I’ve never read the book, The Shack, but here’s what seems to be an interesting (though long) review of it:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001788.cfm
(from Boundless Webzine; review written by blogger Tim Challies)
From what I’ve read of the review, The Shack sounds theologically kinda sketchy… 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Jill
Yaaa, I read the PDF version of that review on Challies’ blog and agree that it sounds theologically sketchy.
July 10, 2008 at 5:39 pm
ricolapak
You’re citing someone else’s review as a blogpost! This is a total rip-off!
July 10, 2008 at 7:43 pm
tim
This IS a total R-O!
I anticipate that many posts in the future will involve ripping off something I read, heard, or saw from somewhere, so why not make a handy little abbreviation for that?
-Paulman
July 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Tabitha
i wonder if i’m harsh is saying that people who don’t read it can’t voice an opinion. let’s put it this way: if you read the shack, and someone took it as truth or asked a question about a certain part, you’d be able to relate with the person and better refute heretical teachings. this is my opinion anyways. plus if you have stick with this opinion, you can challenge people to read the Bible for themselves if they think it contradicts itself or is make-believe.
August 4, 2008 at 6:13 am
Phoebe
I read the Shack because there is a book club during the summer in my church. I have not read any review or critiques on the book, in part because I think my own judgment is enough for this case. It passed my smell test.
Here is my criteria: given the limitation in humans’ capacity to comprehend the Almighty, and the inherent limitation of human language (every analogy has its limitaiton in representing the object that it means to depict), I do not expect a fiction to perfectly convey what Bible has to say. As long as the book inspires its readers to mobilize that limited capacity of comprehension to appreciate and accept God’s love, then I consider that book as worthwhile reading. I definitely recommend the Shack to those who long to have a conversation with God and to make sense of what life is about. Put it in an analogy: the Shack is a great sidekick to accompany the entree. But I know, some people will have problem with this analogy!
BTW I came here b/c I was googling the Bergen’s stories. They touch a cord of my heart. Good coverage here.
August 4, 2008 at 9:31 am
paulman
Hi Phoebe. Thanks for your encouragement
About The Shack, though, the reason I voiced some negative thoughts about it was because of some excerpts that I read from it from the review. For example,
“In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, 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. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges” (65-66, emphasis added).
- According to Tim Challies, this excerpt is part ofThe Shack’s tendency to downplay the importance of Scripture. From this passage, it even seems to denigrate the Bible (“God’s voicehad been reduced to paper”). This is contrary to what God tells us clearly in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Psalm 19:7 as Tim Challies pointed out. So if you believe that the Bible is merely God’s word “reduced to paper”, what you actually find in the pages of that paper contradicts that opinion.
Here’s another, quite different, example of what seems to be false teaching. Granted, I don’t know the entire context around this sentence, but the sentence itself doesn’t leave much room for doubt as to its meaning:
(as taken from Tim Challies review)
He is not a God who could have poured out upon His Son His just wrath for sin. In fact, God does not need to punish sin at all, says Papa. “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (120).
God doesn’t need to punish people for their sin? Sin itself is its own punishment? What the hell (so to speak)? While sin does often have nasty consequences here on Earth, those consequences aren’t truly just. Why else would the Bible speak/observe that the wicked often get away with what they’re doing? (examples) Sin itself is not its own punishment. Otherwise, there’d be nothing to worry about. Do something wrong or terrible? Just move on, because “sin is its own punishment”, so you’re good to go.
So those are my thoughts on a couple things that were pointed out by Tim Challies review of The Shack. My assumption is that little tidbits, or even overarching themes in the book, can easily be glossed over, but it’s a big deal if you actually stop to consider what they mean.