The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.71 You Save: $12.28 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: A Falsely Re-imagined God does no one any good
Summary: 1 Stars
A question--first of all: Why criticize a book that is obviously trying to help people who face suffering and tragedy, and to find healing by encountering the Loving God? After all, people are in love with this book! Besides, it's just fiction. It's not intending to be theological! The answer, simply, is that Young portrays a picture of God that is far from how the Bible answers suffering. To say it another way--we are not free to re-imagine God however we please, and to do so is idolatry--a violation of the first commandment. Nor do we need to reimagine God in order to give genuine comfort.
Many have already leapt to "The Shack's" defense, accusing detractors of holding just the sort of stodgy dead-orthodoxy Young's book aims to dislodge. An associate of Young's even refers to critics as "self-appointed doctrine police." Makes me wonder about self-appointed speeders and vandals...who gave them the authority to break the law? ;-) But seriously, all Christians are called to "contend for the faith" (Jude 3) and St. Paul writes: "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound (healthy!) teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Every Christian is to watch out for false doctrine, and pure doctrine is actually a praiseworthy thing! "Sound" literally means "healthy" doctrine--because keeping doctrine pure is spiritually healthy for the believer! So Christians of good-will should willingly accept such criticism and test the claims of critics to see whether "The Shack" is really true to Scripture (cf. Acts 17:11). It's not enough to just assert that Young is a well-intentioned Christian.
So how does "The Shack" re-imagine God? In a storyline of a father grieving for his brutally murdered young daughter, God Himself personally invites "Mack," the father, back to the scene of the crime, via a note. [For the sake of fiction, I'll ignore the idea of God communicating this way, though it is also problematic.] When Mack arrives at the Shack, where the crime occurred, He encounters "the Trinity" in quite an unexpected way. This encounter with Young's version of the Trinity is central to the rest of the book, and it's biggest failing. The reason is that Young is at pains to counter the caricature of God the Father that some people have, as a "really big grandpa with a long white flowing beard, sort of like Gandalf" (p. 73). Or as Young's associate put it, the goal was to "mess with the religious stereotypes only to get people to consider God as he really is, not how we have reconstituted him as a white, male autocrat bent on religious conformity."
I fully support ridding people of such ridiculous stereotypes. Both stereotypes are on the order of the "god" of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy--a feeble-minded old man. But the dumbfounding problem with The Shack, is that it goes on to replace such ridiculous stereotypes with an equally ridiculous new set of stereotypes, that reflects our "felt-needs-driven church" mentality. The reason that this book didn't go over like a lead balloon among most Christians, is that we are obsessed with our felt-needs. A famous quote from Richard Niebuhr sums up the message of this 20th (now 21st!) century Church: "a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." This is the "god" of the Shack. A god who could be described as a therapist, a grief-counselor, a "buddy", a life-coach, or even Dr. Phil; but never a God who shows any wrath or judgment against sin. Nor as a God who inspires holy fear and calls sinners to repent. The Shack never really portrays Jesus as His Biblical roles depict: as Prophet, Priest, and King.
God the Father, is called "Papa," a moniker that evidently comes from the intimate New Testament name "Abba" which is Aramaic for "daddy." "Papa" appears in the book, not as a white-haired grandfather, but as a large black woman who smothers Mack with hugs and kisses and bops to her Ipod, listening to funk music while cooking up tasty meals. Jesus, being the only person of the Trinity who was actually born into human flesh, is rather difficult to change, so He still appears as a Hebrew man. But the Holy Spirit takes on an effervescent appearance as a small Asian woman, who hovers, flutters, and sparkles, and loves gardening. Actually Young's trio/godhead all apparently have a fondness for both cooking and gardening.
A dialogue between Mack and Papa on p. 94 in the novel seems more like an apologetic for his aberrant invention of how to portray God, than a real insight into our stereotypes and misconceptions about God. Let's not forget that God Himself purposed for us to know Him as Father, and that He is referred to in the masculine by His own design. While there are a minority of instances where God does attribute mother-like characteristics to Himself, God is never referred to as "she" or "her." An example is when Jesus compares Himself to a hen, that wishes to gather together her chicks, when He considers the waywardness of Jerusalem (Luke 13:34). Or in the Old Testament God speaks about how He will comfort Israel like a mother does (Isaiah 66:13).
