The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.68 You Save: $12.31 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: Read with critical eye but open heart
Summary: 4 Stars
The Shack is the "buzz" book of the year. Young basically "self-published" the book with his own publisher, Windblown Media, and now it has sold over a million copies, mostly by word of mouth.
The book is a deeply emotional story about why God allows suffering. I believe that Young does an excellent job in answering this question in the novel, which is probably why it has sold so well. Young imagines that a man named Mack who gets a note from God, asking him to return to the shack where his young daughter had been murdered. The man does, and finds answers to his questions and doubts about God's goodness.
However, some things about the book trouble people. I know one church library in Mississippi that has banned the book, and LifeWay Christian Stores sells the book but asks readers to read it with caution. Why?
Some people are bothered by the portrayal of the Trinity in the book. God the Father appears as a black woman who goes by the name "Papa" because that's what the man's wife calls God in her prayers, Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern man, and the Holy Spirit appears as an Asian woman named Sarayu (Sanskrit for "wind") whom you can see through. For the most part, the portrayal of the Trinity in the book does not bother me. Although they appear as three persons, the are shown as completely one, as they answer Mack in unison from time to time, and whenever he has a conversation with one of them, they always continue the conversations he had with the others. "Papa" clearly reminds Mack that God is spirit, and since Mack had a poor relationship with his own father, he chose to reveal Himself to Mack as a woman to get around his resistance. In fact,
(spoiler warning: don't read this next statement if you don't want to know too much about the novel's plot...) at the end of the book, after Mack is reconciled to his own father, "Papa" appears to Mack as a man.
The only thing that concerns me about the way the book portrays the Trinity, is that Papa, Jesus and Sarayu tell Mack that They are equal to one another, and tell Mack that he is wrong to think of God the Father as the "boss." While it is true that the Bible teaches that all three Persons of the Trinity are equally God, the Bible also teaches that Christ is submissive to His Father. Jesus said, "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30), but Jesus also said, "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28).
Some people are bothered by the way church and established religion are criticized in the book, but I think they have to understand that it is expressing the feelings of Mack, who is disillusioned with God. For example, it bothers some readers that Mack refers to the Bible as having "guilt" edges instead of "gilded" edges. Yet later in the novel, Mack chuckles when he notices that God has placed a Gideon Bible in his guest room at the shack.
Some people will be put off by a few uses of profanity in the book in the dialogue. There is one use of S.O.B., and a few other milder profanities spoken mostly in passages where the speaker is angry.
Another controversial part of the book have to do with the picture of God as love. The love of God is stressed so much that God's role as the holy judge is played down. However, in His conversations with Papa, God does say that while He lovingly offers forgiveness, reconciliation depends upon the response of people to Him. That is certainly in line with the New Testament.
The most controversial passage in the book occurs on page 182. Jesus is talking to Mack, and he says, "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions..." At this point, Jesus appears to be teaching universalism, that everybody will be saved. However, as we keep reading, it appears that Jesus is saying instead that he has taken people from any background and transformed them. Notice the next words that William Young has "Jesus" speak:
"...I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some were bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved." Earlier, "Jesus" had reminded Mack that "I'm not a Christian," and Mack responded, "No, I suppose you aren't." We could get into another big conversation about all of that, but I can give Young the benefit of the doubt that he is saying that salvation is a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. Anyway, notice what comes next:
"'Does that mean,' asked Mack, 'that all roads will lead to you?'
'Not at all,' smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. 'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.'"
At first read, that statement is confusing, and may even sound like universalism. However, notice that what Young is saying is the opposite of universalism. He is NOT saying that all roads lead to Jesus. He is just saying that Jesus will do whatever He can to reach you and me. I do wish Young had added that the one road to Papa is through Jesus. It would have made that conversation less confusing for the reader.
While this review has mostly focused on the controversial parts of the book, I do want to conclude by saying that the book does a beautiful job of showing that following Jesus is more a matter of relationship than religion, and that suffering cannot be understood because we cannot understand all of God's purposes or all of the complicated and intertwined effects of our actions upon one another, and because if we did not have freedom to choose evil, we would not have freedom to love. Thus we simply must trust God.
(Spoiler warning: skip this paragraph if you don't want to know too much of the plot...) Perhaps the most powerful parts of the book is when Mack is asked to "play God" and decide to send which three of his children will go to hell and which two will go to heaven. Mack's reaction to this awful choice helps him see how God works through suffering.
