I was being unreasonable to expect reviewers of The Shack to actually read the book. This mindset seems prevalent among some Christian leaders. The justification is “when a member of my church explains the nature of God in an entirely erroneous fashion and then proceeds to tell me that the book The Shack was instrumental in formulating her ideas, I have every reason to be concerned about what she has read, regardless of whether or not I have personally read it.” To which I must respond it is very irresponsible to pass judgment and elude to discernment about something we have never experienced/read. Just because someone comes away from a book with some “off-the-wall” ideas does not mean that the book teaches those ideas. Some prominent examples would be, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentacostals, Baptists, Catholics, etc. and that is after reading/studying the Bible! Not a fictional book written by an author who admits it is purely a metaphor.

To conclude, The Shack, is definitely a controversial book. Before you pass judgment on it, please take the time to read it yourself. Read it prayerfully, discerningly, and compare it to what is revealed to us in Scripture. You may find that the negative reviews written about it are mostly out of context.

Is Young 100% correct in his theology? Probably not, but I do not expect any of us are. Young is talking about the journey we are all on towards Jesus, I do not suppose we will be perfect in our theology until Jesus comes back.

Related: Check out this interview of William P. Young from CBN.

The last section of Challies review is, Trinity: Who is God? He starts of by asking a simple question, “does The Shack teach what the Bible teaches [about the Trinity]?” [11] The simple answer is probably not, because the Bible does not really teach much about the Trinity. However, The Shack does explain the Trinity in a very easy to understand way. Challies immediately goes on a tangent claiming that Young is sinning by portraying God and the Holy Spirit in a human form. Claiming that the “Bible is clear that God cannot and must not be portrayed in an image” [11] is a not accurately describing the Bible. There are many instances within Scripture where God is given human attributes — Exodus 7:5, “I stretch out My hand;” Numbers 6:24, “The Lord make His face shine on you;” Psalm 34:15, “The eyes of the Lord;” Psalm 89:10, “Thy mighty arm.” Furthermore, Young is not truly presenting God as a human figure. God admits, in The Shack, that their forms are not their actual forms. They are representing themselves to Mack as a way to relate to him.

Challies goes on to attack Young’s view of hierarchy. However, this again becomes a verbal dispute. Challies assumes because Young says that there is no hierarchy between the Trinity, then there is no submission between the Trinity. But Young never claims that, in fact, quite the opposite – Jesus does submit to Papa in The Shack. Further, in The Shack, when they discuss their relationship as the Trinity, they are discussing it as a relationship with no need for hierarchy. They have such a “good” relationship, that they can submit to one another without a predefined ranking order. This is not a Scriptural idea, but it’s not a unScriptural idea. Challies’ (and other traditional Christians) idea that hierarchy exists between the Trinity is also not Scriptural and it is also not unScriptural. Challies’ complaint is one of traditional understanding, not one of Scriptural purity – although he seems to confuse the two.

Challies brings up Young’s view of distinction, complaining that Young blurs the lines of that personhoods of the Trinity. He questions The Shack saying, “In one of his first encounters with Papa, ‘Mack
noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his’ (95). Note that these scars were present on the wrists of the Father and not just the Son.” [14] Claiming that Young believes that the Father was on the cross. However, it is quite clear that since Papa admits that he is neither male nor female, then Young is clearly using physical symbolism to represent truth. The truth that Young is claiming is that Jesus sacrifice was felt by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well. This is not too hard to believe, afterall, do not most traditional Christians believes that the Godhead was changed when God the Son became man? I do not think that Young is blurring the lines of personhood here, he is showing God the Father as a compassionate person of the Trinity.

Many follow Challies here in discussing Young’s attempt at revealing God as a female. Claiming that Young is teaching Goddess worship or worse. Challies himself Pidgeon-holes himself by saying that because God has revealed himself in the masculine in Scripture then Young has no right to allow God to reveal himself as a fat black woman in The Shack. Even though Papa admits, “I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” (93) Later Papa reveals himself to Mack as a male figure. (218-219) Papa does this because Mack is about to go through a particularly hard time and Papa wanted to reveal himself in a way that would comfort Mack the most. This is not Goddess worship at all, this is God revealing himself in a special way to someone who needs him.

