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: Would be better as a sermon
Summary: 2 Stars
I read The Shack for the sake of a guy who at the time was interested in me: he had read it and loved it, and told me I had to read it, and I had always intended to read it anyway so I could have a valid opinion about it... at any rate, I plunged into it half-determined to like it, because he did. But he isn't interested in me any more, which means that I feel no obligation to be biased one way or the other and am free to write a review with my honest opinion.
It helped me to learn that William Paul Young had originally written it for his kids, and that he hadn't started out with the intent of publishing it or having it go as far as it did. This helps me understand some things such as the fairly mediocre writing style. Young's style has no lift, no poetry, and nothing unique in it, and his descriptions are cliché. His writing is not alive. I couldn't lose myself in the world as he was presenting it to me the way I can lose myself in the works of truly great authors such as Grahame or Tolkien or Sayers. Even Robin McKinley does a much better job at creating atmosphere and emotion: Young falls into the classic mistake of telling as opposed to showing.
The concern of many Christians about The Shack is its message, and here I found I was fairly satisfied. Young is too Arminian for my taste, but then I'm a fairly hard-core Reformed Presbyterian and I realize that most people aren't, and so the majority of Young's readers (excepting those who are reading his book for the express purpose of attacking it as heresy) probably aren't going to have too many problems with his theology. There has been a lot of fuss made about Young presenting God the Father as a woman- (though I haven't heard much about the Holy Spirit being a woman too- wonder why?)- and for me, it made me a little uncomfortable but I think there are more serious problems with the book than that, if that is a problem at all. (After all, C.S. Lewis presented God as a Lion.) The bigger problem is when "Papa" says to Mack, "I am neither male nor female" (page 95). Obviously God is not male in the biological sense, yet the mere fact of His fatherhood to Christ and to His children, (and the fact that throughout the entire Bible God is referred to as He) doesn't seem to match up with "Papa's" quote, and makes me inclined to think that Young is pandering to modern feminist mantra against patriarchal chauvinist gods.
Aside from that, my only theological objection to The Shack which I am going to address is on page 98, and the reason I feel that it is serious is because Young is going directly against Scripture. It is when Papa tells Mack that he (or she) as God the Father, did not leave, or reject, or forsake Jesus on the Cross. I can't think of a single reason why Young would wish to put something like this in: he even has Mack object, quoting Christ- "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"- but Papa brushes that off with some comment about "You've misunderstood the mystery" and it never is resolved. Christ was rejected by God the Father in those hours on the Cross- He was bearing all the rejection that Christians as His children would have had to bear if it were not for God's grace and love and His sacrifice. He was alone so that we would not have to be alone. That's what makes the wonder of His love all the greater- that the Son would willingly bear the wrath of the Father to save us. The reason I take this up with Young is because to say that Christ was not rejected by the Father is to trivialize His sacrifice.
Young's main message, the love of God for us and His desire for a relationship with us as His beloved children, is a good message. In fact it is the supreme message, and that is why it deserved to be made into a much better story. From what I have read and heard about The Shack, people have been fine with the story: their issues have been with some aspect of the message. For me, I'm good with the message: it's the way it's presented, the story, the landscape, that I dislike. Having a guy meet God in a shack might seem too creative to some people, or pushing the boundaries of poetic license: for me, it isn't creative enough! The beginning plot is very typical: I knew that Missy was going to end up dead, knew that Mack was going to end up bitter, but his bitterness held no complexity and his character lacked true dimension. Even God (as presented in the book) was kind of one-dimensional, despite having three separate Personalities. God told Mack a lot of things but He never showed them to him, and that is the biggest weakness of the entire book. To me it felt like Young was so anxious to get his message across that he had to spell it out like it was a sermon or a list of facts, instead of weaving it into a story that was worth reading, and the result, like so many modern "Christian" novels, feels like a tract that's been disguised as a book. If all Young was concerned about was getting his message across, he could have written a non-fiction book, a sermon, an article a tract... he had a lot of options. But the goal of the writer of fiction must first and foremost be to tell a good story. And if it is a good story, the message will shine through without it having to be spelled out by a series of sermon-like dialogues.
I am not trying to bash The Shack simply because it is popular: I'm only giving my honest opinion of it and the flaws that I percieve. It's far from heretical: neither is it by any stretch of the imagination a truly "great" book. It's a mediocre novel with a good message that could be a very valuable tool for evangelism, and God will use it, like everything else, for His glory.
