Pity the poor preacher trying to keep his flock theologically in line. He may be able to keep them from attending heretical churches or even from reading un-Christian material. But how can they keep Christians from reading inspiring Christian books?
irst it was the Left Behind series which undoubtedly shaped the American Christian views on Armageddon more than anything preached from most pulpits – despite offering a controversial and idiosyncratic view of scripture. (I was particularly taken with Jesus’s ability and proclivity to melt people by looking at them, which seemed more in the spirit of X-men than Xmas.)
Now we have The Shack, by William P. Young, which has been on the New York Times Bestseller list for 37 weeks, currently at #1. It’s a powerful, hopeful, deeply Christian book, yet it’s been criticized by many Christian clergy.
It is the story of Mack, a man struggling to deal with the brutal murder of his daughter. He ends up at the Shack where the murder took place and talks it over with Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit.
Suffice it to say, it departs from the literal Bible often. God is an avuncular, rotund black woman called “Papa” who will almost have to be played by Queen Latifah in the movie version. Jesus is a tad homely. And the Holy Spirit seems to be some sort of mystical eastern creature. They cook, tease, and laugh more than they preach.
The Trinity make pronouncements contradicting Biblical doctrine. For instance, God commits to not interfering in human choices – a belief that cuts against those who feel God answers prayers and intervenes in our lives.
Christian writer Tim Challies summarizes:
“He presents a false view of God and one that may well be described as heretical. He downplays the importance and uniqueness of the Bible, subjugating it or making it equal to other forms of subjective revelation. He misrepresents redemption and salvation, opening the door to the possibility of salvation outside of the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross. We are left with an unbiblical understanding of the persons and nature of God and of His work in this world…..He oversteps the bounds of Scripture while downplaying the Bible’s importance. He relies too little on Scripture and too much on his own theological imaginings.”
Popular radio personality Al Mohler urged Christians not to read the book and author Hank Hanegraaff declared, “Young has Jesus — the Jew with the big nose — declaring ‘I am not a Christian and I have no desire to make them’ – and the them is Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, etc. – ‘Christians.’ Indeed, Young describes Christians as religious fanatics and part of a sinful world system.”
Yet the book is wildly popular among Christians. I suspect it’s because, while it misses on important points of doctrine, it connects on two big ideas.
The first is the Holy Trinity, which has always been one of the most unfathomable parts of Christian doctrine. As corny as it sounds, by incarnating the three for the weekend, and having them work together on the grieving Mack, one gets a sense of how they complete each other and offer more to the Christian together than separately.
The second idea is “God’s love.” You can sit in church every week of the year and hear about how God’s love is supposed to help you with your suffering but The Shack puts the idea to the test in the most gruesome way. Mack confronts his deepest pain, challenges God to her face, and only comes out on the other hand after a convulsive journey.
Theologically, the message is quite traditional: God loves you, God loves you, God loves you. Even if you don’t understand what He does or why He does it, you can be sure that, as Papa puts it, she is “especially fond of you.” Hokey though it may be, there’s something undeniably thrilling when that love is expressed physically, with a hug and an adoring paternal look.
The Passion of the Christ made Jesus’ suffering seem real. But suffering without love can make Christians feel grateful but not treasured. The Shack completes the picture. In this case, Biblical literalists may have to decide whether they’re wiling to sacrifice some “accuracy” to promote their larger “truth.”
[SPOILER ALERT. Click here for some further thoughts for those of you who have already read the book]
SPOILER ALERT
For those of you who did read the book already, I wanted to tease out some facets that struck me.
The most wrenching part is God’s demand that Mack forgive Missy’s killer. But there’s something unsatisfying to me about the moment: part of how he’s able to go through with it is that God showed him Missy’s current happiness. Most people don’t get that gift and indeed it’s not part of what God promises in Scripture. Many of us would be forgiven for saying: “well, I’d get over my grief fast too if you could show me my loved one.”
Also: it seemed like a bit of a cop-out that they were able to catch and punish the killer. Part of the message initially seemed to be that you shouldn’t try to understand God’s modus operandi through human notions of justice. But then in the tidy ending, God does make sure the bad guy gets what’s coming. It was emotionally satisfying but I thought it might have been a bit braver to go with the idea that Mack would have to hold on to God’s love while knowing that the killer escaped judgment, at least in this lifetime.
What did you think of the book?
A version of this piece first appeared on WSJ.com
posted February 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I thought the part of forgiveness of the murderer at the end ruined what was a very good book as well. Too trite, but I guess it was a way to wrap everything up.
posted February 19, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Haven’t read the book yet, though I heard the description of an ‘Aunt Jemima pancake-flippin’ type, sort of fits the rotund black woman description. The more smears coming from the fundamentalist camp makes me want to read the book all the more.
PS I always figured you for a B52s (Fred Snider) type, Steve.
posted February 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I haven’t read the book. I am more concerned about your opening sentence re. the “poor preacher trying to keep his flock theologically in line.” Must the preacher — or God, for that matter — be a “he”? And frankly, I prefer that my pastor guide me in my spiritual growth and help me wrestle with theological questions. I don’t expect her to “keep me in line” with her own theology.
You say The Shack contradicts “Biblical doctrine.” My question is, whose doctrine? I have no doubt Albert Mohler has his view, and that he believes it is the only correct view. But even Biblical literalists like Mohler do a fair share of interpretation. No, the Bible doesn’t describe God as a rotund black woman — but who’s to say She’s not? The Bible variously describes God as male, female and spirit; as whirlwind, as fire … you get the idea.
