The Shack
Posted on June 24th, 2008 by catalyst into the Uncategorized, Christian Pop Culture categoryPlease read this book.
If for no other reason, then it appears to be truly upsetting a lot of pastors across the U.S.
Update:
Great article in yesterday's New York Times about The Shack and it's author. My favorite part:
Sales have been fueled partly by a whiff of controversy. Some conservative Christian leaders and bloggers have attacked “The Shack” as heresy. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, devoted most of a radio show to the book, calling it “deeply troubling” and asserting that it undermined orthodox Christianity. Others have said the book’s approach to theology is too breezy to be taken seriously.
Here's a good general rule of thumb: If someone in authority tells you NOT to read a book, go ahead, pick it up and read it for yourself. You'll be a better person for it.
RSS feed for posts
June 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
That’s very interesting. I read all the 1 star reviews on Amazon to see what exactly people were so upset about. They all claim that the author is incorrect in his theology but I saw very little proof of that, just a lot of chest thumping. The biggest offenses seem to be a) portraying the Godhead as human or human-like and b) the old debate between God’s sovereignty vs. free will and c) the idea that the idea of eternal punishment (Hell) and who goes there may not be so cut and dry as many Christians believe.
I think (a) is extremely hypocritical considering Christians love to insist that books by C.S. Lewis are Christian allegories that portray a physical God as a lion.
(b) is an old old old argument and those who are on the predestination side of the coin are going to hate this.
( c) is controversial, but in my recent thinking I have become more open to a perspective of Grace.
This book will definitely be on my “to read” list.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
go to my blog and look for my three star review of The Shack under labels in the book reviews category. I think I gave it a fair review.
I have spent a lot of time interviewing the author and the publishers and others who have been a part of this runaway best seller. The Oregonian is publishing a short article I wrote about the book, hopefully next Tuesday if the photo shoot goes well on Fri. Keep an eye out for it.
My most fun and best claim to fame with The Shack is not schmoozing with the author and having his cell number at my disposal, but rather in getting “asked to leave” Pilgrim’s for speaking up in favor of The Shack. The owner, a man who has long had a reputation for being ultra-conservative, took offense when I spoke up after he told a customer, “The Shack is a defamation of God’s character.” I couldn’t hold back, ya know me….so I nicely (I swear I was nice about it!) said, “You can find the book at Barnes and Nobel and there are others who have a different opinion.” And for that simple remark the owner raised his voice and puffed out his chest in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate with his authority and told me, “If you’re going to talk that way then you’re going to have to leave. I’m the owner and I have a right to tell you that, so go outside if you are going to talk like that.”
WTF?
He then walked away and I just stood there with about $50 of books in my basket. Should I abandon the basket and quietly leave?
Well, sort of…
I approached one of the store clerks and kindly said, “I have to follow my convictions, too, and I can’t give my money to a business that doesn’t allow others to voice a different opinion.” The clerk, a mild mannered 20-something year old who has worked there for a quite a while, merely glanced at me and my basket and said, “Ok.” I have a feeling that I am not the first customer to have this kind of exchange in Pilgrims.
Which, by the way, after 28 years of serving Portland is closing their doors this week. Leftover inventory is up to 90% discount.
Shoot. I just can’t give them my business.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Unconditional Love certainly puts the Conservative Evangelicals on edge. It must be scary for them to consider sharing heaven with sinners, since most of their life on earth is centered on separating from them.
The Shack has obvious theological streams in the dialogue, and since I am Universalist, found it quite refreshing.
My husband came across the book online the same week his Mother died. She had suffered from a mental disorder, which has caused him grief his entire life. It was comforting to him to imagine this “evil” mother now in heaven surrounded by God’s love.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Pilgrims - wow, we have shopped there since it was on 82nd with the smelly fragrance trying to cover the basement mildew. Thanks for the 90% heads up.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
So, ok, I read The Shack. I would say I’m pretty conservative theologically and it didn’t rock my boat. Because… IT’S FICTION!
