I was told I MUST read this novel. I’ve been told its amazing, folks come in the store buying multiple copies for friends, they couldn’t put it down, etc.,. Alright, I read it. First the good news. I have to give William P. Young credit for pulling his book out of the huge mire that is the self-published world (a major feat for sure) and he certainly has a hit on his hands. Good for him. Unfortunately, for me, that’s the end of the good news. As for the bad news, I’m really going to try and not be mean spirited as the book seems to have been written with good intentions. First off I would say this, the book is a the kind of novel I would call a non-story novel, if that makes any sense. Brian McLaren’s novels are like this. They are not a story as much as a platform to dispense truth. And The Shack sure believes it has a lot of truth to dispense. It’s the story of a man whose daughter is kidnapped and murdered in a shack in a remote forest. Three years later he receives a letter from “Papa” asking him to come to the shack. He goes. He meets Papa. Papa is a black woman who he discovers is God The Father. (Did this guy see the Matrix?) He soon meets an Asian women (God The Spirit) and a middle eastern man (God The Son, Jesus). From that point on the story stops as these four characters have long theological discourses on the meaning of suffering, judgment, free will, forgiveness, God’s sovereignty, faith, etc.,. Of course every book should be well written, but for this idea to work, I believe the writing would need to be completely brilliant, like maybe Shakespeare might have come close. Unfortunately, The Shack starts out with purple high school prose and kind of goes downhill from there. There are passages in this in which the writing is simply awful. The dialog of these characters simply do not sound anything like the way people actually talk. And it NEVER sounds like the Jesus of the New Testament. Read the New Testament and you’ll see what I mean. Jesus always said the most amazing, unexpected things, usually very succinctly. Everything he said was endlessly profound and stunningly original. That’s a good word for him, stunning. He stunned people. These characters are pretty much the opposite of that, kind of long winded and at times just plain nonsensical. His attempts to show the God characters as joyful (for me) comes off as glib and kind of silly. You can see how some of the things these God characters say could have been lifted from scripture, but other times Young seems to be making things up from whole cloth. He never says anything that I would call heretical, but there is some theology in here that is certainly borderline. Occasionally there are passages that work (particularly regarding forgiveness) and the ending for me really helped. But these were few and far between and too little too late. Still, people seem moved by it and I guess if they won’t read anything else, its better than nothing IF it leads to reading something better on the subject and IMO there are scores of better books on these subjects. I would suggest John Piper’s “The Pleasures Of God” for one. I think I’m going to go and re-read it right now!
Bunch of Nonsense
Music, Books and Life in the Spiritbook review of The Shack
22 Comments »
Joel wrote @
Interesting comments. I can see your point…to a point, but honestly, I feel that you missed the point of the book. It’s a story about certain aspects of God’s character that specifically met the needs of the main character. Maybe I need to go back and re-read it, but frankly I saw it as just that, a story that highlighted certain aspects of God’s character…love, fellowship (the Trinity), joy, peace.
I can just imagine after Jesus told the story of the “Good Samaritan” that some of those standing around commented, “Did this story really happen?”, “What was the Samaritan’s name?”, “Why was he traveling alone on the back roads anyway?…who does that?”. With a big sigh, Jesus replies, “Peter, you missed the point of the story, buddy!”
So, to the point, let’s not miss the point here. It’s a story, a work of fiction that is imperfect. It’s not the Bible. The Bible IS the ONLY perfect book ever written in the history of the world. But, there are many good books out there that help paint (however imperfectly) a picture of the beauty of our Lord and Savior. Our responsibility is to take what is good and discard what does not apply. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.
Again, I see what you are saying, and some of it makes sense, but by and large, I think you missed the point along the way.
