Thoughts on The Shack

I just finished reading The Shack, the current best seller that has surprised everyone with its popularity among Christians and non-Christians alike. I’m a little behind – by this time probably a million people have already read it. That’s okay – I don’t mind being behind.

I haven’t been unaware of the book. How could one? I’ve followed the reviews, pro and con, and at one point vowed not to read it at all. I’m not sorry I did read it, if for no other reason than I now know for myself whether in good conscience I could recommend it to anyone else. I can’t.

The book has a decidedly emotional impact. It is very easy to empathize with Mack, the main character, and his journey to deal with the pain of his severe abuse as a childhood and the loss of his 6½-year-old daughter to abduction and brutal murder. All of us have asked some of the questions Mack asks: “Why is there evil? How can God be a good God when he allows such horrors?” etc. The answers Mack proposes, however, contain theological distortions, at times presenting a skewed version of essential Christian doctrines, at times presenting a blatantly false version of those doctrines.

The book has received reactions from one end of the favorable/unfavorable spectrum to another: from Eugene Peterson’s euphoric statement that the book “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his” to Mark Driscoll’s flat statement that the book is heresy. I consider the review written by Tim Challies (author of The Discipline of Discernment) to be the fairest and most accurate. You can access the review here.

As might be expected, Challie’s review received a great many responses, both positive and negative. He recently posted a response entitled “Open Mind, Closed Bible” in which he answers the two most common criticisms of his review.

An example of one of the criticisms: “Your review reminds me of exactly why ‘stodgy old religion’ is so unappealing to masses of people. William Young wrote a novel – a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” An example of a second criticism: “Another concerned reader told me of a professor in a conservative seminary who was untroubled by much of the book’s poor theology. ‘I was surprised that he seemed not as concerned due to the fact that it is a novel and so some leeway should be allowed for ‘poetic license.’ He acknowledged my concerns and said he shared them as well but said the novel did not ‘intend to do theology.'” Challie’s response is well reasoned and thorough. The complete response can be accessed here. The following is a portion:

“There are two broad arguments used here.

The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel – a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.

There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.

The second argument is that The Shack is not a work of theology and, therefore, must not be treated as such. An article at Christianity Today makes this argument. “It’s tricky to speak definitively of The Shack’s theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a “parable” (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.” And in their review of the book they say, “Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology and its storyline, not for its faulty mechanics. Reviewers have criticized the book for hinting at universalism, as well as for feminism and a lack of hierarchy in the Trinity. Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”

This is a convenient argument but one we need to guard against. It creates a false, unrealistic division between works that are theological and works that are not. Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision (such as a Systematic Theology) and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not. The Shack is, by the author’s own admission, a work that seeks to change the reader’s perception of God. It is deeply theological! Read the reviews of this book and you will find readers saying how much this book impacted their understanding of God’s person and nature.

Tom Neven, writing for Boundless Line, covers this well in an article titled “But It’s Only Fiction.”

If you’re going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.

So if you’re going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he’s supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don’t care if he’s trying to make God more “accessible.” He’s violated the rules of fiction.

More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to “improve” the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.

The reader who complained about “stodgy old religion” exhorted me to “try to re-read the Shack with a more open mind.” But from her email and the others like it, I can see that in this case an open mind would require a closed Bible. We cannot set aside Scripture even when we read fiction. There is no such thing as only fiction (emphasis mine). The Shack is theological fiction. If it talks about God, it must be so! While it may not require the kind of precision we would expect from a work of formal theology, we cannot deny that the author seeks to teach what he believes to be true about God. And we cannot then deny that it teaches theology that is, in a word, false. It is not an issue of precision but of right and wrong! Fiction is a powerful medium for communicating truth and the evidence of this is in every positive review of the book; the evidence is in the fact that Jesus Himself often communicated using fiction.

Even in times when the church is strongest spiritually, perversion of essential Christian doctrine is anathema. At a time like this when the “winds of doctrine” (see Ephesians 4:14) are blowing at gale force and the discernment of Christians is at a decided low the slightest perversion of essential Christian doctrine is doubly dangerous – especially when coupled with the intense emotional impact of The Shack. The emotional aspect tends to fix the perversions in mind a great deal more than would reading the same things in a theology textbook, for instance.

Besides the distortion of doctrine, the book at times very subtly undermines the veracity of Scripture and is – again subtly – critical of the institutional church. Although I can understand and even sympathize with Mack’s attitude regarding the institutional church, I find the undermining of Scripture unacceptable. –JB


2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by motherleigh on August 8, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Prophecy is so widely misunderstood – thank you for your clarity on this sensitive subject.


  2. Posted by sheepfodder on August 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. Actually, I got it from another blog and found it very helpful myself! -JB


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: