The Shack – followup review
So I finished reading William Young’s “The Shack” and thought I’d give my overall review of it. There are plenty of blogs out there that have raked it over the coals, theologically…as well as plenty that have praised it as the greatest piece of Christian fiction ever written. I find myself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. I’ll give my thoughts on it in three areas: Theologically, Literarily, and Pastorally.
Theological review
The overall theology of “The Shack” would generally be considered a form of Arminian theology. There is a high emphasis placed on humanity’s choices and responsibilities as well as a reticence on God’s behalf to intervene directly in human decisions for the sake of preserving their ability to live freely–something necessary for genuine love between humanity and God to exist.
The problem of evil and suffering being reconciled with the notion of a Just and Loving God is handled via a form of the “freewill defense”, put forth by Christian philosophers and theologians such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. However, there is no attempt to answer every question regarding exactly why God allows such evil to occur. This is the most commendable aspect of the book in my opinion because it follows Scripture’s relative silence on God’s motives and instead focuses on God’s self-revelation as Good and Just (For a much most solid theological treatment of this issue I can’t recommend strongly enough N.T. Wright’s fantastic little book “Evil and the Justice of God“…which people can check out in both print and audio format from my office!).
One area where The Shack has been criticized for being theologically out of line is in its almost non-existent treatment of the nature of Sin. Sin is never really presented according to the Biblical standard and shown in all its horror or ugliness. Instead it is almost ignored or brushed aside via euphamism. This critique is one that I agree with. When I think about, for example, how the reality of sin and its insideousness is treated by C.S. Lewis’ portrayal of the “Un-Man” in his classic “Perelandra“, I can’t help but recognize the failure by Young to address this topic which should be at the heart of any discussion of evil and suffering.
The other area that the book was criticized for is its teaching on salvation; particularly the passage where Jesus tells Mack that though all paths do not lead to Him, there is no path that He will not travel down to get to us (my lame paraphrase). This seems to many to be advocating a type of universalism whereby Jesus saves people regardless of whether or not they follow other faiths or belief systems. On this point, I can sympathize with the critics because Young’s treatment of this was woefully short and ambiguous. However, I’m curious as to whether or not the same critics level such charges against C.S. Lewis’ “The Last Battle” wherein a Calormene soldier who worshipped Tash all his life finds at his death that he was actually worshipping Aslan and is part of the renewed creation at the end.
With any presentation of theological issues, particularly in a popular-level format, there will always be areas of disagreement or dissatisfication among theologically-minded believers. However, the alarmism over the theology of “The Shack” is, in my opinion, simply unjustified (as is the near-canonization of it by many of its fans!). If I were Reformed or Calvinist in my theological leanings, I would certainly find much in it that I vehemently disagreed with. But as someone who does not hold this system of theology, I have considerably less objections to the theology of “The Shack”.
Literary review
My strongest critique of the book lies in its literary quality. Simply put, I felt that “The Shack” was just not a well-written book. I thought the dialogue seemed very artificial and there was almost no attempt to veil the theological teachings of the book literarily. It was as if the dialogues were pre-conceived lectures put in the mouths of talking heads. I felt that the amount of time leading up to Mack’s entry into the shack (where the story really gets going) was disproportionate to the amount of story contained within the rest of the book. Aside from Mack, the characters were very flat and undeveloped.
“The Shack” seems to be unable to decide whether or not to be a full-blown story (such as “The Pilgrim’s Progress” or “Redeeming Love“) or a theological treatise in dialogue format (such as “The Lotus and the Cross” or “The Screwtape Letters“). If it had leaned one way or the other, it would have been a much better book in my opinion.
On a much more subjective front, I found the depiction of idyllic conditions throughout the book to be simply too…well…Thomas Kinkade-ish. It seemed to reinforce the stereotype of Christian fiction as shmaltzy pablam that consists of pastel colors and cross-stitching. If you’re having trouble visualizing what I’m talking about, just stroll through any Lifeway Christian store and you’ll immediately see what I mean! As someone who has an innate aversion to cheesy Christianity, “The Shack” was much too close to that line than I would have liked it to be. (My apologies to anyone who is a precious-moments-christian-contemporary-radio-station-Kinkade-owning-bumper-sticker Christian. Wait! This is the Dojo! I don’t need to apologize for that! lol!)
Pastoral review
As a pastor and teacher, would I recommend “The Shack” to those I serve and teach? Well, that depends. If someone was hungry for deeper theological understanding of God or a firmer grasp of Scripture, then I would not recommend “The Shack” as anything other than peripheral reading. They would be much better served by such books as the afore-mentioned “Evil and the Justice of God” or John Stackhouse’s “Can God Be Trusted?” If they wanted a fictional/dialogical treatment of such issues, Peter Kreeft has written a number of fictional conversations of theological issues, as has Ravi Zacharias.
However, I would recommend “The Shack” to those who have questions about what a relationship with God might look like and how God might answer some of their questions if they were to get a chance to ask Him. I think this is the strongest aspect of the book. It depicts the full personhood of the Trinity in a way that does not fall into heresy–as is so often the case with any description of God’s triune nature! I would also recommend the book to non-Christians, particularly those who believe the God of the Bible to be the folk-religion “Old man in the sky” depiction. “The Shack” would (and hopefully is!) serve to raise questions in the mind of the reader which would then spur him/her on in their desire to know more about the God we Christians claim to be in relationship with. After all, God’s used talking donkeys, gigantic fish, false prophets, and enemies of the church to speak to people and lead them to Himself…I’m sure He’s not sweating “The Shack”‘s influence in our rapidly-approaching-post-Christian culture.
My 2 cents. Comments and/or criticisms always welcomed!
JMS
Categories: Blog, Uncategorized
JM,
I think your critique of the literary side of The Shack was spot on.
And I must commend your ability to speak honestly about the lack of literary finesse without being overly negative. (I, for instance, have only been able to explain it to people like this: ‘It sucked.’)
BUT, I will say this: As fake, fluffy Christian-y as it was I enjoyed seeing a person (Mack) interact with God in the most real, natural and relational ways… eating, laughing, gardening etc.
Also I love the blog Stuff Christians Like by Jon Acuff. He does a book review-type-thing of The Shack as well: http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/07/remix-92-shack.html
: ) Amie
by AbominableAmie on Jun 1, 2009 at 10:36 pm