The Shack is the latest 'must read' book to hit the Christian community. Since its first publication, The Shack has gained tremendous popularity and now has over a million copies in print. In fact, you can rest assured that it is high on the Bestseller's list when you find it being sold at Costco. This is really remarkable when you stop to think that it began with three men, a $300 marketing budget and relied on word-of-mouth advertising in the early stages. I was challenged to read the book by some Christian friends who found the book inspiring and helpful; and never being one to back away from a challenge (especially when it has to do with reading something), my wife and I took turns reading chapters aloud to one another and discussing what we'd read.

As we read and discussed the book, several things became clear. First of all, although it is a novel and therefore fictitious, it was clearly written to communicate some deep theological truths. Secondly, the theological truths that were presented had no real foundation to rest on, other than the author's own perceptions of those truths. In other words, there was no objective touchstone presented that would verify and clarify the points the author made. Thirdly, there was a subtle, yet insistent emphasis to the reader, that nearly everything the reader knew about God up to that point was probably wrong. Finally, while some of the truths presented were theologically sound, there were many that were speculative, aberrant, and even bordering on heretical concerning the nature of God, the relationship of the Trinity, the doctrine of salvation, and the doctrine of revelation.

I felt compelled to formally review this book for three main reasons: Number one was the plethora of rave reviews from some leading Christians about The Shack, On the front cover of the book Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College inVancouver writes that it “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim Progress did for his,” And on the back cover Michael W. Smith writes that it 'is the most absorbing work of fiction in many years. My wife and I laughed and cried, and repented of our own lack of faith along the way. The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.'

The second reason was the rate at which this book is flying of the shelves and into the Christian community. Everywhere I go now it seems, people are talking about The Shack and many are claiming that this book has changed their lives, challenged their faith and reworked their understanding of God. All of which are good, if the change and the challenge and our understanding of God are according to biblical truth. But as I read the book, I began to think such was not the case.

The third reason was that any book that purports to explain God and has such a wide acceptance in the Christian community, must be examined critically to see if the truth it claims is truth at all.

The story itself, although heart-rending and painful (and I might add, very difficult for me as a father of girls to read) is fairly straightforward and simple. The story revolves around a man named Mack (Mackenzie) Phillips and the abduction and murder of his youngest girl, Missy. Four years before the story opens, Missy is abducted and presumably murdered, although her body is missing for most of the book. All that remains is the old, abandoned shack where the police and dogs traced the abductor and her little blood-stained red dress. As the story opens, Mack has been living under the shadow of his Great Sadness as he calls the ordeal he and his family have been through. He receives a note in the mailbox one day, apparently from God (or 'Papa' as he is known in the story) inviting him to come to the shack to talk. Uncertain of what to expect, Mack travels up to the shack and there has a week-end long encounter with God. Essentially the book seeks to answer the great question everyone has – 'Where is God in a world that is filled with pain and evil?'

Most of the book is dialog between Mack and the Trinity – God the Father, or Papa, is a large, matronly, African-American woman with a penchant for cooking, (however near the end he/she is transformed into a pony-tailed, grey-haired man), Jesus the Son is a youngish man of Middle-eastern descent who spends a lot of time in the woodshop, and the Holy Spirit is a small, delicate, elusive Asian woman called Sarayu (Sanskrit for wind or air) who thrives on disorder. As these four have long conversations on really important theological issues, Mack finds his understanding of God, and his relationship to God, undergo a radical transformation. His faith is systematically dismantled and then rebuilt and he leaves the shack a changed man.

One of the first things that struck me about the book was the systematic way the author went about challenging and tearing down various concepts and aspects of our faith so that he could replace them with new ones. It exuded a subtle subversion of the faith – casting doubt on the church, family devotions, Christian education, the Bible, Sunday School, the word 'Christian' as descriptive of believers. All of these and others become targets for criticism and re-definition. I think I understand that the author is reaching for a living authentic faith instead of dead tradition. I realize that as a missionary kid he probably saw a lot of what I saw as a pastor's kid in the sometimes huge disparity between what people professed and what they actually lived. And I understand that he is trying to push people toward a realization that knowing God is infinitely better than just knowing about Him. However he attacks and mocks those trappings of Christianity as if they were the problem and not the human heart – and without explaining that all of these things without relationship with God Himself are worthless.

The author is obviously not fond of Christian 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'. Sunday School is dismissed in favor of something deemed much more fun: '...this isn't Sunday School. This is a flying lesson'. Family devotions are ridiculed: 'Mack had to snicker at the thought of God having devotions. Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories. Often, it was a tedious and boring exercise in coming up with the right answers, or rather the same old answers to the same old Bible story questions...He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible'. The Bible itself becomes a matter of doubt and ridicule: 'In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with modern, preferring to have them only listen to and follow Sacred Scripture, properly interpreted of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects...Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially in an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?' And we are startled to learn that Jesus doesn't think His followers ought to call themselves Christians: 'Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian'.

