The Shack. Have you read it? It’s all the rage up here in the Northwest. I actually attended a book review with the author, William P. Young, a few months ago (before I’d even read the book!) because Jeff was invited to intend, so I joined him. In the process I got a free signed copy. I was definitely drawn to the author, who spoke humbly and authentically about how God had led the writing of the book (as a gift to his children with no intent of publishing it!). As a full-time seminary student, I’d convinced myself that I should only read my seminary books right now … but I finally decided that was silly and tore through a fabulous novel called Love Walked In by Marisa de los Santos. For me, reading a good book is like eating a doughy chocolate chip cookie–it’s delicious and makes you want more! So, with my reading-appetite as voracious as ever, I decided on Sunday that I was taking a Sabbath and instead of working on homework, I’d settle down with The Shack and see what all the commotion was about. Well, I read the whole thing that day. Yeah, that’s how I am–it’s a sickness. I couldn’t stop.
So, all that to say–have you read it? I’d love to hear your thoughts. I would say that it’s certainly not gospel-truth … and it’s not meant to be. It’s an interesting Theodicy and a creative method of understanding the Father Son and Holy Spirit in a startling and paradigm-shifting manner. The book made me uncomfortable, and I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to sleep last night, mostly because of its bold ability to stare evil, pain, and death in the face. It surfaces your greatest fears and lets them hang out like raw, bleeding wounds.
As far as its ability to stand as a Theodicy, or a way of justifying God in the presence of evil, it seems that (and I’m using my husband’s words here) there are three legs to the stool–God’s omnipotence, His omniscience, and His Goodness (or Love). A solid theodicy must uphold all three. The book majors on the Goodness or Love of God, but doesn’t address much about his omniscience or omnipotence, which could make it fall prey to Open Theism. But, the book accomplishes what it’s meant to–demonstrating the love of God, the incredible mystery of the trinity, and the absurdity of our demanding our rights and judging others and ultimately God.
With all that said, I do have some reservations about the underlying themes in the book. I would encourage you to read the reviews (click on The Shack above). Not all of what The Shack teaches lines up with orthodox Christianity, and with Scripture, but that can be argued. But I think what saddens me the most is this–the Shack represents an entire movement that seems to greatly degrade and discount the value of the local church and of seminary training. Now, please hear me: I think the book is phenomenal. I was moved. Deeply moved. I find myself already praying to my Father in a different and more intimate manner than before. I am not judging the book, but seeking to discern truth. I think Mr. Young is a sincere, incredibibly gifted man of God who genuinely wants to see people love God like never before. And I know that the local Church, as we know her, is pretty messed up. And I know that seminary education, as many know it, can be so cerebral and void of intimacy with the Father. But let’s not give up on them! I for one have had a life-changing seminary experience. Just because I’m learning theology doesn’t mean I’m drifting from my Savior! The opposite! THe more I learn of Him the more I love Him! And His Church, His bride, yes our attempts at organizing local congregations to be His hands and feet is greatly lacking, but let us continue to try! Let us continue to gather together and reach the nations and our neighbors with His love.
All in all–it’s worth a read. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to a young believer, or one who is trying to newly construct a theology about God (although, aren’t we all?). But it’s a fabulous book for addressing evil and for enabling us to take an honest look at how we view God. And William P. Young is a genius, even though he swears he’s not.
So, let me know what you thought of the book–I’d love to hear from you who have read it. And you who haven’t: Read it, and let me know.
6 thoughts on “The Shack”
Comments are closed.
I actually just finished reading this book on sunday. I agree with your thoughts on the book. And theodicy is simply not easy. I am glad I am not God’s lawyer in is this matter, humanity generally seems to fail (and this is book is no exception) to adequately explain this seemingly intractable paradox. However, I think that one of the most compelling revelations about theodicy is simply that God didn’t stand aloof, but rather joined us in suffering. How God can justify Himself may be a mystery, but God has chosen to participate with us, and we can be confident that he can be trusted. I think the book does do a decent job of illustrating this.
Also, I was curious if you had any thoughts about the hints of an egalitarian theme in the book as well.
