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.
Very, very well-written article.
"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?"
There's the quote of the day!
Oh, BTW, did you notice the link I left on your fb? It's to a (long) article about Job's suffering (Why bad things happen to good religious people!). The article's from a Jewish journal and really brings to light some long overlooked points of the Bible's oldest book. If you have time, please read it and email me what you think!
http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=20&pag…
Really interesting commentary on Job. I'm going to have to go read Job again!
Amen brother! Thank you so much for being bold in the Lord & writing this blog when it will likely not be popular ~ you did an excellent job of expressing truth in love and grace. Kuddos :)
Oh how I wish you had written this a year ago when I was struggling through this book! I knew it made me uncomfortable and I didn't even finish it because something just didn't seem right…but I didn't know enough to know what were its problems. (Sam never did have time to read it and tell me what he thought.)
Thank you!
Since God can do anything He wants to do I'm sure He can speak to people through this book, The Shack.
He has often used way more unconventional means than this to draw people to himseil. We need to be carefull not to put parameters around what we think He can or will do. I thought your review was good, Ben. but surprisingly analytical. I thought you'd be more layed back . I think of "The Shack'" as kind of a Christian Sci-fi. I contains bits and pieces of truth but is mainly a fictional story. Though maybe a young or new believer should not read it until properly prepared.
Yes! I totally agree that God can use unconventional means to do what He will. He used a donkey, right? That's why I made sure to begin by saying that I am not commenting on what God may have done in any reader's heart while reading the book. God used Ted Haggard to impact thousands while he was going to meet a homosexual prostitute and buying crack. That doesn't mean we cannot (or should not) say that those actions disqualified him for his ministry. Nor does it mean that the ministry someone received from him should thrown out or dismissed. God is bigger than that.
This is the pragmatism that I hoped to address in the review. The idea that if someone was moved by the book makes it off limits for a Biblical analysis I think is a faulty stance to take. Simply put: the ends doesn't justify the means. The result doesn't make it Biblical.
I really don't intend to put parameters around God. I really just want to compare the core message of the book with the Truth of Scripture.
If by "analytical" you mean "careful" I agree with you. I wanted to be precise and careful because I know that many who read this have read the book and loved it. I also know that many people from KCC will read this so I have a responsibility to them, before God, to hold a clear doctrinal line. As a pastor, there are some things I can't afford to be laid back about.
I hope that clears things up for you. I give glory to God that He touched you while reading The Shack! The last thing I want to do is disparage what God did there. Nor do I want to make people feel inferior if the enjoyed the book.
Well…
My view is that The Shack has a bad theological foundation involving the atonement. I think it teaches unlimited atonement, which causes one to either 1) be a true universalist (everyone gets saved), or 2) water down the atonement. This theology is at times explicit in the book, in places like where the God tells Mack that she had forgiven everyone. Everyone? Come on, now…
All of this is surrounded by emotionally charged stuff, so you get sucked into a worldview that is (I think) unbiblical.
Interesting that you bring that up because Young admits that when he wrote the book he believed in Universal Redemption. The publishers convinced him to edit out that stuff, and he later changed his thinking on the point after the book was published. Obviously some of that thinking is still there in the book.
I enjoyed The Shack if for no other reason then the unbelievable amount of good biblical discussions it started with folks who I normally never would have engaged in "Jesus talk". It reminded me a lot of the "Left Behind" series in the way it was/is able to reach across barriers. I wasn't big on the overall theology of either book but it reached folks who wouldn't have read any other "Christian" book and opened doors that had been closed for a long time. Amazing review, very well done. Have you watched mark Driscoll's sermon on the Shack? It's good too.
Thanks for stopping by, Mike! Thanks for the tip on the Driscoll stuff. Found it on YouTube. And I thought I was hard on the book! Here it is:
[youtube pK65Jfny70Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y youtube]
Excellent review Ben. You make an excellent point about what exactly ministered to the person: the book or the Holy Spirit? I think we need to keep this in mind with everything.
It's easy for me to accept theology from books other than the Bible and in the past I have often used poor substitutes for Biblical truth. An impotent gospel, after all, is much easier to accept than the real thing. The idea that I can be saved and continue living my life is very appealing. The idea that God will accommodate me and my worldview is also appealing, and deceptive.
I personally had a very strong emotional response to the book. I admit I accepted some of that bad theology without searching the scriptures. I also admit that the Holy Spirit uncovered some things that I might not otherwise have let Him expose and heal had I not read the book. But I appreciate how you laid out so clearly the need for a "both/and" view of God. It's something I tend to gloss over all too often.
I have just finished reading and I feel greatly challenged in my love relationship with God. I know that The Shack has a lot in it that is not exactly correct with the Bible, but as Christians, what can we do or what kind of impact will we have on the world around us if we don't have that intimate love relationship first? I think there are a lot of " believers" out there that just don't get the intimate love relationship thing! I was brought up too be very independent and I have had to fight that nature in me every step that I take toward God or anything that He wants me to do.
Whereas, maybe this might not be the first book that you would recommend to a non-believer or new Christian, I would say that the Lord certainly used it as a challenge in my own life and I am going to recommend it to others that I think are mature enough to step over the erring parts.
Why throw out the baby with the bath water?
Yeah, I agree with what Mike G said that the book reaches across barriers and gets people thinking and talking about Jesus. Even in the light of poor theology ( soft pedaling the atonement, God the father and dancing a little too close to universalism), the shack is quite engaging. It comes across very non-religious and gently pulls on our emotional strings, it gets people thinking. It's amazing the response here on your blog, Ben!
Haven't read the book, and probably won't read it. While I think you made some very good points, I guess the biggest point to me it is that the book is fiction. Can Christians "get something" out of a theologically "unsound" work? Sure. This book is not the only book that 's not "tight" theologically. We all must get into the practice of evaluating everything we hear and read, against the Word of God. If this book will give us some much-needed practice, then that's good. However, if there is any "truth" in it, take that and go with it. Leave the rest. I have to do that with every book I read. New Christians aren't often able to do that, but we can still start them on the path of…evaluation and discernment, straight off the molding block.
Jesus was both God and man. For Him to show up, down here, in the form of a human being was definitely a…step down, don't you think? Why did he step down from all things majestic and grand, to dwell on earth? While He was here, He lived among and identified with His creation. That was very relational. He never ceased to be grand and majestic. He was still all that. But He presented Himself in a much "less-majestic" way. He didn't show up on a white horse, with a scepter, with "Faithful and True" across His chest. He came as an infant, who grew into a…man.
He's called El "Shaddai", which comes from the hebrew word for breast, '"shad". We are made in God's image. So, since that's the case, He can definitely be a mother and a father to us . He possesses the nurturing qualities that are most often attributed to "mothers". God is complete…He lacks nothing.
This says it better than I did. i wish I had thought of this analogy to explain my issues with the book.
Check it out: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/09/shack-fict…
This says it better than I did. i wish I had thought of this analogy to explain my issues with the book.
Check it out: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/09/shack-fict…