Visiting "The Shack" (ThinkJump Journal #16 with Kim Gentes)
Monday, September 8, 2008 at 12:50AM 
The Real Controversy about "The Shack" A culture of change has become the pervading surety of our modern (and post-modern) society. The old adage rings truer than ever- "The only thing constant is change". A couple weeks back, I was stuck in a Wal-Mart at midnight, looking for some power cabling for my laptop. While I waited for someone, I was browsing the book selection. I found an interesting looking title called "the Shack". Little did I know it was the current "buzz book" in the church in the last year. I am not a fast reader, so it took me a couple weeks to get through it. It was a delight.
As I read the book my heart softened, but not gently. I was wounded, beaten, blessed, nurtured, comforted and loved in a cascade of amazing imagery and powerful writing that wore down the pretentious religiosity that lives, to some degree, in each of us. William Young attacks the prejudices of a Christianity lived outside of actual personal relationship with Christ. He uses various devices in his fictional story to bring home the point that we must stop living and believing in a God that is as limited in scope and understanding as we are. His poignant reality in the lives of his characters in "the Shack" echoes our cold hearts, living in a rules-based, shame-centered religiosity that claims as many victims as it saves. Critics have assailed the book as being bad theology, but for fictional a script that never claims to be doctrine it hits the jugular of where American Christianity has failed time and time again-- at understanding and living in the love of God.
One could argue that the images and metaphors may not sit well with the buttoned-down theocrats, and that, yes, perhaps the allegories aren't perfect at every level. But the over-arching nuance of Young's book is not that we need a theology class- it's that we need to actually live what we say we believe. That God is love. That His efforts towards us have always been completely done in love, and will continue so. That His primary purposeful intent in dealing with mankind is to make Himself and His love completely and gloriously sufficient for us, whilst giving us the freedom to reciprocate that love back to Him in words and lives of praise, thanksgiving and worship. I am purposefully not going to give away any of the book plot. You can find details on it here:
Hardcover http://www.popularchristian.com/product_info.php?products_id=28720
Softcover http://www.popularchristian.com/product_info.php?products_id=26107
Audio Book http://www.popularchristian.com/product_info.php?products_id=28300
I do want to comment on the most controversial parts of the book, that are drawing criticism. Primarily, readers will discover that the book centers around the main character (Mack) and his weekend encounter with God. In Young's story, the Trinity is articulated through 3 distinct personalities. Specifically, the Father is portrayed as a joyful, and thoroughly loving, black woman. For some Christian leaders, even though this is a fictional story, this rendering has them railing against "the Shack". It's no wonder the truly brilliant creative voices leave the church with remarkable regularity. The point of the imagery in the story is stated and restated so that any clear-headed reader understands the portrayal. It's fiction after all, but with a purpose. It's too bad some Christian leaders who think they are "smart" have missed that point.
That said, I would also argue that even more controversial than the rendering of God as a woman, is a more fundamental angst that many have with "the Shack". Simply put, we can't deal with a God who is so personally in love with people that He would express Himself with such unguarded intimacy. In the pages of Mack's journey and visit with the Trinity, we find a God that is so overwhelmingly in love with each of us that it shakes us to the core. He isn't waiting for us to "go one step to far" before He brings down judgment. He isn't standing at a distance, concerned that He may get Himself dirty with the grime of our puny existence. In this book, we find a God so completely in love with us that He stands in the midst of our pain, of our judgment, of our destructive self-loathing, and even our anger charged accusations towards Him. He stands in the midst of it, and breathes out words of love, life, healing and invitation. He draws into our world with such intimacy, such "motherly" care (which is often a much better metaphor to which Americans could relate with real love) and comfort, that most of us simply recoil back.
While many may say that the most controversial part of the book is using a personality of a woman to portray God, I think more poignant to those same people is a deep seeded repulsion to see God as wholly and completely intimate with our very earthly, human and pain-filled lives. Would God walk with us, eat with us, hold us, cry with us, be patient with us?! Would He? "The Shack" resounds with a resplendent "Yes!"
What is sad is that it is very likely that the people most offended by "the Shack" are the people who need to hear it's message most desperately.