A sampler of other key problems: the rejection of God's voice "on paper" (read: Scripture) as being sufficient for Christians (p. 65); God the Father bearing scars of the crucifixion, an ancient heresy that said that the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus (p. 95); a major misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of submission, both in terms of the Trinity, and in human relationships (p. 145); the personification of Wisdom as a separate entity from Christ, the eternal Word (p. 171); Young's "Jesus" saying He doesn't desire to make anyone a Christian, and that He's not a Christian (no-brainer! Jesus is THE CHRIST!) (p. 182); and the apparent dismissal of the Biblical Jesus' words that the path to heaven is narrow, while the path to destruction is broad (Matthew 7:13). Fortunately for us, with all the doctrines of faith that Young upsets, the one unviolable truth that the "god" of The Shack guards, is the "free choice" of man. I say that tongue-in-cheek, because apparently Young's answer to why God allows suffering, and isn't about stopping evil, is because he's all about realationships and could never think of violating our free choice.
The reason I cannot recommend The Shack, is that it's contrived portrayal of God is not true to the Bible, and however consoling Young's vision of God might be--a falsely re-imagined God does no one any good. Just because we don't hear God's voice echoing down from heaven, it doesn't follow that God is indifferent to our sufferings. Christian suffering is answered by the cross of Jesus, where God truly suffered with us, but even more importantly, for us.
Book Review: "Astounded" in a different sense than I had hoped
Summary: 3 Stars
I was given this book with glowing recommendation, and my interest was further aroused by the description on the cover: a book that "wrestles with the timeless question: Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain? The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him."
I love fictional works that WRESTLE with important issues rather than giving cookie-cutter answers like some cheap self-help book. Isn't that the mark of a great novelist? Nathanial Hawthorne, Victor Hugo, Herman Hesse, Mark Twain -- they all WRESTLED with the big questions of life. So I was excited that I was to read a modern book that wrestled with what is perhaps the biggest issue of all for those who believe -- or hope -- in the existence of a God who cares for us.
It started off well enough. Wm. P. Young tried to show the pain of a man who had been abused by a Bible-thumping father and then lost his youngest daughter to a serial killer. Though popular authors like Stephen King do a better job at depicting human pain and tragedy, the story succeeded in pulling me in. I felt for Mack and his "Great Sadness," as the book puts it, and was looking forward to how the author would skillfully weave his thoughts into the storyline.
It didn't happen. Instead, Mack literally gets a letter from God in the mail, goes off to the shack where his daughter had been murdered, and spends a weekend with the Trinity in the form of an African-American Mama, a not-so-handsome Middle-Eastern Jew, and an Asian woman. They talk. The book ceases to be a novel and turns into chapters of Christian teaching packaged creatively, with the Holy Spirit saying things like, "Paradigms power perception and perceptions power emotions."
This is not to say that it is all bad. There are many worthwhile lessons about living in the present, the power of forgiveness, and being freed from legalism. There are also several humorous and delightful moments, but overall I felt that the author bit off more than he could chew. A weekend in direct conversation with the Trinity? Hanging out with God for chapter after chapter? For the best of authors, this would be too much of a challenge to pull off convincingly. There is a reason Aslan says very little in the Chronicles of Narnia -- we would not be convinced by him if he chatted his way through the stories. But this is exactly what we get in "The Shack": God the chatterbox.
Now to the content of the chat with God. I just said that there are many valuable lessons in it, but when it comes to the main theme -- why an all-powerful God who loves us still lords over a chaotic planet filled with unspeakable pain -- the answer did not "astound" me as it did the main character Mack.
What astounded me was that the answer seems to appeal to so many millions of believers. If I did not know about the immense popularity of the book, I'd say that it would appeal neither to strong biblicists who are wary of anything that is not directly mentioned in the Bible, nor to more open-minded Christians who, for example, follow scientific developments and therefore have many questions that the writers of the Bible did not share.