Book Review: May confuse more than it will enlighten
Summary: 2 Stars
Very similar to the Harry Potter phenomenon, The Shack has taken the book publishing world by storm. First printed at Kinkos just a few years ago, The Shack has been located at the top of the publishing charts for months, often rated in the Top 10 for Amazon.com.
What is it that makes this story so compelling? I believe bringing the three Persons of the Godhead to an almost-human level intrigues many readers. How many times have we said, "If only I could just see God face-to-face, just like Moses, wouldn't that be awesome?" Yes, of course, but that just never happens. Or not until we read The Shack, which is based on a tragedy and helps us understand, perhaps in a metaphorical sense, how God feels when we go through the tough times.
I believe there are three positives that can be taken from this book. First of all, The Shack shows us that God desires a relationship with His people because He loves us. God doesn't just want His people to be followers of a bunch of rules of some man-made religion. He also doesn't want us to come into this relationship as a result of force, like some type of divine rape. Second, Young does a good job explaining evil, that it is not something that is created but is rather the absence of good. Finally, the book helps explain why true forgiveness does not hold on to the past. When the main protagonist (Mack) is confronted with having to forgive his daughter's killer, he realizes that the hatred he had in his heart for the serial murderer was actually detrimental to his own sanity. Forgiveness frees the forgiver instead of allowing the person to be tortured with lingering hatred.
Despite these three points, I cannot recommend The Shack for four reasons:
1. It presents a low view of scripture. According to the worldview portrayed by the author, the importance of studying God's Word to find out His will for us today is deemphasized. Rather, he encourages personal revelation. Mormonism does the same thing: Just pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, and God will make it manifest by a peace and comfort in our soul. But does it really work like that? Actually, God's written Word is the only trustworthy source for revelation to humankind. It alone teaches everything that is necessary for salvation and is the standard for us to know Truth. Over and over again, the Bible testifies to its own uniqueness and sufficiency (i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16; Ps. 19:7; 2 Tim. 2:15).
2. It presents a low view of God. This takes place in several ways. One, it moves God to a human level. Of course, the story is fictional, so there are certain leeways that the reader must concede. But when Papa (God the Father) is likened to a heavyset black woman who says "Sho' Nuff" and displays other stereotypical traits, when "She" is listening to "funk" and seems to relate with the things that some of "Her" "kids" are "showin' and spoutin' off," when Mack continually uses a number of four-letter words in the presence of the all-holy and almighty God, then I think we've lowered the essence of the very being of God that is too close to blasphemy, at least from my apologetic perspective.
In addition, Young's modalistic view of the Trinity (Papa has scars in His wrists but Jesus doesn't?) is skewed. Young portrays the Father as being Jesus as being the Holy Spirit. But this is a distortion of the Holy Trinity and could be very confusing for the average Christian. In fact, let's be honest. How well can most readers recognize this very ancient heresy? If you read the hundreds of reviews on Amazon where the testimonials abound explaining how this book has revolutionized their view of God, then I believe Young does an incredible disservice to the Christian community.
3. It presents a low view of the local church. According to the picture that is painted, the local church is nothing more than a "religion and institution" that has become irrelevant to the 21st century. If you were to believe Young, it seems almost better to go it alone, just Papa and me. But the Bible clearly teaches that we are not to "give up meeting together" (Heb. 10:25) with other believers. Just like the disciples did in Acts 2:42, Christians should be devoted to each other. I believe the local church can still be relevant today, so the proverbial baby does not have to be thrown out with the bathwater.
4. It presents a low view of salvation. While Young is not necessarily a Pluralist (meaning, all religions are true), he utilizes some statements throughout that make it appear this is so. On page 192, Papa says that "through (Jesus') death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world." The book says that He loves everyone equally the same. Young also says that there is no punishment for sin; rather, "sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside." While God is certainly a loving and merciful God, He is also a God of justice. This aspect is entirely lost by Young in his distorted portrayal of salvation.
With these four points taken into consideration, I just cannot recommend The Shack. While this book was certainly written as fiction, it introduces confusion with its theological inconsistency and may cause the sincere reader to accept wrong views of important issues related to Christianity, which is why I am very concerned. With so much good Christian fiction (or just good Christian books that develop one's relationship with God, e.g. Tozer, Lewis, and many others)--I'm not sure why we should want to go dancing with a stranger.
