by Teri Ong
The front cover of William P. Young’s book, The Shack, wows us with the fact that this self-published novel is a “#1 New York Times Bestseller; Over one million in print.” Better known author Eugene Peterson proclaims, “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good.”
For all that hoopla, it is not a book I would have picked up on my own; I specialize in “old books.” I am intimately acquainted with Pilgrim’s Progress, having taught numerous courses at various levels based on that classic work. But a friend asked my studied opinion and loaned me her copy of The Shack to read. She was dubious about its value both from a literary and a theological standpoint, so I decided to have a go at it. I know it is probably not a healthy trait, but I tend to be like the person Phyllis McGinley described in “Reflections at Dawn”;
“Though ladies cleverer than I
Can loll in silence, soft and idle,
Whatever topic gallops by,
I seize its bridle”
By way of introduction, I need to make a few qualifying statements about where I am coming from in my critique.
1. I am not of the school that asserts non-fiction is true and fiction is a lie because it “didn’t really happen.” I believe fiction can be a vehicle for teaching truth and/or truths. I have been challenged to think very deeply about certain objective truths in God’s word by reading realistic fiction, allegorical fiction, fantasy fiction, and even science fiction. I am not put off of any particular book because of the genre the author chose (except that I really detest the Bible and Biblical stories in the form of “graphic novels”).
2. I handle symbolism, allegory, analogy, and metaphor very well. I do not demand that literary representations “walk on all fours”; I can handle comparisons where the author may only have in mind one or two points of similarity with “the real thing.” In fact, I love the challenging “conceits” in the poetry of John Donne.
With all that said, I will offer my humble critique of Young’s novel. There are numerous web-sites devoted to why this is the best book ever written and as many devoted to why it is the worst. I have not read what has been posted on any of these sites, and the opinions I am going to express are entirely based on my own reading of the book, so you may take my brief thoughts with
a grain of salt, whichever side you come down on. If in doubt, read the book for yourself. Though you may not like it, it will not “damage” you, especially if you read it with a spiritually discerning eye.
WHAT YOUNG DID WELL
Young has an engaging writing style. I would call it a 21st century style, along the lines of Alexander McCall Smith. He is very direct and succinct. Sadly, I think this type of style succeeds primarily because we are a society with a short attention span.
He also makes a quick emotional connection with “hurting” people. That is probably one factor in its success, because the reality is, it hurts to be human. It has ever since the first sin in the Garden; we brought it on ourselves. God said life would be that way in Genesis 3.
Young handles certain aspects of theology in a Biblically faithful way. He is basically evangelical in perspective. For example, he handles well the concept that we can’t do anything for ourselves spiritually, apart from the life of Christ in us (p. 149). He has a good grasp of relationship issues and how autonomy breaks relationships between fellow humans and between humans and God (p. 146-7). He communicates how fear is a hindrance to love (p. 142). He pictures conviction of sin in an effective way (ch. 11) and is not afraid to call sin sin throughout. He adequately portrays God as being outside of earthly time, which is sometimes difficult to do. He is also explicitly trinitarian. I also appreciate his attempts to portray a true “abba” God, one who smiles, laughs, and even cooks (as Jesus did on the seashore).
Young shines most when dealing directly with themes of bitterness vs. forgiveness and self-love vs. biblical love.
WHAT YOUNG DIDN’T DO WELL
I did not like the way Young left the line between “true story” and “truth story” very ambiguous. When a casual reader reads the “Foreword,” he will begin reading the book thinking it is “historical fiction”; that is to say, most readers will believe they are reading a true (non-fiction) story about a man named Mack who went through tough times and had an encounter with God in the woods, and, as they used to say on Dragnet, “ only the names were changed to protect the innocent.”
In reality, the whole story is made up by Young, though through the vehicle of the story, he conveys certain truths about God, man, sin, and redemption. I found the fuzzy line between “true story” and “novel” to be a distraction. To go back to Peterson’s comparison with Pilgrim’s Progress, Bunyan was very clear about the allegorical nature of his story, even though he was breaking new ground in the 1680’s to use a novel to teach theology. Bunyan’s readers know from the start that “Christian” represents anyone who comes under conviction of sin through God’s Word.
While I appreciate that Young was trying to help readers understand aspects of relationship within the Godhead, I could not quite get around portraying God the Father as a human being, let alone as a woman. I understood that Young was trying to convey the fact that God meets us where we are spiritually through having Mack meet God as a woman when he would have been unreceptive to God as a father because of his bad relationship with his earthly father. However, God is a spirit, no one has seen the Father, even Moses was only allowed to see God indirectly after He passed by, and we are to make no physical representations of the Father.
One could make a case that God is compared to a female bird that shelters her young under her wings (Psalm 57:1); there the image is even that of an animal rather than a human. But I think Young could have told his story and conveyed his important truths without creating a physical image of the Father. Most theologians agree that whenever God appeared visibly in the Biblical record, such theophanies were the pre-incarnate Christ. I don’t have a problem with Mack meeting Jesus in the woods; after all, Paul visibly met Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:12-19).