The core of the answer is exactly what we find through a more literal reading of the Bible:
1. The world was absolutely perfect, but a few thousand years ago, Adam and Eve used their God-given freedom for ill and therefore brought all (yes, ALL--Mack is told not to underestimate the power given to humans) the suffering into this world.
2. God respects our freedom too much to prevent all the negative consequences of Adam's choice, but He does turn this earth into a training ground for eternity. "It's only preparation" we read in "The Shack."
3. As for questions of why individual tragedies are or are not prevented by God, the picture is too big for us to understand. What we see as chaos, God sees as fractal, and He is in the process of redemption. All will be well one day. After death.
But how does No. 1 help unless you are a six-day creationist? Even Evangelical Christians who believe in Intelligent Design think that tsunamis, earthquakes, disease, pain, and mutual annihilation preceded human life by several million years. The only way "The Shack" addresses this is to say that, well, Genesis 1-11 is not a myth but did literally happen. I'm not sure open-minded Christians will throw their science overboard as easily as that.
And No. 2 and 3 only help if you have virtually no doubt that the Christian claims are indeed true and that one day, when you're dead, it'll all make sense. But where is the God of the living? What do you do if you're not entirely sure of it? In that case, the reality of suffering weighs more than the unsure comfort that "it is all preparation" and the present suffering will be redeemed.
But not only the open-minded Christian should have a hard time relating to "The Shack," but also the biblicists. The simple-minded doctrines are packaged in a picture of the Trinity that doesn't exactly dominate the Bible. Many biblical depictions of various aspects of God are left out, and what remains is a modern, very (North) American buddy who loves to hang out with us and crack jokes. Culturally relevant? Yes. And I personally even see the value of tailoring the Christian message to a modern audience, especially in a work of fiction. The Christian God did, after all, become a human being, so why not once more step down on the level of people today? But I doubt that it will please the biblicist.
So who are all the millions that find the book not only deeply touching but also completely convincing? The logical part of me says that it must all be six-day creationists who are nevertheless no biblicists.
But maybe most people simply appreciate the book's portrayal of love, forgiveness, and healed relationships. And that, I find appealing, too -- not to mention important to apply in my personal life. Three stars for that.
- Jacob Schriftman, Author of The Crack Beneath the Worlds
Book Review: Clumsy dialoge and questionable theology derail a cool idea.
Summary: 1 Stars
The Shack was intended to illicit a massive emotional response. If you have a pulse, you're going to "feel" The Shack. You'll especially feel it if you are a father and have experienced a similar loss. It is at its core a narrative espousing the power of reconciliation and forgiveness - and it communicates this power effectively. I didn't have a problem with the characters of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as they were portrayed. More than one reviewer panned the book because God appears as an African woman who likes punk music; however, God offers a reasonable explanation for this right from the beginning. The idea of God intervening directly in the life of an individual is age-old, and certainly has its place in story - so I find no fault with the overall plot.
The story slips in two major places. First, it is very poorly written. The dialogue is so wooden, and so contrived I half expected George Lucas to have some hand in the writing. The dialogue doesn't flow. It isn't powerful in itself. A good writer takes a powerful concept and solidifies it with powerful writing. A marriage of the two produces a great work. Young is completely out of his league in writing this story. At no place is this more apparent than when the main character is listening to God talk amongst Himselves, and instead of writing the amazing dialogue, Young takes the cheap way out and has the main character describe the dialogue as amazing and loving. As I read the story, I reasoned that this must be Young's first attempt at a novel of fiction. I also reasoned that it must have been published by a very small publishing company, because no editor worth his salt would allow a book this trite to hit the presses without some major edits. I was correct on both counts. The power of the story is definitely present, and at times the writing is adequate. A good editor would have been able to clean up the dialogue and make the story much better from a technical point. As it was, I had a hard time believing the narrative, because it spent so much time tripping over itself.
