The Shack by William Young

Posted by Helen on: 04.21.2008 /

Note: I’m going to avoid discussing important features of the plot for those who haven’t read this yet and want to.

Pam kindly gave me a copy of The Shack last week when I was in Seattle. She had just met with and interviewed the author. I was intrigued, having heard about the book a few weeks earlier from Randy, who was recommending it highly. It’s selling extremely well - it’s clearly a popular book.

Here are some other mentions of it on our blogs/by OTM friends: Randy brings it up briefly here). Also, Carmen and April mentioned it recently. Benjamin received a copy from Pam too last week and just posted a very interesting, detailed review on his blog.

It turned out to be perfect plane reading for someone with a longish flight (4 hours) and not much sleep the night before (also 4 hours). I did take a short nap in the middle but even so I was able to finish the book during the flight.

The first thing I noticed was, from a literary point of view this book didn’t impress me. Lines like the following reminded me of the cliched writing of the Left Behind series

Mack did not know it then, but within twenty-four hours his prayers would change, drastically.

There are much better ways to build suspense than this (imo).

I was glad Pam had mentioned it not being especially well-written - it meant this didn’t come as a surprise. Since no-one had led me to expect this was a literary masterpiece I don’t want to dwell on that. It’s not as if it has much competition in that arena from other contemporary Christian fiction (in my experience).

The Shack, like other Christian novels I’ve read, ‘has an agenda’. Generally I try to avoid these books because I’m hit way too hard over the head with the agenda and I have issues with it anyway. However, The Shack held my interest and the agenda didn’t annoy me because I recognized it as my own, eleven years ago.

Back then I wanted to do exactly what this author sets out to do: help people believe that God is kind, gentle, sensitive and fun. I was using the Bible and it’s a bit hard to demonstrate the fun part like the author is able to do his novel. But I did my best with the other attributes. What I wrote is still online on my personal blog: For Christians in Pain: About God

I warmed to the author because I identified with his goal and appreciated it. I also liked how daring he is in his depiction of God [Jesus' parent], Jesus and the Holy Spirit. At one point Jesus clumsily drops something. Is it possible for God to be clumsy? I don’t know but I like that the author dared to go there. The way the issue is dealt with in the story powerfully conveys fun and forgiveness and relationship as what God is all about. I’m sure it was included as a plot device to show those things and maybe also to shock people out of their preconceived notions about God in a playful way.

The most profound aspect of the book, for me, is that the author portrays God as

• noticing why it’s difficult for one particular human being to relate to him
• putting significant effort into connecting with that one human being in a way that works for that human.

God is very generous with that person, taking lots of time with him, respecting that trusting God is hard for him.

There’s a Bible verse which for me embodies this aspect of God’s nature. It says Jesus wouldn’t break a bruised reed or snuff out a smoldering candle wick. I rarely hear the implications of this verse discussed by Christians; in fact the way many Christians talk about God it seems impossible he/she could show this sensitivity and be this gentle with broken people.

Applying it to myself: if God truly is this way it seems obvious to me that God wouldn’t push me to pray if my personal circumstances make it not doable for me. However I regularly run into Christians who try to persuade me to pray. It seems they’ve either not read this verse or not understood what it means.

Interestingly, that verse combines Jesus’ sensitivity with a statement about bringing justice. So, while he is treating people who need gentleness with the utmost gentleness, anyone who is responsible for injustice will be dealt with very differently. Not that people generally neatly divide into ‘abused’ or ‘abuser’ - many are a mixture of both, I believe. But with all his/her knowledge and sensitivity I’m sure God is able to perfectly deal with each individual - right? :) That’s the God portrayed in this book.

I think my buttons that get easily pushed might have been asleep on the ride home through sheer exhaustion, or maybe I had such a good time in Seattle I was not feeling at all reactive. Because the things that tend to bother me about Christian theology only mildly disturbed me in this book. They did cause a significant disconnect for me intellectually but I was glad they didn’t trigger me much emotionally on this occasion.

This story is full of questions from Mack, the main character and answers from God - so, in effect, it lays out a theology to deal with suffering. This is the big question all theological systems have to address. The God of The Shack values free will which means he/she has to allow humans to use it in ways which cause suffering to other humans - sometimes great suffering.

It’s implied in the book that everything will be ok in the end; heaven is a big part of how that will happen. Also, the book implies that this God is so forgiving that he/she works with the worst people to try to redeem them if at all possible. At first I thought it was saying ‘everyone gets to heaven in the end’ but then I realized free-will leaves that open; it simply implies God makes every effort with each person and no-one will miss heaven if there’s any possible way to get them there.

If you give up total control because of free will how can you then guarantee everything will be ok in the end? I don’t see how to reconcile those two which are both implied in the book.

I was never drawn to the God who didn’t have total control because I wanted security and guarantees. If God doesn’t provide them and I have to accept the uncertainty of life then, I may as well go all the way and be an atheist (almost) who is not trying to depend in any way on a God who is only dependable and powerful up to a point. Maybe you have reasons why having faith in a God limited by freewill is way better than not having faith in God at all. But for me, the latter works better.

These are the points of disconnect for me in the book and they are significant. I admired what the author is attempting to do - present a God who is likeable - and hope others will be helped by it. The amazing sales of the book indicate it’s connecting well with people so they probably are being helped. Nevertheless it doesn’t change where I’m at personally, because it didn’t have any new answers I hadn’t thought of, which would address my intellectual issues.

Essentially this book presents God in the form of some kind, acceptive, loving human beings. And many people are finding that very powerful. Demonstrating (I think) that they are used to thinking of God as meaner than this. Why is that? Why have so many people got the idea that God is meaner than the best human friend they have (or could imagine, if they are short of friends)?

I know from experience that being around people who are consistently kind and accepting can be very healing to those who have been hurt in past relationships. I’m not going to argue with anyone who believes that’s because kind people are in fact expressing God’s love and this is all part of God’s plan. Nevertheless, for me, it’s enough to know that they are human beings who care.

I probably would like The Shack better if God wasn’t (overtly) in it and it was simply a story about humans who care enough to help each other to heal. Even for Christians, that’s how it happens in real life, right?

Which brings me to my final point: escapist Christian fiction concerns me because it used to encourage me to dream rather than to get on with my life. It made life look drab and I wanted to stay in the world of books like this where God is visible and individually shows people they’ll live happily ever after. I preferred that over getting on with life in which even to Christians God often seems absent. Or, if not absent, he/she still doesn’t conveniently show up for personal encounters where all their difficult questions get answered.

I’m glad I read it. Now I know what Randy meant when he said Demond Tutu reminds him of “Papa” in The Shack. And I do appreciate Pam giving me the book. Sometime I should return the favor and give her a book I like so she can criticize it on her blog :)

---

Semi-Related Posts

• Amazing Grace Sunday: Churches unite against modern-day slavery
• The power of a positive no
• Across the Universe
• Becoming creatures of new habits
• The Wright/Ehrman and Jones/Hansen blogalogues
• Response to being evangelized
• A modern kind of prayer

---