The Shack has engendered a huge amount of attention. For some it seems to have been a revelation (including Eugene Peterson who likens it to Pilgrim’s Progress). It has, on the other hand, attracted criticism for being a very imperfect view of Christianity and tending towards universalism. It’s really good, it’s really bad. FWIW, here’s my opinion: it’s neither. It’s just not that good or that bad.
The story behind the story is great: homespun tale for family and friends becomes global publishing phenomenon, through efforts of said friends who have to form a company to deal with success. But the novel itself is a good deal more ordinary.
Without giving too much away, it seems to be a novelised attempt to present Christianity to a post-modern, suffering world. A man who cannot recover from a terrible event gets an opportunity to talk to God about it - and in the process God is revealed as compassionate and purposeful. So where do the radical, new, unexpected bits come in?
Good question because, I dare to suggest, there aren’t many. The answers the book suggests are actually fairly traditional evangelical apologetics. For example, in understanding why this event could happen: it’s a broken world where bad stuff happens, God works through bad events to bring about a greater purpose, He still loves you despite the appearances of the situation (witness His nail scarred hands) and is not distant. Along with this comes the usual stuff about God never forces anyone to do anything, but basically you could read similar themes in books on providence, suffering and theodicy. Perhaps putting it into novel-form, these ideas can be communicated well to those who would be resistant to other forms. But it isn’t new or radical; although it does lapse into what I would think of as a leap in the dark when God reveals that the victim of the crime was accompanied by Him through the experience, that she was conscious of this and therefore wasn’t scared. So there is a theological answer, and a sentimental one: good things will come (fine) and they didn’t suffer fear (not so fine or realistic).
There does seem to me to be a note running through it which I also found in some emergent stuff: the author appears to be reacting against a kind of church background. The main character learns the Trinity is a loving communion, that God cares in sorrow etc and reacts as though church has never taught him these things. Many of us have been in churches where, actually, we have always heard this. So, although not stated explicitly, it does imply the same idea as, say, Rob Bell, that probably all churches are like that and we need something new and different. (Which is a remarkably narrow view for allegedly open-minded people.)
So, having said all this, what’s good and bad in my illustrious opinion?
GOOD
- Trinitarian - at least to a degree - which not a lot of writing has been in recent decades. OK, so the Trinity seems to include two females, but I think this is largely a literary device to shake our preconceptions about God. I don't think it works well, and I think if you were looking for an exposition of the Trinity here, you will leave disappointed and confused. But I don’t think the writer set out to portray a feminist God. And critics don’t seem to notice that one member of the Trinity appears as male again at the end of the book.
- Compassionate: it really is trying to provide answers for hurting people.
- Biblically Literal (in some senses anyway): so, for example, it clearly holds the garden of Eden and the fall to be true. Absolutely shocking in this day and age.
BAD
- God is very cuddly. Now, what I mean by this is: cuddly to the point of not really having any other attributes. Admittedly, it is a book about how God’s love impacts our sorrow, but even so I could not imagine The Shack’s Jesus speaking the words of Revelation 1-3. In fact I couldn’t imagine this Trinity saying a great deal of the harder sections of the Bible. And when Mack, the central (human) character raises the question about OT violence, no real answer is made. If William Young is reacting against churches that major on judgment I can see why. But someone who read this book as an introduction to following Christ, is going to get a big shock later on when they read the whole Bible.
- It’s not strong on the Bible: it’s there, it’s referred to, it’s even stated we can hear God speaking through it - but it does seem somewhat relegated.
- Going back to cuddliness, this Jesus is so chummy and ordinary that His divinity is almost entirely lost, even though it is stated. The author’s theology implies he feels Jesus is completely and eternally limited by His human nature - which may be a reaction to the way-too-divine Jesus many emergents critique. But even so…
- Is there universalism? Possibly. The author has an unlimited atonement position, and because this is repeatedly emphasised it may wrongly seem imply he is universalist. It’s a bit too fuzzy to say for sure.
So what kind of book is it? It’s not a great book, because the writing is not up to, say, CS Lewis. This is evident for example in a sequence towards the end which resembles the final sections of Perelandra. I know which will stand out in my mind for the longest. But neither is it a terrible book. It may in fact open up helpful avenues for discussion. Would I buy it for a non-Christian friend? Maybe, if other routes had failed.
Badger.
