What I think about The Shack (so far)

I just finished reading The Shack and I liked it. I'm not done thinking through it - and its impact on the those who read it - but here are my initial thoughts.

First I will give a little bit of context though. My pastor told me about this book a few months ago, and how it was amazing and I had to read it. By the time I got home from school, basically my whole church had read it and it was all people were talking about. The small group I'm sort of in at church which is led by my pastor is planning to give out copies of the book to friends outside the church and then invite them to a sort of book-club discussion afterward. My church is crazy about this book.

I also knew that a lot of people - including some big-wig theologians - had criticized it pretty sharply. I didn't read their criticisms until after reading the book for myself.

Now, my thoughts?

1. The book speaks some shocking words of truth that are rarely touched upon in right-wing conservative Christian circles (like the South). It takes the emphasis off "being a Christian," "getting saved" and following rules and places the emphasis on God's greatness and grace. One thing I was especially happy to see - and happy that my right-wing church was reading! - was that political paradigms are challenged and readers are reminded that Christ's followers will come from every tribe, every nation - out of* every major world religion, every world culture, out of every political party...

*The key here is "out of" - this is something the book could've made a little clearer. I got what the author was trying to say in the bit about Jesus Himself not having been a "Christian," but the author leaves something potentially confusing (especially to those who have been in one spiritual box for most of their lives) a little too wishy-washy. In fact, I think misunderstanding of what the author wrote is a large reason for much of the criticism the book has received. More on that later. It is important that Christ's followers will come out of all of these worldly groups - you cannot be a Christ-follower and still be, for example, a Muslim, though you can (and must!) still love Muslims - just as you cannot be a Christian and still go on sinning at will. It is also important that these people who come out of every earthly "nation" will not come into anything more than the love of Christ and the joy of life with our Creator. They will not come out of those groups and come into the country club of right-wing "Christian"-ity and start voting Republican and doing everything like we in the Bible Belt do.

2. The book gives great insight, but is not the most well-written book I've ever read. One article I read about the book used the term "awkward prose," and I feel that I have to agree with that description at least of certain sections - like the one I just mentioned. This is unfortunate, because I think the book could be even better if some things were smoothed out. By no means do I think Young is a bad writer - I just think the book could've used a little more steam-lining and sophistication from a literary point of view. That is only my opinion though. No two readers read the same way.

3. I have not spent a huge amount of time reading the critiques of the book yet, but the bulk of the criticism I have read of the book left me with the impression that the critic did not actually understand what the author was saying. Now we can debate about whether that is the author's fault or not, and I do believe that authors have a huge responsibility, especially when approaching subjects of such magnitude as the God of the Universe Himself, to make every effort to ensure that readers understand what he really meant. Authors have an obligation to put themselves in their readers' shoes and adapt their writing accordingly. But some of the criticism seems to simply reveal people's ignorance and lack of attention to the writing.

Example: People have a problem with God being portrayed as a Black woman. First of all, I have no idea why anyone has a problem with Him being portrayed as Black. God isn't white either. (We know Jesus' "race" but not the Father's!) Secondly, the book very clearly does not say that God is a woman! It very clearly says that God is genderless and that both genders carry aspects of His nature. He chooses to reveal Himself to Mack as a woman because He knows it will be most helpful for Mack's understanding. And no one mentions the fact that later, He does appear as a man!!!!!!! (*Side note: The Holy Spirit appearing as an Asian woman named Sarayu is a little weird to me. I don't find anything wrong in it, it just seems strange and I'm not clear why the author made that choice.)

Second example: The USA Today article stated that many critics say it "promotes a wrong-headed view of universal salvation." "Papa" (God) does tell Mack that through Jesus He has reconciled the entire world to Himself. But He immediately clarifies that "reconciliation is a two-way street, and I [God] have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way." (pg. 192) We can debate the truth of that statement/portrayal, but one cannot argue that the books promotes the idea of universal salvation. The author has made that pretty clear. "Papa" later says, "Forgiveness does not establish a relationship. In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship." (pg 225) Again, we can debate whether this statement is true, but we really cannot stick the "universal salvation" label on it. It does not say what happens to those who are forgiven but do not enter into relationship. The underlying assumption, however, seems to be that entering into relationship is salvation, not just being forgiven. And since only some choose relationship, the logical conclusion is that the author conveys that only some will be saved.

4. The one thing that appears to be missing is God's wrath. One critic had a problem with the absence of anything indicating that sin will be punished, as we are told in the Bible. I can see that, but on the other hand, I believe that when we really get a hold of who God is and how marvelous the life we are intended to have with Him really is, talk of punishment isn't really necessary. We do not serve a God of arbitrary rules and commands who is just trying to make life difficult. We serve a God who is trying to help us experience the fullness of life and avoid the pain of sin! A child who touches a hot stove after being told not to touch it doesn't need to be punished - the burn on his hand is "punishment" enough. Sin is nothing more than believing the lie that something apart from God can make us happy. It can't. It will make us miserable. And thus it is in itself the "punishment." Mack's time with God is so amazing that God doesn't need to talk about punishing him if he chooses to miss out on it. Missing out on it is the punishment!

5. These things might go without saying, but as great as the book is, we have to be careful. We must not confuse it with the Bible and with personal communication with God Himself through prayer, worship, etc. And we must not cease to test it against the Word of God.

Many proponents of the book have responded to the theological criticisms by saying that The Shack is not a "doctrinal" book, but this is very dangerous! Any portrayal of God contains elements of theology and doctrine, and if that portrayal is inaccurate, it will affect our own beliefs. We must not allow ourselves to fall in love with a depiction of God that is inaccurate. Any depiction will of course be incomplete, but if any falsehood has crept into a depiction, ignoring the falsehood will only lead us astray.

I might come back and write more about the book later. I definitely recommend reading it, although - as with any book! - I recommend careful scrutiny and testing against the Word of God.