In His grace,
Joel
randyharris wrote @
Joel,
Thanks for the feedback. I really enjoy the discussion and your thoughts. You may be right in some ways. I’m finding myself to be in the minority on this one. A few things might have contributed to my negative view on the book. First, I’m a book buyer/manager for the book store at our church and I was definitely reading The Shack from a book store manager point of view. This is probably not a good thing. I’m sure my antennas were out a lot more than if I had been just reading it for fun, especially when the God characters were speaking. Also, people had been bombarding me with requests for me to read it for months, telling me how wonderful, how amazing it is, that it contains “really great writing,” etc. This is something people should probably never say to me. While I REALLY REALLY REALLY try and not be some kind of writing snob, but when I think of great writing, I think of masters like Frederick Buechner, CS Lewis, Norman MacLean, Mike Mason, Charles Portis, guys like that. And this kind of pressure for this little (first?) self-published novel by Mr. Young certainly didn’t help either. That one was probably my fault. I wouldn’t want someone to do that if they were reading something I wrote. It’s not realy fair and wasn’t really called for. Overall I’d say you might be right in some respects, (I’m sorry but I don’t really understand your Good Samaritan reference in regard to my review). I would say that when Mr. Young decided to take on the task of speaking for God, you can probably expect this kind of reaction. Its probably why most writers would never attempt such an outrageous idea. For me, I could not get past how so un-God like (and sometimes un-Biblical) some of their words seemed to me. I wished most readers were discerning and clear minded as you, unfortunately I’m not sure that is always the case. Its’ the reader’s out there without such wise discernment that makes me feel uneasy about this book. Thanks again for your thoughtful and gracious comments. I hope my review was as gracious as your comments. Love the discussion.
Randy
Joel C. wrote @
Randy,
Thank you for your gracious response. I do appreciate your thoughts. Your comment “It’s the readers out there without such wise discernment that makes me feel uneasy about this book.” made me start looking at other blogs concerning this book, especially the blog at http://www.theshackbook.com . You’re right. Some folks are actually HIGHLIGHTING the words where Jesus, God, and Sayru (Holy Spirit) are speaking! Oh no. That was your fear exactly, wasn’t it? Some are discussing/speculating at to the origin of the name ’sayru’…to which I sigh, “Give me a break.” If this book pulls a person away from the Holy Bible instead of drawing them deeping into it, and to the Holy God who inspired it, then they have truly missed the point and are just chasing the lastest fad.
Joel
The Flat Rocker wrote @
Gee Randy, I guess you’ll be bashing the Celestine Prophecy next.
I mean if we can’t speak for God, then whose voice could possibly enthrall us with our own wisdom?
As I recall – our eyes will be opened and we will know what is good and what is evil. Surely we will not die.
Oh well, How about that new Horton Hears a Who movie?
Tim Nellis wrote @
This fascinates me… I have not read the fore-mentioned book, and I don’t really care to. That may discredit my comment in some peoples eyes, and if so, so be it.
I do know, as a pastor of adults and students alike, that books such as this, unfortunately, shape peoples opinions of God way more than they think. They take characteristics that are spoken of in biblical passages, such as God’s love, compassion, grace, and peace, and then read about them in books found in Christian book stores and derive “truth” from such stories as “The Shack”.
Whether this should or shouldn’t happen is irrelevant. The fact is that it does, and books like this lead people to develop shaky theologies, which lead people developing their own views of the God-head. I don’t know about you, but I find this extremely concerning. There is nothing worse than a Christian that has a skewed view of God, and yet loves his or her skewed view of God.
What I don’t understand is why Christian authors feel the need to better explain the truths of the Bible. The only reason to do is because they feel as if the Bible isn’t sufficient to do that task on it’s own. (I know, I know, there are 1000’s of books that do this) Why Christian authors feel the need to (and have the guts to), give an additional view of such deeply theological issues as the trinity is beyond me.
I agree with you (Randy) on most of your review, the only part I disagree with, is where you say that reading this is better than nothing… If a book has the propensity to cause shaky theology then I believe it is better not to read anything. I’m all about reading literature that challenges our minds and beliefs, I’m not about reading books that are written by Christians that can lead to a bad belief system.
The Flat Rocker wrote @
Be cautious from where we draw our theological interpretations. While I strongly agree books like “The Shack” rest on trendy shifting sands, the points made serve a valueable purpose in opening a dialog such as this. The issue is when we are exposed to partial truths we are, by consequence also exposed to partial falsehoods. This has been our discernment challenge since day one – to embrace the truth and reject the falsehood….Aaah but to only know the sweet difference. Now there’s a prayer worth praying!