I wish these upset pastors would just calm down. How is thinking about God as a Person such a bad thing?
June 25th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Thanks for the info, Pam. I’ll keep an eye out for your article.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:07 am
anna,
Great insight!
The book is a great read, an exceptional work.
The book is NOT for everyone. If you are one who is highly skilled the in the art of religious stereotyping prepare to have your world rocked! IF you do by chance venture outside your “i have God in a box” philosophy please scratch your pastor’s phone number inside the front cover for quick access, you might need him to keep you from shipwrecking your faith … over a work of FICTION!
Others who should give serious consideration to NOT reading it:
1. Those who need their pastor/king to do all their thinking for them.
2. Those who truly believe that the essence Jesus’ Church IS a 501-c3 non-profit religious organization with a hierarchal business flow-chart authority structure.
Eugene Peterson is right when he says “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”
You have been warned religious stereotypers ….
Later
ICE
June 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I disagree. I didn’t like the book much at all. It does a good job of painting God in a new light which was nice and it had some good things about forgiveness, but really…its not that well written.
I feel the reason people love this book is because it revolves around the abduction of a little girl. I have a daughter and found the book an emotional read but much of the book had me rolling my eyes. When God calls Jesus “butterfingers” for dropping the salad (or whatever it was) I wanted to put the book down and quit reading it. Also, Jesus is painted as a big nosed ugly Jew… I’m not sure how that made it through editing.
As far as the theological issues…I didn’t have much of a problem with it. As Anna said…It’s fiction.
Just my opinion.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t have any problems with the theological side of it, but I thought that the book was decent at best. Parts of it felt like a children’s book or like a lame attempt at being cute. Not to discredit his real spiritual experience, which I can respect, but it just didn’t do it for me.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Pam’s bookstore experience brought back an old memory. I was looking around in Pilgrims for some Gene Edwards books on housechurch meetings, and when I asked if they had any the guy looked at me and rolled his eyes. His comment, if I remember, was, “why would you want to read anything by THAT NUT!” I thought it was funny at the time, and I did find a book I wanted. (The Early Church, by Gene Edwards) I shrugged it off and went on my way.
The real problem likely was a gender issue. As we all know, women should stay silent in the church…..(JOKE!!!):)
June 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If you need a bookstore that sells all those “other” books that Pilgrim wouldn’t touch, go to Agape on 17th & Hawthorne. Larry (the owner) is such a nice guy that you just want to support his business.
The other half of his store is for pet food, and he’s got some great healthy brands not available many other places.
And no, he didn’t pay me to advertise.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
and windows is a great store, too, located on multnomah’s campus and open year round. the staff are friendly and knowledgable, they carry a variety of books including tons of theology, obviously, but upstairs is da bomb…$1 and $2 deals!
June 26th, 2008 at 5:55 am
My Sunday school class read the book like a book club with the encouragement of our United Methodist pastor. It was not the best written book; some of the stuff in the later chapters didn’t work for me. Overall, though, it got us thinking about the theology, thinking about who God is, and what he/she can do, and what our relationship is to him. People who remained silent through other material suddenly started talking about the book. Anything that gets people talking about their relationship with God can’t be that bad. As someone else said, if you’ve put God in a box, then prepare to have the box shredded!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I read the book at the request of my mother who is an 80 year old free-spirited borderline liberterian (which I think is a GOOD thing). However, she also likes to watch Christian TV so I thought, uh-oh, here we go. But because of her liberal leanings, I thought to at least give the book a try. Worse case scenario, I’d have to quit reading it if it slimed me with too much religious garblygook.
In some respects I liked it because it definitely offers food for thought on God not being confined to gender and the HS illusive character made me laugh in a few places. I loved the idea of God manifesting as a mother because the main character wouldn’t have been able to receive the Fatherhood of God due to unresolved issues with his earthly dad — and then later appearing as a father after the issues were put to rest. It reminds us that the Lord can be for us whoever we currently need.
