Reading "The Shack"

A bestseller prompts us to rethink God

The Shack has been #1 on the New York Times bestseller list since last June. You can buy the book at most bookstores including Borders and Barnes & Noble, even at Wal-Mart and Costco. Current estimates are that the book has sold over one million copies.

William P. Young, the author, is the son of Canadian missionaries who lived and worked on the island of New Guinea. He was raised among a Stone Age tribe where he never seemed to fit in. Young suffered serious trauma as a child at boarding school and felt disconnected from his parents, who had no clue what he was experiencing. Then as a young adult Young self-inflicted more damage. It took him 11 years to work through the destruction and hurt he felt. This book is Young’s attempt to explain the process of healing and of finding forgiveness.

The Shack is a work of fiction. The story revolves around a father named Mack whose youngest daughter goes missing during a family camping trip. Evidence in a wilderness shack points to the possibility of a brutal murder, but there is no body. For four years Mack struggles with this "great darkness." Then one day he receives a note from God asking him to come back to that awful shack for a weekend. Reluctantly he does so and walks back into a world of nightmares and deep anxiety. However, Mack's experience as he encounters, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit change his world forever.

Early attempts to have the book published by an established publishing company were not successful. Christian publishers found it too controversial, “too edgy.” Secular publishers thought it was too Christian, “too much Jesus.” Together with several friends, Young self-published the book.

 

I first came across The Shack while visiting family in Canada. My sister-in-law told me that the book had been extremely helpful as she came to terms with her brother’s sudden and unexpected death. When I picked up the book, I was impressed by Eugene Petersen’s endorsement on the front cover: “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

Since I had time, I began to read and found the book hard to put down. Later that week I found a local Christian bookstore that had a table piled high with copies and bought several to take back home with me.Yes, in one sense the book is controversial. During my first reading I came to sections where I would say, “Oh-oh, some people aren’t going to like this!” I’ve decided this book is not for people who have all their theological ducks in a certain order and therefore are not open to being challenged by new ways of thinking about God.

For example, some people object to God being portrayed as a black woman. When asked why he did this, Young says that he wants people to reconsider their preconceptions of God. It certainly made me do that. Now sometimes when I think of God, the image of Ethel Waters comes to mind, and I remember her singing, “His eye is on the sparrow, and I know he cares for me,” at a Billy Graham crusade.

At another level, I keep wondering why so many people find the book to be so helpful. Obviously it strikes a chord, a deep need, for many. I’ve read The Shack several times. Each time it gives me a new understanding of how God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit work together in helping us get through the tough times in our lives. It is reassuring to know that we have such a caring and loving support system available to us at all times. It is comforting to know that when we experience darkness, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

When asked what the shack in the story represents, Young answers: “It is a metaphor, really, for the decrepit house of the soul that we build over time. It’s where we hide our pain, our lostness, our secrets and our addictions. Our lies are the fabric that holds the house together and we decorate it with the façade that we want other people to see.”

The book brings the message that God loves us in spite of our shortcomings and failures. God cares for and invites us to come into his presence to experience the power of his forgiveness, healing and restoration. Maybe that’s why the book is so popular.

6 comments (Add your own)

1. Joyce Creed wrote:
Why is it that when people want to present controversial ideas, they must first label those who might oppose those ideas as: "not open to being challenged to new ways of thinking."? My guess is that the ideas themselves might be flawed, so painting any opposition with a layer of spiritual condescension colors what they might say. It's as prejudice as the prejudice ascribed to those stogy souls who have their "theological ducks in a certain order".

Did I read the book? Yes. Were there statements and ideas that I agreed with? Yes. I felt God's great love and forgiveness in the book...but I knew that. . . God's character and indescribable majesty, His willingness to give of Himself for us. We can know that about God. His Word reveals those characteristics of God.