There are several good quotations in the book:
God says, "When all you can see is your pain, perhaps then you lose sight of me?" (p. 96)
"Grace doesn't depend on suffering to exist, but where there is suffering you will find grace in many facets and colors." (p. 185)
"If your perception is false, then your emotional response to it will be false too. So check your perceptions...Just because you believe something firmly doesn't make it true. Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly." (p. 197)
God says, "I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb! I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am a being verb." (p. 204)
God says, "Forgiveness is about forgetting, Mack. It is about letting go of another person's throat." (p. 224)
If you can read The Shack with a critical eye but an open heart, I think you will be blessed and challenged to go back to your Bible and seek to know God better than ever before.
Book Review: Be Patient. The Shack is both cutting-edge post-modern and traditional orthodoxy.
Summary: 5 Stars
Just as a disclaimer, my comments are based on listening to the unabridged audiobook of The Shack. In that sense, I guess I haven't really "read" it. The real downside to this is that I do not have the text in front of me as I write these comments. Please forgive me in advance for any resulting inaccuracies.
I'll not bore you with plot summary...you can scroll up for that. Instead, I just want to comment on what I think are four key contrasting elements of the book and why I find them notable. These elements are: the book's orthodox theology versus its post-modern delivery, and its emotional impact versus pastoral application.
Orthodox Theology - You may have heard that Paul Young's theology is unorthodox or even heretical, but let me assure you, he is quite historically centered and very mainline protestant, obviously well-read in classics of Christian theology. The main theme of The Shack is theodicy, or the problem of evil. Ultimately it seeks to answer the question, "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" That question has been plaguing mankind since Epicurus first asked it in the 4th century BC. Young's answer to the problem of evil ultimately stems from St. Augustine, the fifth-century church father who explained that evil is merely the absence of good the way that darkness (or cold) is merely the absence of light (or heat). Aside from theodicy, the dialogue in The Shack approximates a modern-day systematic theology. Young is clearly familiar with the most famous systematic theology, Summa Theologica, by medieval monk Thomas Aquinas, because the structure of the two books is similar. The Shack allots each of the three persons of the trinity a chance to take the podium and address central theological issues and questions pertaining to their nature, and for the most part I found little to complain about; his discussion of how Jesus is fully God and fully man is essentially a synopsis of the Council of Nicea's declaration from 325 AD. His concept of the trinity is elaborated from principles first explored by Tertullian in the 200's AD. I could go on if space permitted. My sole criticism of Young's theology has to do with its delivery rather than its content. It is rare that a Christian book actually includes God Himself as a character. Historically, authors have found it to presumptive to place words in God's mouth, yet Young obliterates that boundary. Narratively, I can understand why, but since what God the character says is a blend of Scriptural truths and human theology (which is fallible), Young could quite literally be accused of adding to the Word of God, something which early church fathers would indeed have condemned as heresy.
Post-Modern delivery - Here is the area where other potential problems may arise. First, understand that The Shack exploits post-modern methods to tell its story, which makes sense since Young is trying to reach a post-modern audience. When Young portrays God as an African-American female, this is not a theological comment on God but is the post-modern emphasis on individualism. Young portrays God the Father as someone who will seek any way He can to communicate with us through whatever barriers we have put in his path. The fact is, any visualization we concoct for God is bound to be inaccurate for an omnipotent, omnipresent spirit. I like how Young himself put it when he told of a critic who demanded, "Do you believe that God is a black woman?!" Young responded, "Do YOU believe that he's a old man with a white beard!?" A second post-modern feature some struggle with is the use of narrative to teach abstract truths. To some extent, this is just how the text developed (you can read about that in the back of the book). Using narrative word-pictures instead of structured rhetoric is enormously popular right now (just ask yourself how many sermons included video clips twenty years ago). But really, this is not a new trend, just the return of an old one. The last time such methods were really this popular was in the seventeenth century...anybody ever heard of Pilgrim's Progress? The allegorical nature and its narrative discourse connect these two books more closely than you might think. We could keep examining other post-modern features such as political correctness, feminism, and nonlinear metafiction--all of which are present in The Shack--but I don't want to hog all the fun. NOTE: If you try to see Post-modernism as the term that merely describes current trends in thinking and communication, you may find these features bother you less, or at least helps you understand it better (especially as you come to realize we are all post-modern simply because we live in this time period).