But I have to agree with RP, some of the verbal exchanges between the 3-in-1 were a bit cheezy and I’d have to put the book down awhile.
And I love Cat’s rule of thumb and couldn’t agree more. And couldn’t the opposite also be true: If someone in authority tells you TO read a book, you may want to think twice before you do.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Just wondering if the Steve who mentioned the Methodist church is Seetharam? I worked with him at BT Publishing.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
(Hi! just couldn’t resist posting this…)
A friend of mine who has posted on this blog a few times sent me this comment about the author of the book:
“He [Paul Young] seems to have taken the place of Ekart Tolle (Oprah Winfrey’s guru) on the bestseller list. I haven’t read the book , but have seen a synopsis of his “story”, which looks like Paul has made his own god to suit his own preferences.
A NY Times article I read this morning quotes Bill Ritche as saying their church has bought cases of books to distribute. It is hard to see how any person could miss the fact that the god of The Shack is not the God of the scripture. What do you think ?”
Here was my response:
My wife and I read The Shack about 6 months ago. In his interview on the 700 Club, Paul Young, its author, said that he tried to present a softer side of God in his book.
I’m aware that The Shack has raised quite a stir. It’s portrayal of God the Father as a Southern-talking female, the Son as a very human carpenter who loves nature and the Holy Spirit as a person showing characteristics of wind and light, did not really offend me because I know the book is simply fiction and Young was trying to make God more loving, more kind and more relatable to the average person.
I picked up from the book jacket as well as the interview, that Young had a very rough and maybe even a somewhat cruelly legalistic experience on the mission field with his parents. It’s only logical to me that he would need to work through some possible abuse by writing something of God that is softer and kinder. I see it as a publication of some of his very personal journal or diary.
His statements against rules and principles might at first cause one to accuse him of outright antinomianism. But, they didn’t bother me because I realized that he was trying to encourage people in their intimate relationship with God in the sense that he “will write his laws upon their hearts.” I took him in the same light as the apostle Paul who said that if we always walk in love then we would never really find a law against us.
Even though there was far too much detail in the beginning of the book for my taste, he did indeed succeed in packaging his theology in a relational and very emotional context of the main character’s tragedy of losing his daughter to a child molester/murderer.
He takes a whack at hierarchy and calls it a substitute for genuine relationship. Because of this, I could see why some churchmen don’t like the book (among other reasons, too, of course). But I agree with Young on this point and my personal experience with the IC confirms it.
I think that the good of the book can easily outweigh the bad as long as the book can be discussed at a round table:
He promotes forgiveness in the book: Mac not only gradually learns to forgive the man who molested and murdered his daughter, he also learns to forgive his own distant father. I can’t help but see Young’s own journey with his own dad in the latter instance.
He shows how God goes after the sinner, Mac, and gradually draws him to himself in deeper and deeper faith and understanding. If my memory serves me correctly, and I hesitate on this because it was not the main highlighting of the book in a preaching or theological way, but Mac does come to the end of himself and surrenders to Jesus in faith and repentance and I think that it is in the context of Christ’s blood atonement since he is talking a lot to Jesus the carpenter about his life and work.
I have to admit that I was fascinated by how he characterized the Holy Spirit as wind and fire in constant motion because his descriptions hit the nail on the head for me as I have experienced the dynamic nature of the Spirit in my own experience.
I would recommend the book to those who need to see a softer, more human, and more caring side of God. To those people, I think one could use the book to open up a genuine dialogue about the gospel and/or the nature of God and bring in the finer points of theology as the dialogue progressed.
I think that its popularity cannot be said to be a mere demonstration of the biblical ignorance of Christians; I think that it shows that some way and some how it ministers to the heart of believers. Since the book was not written as a theological treatise, I think that we should take it as it is: the story of the author’s own journey from the harshness and non-relationality of a Christianity of legalism into the loving embrace of grace.
To this my friend replied:
“What God? The God of his imagination? Or the true God revealed in scripture and in Jesus Christ?
