Book Review
By
October 29, 2008
www.avondalebiblechurch.org
Released in 2007, The Shack is currently #1 (and has been for 22 weeks) on the NY Times bestseller list for Paperback Trade Fiction and, as I write this review, a check of the Amazon bestseller list (updated hourly) shows it is currently #1 in sales.
Bestsellers come and go, but this book is different in that it is wildly popular. People are giving this book away right and left, while giving testimony of having been transformed through the book. Thus, the transformed readers have become “evangelistic” in their desire for their friends and families to likewise be transformed.
The focus of the book is to deal with the problem of evil and pain while still believing that a good, all-powerful, personal God is alive and actively involved. And The Shack deals with that profound question in such a way that people are having very passionate, “positive” responses. The testimonies of tears, breakthroughs and fresh awakenings that occur from reading this book are seemingly endless.
It was quite a struggle as I read this book. I have spent a significant amount of time reflecting on the content of The Shack. If you look at my copy, it is heavily highlighted with many notes written in the margins. The reason that it was such a struggle is that it is a work of fiction that attempts to deal with profound subject matter. There are many conversations that take place between the main character (Mack) and characters who are supposed to be personifications of the Trinity. In these conversations, the author, who has obviously had some theological training, fluctuates between points that are good and points that are grievous, heretical and even blasphemous. Let me elaborate on some of these points. Due to constraints of space, I will only touch on a few, which I will call The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
The Good
The Shack does make some good points. Among them are:
- It calls into question false views of God. God is not a white man or a big grandpa with a long, flowing white beard like Gandolf from The Lord of the Rings (p.73). However, The Shack itself presents an inaccurate view of God, but one that the author apparently likes better.
- It presents God as a Trinity. All three characters representing God are asked, “which one of you is God?” and all three answer, “I am.” (p.87) However, The Shack inaccurately portrays the Trinity both in the representation of their persons and their words. For instance, presenting God as male would “reinforce religious stereotypes” (p.93)
- It presents the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law for us, which we could never do. But then The Shack proceeds to say through the character representing the Father, “Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else…because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me.”
- It presents the truth that Jesus died and rose from the dead. However, The Shack also says that Jesus’ death and resurrection have now accomplished reconciliation for the whole world, (p.192) which is universal salvation.
The Bad
Many of those who are defending criticisms of The Shack center on the fact that it is a work of fiction. This is posited as if it should effectively insulate the book once and for all against criticism, since it is a work produced by the imagination and is not an account of actual events. While The Shack may not depict actual events, it does depict actual persons (namely the members of Trinity) and actual life issues such as pain and the theodicy which results from attempting to cope with that pain. Those depictions are either accurate or they are not, and that is the source of the criticism.
On the cover of the book, Eugene Peterson endorses The Shack and compares it to Pilgrim’s Progress. Pilgrim’s Progress is also a work of fiction, yet the subject matter it depicts is real. Its author, John Bunyan, did not supply his own answers, but was very precise in seeking out God’s answers from the Scriptures, referring to and quoting extensively from them. The Shack cannot lay claim to those qualities.
And the Ugly
If you have heard anything about The Shack, it has probably been about its representation of the Trinity. The character who is supposed to represent the Father, is a large African-American woman called “Papa” (a play on “Abba” from Romans 8:15). The character who is supposed to represent the Son is a Middle-Eastern male carpenter. The character who is supposed to represent the Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman named “Sarayu” who is better seen out of the corner of the eye than looking directly at her. These representations and the words that are attributed to them are blasphemous. If you are not familiar with that term, it means “to injure the reputation”. By presenting false information about who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are and by placing words in their mouth that they have not spoken and which are false in that they contradict what They have spoken, is blasphemy.
Generally speaking, The Shack is guilty of wanting to have it both ways. By that, I mean that it wants to utilize the Bible as a source of authority while simultaneously attacking it. I imagine that the author would probably argue that he doesn’t take issue with the Bible, only some people’s interpretation of it. Even if that were the case, which I believe is ultimately disingenuous; he is also offering an interpretation of the Bible and that interpretation is subject to scrutiny. It is the same scrutiny which he so readily renders upon what he refers to as “religion”, “religious machinery” and “traditions”, etc.
Ultimately, he may not have planned it this way, but he has started his own “religion” in that he has created a framework through which people should see spiritual reality. This religion will have its own “religious machinery” with its own defenders and adherents and evangelists spreading the word. And everyone who is filling those roles is sure to think that they are “right” and therefore are justified. But that is really the issue: is The Shack right in its assertions? Is it true? Or is this another case of what Paul warned would happen again and again,
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)
Here are some examples of The Shack wanting it both ways:
The Shack presents God as a Trinity. Where did it get that information? That information is only found in the Bible. Yet, after relying on the Bible to glean that information, it then disregards the fact that God always presents Himself as masculine. One way He does that is by using masculine nouns. The Shack points out that God is a Spirit and that a Spirit has no gender. Perhaps that is true anatomically, but gender transcends physical anatomy. God was not limited linguistically between only masculine and feminine nouns. He could have chosen neuter nouns to describe Himself if He wanted to eliminate reference to gender altogether. But a God who has revealed Himself as masculine apparently does not fit the author’s view and he had to make the choice to disregard that and present his own view. This is idolatry, in that his god is now a god of his own making. It is hubris, in that the author thinks he knows better than God Himself how He should be portrayed. And ultimately, it is blasphemy, in that it effectively calls God a liar.
The Shack presents Jesus as the fulfiller of the Law, who died and rose again from the dead. Again, that information is only found in the Bible. Yet, after relying on the Bible to glean information about Jesus as the way of salvation, it then tosses out the fact that Jesus clearly said, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) The idea that salvation is limited and that some will receive condemnation is disregarded in The Shack in favor of universal salvation, where no one is condemned, but all are reconciled to God.
The Shack presents God as a father who desires a relationship with His children. Again, that information is only found in the Bible. Yet, after relying on the Bible to glean information about having a relationship with God, it then tosses out the fact that obedience is essential in that relationship. Jesus said,
“‘He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.’ Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, ‘Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent
Instead, The Shack presents a relationship with God without obedience. It directly refutes the concept that obedience has any place in a relationship with God, when through the character Papa it says, “For now, I just want you to be with me and discover that our relationship is not about performance or you having to please me.” In fact, disobedience will not be judged as Papa also tells Mack, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”
Conclusion
Our relationship with God is indeed built upon grace, which is rightly defined as His unmerited favor which is bestowed on the basis of the person and work of Jesus Christ which is received when one becomes convinced of their own guilt before God and then turns from their sin and depends upon Christ alone for redemption.
This book disregards salvation in those terms and redefines it, particularly the issue of a personal necessity to turn from sin and toward God through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Instead it creates the same world that I would have created for myself, before knowing Christ. It would be:
· A world with maximum benefit but minimal effort.
· A world where God exists, and provides me with security and meaning for my existence.
· A world where He has no expectations of me other than a relationship built on a vague understanding of love and mutual understanding.
· A world where there will be no ultimate judgment or consequences for sin. Instead, I can make “mistakes” and God will see to it that I learn and grow from those.
This is the world of The Shack and this is why it is so appealing.