However, I suffered real pain at the casual, irreverent, way in which God is portrayed in this book. For example, God the Father (the jolly, black, woman called Papa) and God the Holy Spirit (A shape-changing Oriental woman/being) make fun of Jesus for being clumsy and spilling things (because he is limited to a human body). I really wanted to cry out: So man made God in his own image...it has always been that way."

Of course people want a God who forgives, always, who loves everyone, who never judges sin, who just winks and laughs and heals all broken hearts. It's a popular concept of God.

But my God is more than that.

I read tonight from Isaiah 40...


18 To whom, then, will you compare God?
What image will you compare him to?


21 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

and later...

28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.

29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.

30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;

31 but those who hope in the LORD
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint.

Somehow it makes "The Shack" look like a comic version of a morality play...lots of sweet platitudes with Santa thrown in.

April 7, 2009 @ 9:28 PM

2. Rebekah Loewen wrote:
The sentence stating that the book is “not for people who have all their theological ducks in a certain order and therefore are not open to being challenged by new ways of thinking about God” caught my attention instantly. But as I read the article I began to wonder exactly how open our minds ought to be.

I would totally agree that, even as Christians, our perception of God can become distorted. Sometimes we fail to see one aspect of His character, or we overemphasize another, and therefore do not have an accurate view of God. What finite human being can understand the character of a infinite God to it’s fullest extent? Learning to know and understand God completely is something that will take us the rest of eternity! But this leads me to a question. If we are constantly searching to understand God more fully where should we look? What is the ultimate source insight into God’s character? I suppose this was somewhat of a rhetorical question, because the answer should be obvious. Who knows more about God than God does? And what better place to learn about God than in the Word of God?

I’m not saying that we can never come to a better understanding about the nature of God through the writings and teachings of other people. But we MUST, MUST make sure that what someone else is saying about God is true to the Bible before we believe it. Perhaps you would call me narrow minded. That’s fine. I am so narrow minded that I absolutely refuse to believe anything that is not in line with the Word of God. There is a place for being open minded, but when it comes to interpretations of the nature of God that are not found in the Bible, an open mind is like an open grave! However narrow minded it may sound, a Christian CANNOT be open to “new ways of thinking about God” that are not found in the Bible! If you are presented with a new way of thinking about God, that should be your cue to search the Scriptures to see if it is accurate.

As I stated before, I haven’t read the book and so don’t know all of the “new ways of thinking about God” that are presented in it, however the example mentioned in the article disturbed me. It said that “some people object to God being portrayed as a black woman.” I do not hesitate to admit that I am one of those people who objects to God being portrayed as a black woman! I have two reasons for this objection. The first and foremost is that object to God being portrayed as a human. Black, white, red, yellow, pink, green, or orange makes absolutely no difference! God is not a human! How can we possibly presume to portray the infinite immortal God as a finite mortal human?

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” Romans 1:22&23

It would be something like if I wrote a book in which I portrayed Billy Graham as a cockroach. Even if I portrayed him as the nicest, happiest little disease-carrying cockroach you ever saw, people would object to the fact that I was portraying Billy Graham as a cockroach! When you compare a cockroach to Billy Graham, the difference is enormous! But when you compare Billy Graham to God, the difference is infinite! So if portraying Billy Graham as a cockroach is disrespectful and unacceptable, how much more disrespectful and unacceptable to portray God as a human?

The second problem I have is with portraying God as a woman. God is a spirit and has no gender. However, in the Bible, God’s own word, He always ALWAYS portrays himself as male. God describes Himself as a father and as a husband, and Jesus came to this world as a man. If God really wanted it to be more equal, why didn’t He ever portray Himself as female? Did He make a mistake? If we presume to portray God as female when God Himself always portrays Himself as male, we are in essence saying we know more about God than God does! What right have we to assign a gender to God other than the one which He has assigned to Himself? My friend, when we do these things we are toying with blasphemy!

I am perfectly open to new ways of thinking about God in as much as they are founded on the Bible. But I am absolutely not open to new ways of thinking about God that are not supported by the Word of God, and especially ones that are contradicted by the Word of God.