Book Review: A BOOK LIKE NO OTHER
Summary: 3 Stars
The Shack
The Shack is a book like no other. With almost 8 million copies in print, it has been on the New York Times Best Seller List for 64 consecutive weeks and has been the #1 bestseller on that list for 51 weeks. Film producers have expressed interest and there are websites dedicated to this book. The author's website even has a "Missy Project" for suggestions of how readers can promote this book. The book draws reviewers who say it has restored their faith in God and changed their life. Another reader calls it significant, stirring, special. A professor of Spiritual Theology compares it to Pilgrim's Progress. The author asks, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?" He promises answers that will astound and transform you. Amazon ranks the book #14 in sales, #1 bestseller in Christian Literature, #1 in Literary Fiction, #3 in the Mystery category, etc. etc. The numbers change hourly, but you get the point. This is a smash hit, not unlike any of Dan Brown's novels. Or, perhaps for some readers, The Shack is the answer to Dan Brown's books. There are thousands of reader reviews of the book. Mine will be #3,613 or thereabouts.
When I review a book, I evaluate plot, character, setting, description, pace. I might talk about sentence structure, use of metaphors, the logic in the argument the writer puts forth. How well does he structure the novel? How well does he craft his sentences? Does the magic of his words allow us to suspend our disbelief? But how can I pit logic and skill against faith? How can I argue with lives that have been healed by Mr. Young's writing? How can I put forth any argument of reason when faith has nothing to do with reason. I remember a couple telling me about their arguments. When she was upset about something, the husband would explain to her in rational detail why she need not be upset. (Don't cry, it's only a movie. Just because I don't like your dress doesn't mean I don't think you're pretty. I know I forgot to buy you flowers, but I do love you.) But the wife's response, after the husband had tried to explain away her sadness in a logical fashion, was: Then why am I still crying?
Therefore, I have decided that the only reasonable review I can give this book is to say that all of us are right: the ones that are transformed by it and the ones that find it lacking. My Kindle book version of The Shack is filled with numerous notes along the margins. As these notes would fill several pages, I won't reprint them all, but I have decided to give you a selection of them in lieu of a formal review. This way, you'll be able to come along with me on this conflicting journey I was on while reading The Shack. Also, I haven't a clue as to how many stars to give this book. As review sites force me to pick a rating, I'll go with 3, but want you to know that it's more like 0 - 5, depending on which part I was reading. Well, here are my notes:
* Good metaphor!
* Hugs?
* The fear of every parent!
* Cheesy, hokey, weird!
* Hugs again?
* Finally we come to Missy! What happened to her? Where is she?
* How come Jesus speaks like a school counselor?
* Mack is childish and churlish.
* Hogwash!
* Important statement, but not sure I understand.
* Why "eh"? Is God a Canadian?
* Psychobabble!
* How many times has author used the word relationships?
* Very true!!!
* Christ is not a Christian? Of course not! Good point!!
* What does this mean?
* Good question!
* Why do these celestial creatures speak like shrinks?
* To "grow" our relationship? UGH! P-lease Mr. Young, loose these buzz words!
* Idiotic!
* Grammar error.
* Lots of smiling and hugging and Mack saying HUH? Exactly my reaction to this book--HUH?
* Well said and so true!
* Hugs again? I'm getting tired of them!
* Wouldn't God know that a middle-aged male with lots of stress should not be eating bacon?
* But we humans find comfort in ritual and routine!
* Does God really say, I don't "do" humiliation? My long-gone writing teacher Wirt Williams is turning over in his grave!
* Beautiful and true. Well said!
* I could not forgive someone I have not met. Why doesn't Mack ask to meet him?
* Why doesn't Mack ask God a lot of questions. Is there life on other planets? Will Obama prevail with his health care plan? What are the winning Powerball numbers for the next drawing?
* Closure? Ugh again! Really, truly dislike this author's choice of buzz words!!!
* I think I'm getting into these hugs. What's happening to me?
* Good question!
* Very nice!
* No, no, no! You take her home to her mother! And Kate needs to see this box too!
* Oh, no! Didn't expect this!
* Cheating the reader by taking us on this long ride and in the end . . . But that would be giving away THE END.