Kris! Wow–you read a book! š No really, thanks for commenting. I agree with you. Egalitarian themes? You caught me! Yes, I saw that and I’m in the middle of writing my position paper on Women in Ministry, trying to understand Complementarian and Egalitarian view of gender roles in ministry and marriage. It seems to me that Young would abolish all institutions and doesn’t see marriage as one, and would use the equality of the trinity to support egalitarianism. I agree that the members of the trinity are equal, of course, and agree that men and women are equal, of course, but I have decided that I am an Egalitarian Complementarian, simply meaning that I see male headship in Scripture, but I can’t be absolutely certain it was there before the fall. Either way, the absence of women in the two primary leadership roles (priesthood and eldership) in Scripture can’t be ignored. WIth regard to gift–no gender distinction. With regard to office and roles within marriage–gender distinction. I thought Young’s discussion of Genesis was good–it is one of the many interpretations possible of the Desire-Rule curse. I’m actually going to post my paper on Gender Roles … which I’m sure will open up LOTS of discussion! I’d love to talk more about it because I’m really trying to honestly land as best as I know how. Lets talk more b/c I want to know your thoughts. Thanks!
It is fun, as Kris and Kari’s mom, to read their conversation….too cerebral to understand fully, but containing several things I noticed:
unpredictable, not formulaic, gutsy in facing issues of death, pain, and evil, heavy on God’s mercy, less so His power. The scene in which the little girl is seen by her dadddy playing in what is apparently heaven offers some relief from the tmotional intensity. As purely a good read, it is worth time to read it. And I know of several “seekers” who have been tremendously inpacted.
Hey!
Pammy just suggested this book to me!
I can’t wait for it to come in the mail!
We will have to talk about it once I have finished!
I love you.
Mom (Oma) – I agree, Young is gutsy in facing hard issues, which is a good representation of a God who, I believe, is also “gutsy” in facing hard issues, who doesn’t just hand-wave these issues with divine intentions, but to joins us in suffering.
Kari – I am unconvinced of a pure Egalitarian view (and of pure symmetry in the Trinity), so I am interested in your middle-ground stance on the egalitarian-complementarian issue, and looking forward to your paper.
Jeff sent me a link to your thoughtful blog concerning āThe Shackā. Ė I also read the book to see what the commotion was about. I am usually pretty wary about trendy books and movements, but I also donāt want to have a totally closed mind and heart. After hearing about it through almost all my christian friends, I was blessed working through Blackabyās āExperiencing Godā. Donāt tell anyone, but I even read a few of the Harry Potter books. I am hoping I donāt get five to ten in purgatory over that one.
I agree with your take on the book. It isnāt meant to be taken as a work of theology. It is a work of fiction. Perettiās works of fiction concerning angelic and demonic activity were taken much in the same manner. Some of the faithful were receiving it as doctrinal truth while others were making signs of the cross, trembling in their shoes and having leadership pow wows to deal with the phenomenon. I did read āThis Present Darknessā and although it was poor writing and the spiritual world is not likely to be exactly as the author described it, I came away with an appreciation for a world that is beyond our current senses and knowledge. Other authors have been also misjudged such as Lewis and Tolkien. Well meaning people have drawn analogies and inferences that were never intended by the author (the lion is God isnāt he?) To loosely quote Lewis in Silicon Valley speak ā Hello, itās a childrenās book! Youngās writing has help deepen my respect and love for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and given me a fresh heart for any who suffer deep loss and pain and for that I am thankful.
I did not pick up on the anti-church or anti-seminary theme in the book. I thought is was very pro church and advocated learning more about God. It was just non-conventional. As you know, I am big believer in advanced education and I have attended seminary myself. I am so glad that you and Jeff have this opportunity to learn and explore and hopefully at the end of this formal learning experience you will be more convinced about how little you know of an infinite God, and will walk deeper in humility, grace, mercy, love and service.
It is a daunting endeavor to speak for God or to try to explain His ways or His word. We do not possess original texts or have access to biblical languages in their pure forms. Every human, book, doctrine, conversation, and sermon is flawed not just āThe Shackā and William P. Young, but it should not stop us from striving to understand God and our place in His perfect plan to the best of our ability. The most accurate theology I have received has been from Linneaās brother, Kenny. He was born with Downās Syndrome and he has taught me so much about the heart and kingdom of God. Some would say he is flawed and therefore doesnāt have much to offer those of us who see ourselves in a different light. I believe we are all imperfect and have a ādim mirrorā view of God, but He can use use anyway.
The bottom line for me is discernment. We are to be in the world not of the world. It is good parenting and good pastoring to help people mature and to become discerning. I think we would make so much better progress by teaching and modeling what is is like to live in a flawed world with flawed people (me as the chief of sinners) rather that to keep our children (both natural and spiritual) out of the world.
āI have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.ā
Jesus
blessings