The problem with partial truths is they are just so darn alluring – just take a peek at Dan Brown’s checkbook. And besides partial truths like to masquarade as new truths. And new truths allow us to masquarade as the creator.
Throughout history, whether it was the squabbles of the Church at Corinth or the writings of early Christian theologians like Origen or Nestor, sometimes they “got it right” and again, by consequence, sometimes they did not. For this they were either admonished (Paul was such a stickler) or in the case of Origen and Nestor, utterly rejected. This in spite of the fact their “theology” did contain partial truths. More than a few christians would say the same about Luther, Calvin, and some Popes along the way. This struggle has continued throughout christian history with each generation having to decide upon which rock to build and upon which sand pit to reject.
So how to decide?
How about Prayer, Theological Commentary, Personal Discernment, Commitment, and more Prayer. Then repeat – again and again and again.
So…the million sheckel question: Can “The Shack” serve a purpose as a Theological Commentary (of sorts) in this process? As weak as it is, it resonates with wannabe christians. The sheep are searching for the Shepherd. We might want to consider going where they are and help bring them home. Isn’t that what He did for us?
Now can we talk about the Horton movie?
Tim Nellis wrote @
So how to decide?
How about Prayer, Theological Commentary, Personal Discernment, Commitment, and more Prayer. Then repeat – again and again and again.
Replace theological commentary with God’s word, and you might be onto something. Nothing you come up with, whether through prayer, discernment, or theological commentary will ever differ with the Word of God if it is from God.
Horton… is it even out yet??
The Flat Rocker wrote @
We are on to something.
God’s Word at its essence is theological commentary. The Commentor just happens to be a very reputable Author.
The challenge is sorting through the bombardment from the rest of the commentary – the glory amongst the grime.
I think that’s what we call life.
Happy Holy Week – His glory is at hand!
Randy Harris wrote @
I’ll tell ya what I’d like to know… how did they get Horton… when he’s walking across that rickety bridge to walk just like Lloyd Christmas? Now that’s some kind of genius.
That and I meant to say (and since have changed it) that reading The Shack is better than nothing IF it leads… (thanks tim, for making me look bad).
Eric Wakeling wrote @
I also think that you should add “God’s Word” to that list with prayer and theological commentary, not replace. I think that theological commentary has a great use for helping us see Scripture in context and language that are difficult without years of study. I also think that God’s Word should be primary. Finally, God’s Word is the best commentary for God’s Word. All of it. Not the bits and pieces we like.
Eric Wakeling wrote @
Finally, I’m looking at your “Best Bands List” and I hate it so much. Seeing U2 sandwiched between “Let’s Get it On” and Milton Naciment-who makes me sick. To see so many bands ahead of my favorite band just makes me sad. Dionne Warwick??? AAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! Super Furry Animals? Is that Ben’s band? Come on. This needs to be dealt with now.
The Flat Rocker wrote @
I’ve also been burned up over this “best” bands list for quite some time.
Notice the top five have the “The ______” as a naming requirement. If only he had called himself “The Perry Como”, maybe he would have made it as well.
It’s just not right.
Curious, I also don’t see The Kitchen Sink on the list either.