The next major slip was theological. When you are dealing with the very nature and character of the divine, there must be a large degree of mystery and hopefully a point where you get a "better look" at the nature of God - a point where you say, ah, I never thought of that before. Young has such a moment. He actually manages to represent the trinity in a manner which is believable. God is very much three separate persons and yet one God. Nicely done. However, the revelation stops there. I recall the explanation that Anne Rice gave to Dr. Charles Dobson as she was describing her approach to writing about Christ. She said that it is very easy to write Christ from a certain critical or stylized view. It would have been easy to write the human Christ, the flawed Christ, the rebel Christ, the accidental Christ, or even the gay Christ. What she wanted to do, and what she spent months researching, was a way to write the real Christ as the Bible describes him. It was a very difficult endeavor, and she was only dealing with one of the persons of God. Young tackles all three and misses a major point and makes an egregious error. First, God is only portrayed as loving and redeeming. This is certainly a nature of God, but it is not his only nature. Only a passing reference was made to the God who hates and punishes sin, that aspect of his nature was brushed aside. There was no mention at all of how he is a jealous God - instead He is portrayed in a more Buddhist-like manner - describing his love of all things and all culture and his desire to redeem everyone. The story would have been more powerful if more characteristics of God were more fully represented. The story would still work, but it would be more complex, terrible and mysterious. Again, this might be a short-coming stemming more from Young's limited writing ability, than anything else.
The egregious error is when God admits that things have not gone the way He intended. He comes back to the point several times and makes it the crux of the rationale behind why He interferes. He says that creation went awry at the beginning, but instead of scrapping it and starting over, God decided to make lemonade. Folks, if our God didn't plan for that rather major development at the beginning, then He isn't worthy of being called God. Now, Young certainly isn't a Calvinist, but even this progressive interpretation of God seems to grate against his perfect nature. God's all encompassing Will is not mentioned in the book. The concept of predestination is trivialized with the juvenile - God knows what happens, and could intervene but chooses not to, because creation is flawed. There is a depth of God's power that is sorely lacking in Young's description. Gone is the truth that nothing happens outside of God's Will. God would never wring his hands saying, oh my, look how badly his turned out. God must be in absolute control. Young's point that God would appear to not have absolute control over his creation is a misstep that could be fundamentally misleading to others. I take huge issue with The Shack on this point.
Finally, this book has already been done. You can find every concept discussed in this book presented in greater detail and depth in C. S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed. Lewis manages to "bottom-shelf" difficult ideas with a breadth of understanding and clarity that has gained him fame as one of the great apologists of modern times. Lewis's works lack the strength that comes with a narrative, but as I've already pointed out, Young's narrative flails about as it trips over concepts he struggles to present.
Finally, I think it is dangerous to present God in these kinds of manners. I've heard the argument used over and over that any exposure to God is good exposure - especially for the nonbeliever. However, a great deal of care and caution should be used when writing, reading and discussing these kinds of books. There is no new truth in them - there is only the power of a story to give clarity to elements of God's nature that we might otherwise never fully appreciate. And in that, there is merit.
Book Review: Just Not My Style
Summary: 2 Stars
I am not a heavy reader of fiction, and when I do read fiction, I am more inclined to read works like War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment. But, having heard a lot of rumblings, I felt inclined to borrow this book from my local library and give it a read. It was a quick read, taking me only two evenings to complete. I was not impressed by the book, to be honest.
Overall, the author does a wonderful job of creating characters that can be identified with, of building a palpable relationship between the main human characters and the reader. You are meant to feel the pain and grief - to come to grips with it personally. But in order to do so, you must wade through tediously wordy text. I found myself able on many occasions to see exactly where the sentence or paragraph was going, finding myself finishing the sentence, "Blah, blah, blah..." It simply was not worth wading through to the end of some sentences.
Since the book is largely conversations between the main character and God (one or more of the three people making up the Godhead), good flowing conversations that have willing suspension of disbelief (if not outright credibility) would have been in order. Sadly, often I found the conversation to be contrived, or forced. It did not seem natural. Not that communicating with God across the breakfast table is necessarily the norm. But there is a certain expectation of flow that the book just fails at, in my opinion.
