I had not planned on reading The Shack, but several people have asked me my thoughts on the book recently. A friend in the church here read it and lent me his copy to read. I’ve just finished it, and I have several reactions that I’d like to share.
First, let me say that many people have been touched by this book. Many of whom are grounded in orthodox Christianity and have a healthy respect for God and the Bible. I, too, was moved at the end of the book by the story of reconciliation and restoration. It’s a beautiful story. I want to be clear that I am not critiquing your private experience with God. I’m critiquing a book. I say this because often when I have questioned certain facets of the book in discussion with people who were moved by it, I have been met with various levels of defensiveness as though I were questioning the validity of something that happened between them and God. Please quit that. It’s silly and a waste of our time!
Here’s a telling question: “Did The Shack mediate an experience between you and God or did the Holy Spirit initiate the encounter?” Be careful with your answer. One answer leads you to idolatry. The other leads to Jesus.
If the book is not the mediator, then we should be able to talk about the book freely without your feelings getting hurt. Fair enough?
The Writing and General Literary Quality
William Paul Young is a good writer, though at times he forgets that in the book. There are moments where his storytelling and dialogue is natural and inviting. Other times it comes off like a Lifetime for Women movie showing late at night. It’s a mixed bag. There is an old addage about good writing that says that it’s always better to show than to tell. For example, you could say “Joe was really sad.” But it’s far more powerful to describe the expression on Joe’s face, his posture, and maybe some dialogue where the sadness is hidden between the lines as subtext. This way you let the reader feel things authentically instead of telling them what to feel.
When you start “telling” too much it’s easy to allow the dialogue to become really cliched and melodramatic. It loses its moorings in reality and starts to feel fake and stilted.
Very often The Shack tells more than it shows and some of the potential impact gets lost. Other times, Young gets in a groove and sucks you in with a beautiful sensitivity and subtlety. Like when Jesus takes Mack out onto the lake for a stroll on top of the water. Or when Papa leads Mack through the woods to find Missy. (trying to avoid spoilers here!)
The Shack isn’t poorly written, but it is inconsistent. I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be more due to over-editing than his writing prowess.
The Theology of The Shack
This is why you’re here right? There are some problems. I think everyone who has heard of the book knows there are some problems. The real question is whether or not those problems should be deal breakers for us or if we should simply pick out the bones and enjoy the rest.
You can’t talk about this constructively without speaking to some much larger issues first.
First, there’s the reader that says, “I know there are problems with the theology but the book really helped me get over some issues. God really healed me through that book so how can you say it’s bad?”
Listen to what you are saying. You are putting the false gospel of pragmatism in authority over Scripture. Pragmatism simply means that “if it works, it’s right and good. If it doesn’t produce the intended result, it’s bad and should be abandoned.”
Pragmatism relates to this because what you are saying is that because I was touched by God while reading The Shack, then The Shack is good and right. This is simply not a Biblical world view. A Biblical worldview would demand that everything that calls itself the truth must be measured and tested by The Truth of scripture. If something is in conflict with what is clearly taught in Scripture then it is, by definition, bad. Regardless of whether we perceive that it “works” as we intend it or not.
This is the only way to truthfully evaluate this book!
Second, there’s the reader that says, “I know there are problems with the theology but this is fiction and not a theology textbook.”
Sigh. I think this objection frustrates me most, so I may get a little cranky on this one.
What is “theology” then? Isn’t it the study of God? As soon as you start making assertions about the nature and activity of God you have begun theology. I don’t care if its in a book, around a coffee table, or in a sports bar. It’s theology. It matters not at all what literary form it is in. Children’s book, textbook, biography, drama, fiction, sci-fi, whatever. Theology is theology no matter where it’s found.
This is the same fallacy behind the attitude that many still espouse that says, “I don’t need no theology. Just gimme my NIV and Jesus. That’s all I need!” Seriously? Do you think you can read your Bible and even say the name of Jesus without it being “theology”? Sorry to break it to you, but if you know Jesus your are a theologian. Maybe a bad one, but you still qualify.