It sounds like as if you are saying- as long as the book helps people it is fine. You can readily assume that would not be something I could applaud or encourage. What if the God he helps people search after and the “grace” he has found is a lie - a god and religion of his own making - much more “attractive” and “nice” than the God revealed in Jesus Christ and the Gospel.
It is very easy to reject legalism and land straight into subjective religion- what meets my needs - makes me feel comfortable and meets my need for a god who is a lot like me or at least likes me. It is man-centered.
Notice the “answer” God gave to Job - I’m God - I know what I am doing - Your explanations of who I am and how I work are just a darkening of understanding - you need to submit to my sovereignty.
Doesn’t look like God appeared to Job and “explained Himself”. Jesus Christ in the Gospels doesn’t do that either. From the rest of your e-mail it would look like you and I would disagree about what are the foundational aspects of the Gospel.”
June 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
David, I am totally on the same page as you when it comes to assessing The Shack. It’s unfortunate that the heart of the story is being overshadowed by the offense many have with the theology. Whatever. It’s just a book, people, a book….
I’ve interviewed Paul extensively and have been following the latest developments of this runaway best seller for the past eight weeks. It’s only getting started. I predict that The Shack will outsell A New EArth and that Young will make an appearance on Oprah within the next 12 months. Just a prediction based on the fact that this humble novel out of east county has not even reached the crest of the wave that it’s riding. It’s a mega wave and it’s yet to peak. I am enjoying watching the ride, and I hope to catch some of that whitewater slop in my writing career as I continue to cover the story!
Oh, btw, mark your calendars, Young will be speaking at my church in Sept on the 7th..come and if you do, look for me. I’m the 40′ish woman with really cool tattoos. Lots of women at my church have really cool tattoos. But I’m one of the only 40′ish women who has inked arms!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
oh, yeah, i go to The Bridge in Portland.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
David, Doesn’t EVERYONE needs to see a softer more human and more caring side of God?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:52 am
I am hoping to get an answer on this one. I know I have been “voted off the island” because of my admitted affliation with an MFI church. But isn’t this view of tolerance and making God into what we want him to be (male/female, human, soft….) isn’t that what the Bible teaches about the anti-christ? Even Oprah stated that Jesus is not the only way, that there are many ways to Heaven. The God of the old testament is still relevant to our society today. I was once a worldly child, drug addicted and a person of low standards. When I came to know God, I did not want God to be the same as the characters I was running with, I needed a Holy God. I also had no human father figure in my life, but I did not need to turn God into a female figure. I did relate more to Jesus my savior, because Jesus did save me from utter darkness, but as I grew and prayed to know my Heavenly Father, I began to understand and relate to my Heavenly Father. I changed, I did not change God.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Tricia asked about Steve: This is Steve Again. There are many people named Steve, and many of us share my rather common last name. I live in Missouri, so I’m pretty sure I’m not the Steve you think I am. Thanks for asking, though.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:33 am
As a class, we liked the idea that God could appear as a women. By appearing in a form outside of of Mac’s preconceived picture of God, God could help break down Mac’s preconceived idea of the nature of God. If God had appeared as an old white guy from a DiVinci painting, it would have reinforced Mac’s assumptions about the nature of God and made him less receptive to God. You can look at it as just a literary device — OR as a way of showing us that we can also through off the baggage of our our ideas about God. Once these are out of the way, we can, as David reminded us, to submit.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:06 am
2 things. One, which is a pet peeve of mine, slinging around the term “anti-Christ”. It’s used briefly very few times in 1 John and 2 John which define the term to mean anyone who denies God and Jesus Christ or that Jesus wasn’t a human person. It doesn’t say that people who describe God as someone other than a very old white man are antiChrists. Let’s not be silly. Two, God describes himself in many ways in the Old Testament, and appeared to different people as different things. To Moses, he was a burning bush, to the Israelites he was a pillar of fire or a pillar of smoke, to Elijah he was a still small voice, to Joshua and Gideon he was a mighty warrior, and some believe that he appeared as human Melchizedek to Abraham. Whatever you believe, to put God in a box and say that He can’t appear to someone as he sees fit for his purpose is to create dogma where there should be none. God described himself to Moses as “I AM”. He simply exists and “in Him we live and move and have our being”. Are you going to tell God that He can’t look like a woman if He wishes to?