By themselves, each of these would probably not generate much concern. But it is all of these and more, some fairly subtle inferences, some more heavy-handed, that serve to give this book a quality of subtle subversion that does away with commonly-held concepts in favor of the author's own perceptions of what Christianity should look like. And the biggest problem is that this is done without any objective apologetic. While I agree that in many instances men take what was meant for relationship and turn it into religion, that does not mean that we are free to let our imagination take flight and carry us off into purely experiential skies.

However, this subtle subversion does set the reader up for the radically different interpretations of theological truths the author gets into. There are several issues and topics that this story allows the author to explore, but I just want to mention three – otherwise I might have a book on my hands. The three most important theological questions raised in this book are: (1) How can we know God? (2) What did Christ accomplish on the cross? (3) Who is God?

The first question, How can we know God? is very important because ultimately there is a God to know and it is crucial that we know how we can know Him. Every theistic religion teaches that God chose some means of communication with mankind. Christians happen to have believed for 2,000 years that God has chosen to communicate with us through His written word. Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, Hebrews 1”1-2a ESV And the Gospel of John tells us that this Son is the very Word who is God, who came to us in human form: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:1, 14a ESV And it is the Word of God that explains God to us – it is through the Word of God that we can know God – who He is, what He is like.

Since the Fall, God has spoken to His creation through mediators – go betweens. Men like Moses, and Joshua and the prophets, to whom God spoke and then they spoke to His people. In the Old Testament, there were also priests who stood for the people before God. When His Son, the Word of God came, there was a new way opened to know God – but it still involved mediation – Jesus the Mediator. We still must go through Him to know God – and we go through Him primarily through His word which He has given us. The Bible is the standard by which all knowledge of God and revelation of who He is must be measured

So how does The Shack approach this issue? 'You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours', says Sarayu – the Holy Spirit. And 'You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us'. Or God might reveal Himself in legends that are close to the story of the sacrifice of Jesus, as in the Legend of the Multnomah Princess.

The overwhelming perception we are left with in this passage and others, is that experience trumps the objective word of God as the means to knowing God. Apart from the Bible we might understand God through wandering in an art gallery or at a symphony or rock concert. And most disturbingly, he says that through those things we can hear and interpret His word in fresh ways. Whereas in orthodox Christian thinking, it is the Bible that give those things their proper perspective. Without the objective Word as the foundation of our knowing, we are subject to every whim and notion of God that comes along.

The second question, 'What did Christ accomplish on the cross' a central theme, crucial to the faith, does not come off well either in The Shack. It was on the cross that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for sin, absorbing the wrath of God – the punishment for those who would turn their backs on God – a punishment by the way in which Papa doesn't believe:'I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it is my joy to cure it'. In one clever line, the author removes the wrath of God and replaces it with something less fearful.

And that raises the question, 'Can sin be cured? Is that what Jesus did on the cross? Is that the aim of the Father? The Bible teaches that sin is an incurable disease and that without a Savior, it is terminal. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 There is no cure for sin – sin demands death and eternal separation from God, and it is only by virtue of Christ's death on the cross that we can be delivered out of the grip of sin and into the freedom in Christ. Paul also tells us in that same chapter that through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:11 The only 'cure' for sin is the death of the old man and the resurrection in life of the new man.

Another question that The Shack deals with, but not very clearly or well, is the question of for whom was Jesus' sacrifice effective? '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.'.

What begins to emerge is just a hint of universal salvation. Although the author never quite comes out and says it plainly, what readers are left with is a sense that the whole world is reconciled to God. If we understand the meaning of reconciliation, then we know that the Father's righteousness demanded that each person pay the penalty for his sins, and since Jesus had none, the Father accepted His sacrifice on our behalf and could then stop imputing or counting sins against those who believe. Not the whole world as the author implies. The author may well not be a universalist, but without explanation, the door is opened and ambiguity rules.

This is further complicated by the conversation Mack has with Jesus: 'Those who love me come from every stream 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' . Mack asks for clarification. 'Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?' 'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you' .

While this does not come right out and advocate for universal salvation, the implication is that there are roads that lead to Christ that are not the Christian road. And that sometimes Jesus might come down the road say, of Buddhism to meet you. The author is not definite when he has Jesus say 'most roads' and what roads He will travel down apart from Christianity. A clear, definitive 'There are no other roads that lead to Me' would have gone a long way to clear up any misunderstanding – especially as Jesus tells Mack 'I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.'. He doesn't say 'I am the way – merely the best way. (cf. John 14:6)

The gospel message in The Shack is at best ambiguous and curiously incomplete, and at worst, heretical. The wrath of God on sinful men is dismissed – punishment for sin is replaced by a cure – there does not seem to be agreement with the Bible on the only way to the Father – just a 'best' way. The Shack, intentionally or unintentionally chooses to present a questionable gospel.

The last question the book raises that I want to deal with is the question of 'Who is God'? The Bible reveals God as a Trinity: One God – in three, eternally distinct persons. Each member of the Godhead is fully God and equal in divine attributes and yet somehow all three are one God. This is the revelation of Scripture – this is the historic Christian confession and the concept of a Triune God is a central revelation in the Bible and a central theme in The Shack. And the author's obvious intent is to make the concept of the Trinity accessible to his readers. But there are huge problems with his portrayal.