The real question we should be asking about ALL media that we consume is, what is the message? There is always a message, an assertion of some kind. Something we are to learn, or a world view being represented. Why are we so naive to think that if it’s fiction there’s no message? Fiction is perhaps the most powerful and effective means of communicating a message and getting the audience to adopt the message into their world view. Why do you think Jesus told so many parables? Was he just trying to help future children’s book writers?
Don’t devalue the quest to know God (and to understand Him rightly according to what He has revealed to us about Himself through the Bible) by relegating it to boring textbooks and old white dudes in liberal seminaries. Frankly, it’s foolish to do so.
I’m not saying the author of The Shack is trying to assimilate the world into believing that God the Father is a fat black woman who likes to bake. Sadly, that is where much of the debate over this book has landed. However, the author is making some truth claims whether he wants to admit it or not.
My issues with the book are not the same ones that everyone else is whipped up about. I agree that God the Father should not be portrayed as a woman. If he wanted us to call him a her He would have said so. I just think there is a bigger fish to fry here.
The Message of The Shack
What’s the message, then? I believe the primary message of the book is an attempt to answer the ancient question of how God can allow evil (and the resulting suffering) in the world. Especially when it comes to “good” people. Even His people.
The book tries to answer this question by making God nicer, more accessible, less glorious, and less scary. Case in point… When Papa (God the Father) explains why He is appearing to Mack as a woman, He explains that it’s because what Mack needed in that moment was a mother, not a father. So God presented Himself as a woman to make Mack feel more comfortable and to make Himself more easily acceptable to Mack.
Wait a second. Didn’t Copernicus teach us anything? We aren’t the center of the universe.
The problem here is that if you strip God of His majesty, His “otherness”, then you no longer have God. Of course, the same is true if you strip him of His “closeness”. It’s never either/or with God. It MUST be both/and. God doesn’t set aside His holiness when He loves us any more than a good father sets aside His love for His children when he disciplines them. Both are happening, in their fullness, at the same time. The idea that God must hide some part of His nature in order to cater to our brokeness creates an impotent gospel!
An example of this is found in Moses’ relationship with God. In Exodus 33, we see that when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak to God, God spoke to him “face to face”. This statement doesn’t mean much if we are talking about a God that is not holy, majestic, glorious, and jealous. It doesn’t mean much UNLESS we read about God speaking “I Am” from the burning bush, or only allowing Moses to see the outer edge of His glory in passing because if Moses glimpsed more he would be consumed by the site of God’s glory.
In other words, grace and forgiveness do not mean much to us until we see the fiercness of God’s hate for sin, the fierceness of His glory, and the magnitude of our iniquity. When we see those things clearly, and then we are confronted by the grace of the cross then we understand how God can be both holy and full of grace at the same time.
This dynamic is completely missing from The Shack. The triune God gets stripped of His fierce holiness in an attempt to make Him more approachable. His harder edges are softened so that we will not be put off by His sovereignty. When I am broken and suffering I don’t want a God that is like me. I need a God that I can worship because He is grand and He made a way for me to have relationship with Him.
Why isn’t the incarnation of Jesus enough for us to relate to? Why do we have to strip God of His greatness in order to approach Him?
We Dare Not.
Should You Read It?
You won’t go to hell if you read it. But there are better books that won’t try to feed you an impotent gospel presented by a God that is mysterious but not glorious.
RECOMMENDATION: Want to wrestle with the problem of suffering? Read “Suffering and the Sovereignty of God” by John Piper.
I’m on vacation. It’s odd to me that we don’t ever realize how much we needed something until we have it (or lose it). Having nothing to do but rest and play for a week, I’m realizing that one of the things that rest (sabbath) does is it keeps our work in perspective.