Emotional impact - If you are a parent, or even mildly empathic, reading The Shack will unavoidably be an emotional experience for you. Books don't make me cry, as a rule, but this one did...on three separate occasions. For those who haven't read it (and without giving away too much), the central premise is that of a father whose 8-year-old daughter is murdered by a serial killer. I've heard of many who have read the first couple chapters and had to put the book down for this reason, but the "great sadness" is told in flashback as a way of clearly detailing the main character's dilemma and is NOT the story of the book. (By the way, it's in these chapters that some readers criticize Young, somewhat justifiably, for being emotionally manipulative.) After the opening chapters, the narrative transforms and the true story, the story of Mack's (the main character's) healing begins.
Pastoral application - Healing brings us finally to pastoral application. I recently had an amazing opportunity to hear Paul Young speak about his book and his vision for it. He explained that Mack's emotional experience was not meant to jerk tears out of readers but to emphasize the pain that all humans deal with to some degree. Young explains that in many ways the book is an allegory of his own life. He's never lost a child to murder, but he was abused as a child and his pain affected him in a similar fashion as it does Mack. The girl and her father, Young says, are in some ways two halves of himself that had to be reconciled. What Young sees as the most vital, most necessary (and therefore the most lacking) component of Christianity is relationship, and his argument is pretty compelling, too. All Christians should have only two spiritual priorities: to build a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and to share Christ through relationships with others. This theme complements the theme of theodicy, for the world is loaded with suffering people who can only be healed through these two transformative relationships. And on those grounds, the book is an unmitigated success. Even its skeptics must admit that The Shack is changing lives and renewing people's hearts for God. If you ever get a chance to see Paul Young speak, even on video, take it, and you'll see what I mean. This book has sold over 7 million copies and counting. Yes it's flawed--all books are--and, no, it does not replace the Bible, nor does it intend to. But as Young Himself says, the only way to explain the phenomenon of The Shack is to admit that, somehow, God is using it for good.
Book Review: Good Story, Some Good Theology, Lots of Bad Theology
Summary: 2 Stars
I like to tell people that I read boring books. They're not actually boring, of course (far from it); they're just highly specialized. Let's face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master's degree in biblical studies, it's only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read "boring" commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I'm curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest "must read"--The Shack by William P. Young.
After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don't really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter's murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young's portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.
Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young's work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.
Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young's portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God's three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons' relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity--each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are "above" or "below" others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.
Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection--all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn't act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus' emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn't pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.
Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young's lax view of Christian duty--or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus' statement, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).
Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn't come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack's daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, "Every knee will bow before me," as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies ("so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God"). While I do not wish to underestimate God's grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.
In the end, William P. Young's The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, "Don't believe everything you read."
Book Review: This is not about the God of the Bible
Summary: 1 Stars
"The Shack will change the way you think about God forever."
- Kathie Lee Gifford
That is one of the most frightening endorsements that I have ever seen for a book. It's the kind of statement that should only be made about a book like Romans or Deuteronomy or one of the Major Prophets, but certainly not a work of contemporary fiction! But what is it about The Shack that has the dubious quality of changing our conceptions about God?
The Shack seeks to alter the way we think about God in two main ways: by presenting a depiction of the Trinity that greatly differs from orthodox Christianity and by removing the unpopular concepts of wrath and condemnation (and therefore righteousness and holiness) from the character of God. To do this, it must completely ignore the clear biblical revelation of God's nature. In fact, there is an utter disdain for the authority of the Scriptures throughout this book. What we are left with then, in the end, is a writer who has crafted a god in his own image - a god that thrills him with rainbow magic colors, hugs, and a laugh and a wink for every conceivable situation. This is one man's record of what he wishes God were like, and therefore the Bible (our only authoritative source of information on what God is really like) must be completely set aside.
Nowhere is this departure from Scripture more clearly seen than in the depiction of the four persons of the Trinity (yes, there are four in The Shack). What ought to be immediately troubling is that two of the persons in the Godhead are visible at all. Jesus himself said very clearly that no one has seen the Father (John 6:46), and the Holy Spirit is never depicted in Scripture as anything other than a wind (John 3:8) or a dove (Mark 1:10). But in The Shack, these two are not only depicted as human beings, but are actually personified as women! Though Jesus retains his maleness (if not his masculinity), God the Father is ridiculously portrayed as an elderly, spunky black woman named `Papa' or Elousia and the Holy Spirit is presented as a shimmery Asian woman named Sarayu. In addition, a fourth person is introduced as Sophia - supposedly the wisdom of God given personhood.
Can such a thing be done, however? Can we just simply imagine God to be whatever we wish Him to be? The answer to these questions must be a resounding `no' for all biblically minded Christians. God has intentionally given us a revelation of his character and his nature and threatens great wrath upon all who would remake his image according to their tastes (Exodus 20:4-6). No member of the Trinity is ever referred to in Scripture by female pronouns, and yet here in The Shack femininity is the most prominent characteristic. This is a part of the great desire on the part of the author to emasculate God and make him/her more palatable to modern sensibilities, removing the sternness and high expectations that we see in the Bible and replacing them with a grandmotherly therapist.