With suspenseful drama, well-thought subplots and astounding imagery, Young's writing of "the Shack" may be the best fictional book since the Lord of the Rings trilogy. You may not agree with the message of "the Shack", but that is the whole point- be challenged and forced to think on your prejudices about God. And all the while, you are taken on a beautiful journey of suspense, love, pain and restoration. Brilliant!
Kim Anthony Gentes
Reader Comments (18)
Hello Kim!
I loved your thoughts on The Shack! My husband and I were also thoroughly blessed by it, on several levels. We did take issue with something minor regarding Papa's reason why he/she had to reveal Himself to the world as 'father'. But there is just too much good in this book to be side-swiped by any minor disagreements. The Shack is simply one of God's precious gifts to this generation. Period.
My hubby Scott's love for the Hebrew language helps him disect theology & Scripture on some fairly deep levels. Young's Papa-character's reason for appearing to the world as 'father' is that "Papa knew that the world would need more fathers." But, in the Scriptures, God reveals Himself as Father not because He knew we'd need more fathers, but because FATHER IS HOW HE CHOSE TO REVEAL HIMSELF, THAT IS WHO HE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. It is a joyful reality that this broken, fatherless generation can come to their Heavenly Father within the mess that we've created, knowing that our Papa doesn't just morph into whatever we might need him to be because of our deficit, but because THAT IS WHO HE IS ... WHO HE HAS FOREVER BEEN ... AND WHO HE WILL ALWAYS WILL BE! This admittedly technical detail simply adds abundant depth to the already head-spinning theological reality our Abba Father who has sought after, chosen, adopted and sanctified us by His Spirit, through the blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ! A point that I believe the rest of Young's book more than makes up for.
I agree! The Shack is indeed a beautiful journey. Sometimes, when we travel, it is not just the path that changes, but the traveler upon it! So be ready to be transformed...
Continually undone by Papa's love,
DEB :)
Debbie@FarAwayWorship.com
Deb,
good comments... I appreciate that you gave your input and feedback.. thanks!
Kim
Kim -
I appreciate your comments on the subject. And I really do agree that while it may not be perfect, it is a good book to shake up the religiousity that we're so deeply infected with as both 'Christian' people (for those of us who are) or even on the more basic level of just broken humans.
While I too am a continuing student of scripture, theology, history, etc, I think that all the opposition that we've seen to the on those levels is a sad commentary. It's sad that we can't appreciate the good things that come out of the text but insist on doing carnage to it because it does not immediately fit inside of our tiny box.
Nathan
Good points Nathan! I actually was surprised to find people all cranked up about the situation in the theology realm. No one ever asked CS Lewis if Narnia is a theology book or if the images portrayed in his classic series were all perfect types of their representative Biblical counterparts. It was granted that Narnia was written to convey truth, while giving it liberty to continue to be story telling and literature in its own right. Even not given that, I actually have only a couple of very small points where I found the book didn't render theological concepts actually quite well.
Anyways, thanks for chiming in!
blessings
Kim
Kim,
I thought this was very well written and thought provoking.
I have reflected some recently about peoples response to "The Shack" wondering what is behind their reaction. It is a polarizing book, but why? I suspect that you might find what separates people is their experience with personal tragedy. Those that tend to be rigid or religious in their paradigm I find typically have not been tested by the trials of tragedy. I'm currently writing about 16 friends of mine that were massacred while serving the poor in Africa. The whole experience threw my religious paradigm into chaos. I had so many "assumptions" about God and His ways. The Shack is the journey of a man whose been through his own personal tragedy. Anyone that's been there can tell you that the last thing you need is religious people telling you how you should think or react.
The Shack is a book that offends the mind to reveal the heart which is exactly what Jesus loved to do. Those that read it from the heart will find much and those that read it from the mind will find exactly what they are looking for. Both groups will get out of it just what they want.
All the best,
Bob
Wow, Bob. You said a mouthful.
Exactly what you said about responses is part of why I wrote the review. I was hoping people with other opinions would start talking (as long as we can all talk nice) and some of the conversation could be encouraging to all of us.