To Challies “one of the most disturbing aspects of The Shack is the behavior of Mack when he is in the presence of God.” His complaint was that Mack does not act as awe struck as Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Moses (Exodus 3:6). Although it is true that these people had a distant, even scary, encounter with God… does not the Gospel allow us to enter the presence of the Father through Jesus? Not to mention, The Shack is not about the awesome power of God. The Shack is about God comforting and teaching one of his children. Mack may not be in awe of God, but it is because of Mack’s anger towards God. There are numerous Christians in this world this very day who are angry with God. Whether or not that is right is besides the point. Young does not claim that Mack’s attitude is right – in fact – the very nature of this book is to claim that Mack’s attitude towards God is unjustified.

Challies ends this section asking, “Should God allow in His presence the very sins for which He sent His Son to die? Would a man stand before the Creator of the Universe and curse? What kind of God is the God of The Shack?” Which only indicates that Challies did not understand the point of The Shack and seemingly does not understand propitiation or sin.

In Challies second, “Salvation – What has Christ Accomplished?” it seems like he is much more concerned with Young not presenting the gospel precise enough than he is concerned that Young is wrong. I think Challies misses the point of the book entirely. Young may not have been as exact as he could have been, however, this book is about the journey a church-going Christian goes on to truly find a relationship with God. Part of that journey is finding out that many people are on this long journey and will learn different aspects to this relationship at different times. However, Young does discuss reconciliation, redemption, the cross, and more. In fact, Challies even quotes “‘Honey,’ says Papa, ‘you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.’ ‘The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?’ ‘The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.’” [10] Yet, Challies complains that Young isn’t precise enough in his language as to what reconciliation is. However, this is not a systematic theology. The point Young is trying to get across is what he believes reconciliation is. That reconciliation is a two-way street – the first of which was completed with Jesus’ sacrifice – the second of which is accept that gift. In fact, later on in this section Challies explains redemption in very similar terms as Young, just different wording. [11]

Many other reviewers have claimed that Young is a inclusivist or universalist based on one specific quote from The Shack, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” (182) Challies is one of the few reviewers that also continue the quote, “‘Does that mean,’ asked Mack, ‘that all roads will lead to you?’ ‘Not at all,’ smiled Jesus . . . . ‘Most roads don’t lead anywhere.’” (182) Challies main concern is again that Young is not strong enough here in admitting that Jesus is the only way to salvation. However, Young’s use of past-tense, “were Buddhist or Mormons…” (emphasis mine) seems to indicate that they are at least no longer Buddhist or Mormons (or Baptist for that matter). Further, within the context of the chapter and book as a whole it seems to indicate that Young is merely explaining to his reader that Jesus saves all walks of life. It’s hard to deny this fact, it is quite Scriptural.

Challies also seems to want to get into a verbal argument over trivial things. At one point in The Shack, Young writes, “[H]e too is my son. I want to redeem him” (224) – Challies is upset because he believes that redemption has already been accomplished on the cross. However, within the context of what Young wrote, Young is not using the word redeem in the same way that Challies is using it. By this time, Young has already admitted that we are all redeemed in Christ. Further, in this quote, the point Young is making is not when/how someone is redeemed. It is about our response to people who do us wrong. God is teaching Mack that when we forgive people we are handing them over to God to redeem – when we do not forgive people we then are trying to take the place of God. I do not know what Young would say about redemption, but I do not get the impression from this quote that Young is talking about the same thing that Challies is concerned about. Challies ends this section by saying

[The Shack] teaches that God does not punish sin, but that sin is sufficient punishment in itself. It opens the possibility that people can come to God in ways other than a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It obfuscates the doctrine of salvation that the Bible makes so clear and so central. It muddies the very heart of the faith.

I believe an accurate reading of this book will reveal to you that Young affirms the punishment for sin, does not open the possibility of universalism, nor does it obfuscate salvation or faith.