randyharris wrote @
Sir Eric,
I didn’t see your second and third comments there. But now that I see them, I certainly must reply. I know I’ve explained this to you before but this is not a “Best Bands” list, but a “favorite band” list. There is nothing objective about it. This is the epitome of subjective. Its like getting upset about someone who likes the color green instead of blue. You never know, Milton Nascimento might be someone I listened to everyday as my favorite aunt was dying and so holds a special place in my heart. How could anyone know? But I will discuss and/or defend (even though there really is no defense needed) the people you mentioned. As for U2, I like them! I like them! I really do. There is probably two things that might have brought them down on my list a little. (1) I have never seen them in concert, that seems like a major point when it comes to them (2) while I like their music, its not the kind of music I play much. Its BIG! It’s HUGE! It’s Epic! Its Slane castle! It needs to be outside! It needs to be on stage! It needs a massive crowd; they are the pretty much the greatest stadium band of all time. Its just not the kind of music (even though I like it remember) that I play when I’m tooling around the house. As far as Marvin Gaye, I’m surprised at you. It’s a proven fact that Mr. Bono is a HUGE fan. Look around the web and you’ll see what I mean, Bono only headed a project in which various all-stars redid the album “What’s Goin’ On” from start to finish (for charity for AIDs in Africa). That album is one of the most important records in the last 40 years, bar none. That’s not opinion. That is the general consensus of every rock critic anywhere, anytime. What’s Goin’ On only changed black music, R&B music, protest music and the entire idea of what an album could be. If you are thinking only of Marvin Gaye’s AM hits when you think of him that’s like thinking U2 was that New Romantic band that had that song “I Will Follow.” The first side of What’s Goin’ On makes me weep often. The first side album of that album is a spiritual experience. You could call it black music’s Sgt Peppers but I think that would be an insult. As for the others The Super Furry Animals are a quirky (Beach Boys obsessed) band from Wales who I own every album and listen to constantly. Are they in the pantheons of the all-time greats? No. Milton Nascimento is a legend in Brazil and someone who makes me cry when he sings, a true world artist (again I would be shocked if Bono wasn’t a HUGE fan). And as for Diana Warwick, you have her confused the pap she has recorded for the last thirty years or so, if so, I would agree, total crap, BUT from the early sixties to about 1970 she recorded a group of songs with Burt Bacharach that are simply the standard of pure pop music (not rock music). Again, that’s not subjective, but pretty much objective truth also. All that to say, I should look at that list again see who else I can tick off.
Linda Vujnov wrote @
I’m staying out of any and all disagreements as to whether this book is great or horrible. I read non-fiction unless it is written by Randy. I’m just giving Randy a “time to update” shout out. I’m a blog update watcher but not in a creepy way, really.
Dan Allison wrote @
Instead of “The Shack,” I’d recommend Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord” novels. It’s a trilogy, the second one has just been released with the third due in 2009. THIS STUFF is great Christian fiction by a good, seasoned novelist. Five stars from me.
[...] The chances of being wrong and struck by lightning are far too high for me. Now, I read this post by Randy Harris and I have talked to him a lot about this. I read the post a long time ago and I don’t [...]
monica @ transplanting me wrote @
i’m reading the shack because everyone so many people said i had to – that it’s the most amazing book ever. and i’m hating it. the only reason i’m still reading it because i have completion issues.
Ken wrote @
I am a part-time everything in life of late, and last Sunday was preaching the gleanings of “The Shack” partly due to the ‘everybody is reading it’ and partly because I enjoyed reading this fictional story. I emphasise story, for it is indeed a story. Like the thousands and thousands of other stories that most pastors encorporate into their sermons on a weekly basis to help them interpret God’s Word to the everyday masses. Some are true, some are not, but most help the masses to understand something more of the nature of God. I was quite unsure of where to lead the sermon last Sunday and again today in Part 2. But I do know the book spoke to my heart in regard to each person finding God in a relevant way to their own walk of faith. We are told to express that relationship with others to help them establish one of their own. I believe Young has done this in his fictional work; expressed his concept of how he relates to Papa, and the spirit, as well as the Son. Did it help me in my walk? Yes. Impact me more than the Bible, more than my personal devotional life, more than prayer??? No. Let us take the positive light and spread it. Let us be gracious and thankful that crumbs can indeed nourish a nation if collected and dispersed carefully. Thanks for you thoughts here, and know that some of your thoughts have been gleaned as continued sermon fodder. Peace, Ken.
Deborah wrote @
Well, like many of you have previously stated I read this book because it has been touted as a must read from several of my friends. There was much in the book that spoke to me and I found “Jesus with skin on him” in many areas of the book however, as I continued reading there were several things that concerned me theologically. Actually, too many to list.
I think what bothers me the most is that churches and Christian small group studies are using this book as a source. Currcilum is being built around The Shack as it’s base.
The book reminds me in a way of fortune telling. The seer gives you just enough ambiguous truth to hook you into believing and accepting as truth all the rest.
I found the book to be a good read but believe it encompasses a lot of New Age philosophy. False truths or partial truths can be wrapped up in such enticing packages and tied up with a beautiful bow.
Your comment
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
That’s why I stick with obscure presidential biographies. Filmore rules!