April 16, 2009 @ 3:45 PM

3. Sheri Balakian wrote:
I also read "The Shack". I didn't really want to, but every time I started talking to people about the book the first thing they would ask is "have you read it?" I read the book and found it very emotional - yes, I even cried. But there are a lot of things in this world that can pull you in emotionally, but that doesn't make them theologically sound. That is the danger of this book.
When we encounter any new ideas and thoughts we need to immediately turn to scripture and ask how does this line up with what the Word of God says. There are so many things in this book that do not line up with the Bible. I highlighted as I read anything that didn't seem right to me and my copy of the Shack is full of highlights. I will just share with you a few of the problems I saw.
There is an incident where Mac(the main character) and Jesus walk across the lake(yes, they walk on the water together). Jesus takes Mac to a cave were he meets Sophia. Sophia is "the personification of God's wisdom"(pg.171) What many readers don't realize is that the name Sophia is also the name of a goddess many people worship. The author Sue Monk Kidd ("The Secret Life of Bees") talks about goddess worship and Sophia. I think it is a very scary thing to give God's wisdom a name and body - especially a name that is already used by goddess cults!
Another problem is a statement "Jesus" makes about "Papa" "God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things" (pg. 112) God dwells in all things? That is known as panentheism. This statement would be perfectly acceptable to the New Age, but it should not be acceptable to us. Again, Sue Monk Kidd has gone so far as to say God dwells in all things, including the excrement on the ground and the graffiti on the wall!
These objections to the book are just a few examples. There are so many more, many much deeper and bothersome than these - universal reconciliation, necromancy, Eastern and Hindu influences (Kundalini experiences, Sanskrit names for some characters), role reversals, idolatry.... As believers, the bible calls us to be discerning in what we read and in what influences us. This book can take the reader down a dangerous path that leads to false doctrine and a New Age/New Spirituality way of thinking. Let's listen to Jude 3 and "...contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

June 4, 2009 @ 4:33 PM

4. Sheryl wrote:
FICTION. This book is a fictional story. yes its a bit odd but thought provoking. Is God a black woman? No! yet neither was Jesus a white man. It probalby would have been a bit less controversial if the author had portrayed God as a man as he is god the father, called "papa" in the book. Overall a good read

August 3, 2009 @ 12:29 AM

5. Bill wrote:
Coming from a Mennonite background when I was young made me feel very ashamed of this heritage especially when I realized it was full of rules and do'not's. As a matter of fact I have a brother who lives in a SHACK. Did I not realize that my "shack" was the "mennonties" who enslaved my family (who were devout rule keeping menonites), but now one is an athiest combatting the other, who is a rule keeper. I think the Shack hit home, as I now see that the things we are raised with are seldom what Christ taught, and it takes a book like that to show us that we have been raised wrong. Grant it we ought not to use it as a 'theological work' (it isn't and never will be), but it helps uncover some of the heresy in which my parents are trapped, and perhaps even now will not get out of because they refuse to read anything other than what is 'perscribed' by their religious teachers.

Forget the theological rules - it has been a great help for me !!

October 17, 2009 @ 9:41 PM

6. Bill wrote:
Just wanted to add my e-mail to the above comment. I think it's better to have written a book about a "God Who Is There" as Wm Young did than to have been raised as a "closet mennonite" where:

1. I could not come home because my mother hates my dad and has 5 freezers of food in her basement with egg=wheites from 1972 (this is 2009). What concept of mennonite would allow that to be??
2. A brother who lives there does not tolerate visitors, and runs away each time someone knocks on the door.
3. Mennonite neighbors have not even appeared at their door because of the mess they encounter, even though my father regularly goes to his church. They are not aware of the abuse that has been generated by this system. I think they close their eyes to it.
4. Where is Jesus's statement apply about confronting an erring brother ?

October 17, 2009 @ 10:02 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.