Young's too-weird-for-the-pulpit thoughts about how Adam's rib and the female uterus form a "circle of relationship" have the appeal of knobby heirloom-produce in a world where much religion arrives vacuum-packed. His theories—how to believe in Adam while supporting particle-physics research; why the Lord is OK with your preference for lewd funk more than staid church music—accomplish what mainstream faiths tend to fail at: connecting recondite doctrine to the tastes, rhythms, and mores of modern life. ... And though the novel, as a novel, is a sinner's distance from perfection, it's an eloquent reminder that, for those who give some faith and effort to the writing craft, there is, even today, the chance to touch and heal enough strangers to work a little miracle.

Would I recommend this book? No, I would not. It is full of theological problems as well as an irreverent and casual attitude toward God. Yes, there are nice things in it and people might even be helped by the book. But so what? There are some nice things in Mormonism, too. Should we encourage people to read the Book of Mormon because Mormonism might help someone feel better? Not at all.

Sadly, experience has shown me that most Christians aren't interested in biblical fidelity. No, I'm not talking about biblical nit-picking. I'm talking about fidelity to the revealed word of God to the point where we don't contradict what is plainly stated in scripture!

We Christians should regard the word of God as the final authority on all things, and any supposed accounts of actual occurrences should be compared to scripture, not our feelings, wants, and desires. In the case of The Shack, the book falls woefully short of scriptural truth in many important areas and has the strong ability to mislead people regarding God's nature, work, and plan for us.

Again, I do not recommend it.

Focusing on just three of the subjects William
Young discusses in The Shack, we’ve seen that
errors abound. He presents a false view of God
and one that may well be described as heretical. He downplays the importance and uniqueness of the Bible, subjugating it or making it equal to other forms of subjective revelation. He misrepresents redemption and salvation, opening the door to the possibility of salvation outside of the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross. We are left with an unbiblical understanding of the persons and nature of God and of His work in this world.