Aside from the gender mismatching and renaming of God, though, there is also deeper damage done to the understanding of God's nature. For one, early on, the main character, Mack, equates the Father of Jesus with the Great Spirit of Native American pagan religion - a serious heresy that is never corrected throughout the rest of the book (p. 33). In fact, later in the book, the Jesus character disapproves of the term `Christian' and makes it clear that people from all faiths have a connection to him (p. 184).
A second destructive heresy in the book related to the Trinitarian nature of God comes when we see that the woman who is supposed to represent God the Father has crucifixion marks in her hands. She makes it clear that she suffered on the cross as well. She even goes so far as to say that "When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human." This false teaching terribly mangles the theology of the cross wherein the Father was pleased to crush the Son in order to propitiate His wrath toward sinners (Isaiah 53:10). The Father and the Holy Spirit did not suffer the wrath of the Father against humanity. The Son, whose person was joined to the nature of humanity, alone suffered the wrath of His Father on behalf of sinful man, receiving that condemnation as a man. Young gets this whole picture wrong because he doesn't believe that sin deserves condemnation (pp. 166, 225). In his view, the cross is really just a statement of love, not an atonement for sin (p. 194).
And why should there be an atonement for sin? The goddess of The Shack doesn't really require one, because she doesn't really think of anything as sinful. Even the serial killer who murdered the six-year-old daughter of the main character (among many others) is just a frightened little child of goddess who is acting out because of all of the pain he has been put through in his life (pp. 226-227). Everyone is a victim, their bad behaviors are just cute wrinkles in their child-like faces, and no one's sins offend the character of the false god of this book, because - frankly - there isn't much there to offend. This is not the holy God of the Bible, the merest sight of who causes all who see Him to fall on their faces in deep repentance (Isaiah 6:1-5). This is a goddess who swings her hips while she listens to funk music, who laughs like a clown at sin, and who can't bring herself to punish any of her precious little ones. This false goddess is a joke - a joke that is pointed at my awesome and Almighty God.
If all of the previous isn't enough to convince someone that biblical revelation is heavily downplayed in this book, the author wants to make it clear that he despises the Scriptural record. On page 95, `Papa' declares that she is appearing as a woman to overcome Mack's `religious conditioning' from having read the Bible. On pages 124-125, the Jesus character shows utter contempt for the Law - a very different attitude than the biblical Jesus shows (Matthew 5:17-20). On page 136, Sarayu (the Holy Spirit character) tells Mack that it doesn't really matter if people disbelieve the Bible's truthfulness, and on page 199, the same character shows utter disdain for the will of God as laid down in the Scriptures.
It should seem obvious that we are not dealing with a `Christian' book here. The Shack is an assault on the God of the Bible and a deliberate attempt to teach false doctrine. A quick look on the inside cover will show you many `Christian celebrities' that endorse the book, however, and no doubt some of our friends have read and enjoyed the book. How did they get past all of this heretical theology? I, for one, cannot offer much help in answering that question. This book disgusted me to the very core. Someone asked me if I could say that there was anything beneficial about the book. My response is that if I had a friend that lost a child, I would not recommend to him a book about how the Baal of the Old Testament could make him feel better. It's a false god! And it is no less false of a god than the chuckling quartet of Papa, Jesse, Sarayu, and Sophia.
Book Review: The Shack: A Building Without A Foundation
Summary: 1 Stars
The biggest flaw in The Shack centers on the nature of God. This is most evident in regards to the great doctrine of the Trinity. In The Shack Young gives his readers a visual picture of the Trinity when Mack, the main character meets God. Mack, much to his surprise, finds upon meeting God the Father that he/she is an African American woman who goes by the name "Papa." Papa we read is frequently in the kitchen cooking and baking such things as pies and scones. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman whose name is Sarayu, who is a keeper of the gardens.
To much less surprise, Jesus is a Middle-Eastern man. Jesus, as portrayed by Young, comes off as somewhat effeminate as he likes to hold hands, hug, kiss, smile, giggle, act goofy, and wink. He is also clumsy!
In one scene in the kitchen, all three persons of the Godhead are laughing at Jesus because he dropped some sauce that got everywhere, including Papa's skirt and feet. Papa later said at the dinner table, "We were going to have this incredible Japanese sauce, but greasy fingers over there (reference to Jesus) decided to see if it would bounce."