I picked up the book last night and hope to get on it this weekend.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Does God put Himself in a “box” of some sorts? We all know that man puts Him in one kind or another. But How does God define or not define Himself?
If I know more about my wife, now than say 8 years ago, does that inhibit my relationship to her or can’t it work towards deeper intimacy? If she wrote a book about herself describing to me how she is like, what she enjoys, what she dislikes, how she relates to other people, couldn’t I be in relationship with her and that relationship be enhanced by what I know is true about her from the book and from living with her?
By the way in the Shack Jesus is not the only way to God but He is “the best way.”
June 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I have not read the book and I do believe God can appear in any form FICM - I love what you wrote and I am not trying to put God in a box. God is everything to me. I still see Him as my Heavenly Father, which tends to make me feel he is masculine. But He did make Adam and Eve in his image, both male and female. I guess I would have to do more thinking on that one.
I also do not think Jesus looks like the Davinci paintings we have gotten used to seeing. I am from a multi racial family, I think Jesus probably looked more like my family and less like Davinci paintings.
I get this book is fiction, and I can tell the difference between fiction and nonfiction; however, this whole idea of a “one world religion” that everyone is so excited about does scare me. Does it not point to the end times or the denying of Christ as the only way?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
By definition the anti-christ means:
1: one who denies or opposes Christ; specifically : a great antagonist expected to fill the world with wickedness but to be conquered forever by Christ at his second coming
2: a false Christ
And their are many references to the anti christ in the Bible. To name just a few:
2 Thess. 2:11
2 Cor 4: 3-4
Rev. 13
2 Thess 2:8
Rev. 16
Dan 9:27
Dan. 11:37
Dan 11:38
Dan 8:23
Dan 11:36
Rev 17: 11-12
Dan 11:43
Rev: 6:2
2 Thess 2:4
Just wanted to give another view point. I know that free thinking is valued here.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 am
Dannielle, I do appreciate your viewpoint. If we assume the definition given in the epistles, then your version stretches the definition a tad. I don’t know where you came up with that, but I suppose most people would agree with it. My problem with that definition is that it becomes an open-ended tool for labeling lots of people, things, and ideas as “antiChrist”. Taken to the extreme, anyone who is not yet a believer is an “antiChrist”. Labels are powerful weapons used to vilify your opponents. Anyone who denies God and Jesus has clearly labeled themselves, we Christians don’t need to go around making sure everyone knows how much we hate them for it. I say “hate” because that is the perception that comes across when you label someone that way. You might say, “Oh, I don’t hate anyone.” But by labeling things in this way, you only justify their position that Christians are a bunch of hateful people who like to judge others who don’t agree with them.
Also, by giving such a broad definition, what is often confused through implication is that there is one “antiChrist” who is the Devil. The two become synonymous which leads to even stronger labels with which to condemn those who have yet to believe. Many of the Scriptures you quoted could be applied to many different persons, yet the implication is that they are all one person. I don’t agree with this, especially in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelations, which clearly distinguish different persons and beings yet you lump them all into one character. Many believe that most of Daniel’s prophecies have already occurred historically, and it’s clear that when he mentions various rulers through metaphor he is talking about different leaders in history. To say they are all the AntiChrist is a bit misleading. There are many “antiChrists” but only one “AntiChrist”.
So, back to the original topic, when someone asked if the ideas in the book could be interpreted as the spirit of the “antiChrist”, my reaction is founded on what I’ve discussed above. By slapping on this label, we are practically calling the author “the Devil” and condemning him to Hell because our perspective of God doesn’t allow some wiggle room for anything other than an old Caucasian man.