he Shack is supposed to be the account of a man who spent a weekend with God the

Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a shack in the forest. It is a fictional story1
of Mr. Mackenzie Allen Phillips, written by William P. Young. Mack suffers the horrible loss
of his young daughter to a serial killer. Of course, Mack is highly distraught and
traumatized. The book is about his "healing" via an encounter with the persons of the
Trinity who all three take human form and dialogue with him in this cabin and the
surrounding countryside. According to Mack's account, God summoned him, via a note, to
a shack - the very one where, apparently, his daughter was killed. In this shack, God the
Father appeared to him as an African-American woman (p. 82) named Papa (p. 86). Jesus
is a Middle Easterner who "was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt... and a
plaid shirt with sleeves rolled just above the elbows," (p. 84). The Holy Spirit was an Asian
woman (p. 85) who was named Sarayu (p. 87, 110). If you know your Bible, this should
trouble you. First of all, Scripture tells us that the Father cannot be seen (John 6:46; 1
Tim. 6:16). The Holy Spirit never appears as an individual, but as a dove (Matt. 3:16),
wind (John 3:8), and fire (Acts 2:3). Jesus was most certainly Middle Eastern, but it seems
highly unlikely he will appear with a tool belt and plaid shirt.

Other problems are as follows. The Father had scars on his wrists - like the crucifixion
wounds of Christ (p. 95). This is wrong. It was not the Father who was crucified. The
person of the Father has no body of flesh and bones as does the Son (John 4:24; Luke
24:39). Yet, in the book, the Father has scars Therefore, it should not be that the Father
would have scars on his wrists - since He has no wrists and does not appear to anyone
(John 6:46; 1 Tim. 6:16). On a positive note, The Shack in some respects represents the
Trinity pretty well. "We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one God with
three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am
three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one," (p. 101). That was
encouraging, as were other areas that spoke about forgiveness, love, relationships,
atonement, etc. But, other important issues surfaced within the pages.

In biblical Christianity, there is a doctrine called the Economic Trinity. It describes the
relationship of the members of the Godhead with each other as well as with us. For
example, the Father sent the Son. The Son did not send the Father, (John 6:44; 8:18;
10:36; 1 John 4:14). Jesus came down from heaven, not to do His own will, but the will of
the Father (John 6:38). The Father is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3). And, 1 Cor. 15:27-
28 speaks of creation being in subjection to Jesus and then in verse 28, Jesus will be
subjected to the Father. The Greek word-form for "will be subjected" is 'hupotagasetai,'
which is the future, passive, indicative. This means that it is a future event where Jesus
will be subjected to the Father forever. All this means is that there is a hierarchy within
the Trinity. However, when we turn to page 124 we find this, "So you think that God must
relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not." This blatantly contradicts Scripture.
Therefore, Mack's account cannot be true since it contradicts Scripture. On page 99, it
says, "When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we
became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations this entailed. Even
though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and
blood." This is a direct contradiction to scripture. It was only the son who became flesh.
Furthermore, it confuses what the Trinity is (one God in three distinct persons) and risks
that the heresy of modalism (that God is one person who takes three different forms).

On page 136 it says, "Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good,
just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of Light or death to describe
the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and
Good; they do not have any actual existence." Unfortunately, this is humanistic philosophy
and is false. Evil is the intent to do harm whether it be physical, emotional, psychological,
or spiritual. It is contrary to the will of God (Gen. 6:5; 1 Kings 11:6, Matt. 6:13; 12:33–
37). The Bible clearly tells us that such evil exists and it is not merely the absence of
good. Satan is, for the lack of a better term, the manifestation of such evil, (Matt. 13:19;
John 17:15; Eph. 6:16).

On page 145-146 we find, "Mack was surprised. 'How could that be? Why would the God
of the universe want to be submitted to me?' 'Because we want you to join us in our circle
of relationship. I don't want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share
life with me.'" We have to ask, is there any place in Scripture where God expresses a
desire to be submitted to any individual human being? Nope. If anything, we the creatures
are to be in subjection to the Holy and Majestic God of the universe, not the other way
around. The Shack reduces the glory of God and elevates the stature of man - something
false religious systems do. On page 205 God says to Mack, "My words are alive and
dynamic-full of life and possibility; yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment. That
is why you won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures." That caught my eye, so I
went to my computer Bible program and did a search for the word responsibility. I found
that in the New American Standard Bible it occurs four times (Num. 4:16; 1 Chr. 9:31;
Ezra 10:4; 1 Tim. 5:22). It does not occur in the King James. The NIV has it in 13 places.
So, that's a problem.

Here is another concern. Does God place expectations on us? Does He expect us to
believe in Him, to follow Him, to seek to be like Christ, to love others, to worship Him in
truth, etc.? Of course He does. Yet, on page 206, Papa (God the Father) says, "Honey,
I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. The idea behind expectations
requires that someone does not know the future or outcome and is trying to control
behavior to get the desired result." Well, this is a problem since God does expect certain
things from us, and it is not necessarily true that an expectation from God means He
doesn't already know what the result will be. God knows we are sinners, yet expects us to
be holy. God says, "you shall be holy, for I am holy," (1 Pet. 1:16). God expects us to pick
up our crosses and follow after Christ (Matt. 10:38). So, again, the Shack comes up short.

Universalism is the unbiblical teaching that through the atoning work of Christ all people
will be saved. The book seems to hint towards that, but I wasn't sure if Mack was saying
that God was advocating it. On page 225 we are told by God, "In Jesus, I have forgiven all
humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship." Logically, if all
humans are forgiven of their sins, then all humans go to heaven. This is the doctrine of
universalism, and it is a heresy that is contradicted by scripture (Mark 3:28; Matt. 25:46).

There was an emphasis in the book on building relationships. This is good. We don't want
sterile and stale doctrinal statements governing our relationship with God. We cannot
reduce our Holy Lord to such formulas, but the Scriptures do declare certain things about
God with a sufficiency and clarity that should guide our understanding of Him. The Bible
reveals what God says about Himself. It is what He wants us to know about Him.
Therefore, it should guide both our relationship with and understand of God. We relate to
God based on how we view God. That is why doctrine matters when it comes to God’s
nature, holiness, incomprehensibility, majesty, and so much more. Furthermore, any
fellowship with Him cannot occur without the mediatorship of Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). And, if
we redefine God and make him into something he is not, then we violate the doctrinal
revelation that He has given us in the Bible and commit idolatry. Nevertheless, I had the
distinct impression while reading the book that having a proper understanding of God was
somehow something to be avoided. “Doctrine” was subtly ridiculed, along with the idea of
formal theological training. The Bible, as God's word, was not elevated as the inspired
standard of truth. Instead, the story repeatedly promoted subjective experience. Error
develops when people look to experience rather than God’s word to guide their spirituality
(Gen. 3:6).