The good, the shack, and the ugly

I read The Shack.

I'm not sure you should.  But I did.  This book is catching fire and selling lots of copies. 

Here's what I found admirable about the book:

• It expresses God as emotionally engaged and individually concerned.
• It pictures God redeeming pain for His glory and peoples' good.
• It faces harsh, harsh realities rather than running from them with platitudes.
• It pictures the possibility of real healing.
• The chapter where the main character wrestles with judgment is deeply insightful about human nature.

Here's what I found impossible to accept or overlook about the book:

• It distorts rather than clarifies God's Trinitarian nature as revealed in Scripture.
• It presents God as needing to masquerade, ala Satan, in order to reach and heal people.
• It is highly speculative in an area where speculation is most dangerous--i.e. the nature and communion of God within Himself.
• It presents the idea that interaction with the dead for the sake of reconciliation is normative and helpful.  In fact, key to the healing of the main character are his two interactions with his dead loved ones.  Scary.
• It tries to get some things right while at the same time getting some things hopelessly wrong--the most dangerous kind of lie is the one that has a good bit of truth in it.
• It compromises the clear identity of the first person of the Trinity, the Father, as Father for much of the book. 
• It represents the Father and the Spirit as human women rather than as Spirit.  It makes a graven image of God.  And make no mistake--people are worshiping this image.  Spoken to one of our pastors this past Sunday:  "The god of The Shack, that's my god."  Yikes.
• It casts submission and hierarchy into a category of sin and invention when Scripture reveals these concepts to be part of the very nature and inner communion of God.
• It is highly dismissive of the church, suggesting that a few people hanging out and skipping rocks with Jesus is really what He intended with the Church.
• The prose is pretty preachy and not terribly well written in my opinion.

Note to "Christian authors:  feel free to play around with non-essential areas of theology like the rapture or imagined dialog between Paul and his companions while planting churches in the first century. 

But please.  Please.  Leave the Trinitarian nature of God alone.  People have a hard enough time with the nature of God without you making it harder.

Comments

[Jelani Greenidge]

Kevin, I think your analysis is spot-on, and I'm glad you've taken the time to check it out. I posted recently about cultural flashpoints like The Shack, and how it's important to understand what it gets right as much as what it gets wrong.

http://gnatural.blogspot.com/2008/06/love-it-hate-it-above-all-learn-and.html

[Mo]

Thanks for the warning. I've heard vaguely of it but didn't know much detail.

I usually try to keep up with the latest 'hot thing' going around. But I haven't heard anyone talking about this yet. Hopefully it'll fade quickly.

I kept up with 'The Da Vinci Code' and 'The Celestine Prophecy' and other things. Same old lies, shiney new packaging. There's nothing new under the sun.

[Holly Greenidge]

Thank you for the balanced perspective.

I think that this book is most appropriate for people who have solid theology (and are not easily confused or led astray), but who really struggle with the idea of suffering (or who feel distant from God because of their suffering).

I think this is a book that is truly for the heart.

I treasure the fierce protection of a pastor that keeps the wolves out. :)

That being said, there is a desperate need for this KIND of book within the church.

Creative people under solid teaching, RISE UP! Stir up the hearts of those who no longer trust God's heart. Stir up the imaginations of those who see God as someone who is distant. Revive the passion and imaginations of those who have lost hope!