Also, I noted that a few people have said that this book is teaching theology and that its not right to say it isn't. Well, I actually agree with them to a point- the book definitely is expressing theology and certainly has a particular view point on things. So in that sense, yes it is definitely trying to bring a view point of how our theology of God, His love, His interactions and attitudes towards man could be viewed (especially in situations of great pain). But the brilliance of the book is that it presents its theology by telling a story (much like Christ did in his use of parables).
It allows the story teller to include deep truth inside of a common every day context. While we may not all go through a painful, horrific ordeal like Mack does in the story, we all have our questions about where God is in our hour of deep pain. The reason the parables, and this type of story, can be so helpful is that we know the underlying truths they convey are applicable to other situations, not just minutia of the story in which they are being conveyed.
The big question "Where is God is all the pain of living in this world"? Well, this story does an excellent (imo) job of answering that question. Does it hit each point perfectly, well, not for me. But so many of the points are good, that it is well worth the reading. And even the ones I didn't agree with, are made with enough clarity and background that it is good to be challenged on them from another point of view.
I love your comment about people who have lived through pain relating with the book. It is certainly true of me, at least to the degree with which I have lived through pain and failure.. the story connects with that for me. Not just experientially, but from what I learned from scripture and teaching about God's heart towards us in times of pain.
good to hear you chime in Bob!
Kim
Great Review Kim,
I feel the same way about the book. The book did what theologians typically fail at: engaging the heart. Young's picture of the Trinity did more for me than any 101 class at the churches which I have been a part. He did this not because he absolutely nailed down the mechanics of the Trinity but he showed the Trinity in all it's relational and loving glory. And the fact that he juxtaposed the love of God with the brutal tragedy of this world seemed to bring the arguments of theology into the real world (which is a pretty big score for something fictional).
Kim, I could not have said that any better. You did an excellent and graceful job of communicating the importance we have as leaders to look at ourselves very carefully and ask ourselves, "are we truly living out the message of Christ". Very well said my friend.
Michelle Borquez
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I reaad it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I reaad it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard
hi Kim - I loved the book : The Shack. I can see where the theologians would get ''twitched' about some of the imagery though... I think the point of the Father being portrayed as a woman is brilliant because it shows the depths of the Father's compassion, in view of Mack's experience with his own father. Should the Father have revealed Himself as a man, Mack would not have been as open to receiving the lessons of how amazingly deep Papa's love is.
Love n blessings
I find the theological implications of the Shack's storyline and dialogue disturbing and not representative of the overarching truths in scripture. For a theologically and culturally insightful consideration of the book I encourage you to read this: http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5395/
And one more comment... all of commenters that claim to have opinions distinct from "theologians" (as if that's some kind of slur) are, in fact, doing theology themselves. It's also a false dichotomy to somehow separate mind and heart as some have referred to here; demanding that one is bad (mind) and one is good (heart). Romans 12:2 for example.
Hey Kim,
I appreciated and enjoyed reading the Shack, and I have no problem recommending it to many people. I loved the chapter of "judgement" when Mack is in the cave... WOW! What a powerful picture of God's love! Here's the thing... the main problem is not the “feminine picture” of God or the intimacy of God. Neither is WRONG, and, albeit brave and risky, they are both refreshing and beautiful. I agree wholeheartedly that attacking these "issues" is a sad picture of the church today. However, I do think you're missing one major issue (indeed, the most important issue) with the Shack.
The only theological problem with the Shack is a big one. And that is the depiction of all three parts of the Godhead being on the cross with Jesus, especially God the Father. (Remember when God the Father is shown having scars on his hands as well?) This depiction endangers the theology of Justification, as it is a CRUCIAL aspect of salvation that Jesus was rejected by the Father. He was not joined on the cross by the Father, he was rejected by the Father. If he was not rejected by the Father, then the wrath of God has not truly and fully been poured out on sin, and we cannot be saved through the sacrificial propitiation of Christ’s death, because sin would not be paid for.
