As I reviewed the critiques in order to respond, I almost feel like I have to defend my own name, lest I be considered a heretic. But, I will try to stay focused on The Shack and leave my name to its own fate. There are two questions that I have thought about for a long time in relation to critiquing many things, which I think are fitting to start my response.
The first question is: Does every sermon have to discuss every theological issue each Sunday? Does every Christian song have to cover the scope and depth of truth experienced by a Christian? The obvious answer is “No”. But to read the critiques, there are some gaping holes in Young's theology as presented in The Shack. My initial response is: So what? Absence does not imply error, intrinsically.
The second question is: Is there anything good in it? There are sermons that honestly are worthless (not because of the Bible, but because of the human thoughts that overshadow any biblical content). But is there no truth, exhortation, or promise I can “take away” from the Sunday speech? Sure there is a lot of emotion communicated in many contemporary Christian songs and worship songs. But is there nothing good in them? Is there something that is valuable, or articulates some human experience worth expressing. Ultimately, if there is, than it would be good to find it. This may seem like settling for the lowest common denominator, which is never satisfying. But I think when critiquing a sermon, a worship song, or a Christian fiction book, this may be helpful, especially if it is to help us in our journey of faith, to express true worship, and to mature us.
However, if there is legitimate error, including blatant heresy, that is another issue. Heresy should be called out and renounced. For Mohler to find “undiluted heresy” and me to consider the book theologically sound is quite startling, even to myself. So how did I come to that conclusion? I think I was looking at the book differently than Mohler. I was looking for something different, as well.
First, Grossman says the Shack “slams 'legalistic' religions, denominations and doctrines. It barely even mentions the Bible.” Gilley says “it is significant that he has a couple of axes to grind concerning the Bible and the church. Young passionately rejects the cessationist view of Scripture.... Young also has little good to say about the church and other related institutions.” Oddly, I did not get this impression at all from reading The Shack. This may in part be due to my own similar views. I also passionately reject the cessationist view of Scripture. If this is heresy, than I guess I am a heretic. I highly doubt it, however. Additionally, many Evangelicals would have reactions to 'legalistic' religions. But more importantly, in the context of extreme trauma and loss, it is not the rules, disciplines, or habits of our faith that bring us the much-sought comfort and peace. It is relationship, both with God and other believers. As for the claim that Young barely mentions the Bible, I find this can only come from someone who does not know the Bible. I honestly had several strong responses while reading the Shack where I thought, “Wow, that was a wonderful way to express that biblical truth.” I didn't need the verse and chapter. I knew that much. How he “story boarded” the verses was solid.
Having gone through my own deeply personal and painful experiences, especially within the church, I could relate very well with the main character, whose Seminary education was not helpful in moments such as that. I can validate that many churches are basically inept at preparing people to face such earth-shattering, faith-sifting encounters with the world we live in. Does this demonstrate an “axe to grind” or a simple acknowledgment that I need more than these things to get me through? If we lived in a perfect world with a consistently healthy church, this may seem like an indictment. However, in our current world and state of the church this may simply by a story about life the way it is.
More critiques come when considering Young's communication of the gospel. Gilley says,”nowhere in The Shack is the reader given a clear understanding of the gospel....” My response again is, “So what?” This is not a book for unbelievers, as I understand it. And the main character is a believer. Why would this be necessary in the storyline? Gilley goes on to point out that (in The Shack) Jesus explains he has been reconciled to the whole world through his death and resurrection. Gilley then asks, “Does this mean that all will be saved?” Gilley obviously comes from a Calvinistic theological background and reviews The Shack with that lens. This seems to account for many of his criticisms. As an Arminian, I simply agree with Young. But where's the heresy?
It's as if Gilley, and maybe others, cannot understand the use of non-theological terms when describing theological issues. For example, Gilley highlights Young's dialog: “by re-turning. By turning back to me. By giving up your ways of power and manipulation and just come back to me”. Is this not repentance? After all, the Greek word used in the Bible for “repentance” is literally “to turn”. Is this not a layman's way of discussing the Lordship and Savior-hood components of Christ and salvation. My power, control, manipulation, etc., must be surrendered if Jesus is to be Lord. I must turn back to him. I don't understand the criticism.
The strongest objections come when discussing Young's portrayal of the Trinity. Gilley simply shows his cards as a fundamentalist (or Young might call 'legalist') when explaining, “the first two of the Ten Commandments would forbid us depicting the Father or the Holy Spirit in physical form. When we create an image of God in our imagination we then attempt to relate to that image—which is inevitably a false one. This is the essence of idolatry and is forbidden in the Word.” Um, OK. I agree idolatry is forbidden. But to say that Young is trying to craft an image of God for us to worship is quite a stretch. So every sermon illustration or word picture that relates to the nature of God the Father or the Holy Spirit is idolatry? So every worship song that humanizes God in some way is forbidden? Jesus himself does what Gilley says the Bible says we shouldn't do. God was described as a Father that ran to greet the Prodigal Son. He was described as a mother hen who protects her chicks under her wings. Was Jesus committing idolatry? I think Gilley misses the point. I see The Shack the same way I would see a parable. It is a word picture, a story that tries to communicate theological issues that can be difficult to understand otherwise. Jesus used parables. Preachers use illustrations. And Christian fiction writers create characters, not icons or idols!
Well, I cannot continue point by point rebutting the criticisms, especially from Gilley. If I can get a copy of Mohler's concerns, I'll try to evaluate them. Ultimately, for all the claims of New Age or Eastern Spirituality that ooze from The Shack, I think the critics missed the point. I think they see what they want to, as I do as well. What they see as being drawn from Eastern Mysticism, I see as a creative way of communicating orthodox teaching. Maybe this alone is the danger of the book. But, for a Christian who knows the Word, I don't see any threat. I will agree, this book will not give unbelievers enough to lead them to Christ. But I'm not sure that was his purpose as much as to encourage believers to find a fresh sense of God in their lives, especially if it means working through the tragedies that have paralyzed them in their journey. I stand by my original endorsement.
Here is another critique of the book that I have not read, but will try to respond to in the future. It appears that Al Mohler only spoke of the book in a radio broadcast. As soon as I can listen to that I will try to respond.