In Challies’ review of The Shack he takes issue with how Young presents God’s revelation to mankind. Challies actually commits the Hasty Generalization fallacy when he says, “Christians hold to the belief that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s revelation to us.” [7] Although it is true that some Christians hold to this belief, it is not a universal belief, nor is it one taught in Scripture. In this section Challies’ is borderline bibliolitrous, writing things like, “God has given his full and perfect and sufficient revelation in the Bible. It is in the Bible that God gives us the rule as to how we may know Him and how we may live in a way that honors Him.” [8] Challies believes this regardless of the fact that the Bible does not claim to be full, perfect, or sufficient. One must wonder how he came to this conclusion without extra-Biblical revelation. Not to mention, by holding to this view, Challies is ignoring Scriptures that claims that God reveals himself apart from Scripture (1Corinthians 14:4; Exodus 3:2; Romans 1:20; Acts 2:17). When Challies writes, “the majority of The Shack’s references to Scripture … focus on its abuse at the hands of those who profess Christ or on supposed old-fashioned notions about it.” [9] Perhaps Young is focusing on the same abuses that Challies seems to be taking in his own review of the book. Regardless of what Challies claims, Young does not “indicate that [the Bible] is God’s voice ‘reduced’ to paper.” His quote from pages 65-66 of The Shack, when taken in context, shows that Young is talking about how we treat the Bible – not what Scripture actually is. Challies ends this section by saying, “We must not downplay the beauty, the power or the sufficiency of the Bible.” To which I have to ask, “what power?” and, “sufficient for what?” The Bible does not have the power or sufficiency to accomplish anything except to give an accurate description of past events. Salvation does not come from reading Scripture, it comes from God alone. The Bible cannot heal the sick, that power comes from God alone. I get the impression that Challies’ issues with Youngs view do not stem from what is written in The Shack but stems from fundamentally different views of how God works. Unfortunately, it seems like Challies’ views lacks Scriptural support.

The impression that I get from Young and The Shack is not one that we should ignore Scripture or treat it as secondary. But that with the guidance and empowering of Jesus and the Holy Spirit we can truly understand Scripture. If that is a bad thing, than I do not know what is good.

Challies review is broken into several sections. The first four sections are an introduction of The Shack, a summary of the The Shack, a discussion of how fact vs. fiction plays into the argument, and finally the importance of theology (read, proper theology). I am not going to delve into those sections, I am more interested in discussing what Challies’ examination of The Shack told him about the authors ideas and theology.
The first topic Challies discusses is, “Subversion: Undermining the Faith.” Challies admits to his reader that as he “read the book [he] saw that, from beginning to end, The Shack has a quietly subversive quality to it.” He sees Young as being subversive because Young

criticizes seminary education (“Mack struggled to keep up with [Papa], to make some sense of what was happening. None of his old seminary training was helping in the least” (91).), the Bible (“God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects” (65-66).), Sunday School (“This isn’t Sunday School. This is a flying lesson” (98).), the church as a body (“You’re talking about the church as this woman you’re in love with; I’m pretty sure I haven’t met her…She’s not the place I go on Sundays” (177).), the church as individuals (“For Mack these words were like a breath of fresh air! Simple. Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands and not the sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know. Just sharing life” (178).), family devotions (“Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories…He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible” (107).), theological certainty (“I have a great fondness for uncertainty [said Sarayu]” (203).), the word “Christian” as a descriptor (“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian [said Jesus]” (182).) and on and on. [6]

Challies takes a lot of liberties in his list. Especially to later elude to the idea that these concepts are “theologically sound and informed by biblical truth.” [6] You will be hard pressed to find seminary education, Sunday School, family devotions, or the word “Christian” in the Bible. Moreover, Challies is taking parts of these quotes completely out of context. On pages 65-66, Young isn’t subverting the Bible, he’s subverting the attitude we take when approaching the Bible. On page 98, Young isn’t attacking Sunday School, the Holy Spirit is talking to Mack about the intensity of what he is about to go through. On page 177, Young is not saying that the Church is not that Bride of Christ – Mack (the Character) is saying that what Jesus is describing is not at all what he sees when he goes to church on Sunday mornings. On page 178, again, Mack is simply stating what he sees about tradition church services… not at all what the Church actually is or should be. On page 107, Mack is talking about HIS experience with family devotions – Young isn’t saying that family devotions are wrong. On page 203, the Holy Spirit (calling itself Sarayu) is not subverting theological certainty, its talking about how human uncertainty leads to trust and faith in God!

Challies is doing what I have seen so many negative reviewers of this book do. They take little tidbits of sentences and use them against Young and The Shack. But if you take each of these quotes in context, you will easily find that Young is not being subversive and more often than not, Young is not even making the point that the reviewer is claiming.

Challies then goes on to say that “The reader of The Shack must be careful that he does not simply accept ‘what is,’ at least as William Young describes it, without critical thinking and spiritual discernment.” I completely agree with this statement and it applies to reading Challies article as well. As Christian I truly believe we are called to think critically and be discerning in our actions/beliefs. Challies is right, Young is being subversive when it comes to traditional Christianity, however, Young is attempting to do what Challies is claiming we should all do. Search the Scripture to find out what is and is not true. You may find that when you search the Scripture it too will subvert many of our traditions. Does that make Young wrong? I sure hope not.