I have no problem with the womanly representation of eternal wisdom. Scripture itself uses the same image (Prov. 7:4, 8:1ff). Other Christian writers such as George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis used the image of a tall, stately, timeless woman as the embodiment of godly wisdom. But those authors also steered away from imaging any part of the Godhead except Christ (for example, Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia and Second Adam in Lilith). Their depictions also stayed masculine. In fact, Lewis wrote in his fictional work That Hideous Strength, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to him.” (THS p. 316) By this statement Lewis clearly conveys the relationship of the church as bride to the eternal Bridegroom.
Young’s depiction of the Holy Spirit as ethereal, mystical, and feminine in the character of Sarayu is again suspect, even though I appreciate that Young was trying to convey certain truths about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit biblically is a person,– not “it”, and fully partakes of all the characteristics of God, but the Spirit is (like the Father) “spirit”– non-corporeal. Biblical depictions of the Holy Spirit include: “like” a descending dove, a tongue of fire, a blowing wind. The ethereal qualities of Sarayu come close to being like these Biblical images, but I thought that Young still lost a lot in his translation.
The other main fault that I find in The Shack is the demeaning of church-based Christianity. Young gives the impression that one of the things that has messed up Mack’s spiritual perspective is institutionalized religion (for lack of a better broad brush term). Once Mack is able to cast off the baggage of past encounters with human beings (even Christian ones like his wife), he is finally able to begin being a real Christian. (p. 205-207)
I also believe Young gives some false impressions when he discusses law and grace. Papa (God the Father) says,
“Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. The idea behind expectations requires that someone does not know the future or outcome and is trying to control behavior to get the desired result. Humans try to control behavior largely through expectations. I know you and everything about you. Why would I have an expectation other than what I already know? That would be foolish. And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me.” (p. 206)
It may be that Young was merely trying to affirm his belief that God is entirely sovereign, knows everything about every moment in history, and nothing takes Him by surprise or is out of His ultimate control. That part is all right and good; however, it is NOT biblically true that God has no expectations for us. Isaiah 5:1-2 tell us:
“I all sing about the one I love, a song about my loved one’s vineyard: The one I love had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He broke up the soil, cleared it of stones, and planted it with the finest vines. He built a tower in the middle of it and even hewed out a winepress there. He expected it to yield good grapes, but it yielded worthless grapes.”
God is very clear here about the fact that He does have expectations for His people. And unless we should miss the point in God’s own metaphoric language, He explains His meaning clearly in Isaiah 5:7.
“For the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah, the plant He delighted in. He looked for justice but saw injustice, for righteousness, but heard cries of wretchedness.”
God clearly has expectations for His people, even though He knows that, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, we will choose the way of sinful flesh, as we have ever since our ancestors sinned in Eden. George MacDonald elucidated the same issue by saying that God loves us so much that He will do whatever it takes to get rid of everything unlovely in us, and “our God is a consuming fire.” (In George MacDonald: An Anthology compiled by C S. Lewis) To me, that leaves a flavor more like “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (I Peter 1:16), unlike what I found in The Shack.
Other examples that seem to demean the role of the church in the Christian life include:
For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning. (p. 93)
Mack had to suppress a snicker at the thought of God having devotions. Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories. Often, it was a tedious and boring exercise in coming up with the right answers, or rather, the same old answers to the same old Bible story questions, and then trying to stay awake during his father’s excruciatingly long prayers. And when his father had been drinking, family devotions devolved into a terrifying minefield, where any wrong answer or inadvertent glance could trigger and explosion. He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible. (p. 107)
I also felt Young was weak on having a Biblical understanding of authority. For example, on page 122, he writes,
“Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.”
Biblically, God describes Christ as being willingly submissive to the headship of the Father. (Philippians 2:6-8) Young’s description conveys the sense of willing submission, but it does not capture the sense of “…the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (I Cor. 11:3)
It seems to me from clues about the author found in and on the book that Young was trying to tackle the problem of pain– why bad things happen to “good” people. He succeeds in arriving at a somewhat emotionally satisfying and not altogether unbiblical answer. However, in the process he gives cannon fodder for pop culture Christians who already have trouble with the Biblical doctrines of authority and of the church.
If you choose to read this book, read with a critical mind. It is very easy to get caught up in the pathos of the story and in Young’s easy dialogue and leave unchecked those areas where his portrayals and viewpoints are more in line with contemporary pop psychology than with the Word of God. It will do you no harm if you read it in such a way that it causes you to think deeply about the nature of God and His redemptive love and measure your thoughts against God’s objective truth, as the noble Bereans did. (Acts 17:11)
References (in order of reference):
Young, William P. The Shack. Los Angeles: Windblown Media, 2007.
Amis, Kingsley (ed.). The New Oxford Book of English Light Verse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Lewis, C. S. That Hideous Strength. New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1996.