Is this the oddest review you've ever read? Well, this is the oddest book I've ever read. As you can see from my notes, I was on quite a roller-coaster ride of approval vs. disapproval. Part of the plot makes the story riveting, on-the-edge-of-your-seat reading, while the rest of it too often just drags on. While I won't tell you the ending, the "After Words" ends with a wonderful poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Now, there's a fitting end to the story!
Book Review: The Shock
Summary: 1 Stars
The Shock was that it didn't transform my belief or relationship with the Lord Jesus and Our Father in Heaven by His Holy Spirit.
The Shock was a make-believe god too chummy, casual and manmade to reflect what the Bible says about His genuine familiarity and intimacy with those He deeply loves and relates to. It did not inspire worship and abject adoration from Mack nor readers, just amusement, curiosity and chuckles along with a few sentimented heart tugs. The cheapened, flippant portrayal with mortal foibles, humanisms and quirks reflects the author more than the real Supreme Being, the Wonderful Majestic Glory Living Godhead. Putting each Divine Person of the Trinity in costume with man-wisdom dialog will be accountable on Judgment Day. How does God feel?
The Shock was how far short it fell in expressing the incredible, infinite, sacrificial, jealous, passionate, robust God-sized love and devotion the Lord has for us and how He has poured out that love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us so we can love Him back and others with that same gigantic genuine unconditional wholehearted love.
The Shock was that God already said He was to be described and known by humanity as Father, Son and Spirit (He, never It or She). God prefers to be known and revealed in masculine gender for His Own reasons. I respect that.
The Shock was not knowing why Young calls God 'Elousia'? Is it combo of El (Hebrew for God) and ousia (Greek for essence/being)? Why he transmorphs from Aunt Jemimah to Uncle Ben? Or why jesus is never addressed as Lord even though that's what the Bible says? Or why the spirit is given the feminine name of a river in India 'Sarayu'?
The Shock was the claim that the Triune God is our servant.
Ths Shock was not having jesus appear the way He does in Revelation, causing the Apostle John to fall down in rapt worship and utter reverence and holy fear. I never noticed Mack worshipping the Lord Jesus at all.
The Shock was God portrayed as 3 separate people of different races and genders, making sure Africa, No.America, Asia were represented. So as not to neglect Latin America, Sophia was added to the mix as some mysterious personification of Wisdom from Proverbs 8? What about Europe? Where was Europa or Philia from Greece?
The Shock was no Bible understanding of the Triune God from Revelation:
"Grace and peace to you from Him (the Lord God Almighty, Alpha and Omega) Who is and Who was and Who is to come, as well as from the Sevenfold Holy Spirit before God's throne, as well as from Jesus Christ Who is the faithful witness firstborn from the dead and the ruler of earthkings."
"To Him Who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood, and has made us to be a Kingdom, priests to serve His God and Father - to Him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. Look, He is coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the earthpeoples will mourn because of Him."
The Shock was jesus' alleged claim that he is not Christian. Then, why should any Christ-follower bother being Christian as the Bible says?
The Shock was jesus never called for Mack to Repent, when the Lord Jesus began His ministry with "Repent, believe the Good News; Repent or you will perish" and ended His ministry with "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline, so be earnest and Repent."
The Shock was no explanation of what exactly and why the Lord Jesus lived a sinless life, sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, died on the cross shedding His innocent blood under the Father's Wrath - My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?
The Shock was no mention of the Lord Jesus' mission purpose to His followers: "open the eyes of Gentiles & Jews, turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, so they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those set apart as holy by faith in Me...Repent from sin and turn to God and prove your repentance by your behavior"
The Shock was wondering where Judgment Day comes in. "Come you blessed of My Father, take your inheritance, the Kingdom prepared for you since the world's creation...Depart from Me you accursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and demons..then they will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life."
What did the Lord Jesus and John Baptist say in John 3?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through Him. Whoever puts faith in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not trusted in the Name of God's only brought-forth-in-flesh Son.."
"..Whoever believes in God's Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not enjoy eternal life, for God's wrath remains on him."
The Shack was a Shock to true Christian trust in the Lord Jesus, as subchristian idolatry. What does the letter of First John say about antichrist spirits? Read for yourself, if you are up to it and have ears to hear what the Holy Spirit says to the churches.
The Apostle John warned us in advance, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols - impostors, phonies, manmade ideas, faux imitations."