Though this is a work of fiction, the conversation and tone are clear - this is fiction intent on making a statement about the author's view of God and our relationship with him. Not particularly fond of this brand of fiction - though maybe if I had more agreement with the author that would be different. Writers like J.R.R Tolkien bring together characters and cataclysmic events in such a way that though you know the events aren't real, they speak to who you are as a person, of right and wrong and the quest for significance and value. And this without the writer overtly trying to make a statement about morality and purpose. It is simply part of the fabric of story development, of reality behind the text. Tolstoy writes with a clarity that allows us to see the human condition even in characters out of our time and way of life - even when we find the characters repulsive. Can't fault Young for being so overt, it's the kind of book he wanted to right. Just not my style.
I don't square up nicely with many of the views being promoted in this book. Those with a postmodern/emergent church bent would probably find some comfortable themes: God is love before all things: non-condemning, non-punishing, non-threatening. The most important thing in life is relationships - rules and responsibilities are not compatible with love or faith. Authority, structure and institutions (and especially religion, economics and politics) are all bad and perversions of relationship. I myself see no reason to hold authority as necessarily at odds with relationship, nor for responsibility and obligation to be contrary to love. The author's assertions to that effect are unconvincing.
The author makes much of God being unable and unwilling to interfere in our choices - as if God was unable to "meddle" based on some supernatural principle - sort of like the Genie's inability to raise the dead in the Disney movie Aladdin. I understand the urge to rid God of seeming to be responsible for pain and suffering. However, I see plenty of biblical support for God directly interfering in our choices to accomplish his purposes. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that God's hands are in any way tied. I would agree that as a general rule God allows us to experience the consequences of our own sin, others' sin and the current state of the world. He is not responsible for sin. But love does not imply that God can't do exactly what he wants, even if that means forcing our hand. I sometimes "force" my kids to obey me. I love them dearly, and want what is best for them. I arrange circumstances, punishments and rewards in order to help them develop skills and make wise choices in the future. Cannot God do the same?
I have heard some complaints about his depiction of God the father(and the Holy Spirit) as a woman. I didn't find that that startling - the whole point was to shock the reader from the normal modes of thinking. But I also didn't find it very helpful in furthering the plot. I see little reason to believe that God being a mother-figure until the main character was able to handle a father-son relationship is valid. And repeatedly calling her "Papa" for effect was just odd - and likely based on a misapplied reading of "Abba" as a familiar form of address, "Daddy".
But the author does share a number of well-thought-out ideas relating to freedom and how it is constrained by our background and experiences. Independence is described as the primary mechanism by which we produce evil - but ironically, I find the author's contentions to smack of selfishness. God is there for our benefit. We are the center of everything. The end of chapter 12 is especially troubling, as the author presents a view of relationship with God that denigrates the gospel message of salvation in Christ alone, replacing it with a "God loves people from all walks of life" speech. I think a good reading of Deuteronomy (which stresses a God-sanctioned government meant to highlight holiness through safeguards and protections and national distinctiveness), Job (which is a much more worthwhile read when considering suffering and the human condition), and the book of Romans (also dealing with the church, our relationship to government, and God's view of sin, its ramifications, and the outcome for those who continue to walk in sin) is a proper antidote to the more problematic views presented in this book.
The bad marks are not for theological disagreement - at least not completely. Rather, the writing style and the tedious sentences were barely rescued by a well-developed character who you really desired would find hope and faith in their relationship with God.
Book Review: Theologically Unsound
Summary: 2 Stars
Previous reviewers have commented on the many theological issues with this novel. I will comment on some of these as well, but first there are some literary problems that need to be addressed.
I see a bit of false advertising in this novel. One of the book's many accolades is that it attempts to answer the age-old question "Why do bad things happen to good people." But this is specifically what the book does not do. Not that we should expect Mr. Young to have the answer, but his premise suggests that he is going to offer some insight on the subject. He does not.
