Theology Thursday Book Review: The Shack
Well, I'm about a year late in getting around to reading The Shack, by William P. Young. To be honest, I was reluctant to read it due to my general distaste for Christian Fiction and the incredible hype surrounding the book. With those two issues, I wasn't set up to easily enjoy it. And to be honest, it didn't really change my opinion of Christian Fiction, and it really didn't live up to the hype.
This isn't to say that I didn't enjoy it somewhat. While I didn't find it to be exactly earth-shatteringly profound, there was some good stuff in it.
Probably my favorite quote is this:
"Mack, just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn't mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don't ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me. Grace doesn't depend on suffering to exist, but where there is suffering you will find grace in many facets and colors."
And now your obligatory Spoiler warning. Don't read on unless you want to read specifics.
Last chance to avoid spoilery.
Seriously. Back off unless you're willing to suffer imminent spoilage...
Plot summary: Mack's daughter is kidnapped and murdered. This triggers The Great Sadness, in which state Mack lingers for several years. He gets a note, which he believes is from God, telling him to come to The Shack (where the only evidence of his daughter's fate was found) for a meet-n-greet. He doesn't tell his wife or family, but drives out and meets God at the Shack. He meets all three Persons of the Trinity, shares meals with Them, and has profound encounters with each of Them and with the Personification of Wisdom (probably the best scene in the book).
Of course, it's not so much the plot that makes The Shack a subject of controversy and argument, but the theology contained in it.
Mr. Young gets himself into some hot water by portraying two of the persons of the Godhead as female. Of course, Jesus is the only one of the three we can solidly call male in any meaningful way, since the other two are pure spirits. So I don't have any particular issue there. And it actually makes sense in the context of the book to have "Papa" represented as female, given what Mack has been through in his life. And Mack admits to Papa that he had always pictured The Father as "very white and very male." Which, of course, is a bunch of Traditional Church bunkum. (BTW, I didn't mention that God the Father is a big black lady. So that blew both the white and the male things out of the water.)
Mr. Young is also accused of being a Universalist, but this is an oversimplification. I believe he does lean toward Christian Universalism, but this shouldn't be confused with the standard Universalist position (and if you don't understand the distinction, you can go back and read the very brief explanation of the position I wrote nearly two years ago). Suffice it to say that I believe a Biblical case can be made for Christian Universalism. I'm just unsure it's a good case. Anyway, back to the book. Here's a quote about Universalism:
"Does that mean," asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"
"Not at all," smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."
Sure, it's a fine line. All roads don't lead to Christ, but Christ can meet anybody where they are and lead them to Himself. But that's not the same as saying people will be saved apart from Him.
As I mentioned, there's a scene in which, after walking across the lake with Jesus, Mack meets with Sophie, the personification of Wisdom. (An aside here: Yes, he truly wrote the walking on water thing, and I agree with you that it's a bit lame. Why, exactly, wouldn't Jesus do something even more amazing instead of recycling His old tricks? I don't mean to sound so flip, but I just thought Mr. Young could've done something a bit less obvious here.) As he speaks with Sophie, he is commanded to make himself Judge of God. In fact, it's a role he's been playing for some time. Then he's asked to choose one of his remaining children to burn in Hell forever. Obviously, he can't chose. It's a powerful illustration of why many have difficulty with the doctrine of Endless Torment (I'm one of them).
The responses from many a Heady Theologian have been varied, to say the least. Greg Boyd (who I admire quite a bit) loved it. Marc Driscoll (who I have virtually no opinion of) hated it. Really, really hated it. (He accuses Mr. Young of Modalism and of creating a Graven Image of God, both of which are ridiculous charges to anyone who honestly deals with the text. I'm willing to go further on this in the comments but won't dwell on it now.) I guess I'm in the middle somewhere. I didn't find myself floored by anything in it, and I didn't find myself just really offended by anything. I also don't look to fiction authors for really great theology. (I use the Internet, of course!)
The one thing I found true in the "good" reviews was that The Shack had a similar effect on me that the Narnia books have: a longing for closeness with God. When I read the Narnia books, I always wish I could be there. I wish I could see Aslan and feel his breath on me. And as for The Shack, who wouldn't want a weekend away with God?
My biggest problem with the book is that it's positioned as a factual retelling of a real person's (Mack's) experiences. And I don't believe it for a second. And there's no real benefit in making that claim, even if it's true. If it's really retelling Mack's experiences, then we're dealing with Personal Revelation. Which should be taken as being just as authoritative as fiction. So, fiction or nonfiction, we can't really base theology on it. Sorry.
And did I mention I don't believe Mack is a real person? And from what I've read, Mr. Young now admits as much. But it's hard not to feel that he was a bit deceptive in both his introduction and epilogue on this point. The problem is, it undermines his credibility, tenuous as it is based on the rest of the plot.
Theology aside, it's a fairly easy read. The first eighty pages or so contained some of the more boring prose I've read in recent years, and that includes a number of books about hard science. That kind of boring takes effort. The rest of the book is much easier because it's essentially a sustained dialogue. And dialogue is easier to read than prose.
The trouble is, the dialogue was often a bit shaky. Mr. Young seemed to have trouble using contractions consistently (which I've seen plenty of times before, and it never stops being irritating). Real people talk with contractions. If you want dialogue to sound real, you must use them. For instance, which sounds more realistic?
"I do not understand what you are saying."
"I don't understand what you're saying."
Now, it's true that real people break from using contractions, particularly for emphasis, but that can be shown by italics or setting off the text somehow differently:
"I do not understand what you're saying." (but I still couldn't get away from going with "you're")
Of course, The Shack was self-published, so this kind of thing is probably to be expected. Add to that fact that this is a Christian book, and I'm hardly surprised. But I'd like to be. I'd like to see Christian Fiction actually be excellent. I'd like to see characters who occasionally use, you know, a bad word. (And actually, this is one thing I respected about Mack. He was more of a real character and occasionally did just that. But this is more of a general rant.)
So, how to sum up? I can't really recommend it, but if you want to read it and talk about it with me, I'd be up for that. Or, if you've read it and think I'm just way off base here, or if you're related to Mr. Young and want to take a shot at my analysis, go for it. My analysis is worth basically the paper it's printed on (see, it's digital, so there's no paper...but you get the idea). So jump in and add something. Tell me what you loved/hated about it. I'll pay for the web space.