Book Review: Why you should give the Shack the shaft
Summary: 1 Stars
I did not write this analysis and critique, but I wholly agree with it. Everyone who claims Christ should read it.
"The book entitled The Shack has been a marketing phenomenon among "evangelicals." Blurbs compare the Shack to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. I am here to tell you that the hype is a bit forced. Let's do a bit of comparison, first with the book of Job, then with Bunyan, interjecting a bit of C.S. Lewis in for fun.
The Shack is the story of a man whose beautiful daughter is brutally murdered. The man leaves the faith, only to receive a message from God to meet him at the shack, the very place where his daughter was murdered. He then meets God. The Father is a big jolly black woman, the Son is a Jewish carpenter, and the Holy Spirit is a wispy, mysterious Asian woman (we'll get to that blasphemy in a moment). The upshot of the plot is that God explains to the main character the why's and the wherefore's, and the man is healed. The theological upshot is that God is good, but not all-powerful. Young takes Rabbi Kushner's prong of the dilemma. What is important to notice here is a combination of rationalism and experientalism. On the one hand, Young tears at the heart strings, making the reader bleed for the main character. On the other hand, in order for the man's faith to be "restored," God has to explain himself.
Contrast Job. Job lost much more than the man in the story (ten children!), and it was due to the prince of demons being opposed to him, not a mere man, even if Job didn't know that. He lost all his possessions, and then finally his health. He had much more to complain about than the man in The Shack. He too wanted God to explain. He wanted to vindicate himself as well. But when God finally has His say, He tells Job that He does not have to come to the bar of human reason. Humans have to come to the bar of God. This is where C.S. Lewis comes in. In his brilliant essay entitled "God in the Dock," he makes the point that the really important thing for autonomous man is that he is the judge, and that God is in the dock. The man may very well be a kindly judge and acquit God of wrong-doing, if God shows Himself up to the task of defending himself. But the really important thing is that man is the judge, and God is in the dock (on trial). Job shows us that the reverse is true. God is the judge, and man is in the dock.
Rationalism always results in God losing one of His attributes. If God is all-powerful and all-good, then how come evil exists? The Bible does not allow us to lessen the difficulty of this question by jettisoning one of these attributes. The reason the problem is so acute for the believer is that God is both all-benevolent and all-powerful.
Just to begin an answer (and not leave the readers hanging), God allows evil to exist for various reasons, but evil will not continue to last. God has dealt with the problem of evil on the cross and the empty tomb, and will finally eradicate the very presence of evil in this world in the future. No other religion, by the way, or atheism, has an answer to this question. Pantheism believes that evil is naturally part of the world. No hope of eradication there. Atheism cannot define right and wrong, so his faith in his own reason becomes shockingly apparent when he confidently talks about the problem of evil. Deists don't believe that God has anything to do with the world. These all lack hope and eschatology.
Bunyan and Young go in fundamentally different directions. Christian's journey is to the bar of judgment as a defendant whom God will acquit based on the spotless righteousness of Christ imputed to him. The man's journey in The Shack is to the bench, where he magnanimously acquits God of wrong-doing, once it becomes evident that God is really powerless to stop it. Of course, if God is powerless to stop evil, then He is also powerless to eradicate evil, and so that road is also a dead end eschatologically speaking.
In talking with one of my friends, he made the very interesting point also about faith. What moves Christian? It is the scroll, the evangelist, the Interpreter, the fellow believers he meets on the way, the key of faith in Doubting Castle. It is the means of grace which compels Christian to a life of faith. In The Shack, it is a one-time rationalistic showdown where God pleads and begs with the man (in effect) not only to give Him a hearing, but to acquit Him of wrong-doing. Ultimately, the man's faith is in himself.
My friend also noted the contrast between the way in which God is portrayed in the Bible as opposed to how God is portrayed in The Shack. The God of The Shack is hardly a God with the least little hint of awe and majesty. He is not the God of the whirlwind, which is how God treated Job. He is not the God before whom all bow their faces to the ground. Instead, He is a God whose booty sways to the music. Anyone who cannot see the blasphemy and rank heresy of this portrayal of God is seriously lacking in discernment. God is Spirit, and only the Second Person of the Trinity has a human body which exists only in hypostatic union with the divine nature, and is currently a glorified body. I choose to believe the God of the Bible, who will eradicate evil because He is completely omnipotent and completely free of sin." -- Lane Keister