To Begin...
A Word On Fiction & Emotions
Simply because The Shack is a fictional story does not mean that it does not have theology within it, I'd hope that by now all who read this review would not be naive enough to think otherwise. Neither does the book being fiction dictate that it is necessarily good, or that any errors can be passed off with the comments 'oh, but it's only fiction. It isn't meant to be true!' Again, such a comment is naive and foolish. Fiction books have an ability, perhaps more so that non-fiction, to change us. This is because they are inherently emotive. And this is no different with The Shack. It is clearly emotional, from the very beginning we have sympathy with Mack and his situation - and for good reason, for clearly anyone who goes through the things that Mack has would react in an equally emotional manner.
What this does mean for us, however, is that we must be even more careful in allowing the theological to get emotional. Now, allow me to explain myself. Theology is a means to another end - knowing God. So clearly emotion is involved in theology. But to defend the Shack on the grounds of fiction seems to indicate two things, firstly that there is a lack of willingness to deal with the issues it brings up. And Secondly, that one has become so emotionally involved that an attack on the book feels like an attack on a persons emotional response to the book. If this is the case, I suggest you seek help from your pastor.
The Good Stuff
Like I have said, there was a lot of good in the book. It was gripping (once you get used to the slightly inept style of writing and seeming lack of editorial input). As a male who has big hopes and desires to be a father one day, I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child in the circumstances the book describes. So the actual reading of the book is easy - it took me two days.
The Shack identifies many legalistic problems that evangelical Christians can be prone to suffer from today. And certainly as I study theology, it is good to remember that God does love his people, that God does care, that God does want us to change and become who he created us to be. One way in which The Shack does it is by emphasising the imminence of God (to the detriment of God's transcendence, but more of that later). And it is something that we do need to remember.
Chapter Sixteen discusses the nature of human forgiveness very well. For to forgive is to take the wound, and not to gain revenge. It is to acknowledge wrong-doing and yet to choose to seek to restore relationship. It is not to forget, but it is to let go of the need to react. I thought the discussion and description of Mack's forgiveness was very good.
The Bad Stuff
One of the most evident aspects that is lacking in The Shack is the awesomeness of God. His transcendence is simply not mentioned at all. Of course, the book does talk of God's imminence, and does so very well. But whilst it is good to remember the imminence of God, that does not mean that we should forget that God is wholly other. But what about the fact that in the Old Testament we find that God only communicates through a burning bush to Moses, yet Moses still hides his face our of fear and reverence? And Isaiah, who cries, 'Woe is me! Woe is me!' when he is shown the throne of God in a vision in Isaiah 6? Much of what is written in the Shack regarding God only tells half the story. Without the other half, the reader can potentially have a false understanding of God.
There are attributes of God that are not dealt with in the book, and even worse, downplayed. God's wrath, justice and holiness are not dealt with in a sufficient way in the Shack. Which in itself may be tolerable. But the subtle danger in the presentation of other attributes of God means that the reader may end up downplaying other essential attributes of God, like his justice. It does bring up the ever present issue that we must all grapple with, how do we put God's love and his justice together? The God that I read about in the Shack is not even half the God I read about in the Bible.
Some of the stuff that Young has God saying do seem to be clearly unbiblical - like on page 96 when Papa says that he had not left Jesus, no matter how he felt at the time. We have Jesus crying out that God had forsaken him in Mark 15, and also have references to that separation throughout church history. Whilst the counter argument may be that this doesn't prove that God did forsake Jesus on the cross - I'd prefer to trust Scripture and history than a line in a book published last year. As for God not creating institutions? Well, Romans 13 says that God created government and gave it it's authority - so Paul exhorts the Romans to obey the authorities God has instituted.
One other major issue I have with the book is that it seems to be verging on universalism - that all will be saved in the end. Chapter Twelve of the book seems to talk most about this. And although it would be very easy to distance himself from this accusation, the author hasn't done so. I cannot justify universalism from the Bible - it is clear that not all will be save, from the mere fact that Jesus talks of hell so much.
Concluding Comments
I personally did not find the Shack all that interesting or well written. What I did find is that it has brought up many different aspects of God that those of our culture have difficulty dealing with. Indeed, it has highlighted some of the aspects of Christianity that can be abused too easily (for example, suffering and the sovereignty of God, authority of Scripture), or forgotten too easily (for example, God's imminence). And whilst I do think that the Shack does have bad theology - I would hesitate to call it heretical. I do believe, though, that in a church that has far too much of a 'Jesus-is-my-girlfriend' ideology floating around, the Shack does very little to counter that false notion of God.
I have not touched on every issue that appeared to me whilst reading the Shack, but I have attempted to give The Shack a fair going, and whilst it is not all good, there clearly is some good in it, and God's hand seems to be on it and working through it.
This is not a comprehensive review, perhaps if I hadn't a degree to work for I would be able to do as good a job on a review as some of the ones I've read recently (please note the links to various reviews at the bottom of this post).
If you gain nothing from reading this, then hear this: it is folly to have an opinion on the book if you have not read it (but you may already have an opinion on the theology of the book), but it is of equal folly to fail to deal with the theological issues that the book brings up once you have read it.
Please do speak to me about what I think about the book, communication is much easier when face-to-face and two way. It would be interesting to discuss with other people and their views on the book.
I end with a quote from a very helpful reviewer (Scott Lindsey):
"I believe that those who are well-grounded in the Word won’t be harmed by the weaknesses and
deficiencies of the book. Unfortunately, few people these days are well-grounded in the Word."
Reviews
Scott Lindsey of The Resurgence
Chuck Colson of Diminishing Glory
Al Mohler's radio show about The Shack
James DeYoung, a Professor from Western Seminary
Note: I don't necessarily agree with all that is written in these reviews - but they do most certainly highlight what needs to be grappled with in regards to the theology the Shack is built upon.