If people draw inspiration from The Shack, if it engages their theological imagination and helps them grow, then what is the harm? Oh, right — orthodoxy. Well, orthodoxy be damned. I think that is one of the enduring lessons of Jesus.
posted February 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I know a lot of clergy, including my pastor, who’ve read The Shack and found it, doctrinal issues aside, a useful starting point for conversation with laypeople about the nature of God, theodicy, etc. My pastor’s take is that the concept of the Trinity as a loving, dynamic relationship is worth both the price of the book and the theologically problematic parts of it.
For anyone who wants to explore the relational nature of the Trinity in a less pop-culture but still engaging manner, I’d recommend the late Henri Nouwen’s Behold the Beauty of the Lord, his series of meditations on Eastern iconography. His chapter on the Trinity is wonderful. As Nouwen notes, for us Trinitarians God loves relationships so much God IS a relationship.
posted February 20, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I didn’t care for the book. It was disappointing. Actually I didn’t even finish it, and thanks for the info that the killer was caught. I’ve read other inspirational books that were more helpful for understanding the Bible and the trinity. It was a good trader.
posted February 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Thanks, Steven.
Given the nature of comments by the christianists, I shall have to read it.
Funny how some people can only accept God on their terms, not God’s…
posted February 20, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Panthera,
“Funny how some people can only accept God on their terms, not God’s…”
For all of my adult life I have not only read the Scriptures, but the Spiritual Masters of the Church: Augustine, Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross, Therese of Liseux, etc..
Your observation is as prescient and penetrating as anything I’ve ever read from the Masters. Thank you for your warm and loving insight. You’ve given me lots to meditate on.
God Bless,
Gerry
posted February 21, 2009 at 9:01 am
Anyone who reads this book as something other than fiction (or even science fiction) is going to miss the richness of it. The main points are solid (there is a God who is in control and has a bigger plan than we often realize) but the author allows your imagination to run wild in ways that the church traditionally stifles. My theological persuasions were neither challenged nor moved but my heart was warmed by the reading. Read it as fiction and I think you will be blessed as you ask yourself, “I wonder?”
posted February 21, 2009 at 12:21 pm
==…the literal Bible…==
What is the “‘literal’ Bible”?
posted February 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm
==My theological persuasions were neither challenged nor moved but my heart was warmed by the reading. Read it as fiction and I think you will be blessed as you ask yourself, “I wonder?”==
Is THAT what Jesus said to Himself in the wilderness [Matthew 4:1-11], “I wonder?”
posted February 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm
==Anyone who reads this book as something other than fiction (or even science fiction) is going to miss the richness of it.==
Did Jesus, in the wilderness, dismiss the Devil’s “intellectualism” as fiction, and, thereby, miss what too many would call, “the richness of it”? Is there “richness” to be found in filthy conversation?
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:38 am
I realize that people are choking on those questions.
posted February 24, 2009 at 9:02 am
Mr. Incredible,
At the risk of provoking you into one of your interminable reaction (sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph of nonsense), perhaps you have failed to notice something crucial to this particular thread.
People who read, that is people who can read books, tend to be capable of intellectual discourse on those self-same books regardless of their personal liking or dislike for some aspects of the book. This is because they are sufficiently mature to comprehend that a work of art may have validity even tho’ flawed.
Perhaps it would help you if I chose a less demanding genre, film. The movie Brokeback Mountain was considered especially dangerous by many Catholic reviewers because it was a cinematic masterwork. The story line was taut and consistent, the love between the two men palpable, the ending underscored loss of one’s love.
Similar comments arise regarding this book. At least, they do from people who are capable of discernment.
posted February 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm
==…your interminable reaction (sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph of nonsense)…==
Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and, so, YOU write nonsense.”
And, yet, you are still choking on my questions.
posted February 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm
No, dear, we are not choking – trust me, gay men don’t easily choke – we are simply ignoring your silliness.
Now, back to the book. It fascinates me whenever someone actually succeeds in portraying the Holy Spirit in a manner we can relate to. It is enormously hard to express in words that which we can just barely portray graphically.
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:25 am
==…we are simply ignoring your silliness.==
Well, all THAT’s the way you justify your inability to answer. That’s okay with me, if you wanna let my perspective stand.
==It fascinates me whenever someone actually succeeds in portraying the Holy Spirit in a manner we can relate to.==
So, YOU need a substitute for the Holy Spirit in order to relate to the Holy Spirit, is that it?
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:27 am
==…gay men don’t easily choke ==
And, yet, they choke, as you do here, on my questions.
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:38 am
==… your interminable reaction (sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph of nonsense)…==
Feel free not to read my posts. I wouldn’t want your getting sick.
posted February 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I now understand why it is best to just ignore Mr. Incredible. Sorry I ever made the mistake of engaging him/her in discussion…
posted February 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm
==I now understand why it is best to just ignore Mr. Incredible. Sorry I ever made the mistake of engaging him/her in discussion…==
Translation: “I can’t get Mr. Incredible to come over to the dark side and, anyway, I’ve run outta substance and am utterly incapable of sufficiently answering him. He has outwitted me.”
posted February 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm
==Sorry I ever made the mistake of engaging him/her in discussion…==
You call THAT an attempt to discuss???
posted August 16, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I’m still reading The Shack, but no matter what you believe, it’s not so difficult to read a book like this. I mean, if your faith is strong (whatever it is), then what you read should not be able to shake it. If you truly believe what it is you believe then reading The Shack cannot change your faith…unless it needs to be changed:)