To begin with, his depiction of God the Father as a women is just plain wrong. I would never recommend this book to anyone based on this fact alone. Never mind the fact that the Bible tells us that no one '...has ever seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.' John 1:18 It was God's Son who took on human form, and represented the Trinity to us – not God the Father, or God the Spirit. So for the author to attempt to do what the Bible never does – put flesh on God the Father and the Holy Spirit – is not only wrong but also clearly forbidden by the Scriptures.

But the image of God the Father as a woman not only has a false ring to it, it smacks of pagan mystery cults that worshiped mother-figures as supreme gods. Nowhere in the Bible does God reveal Himself to man as a woman, and for the author to take that step at best indicates a shallow understanding of Scripture. The Bible never gives us license to re-imagine God as goddess. When the Bible speaks about God, it invariably uses masculine imagery – God is the King of all the earth – never the Queen. He is Father, not Mother. His pronouns are all masculine – the pronouns for His Son are all masculine – and the all the pronouns for the Holy Spirit are all masculine. It is the church of God that Scripture describes with the feminine nouns and pronouns – quite the opposite for The Shack where two-thirds of the Trinity are depicted as women. This is a huge mistake and the implications are tremendous for our faith.

The Biblical revelation of the nature of the Trinity also comes under attack by Papa. There is a definite aversion to any sort of hierarchy or line of authority among the Godhead according to this author. At one point Sarayu tells Mack, '...we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us'. In fact, hierarchy is portrayed as a result of sin. 'You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not'.

On the other hand, the Bible clearly teaches that there is a hierarchy even among the Godhead.

'But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.' 1 Corinthians 11:3 And the Son was always submissive to the Father, as Jesus says in the Gospel of John: 'For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.' John 6:38 And in chapter 8 as we read: 'So Jesus said to them, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.' John 8:28

What the Bible teaches is that although the Trinity are equal in essence there is a difference in roles among them. One unique characteristic of the Trinity is the manifest presence of the expression of authority and submission. The Son is always submissive to the Father's will – we never read of the Father being submissive to the Son. But the author here is trying to create a new understanding of the Trinity as a circle of interchangeable persons who with no clear roles with respect to authority and submission.

If we understand the Trinity and the hierarchy within the Godhead, we understand that far from being a product of the Fall – authority and submission within the Trinity point to the way we must live with respect to God and in our marriages and families and to the governing authorities over us. Hierarchy is not evil, but God-created. What results from the author's concept of a circle of relationship is a blurring of the distinct persons of the Trinity.

This blurring of the roles occurs early on in the book when Mack first meets Papa: 'Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his'. Explaining this Papa says, 'Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark,” she stated softly and gently. We were there together”. I must confess, when I read that my immediate thought was 'In what alternate universe did the Father go to the cross and die with the Son?' But I wasn't the only one confused, at the end of the conversation in chapter 6, Mack tells Papa: 'I'm so sorry that you, that Jesus, had to die'.

That the author intends a new definition of the Trinity that blurs the identities is made clear when Papa describes God becoming flesh: 'When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood' . But the Bible never teaches that the Father spoke Himself into human existence, nor did the Holy Spirit – only Jesus became a man and dwelt among us – the God-man – fully God and fully man.

One final thought on the book before we wrap this up. The God that is portrayed in this book is clearly not the God of the Bible. Aside from the fact that He is a She, Papa is not an awesome God in the way God is pictured in the Bible. Papa is earthy and common as she tells Mack upon his first meeting with her: 'Well Mackenzie, don't just stand there gawkin' with your mouth open like your pants are full'. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of God the Father talking that way. When men met the presence of God in the Bible they were usually struck by the sense of their own inadequacy and sinfulness and the utter transcendency of God as Isaiah and Moses and Paul, among others. God was seen as high and awesome and someone who deserved our worship and adoration and praise.

And they didn't indulge in foul language – 'damn' and 'son of bitch', or were visibly angry in His presence – 'Mack felt his face flush angry red as he stared at what he now considered to be some odd characterization of God, and he realized his hands were knotted into fists'. or made God the Father cry – 'Mack, I'm so sorry'. Tears began to roll down her cheeks.'.

I realize that I have been very critical of this book and probably have not explained some things as well as I might have. And I have focused on those things that I found to be disturbingly wrong with the author's theological point of view in several areas, and I have not said said anything about those things I found to be commendable in any way. However, in light of the serious problems I have just highlighted, any value those good things might have had is seriously compromised by the books flaws.

In fact there are many other issues the book brings up that bear closer scrutiny, like the sovereignty of God and the nature of forgiveness, the problem of evil, and the person and work of the Holy Spirit. But the fact remains that the view and characterization of the God of the Bible and the crucial truths of the faith suffer radical re-definition in this novel and I cannot recommend anyone read this book. For those who have an accurate view and understanding of God – it is a waste of time. For those who have a shallow view and understanding of God it is a mis-direction. For those who do not know God at all – this will not help them to find Him.

- Pastor Michael Sandberg