"C'mon now," Jesus responded in mock defense. "My hands were slippery. What can I say?"
"Papa winked at Mack as she passed him the rice. "You can't get good help around here."
"Everyone laughed" (105).
It makes me wonder, among other things, that if Jesus cannot handle a bowl of sauce without dropping it and making a mess, how can He handle our lives and the workings of the world? But I move on.
I conclude that Young misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. He seeks to humanize the Godhead, or bring it down to our level. I am not sure whether Young is simply trying to make the Godhead more understandable (and therefore commits a theological error), or if he himself is confused on the nature of the Godhead, or both. To make God out to be three different characters, two women and one man, is to promote the idea of tri-theism, that there is three gods. God is Spirit, which means He does not have human flesh; He is immaterial. Therefore one must trend ever so cautiously when seeking to describe God, and ascribe to Him a human form. We must guard against creating God in our image. This is the problem in representing the Godhead as two women and one man as it is misrepresenting the Biblical view of God, for it promotes the idea of three individuals who are each God and therefore producing three gods.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a very complex statement about God that is taught in Scripture, and it is best to stay within the Scriptural bounds on the issue of the Godhead and be ever so careful not to walk outside those bounds and say something about the nature of God that Scripture never intended to say. However, to have three individuals or persons (as in The Shack) who when asked who is God, all proclaim "I am," it appears to me that one has just distorted the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead and promoted tri-theism.
It is surprising to see how Mack reacts with being in the presence of God. When he meets God, whom he addresses as "Papa," he is shocked and surprised, but mostly angry at God. Mack in an early encounter with Papa throws an accusation her/his way, "If you couldn't take care of Missy, how can I trust you to take care of me?" (92). In saying this Mack's face became "flush angry red" and "his hands were knotted into fists." How does Papa respond? By apologizing! "Mack, I'm so sorry...."
Let's think about Job for a minute. If anyone has ever had a right to be angry with God, Job is the man. Job lost all his possessions, his children, his health, and was left with a nagging wife! After some time of questioning what was going on in his life and questioning God, Job gets a response, but certainly not one that he anticipated! God unleashes a series of questions upon Job that demonstrate His creative power, sovereignty, and wisdom, and God questions whether Job himself also has these attributes, and if not, then the proper response from Job is to be quiet and to trust Him. To which Job properly responds by saying, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to you? I lay my hand on my mouth." God does not even mention the suffering of Job, let alone give a reason for it. When Job comes into the presence of God, he does not accuse. He is humbled, He does not find fault with God. He repents. If all one took from the book of Job is that we dare not throw accusations at God, it will be a lesson worth learning. However, this is not a lesson taught in The Shack.
Or think of Isaiah having a vision and seeing the "Lord sitting upon His throne, high and lifted up..." Isaiah goes on to describe the scene where seraphim were calling out in the presence of God: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!" What did Isaiah do in response to being in the presence of God? He was astonished and fearful and declared that he was unclean! I am sorry, but Isaiah did not have a vision of God is all His glory and see a woman baking scones and listening to funk music! Now don't misunderstand, this is not to put down women who bake or people who listen to modern music. The point is that God in His Holiness is completely unlike us, He is wholly different than humans, He is wholly other. Or as the book rightly states, God is "holy, and wholly other than you" (98). To seek to humanize God is to take away from His glory and holiness. I am sorry, but I have an issue with God being portrayed as a scone and pie baker who listens to funk music! What point is the author trying to convey about God? It just seems to smack of irreverence to me.
Unfortunately, the image The Shack portrays of God is a weak one (a baker?). When Jesus came to earth, He did not reveal Himself through baking pies and scones but by performing miraculous healings, raising people from the dead, and by authoritatively teaching about heavy doctrinal issues. In conclusion, The Shack in many aspects does not line up with Scripture. Therefore, many of its conclusions about God end up being contrary to Scripture at best, and at worst, may be blasphemous. Therefore, The Shack would not be on my recommending reading list as it creates more problems than it does solutions by painting an unbiblical picture of God.
God does work in different ways in different people, however, it then does not follow that every individual's idea, experiences, and thoughts about God are correct. Scripture exhorts us to examine and test everything by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1). This would include such material as The Shack. Therefore, if one does decides to read this book, it is crucial that they use discernment and judge it by the truth of Scripture.
It is sad that for Mack, in finding his peace and comfort, he does not find it through the Word of God, nor even prayer, but in an experience. And an experience that does not appear to built upon the solid rock of God's Word.