Another falsity with this novel is the title: "The Shack." The scenes between Mack, the main character, and God do not take place in the shack in which Mack's daughter likely died. Instead, the shack has been transformed into a lovely cabin with beautiful surroundings. Perhaps a more honest (and less intriguing) title would have been The Cabin.
This raises yet another issue. When Mack returns to the shack (at God's request) he finds it just as worn-down and dreary as he remembered it to be. He sees his daughter's bloodstain on the floor and feels the anger welling up inside of him. In the darkness of the cabin he yells at his Creator and asks the question the reader is wondering: Why? Why did his daughter have to die in such a horrible way? This is significant because Mack wants God to appear before him right then and there. He wants God to help him when he is in his greatest despair. But Mr. Young takes the easy way out. He doesn't have God appear until after he transforms the shack into the cabin. Wouldn't God be willing to meet with Mack anytime, anywhere? Even in a dark, back-alley if necessary? Why would God need to wait until the surroundings are so nice and friendly to make his appearance?
This brings us to the central weakness of the novel: Mr. Young's attempt to show how God can heal an individual's suffering without offering any answers to his questions. The author claims that God could have prevented this tragedy if he wanted to. But he also claims that this terrible act was not part of his plan or his purpose for mankind. Rather than attempt to explain God's purpose, God tells Mack that he chose not to interfere "for purposes you cannot possibly understand." Of course, a grieving father would not have seen this as interfering but rather as intervening. And would God's plan for humans be so complex that humans could not understand it? This sounds more like another excuse to avoid answering tough questions.
Young portrays the loving relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the model for all relationships, including relationships between people and our relationship with God. This is all well and good, but would this really provide healing for a man who has suffered so greatly and wants to know why his daughter had to die?
Several decisions that Young makes in his book indicate that he is a big fan of inclusion. For one, his Godhead (Trinity) is multicultural. God is a black woman, Jesus is a middle-eastern man, and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. Mack is a bit taken aback by the image of God as a black woman, but God explains why this is necessary: to avoid the stereotypical depiction of God as an older white man. Are we really to believe that God would offer Mack a civics lesson before giving him some peace over the death of his daughter? This is just silly. And wouldn't he appear before Mack in whatever form would be comforting to Mack? The need to assign an ethnicity to Jesus and the Holy Spirit is just as troubling. If Jesus shed his earthly body when he ascended into Heaven, then why is he once again a Middle Easterner? And would we expect the Holy Spirit, a ghost, to have an ethnicity of any sort?! I think this would seem preposterous to anyone not promoting a multiracial agenda.
Another example of Young's strong desire for inclusion is God's acceptance of non-Christians. Here are the words that the author puts in the mouth of Jesus in regard to Jews, Palestinians, Iraqis, and others: "I have no desire to make them Christian." But he does want them to be "sons and daughters of my Papa." The obvious question is: how can they become sons and daughters of God without becoming Christian? For Young to make this argument runs contrary to the New Testament in which Jesus states "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Young's effort to include non-Christians in the kingdom of God may seem noble to some people, but to learned Christians it is heretical. The Great Commission, Jesus' last words to his disciples, was to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If non-Christians are able to achieve a relationship with the Father without including the Son, then there would be no need for evangelism.
The meeting between Mack and his earthly father suggest Young's view of the rapture to be unconventional at the least. Mack's father has seemingly been waiting in heaven to be reunited with his son, all the while guilt-stricken over the pain he caused Mack. Does this seem likely? If God forgives our sins, then why is a person not able to forgive himself after he arrives in Heaven? And if Mack had not been granted this special weekend, then would Dad have had to wait another 30 or 40 years until Mack died in order to reconcile with his son?
This brings up another obvious flaw in the book, mentioned by a previous reviewer. What makes Mack so special that he deserves a weekend with God? Why does he get this glimpse of eternity and have his sorrows washed away? I realize this book is fiction, but its premise is simply unrealistic. From what we know about God, this is not how He works. If it were, then we would have many more answers to life's riddles than we do. In short, Mr. Young's book suggests that it may offer some answers to these difficult questions, but it does not.