This is a big issue. If one of the bestselling Christian books is just placing this seed of wrong theology in millions of readers, it will show up in the worldviews of Christians years from now, and jeopardize this doctrine of justification. Allegories are fine and can be powerful. C.S. Lewis had nothing so theologically inaccurate in his story of Narnia. I wish this wasn't here, because the Shack is such a beautiful story, and I feel that this small aspect of the story really was unnecessary to the story as a whole.
Thanks for hearing me out!
Through the cross,
Matt
Matt,
great explanation on your description of your concerns. I love that you articulated the exact things you are concerned about. Have you had any interaction with the publisher/author via their website or email on their response to your point? I will have to look back at the book and read the parts you are talking about related to the Father /cross. Do you have page/reference locations I can look back in the book to see this?
Kim
Hi Kim,
Sorry that I didn't respond earlier. I actually forgot about my response, so wasn't checking for other responses. I don't have time to find the pages that explicitly mention this problem. But it talks about the scars on the Father's hands several times. This is basically the age-old (think 2nd century) heresy of modalism or patripassionism. In answer to your question, I have not spoken to the author about this issue, and I probably should. In order to elucidate what I see is wrong with the Shack, I'm going to quote another blog (http://doxxa.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/book-review-the-shack-is-it-heresy-or-good-literature/):
"I don’t feel solid enough in my understanding of modalism to flat out level this accusation, but the book comes very, very close.
In the Shack, lengths are taken to point out that not just Jesus, but God & the Holy Spirit were actually crucified. On p.95, as well as, in other places, the author puts in the specific detail that all three bear the physical marks of the crucifixion. On the next page, he has God state, “Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly….. “We were there together.” At the cross? I thought you left him, You know, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”… You misunderstood the mystery there, Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.”
The Scriptures and church history have affirmed that, while it is a mystery to us, Jesus was crucified, and it was done in submission to God the Father. There is not evidence or implication that God or the Holy Sprit were crucified along with Jesus. While at first you may argue that this depiction of scars is not a big deal, be aware that the author is a Seminary grad, and should not, simply put that in there unknowingly or by accident. Modalism was denounced as heresy in the very beginning of church history, and to dance with it to tell a story is irresponsible."
Here is another quote, this time from Norman Geisler (http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html):
"The book also contains a classic heresy called Patripassionism (Literally: Father Suffering). Young claims that God the Father suffered along with the Son, saying, “Haven’t you seen the wounds on Papa [God the Father] too?’ I didn’t understand them. ‘How could he…?’ ‘For love. He chose the way of the cross… because of love’” (p. 165). But both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) made it very clear that it was Jesus alone who “suffered” for us on the Cross. And that He did this only through His human nature. To say otherwise is to engage in “confusing the two natures” of Christ which was explicitly condemned in the Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451). Suffering is a form of change, and the Bible makes it very clear that God cannot change. “I the Lord change not” (Mal. 3:6). “There is no shadow of change with Him” (Jas. 1:17). When all else changes, God “remains the same” (Heb. 1:10-12)."
Finally, here is an interview with William P. Young, in which he basically admits believing that the Father was crucified with Jesus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-wBR6eJoPI
Thanks for your thoughts and your time! Again, I reiterate that I enjoyed the Shack, and I would heartily recommend it to others to read (I have!). I would just add this disclaimer, so that false teaching is not spread amongst the church.
Through the cross,
Matt
I've read the Shack and enjoyed it too, on the first reading.
Then I googled the internet on the book, and came to read that there is some questionable theology in it. Because people read these books like they are Bibles for some reason, we have to recognize that if there is false teaching in it, it is good to discuss. However, as a work of fiction, it has its merits. However, I would certainly not make a religion out of it, and I would not give it to a young believer who is still grappling with doctrine.
Even mature believers may be deceived if they embrace the book as gospel truth, which it is not. It's a person's dream after all.
Hello:
The Shack is a disappointment and not worth the read. I understand the appeal but is still not worth the read. A theology properly grounded in the practice of the faith is what is needed. Not a call to practice a faith that is divorced from a proper theology. That is spilt we caused in the church about 350 years ago in North America especially, and we have been reaping the sad consequences ever since.