“The Shack will change the way you think about God forever.” – Kathy Lee Gifford, Co-Host of NBC’s Today Show
If you know me at all, you know that when Kathy Lee Gifford speaks, I listen. So when I saw KPG, something we fans call her, gave the Shack a shout out, I decided to read it.
Actually, I decided to read it because I wanted the remix to be different than the original post I wrote on the Shack, a Christian novel that has become one of the best selling books in the United States.
But I initially didn’t want to read it for a few reasons:
1. I tend to stay away from massively popular books, music, etc.
2. A handful of people I like and respect disliked it.
3. Other people I know aggressively promised me it would “change my life.”
4. I was jealous of the success the author, William P. Young, was experiencing.
Those reasons don’t make me look particularly good and are mostly prideful, shallow excuses not to engage in something. So I got over them and picked up the book.
What is about to follow is not a book review. Bloggers like Tim Challies have already written great reviews with more depth and analysis than I am capable of. This is not a detailed theological study into the author’s handling of the Trinity or anything else. While I hold such discussions as dear, that’s honestly not my strength or the purpose of this site. And lastly, this is not about the author, who my friends at North Point say is a pretty amazing guy. I don’t know him and to focus this strictly on him would be fake.
Despite revealing a few plot spoilers, this is going to be a look at the ripples this book has caused. The reactions the Christian community has had and the impact the work has made on the culture of our faith. They are not difficult to find. They fill up Amazon reviews and I got some good, honest comments on this subject the first time I wrote about it. But that’s enough introduction.
Here are some questions or statements people are raising about the book, “The Shack.”
1. It was written for his kids and published in his garage.
Sometimes, hardcore fans of the Shack will defend it by saying, “Don’t get all bent out of shape, this is a book he wrote for his kids.” And that’s true. Young has said often that he wrote this book for his kids. But upon realizing the power and potential of it, he enlisted two other men to help craft the version that was published. And he’s really upfront about that. On page two of the book it clearly states, “A novel by William P. Young in collaboration with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings.” In the back of the book Young further states, “His (Wayne’s) enthusiasm brought in the others to refine the story and to prepare it to share with a wider audience, both in print and we hope in film. He and Brad bore the lion’s share of work in the three major rewrites that brought this story to its final form,…” I think that is awesome. I have been touched by this book and would not have experienced that if Young and his team did not dedicate more than a year to create what I experienced. I think when we amplify the origin of the book, by pretending that we have secretly found something one person wrote for their children we can sort of insult the deliberate skill applied to creating this novel by a team of experts.
2. “Jesus says ‘True Dat’ in the book.”
I wish. This is a common misconception about “the Shack”. I did some careful research and I think this urban legend originated because on page 119 of the paperback version, the God character says, “Sho ’nuff!” But when you go back and study the book, you’ll realize that that on page 110 the Jesus character actually says, “True, that,” and not “True Dat.” I was hoping he did, because that would have felt a little hip hop to me and I think hip hop needs all the love it can get considering what is going to happen this fall. What’s happening? My mid-50s minister father is taking hip hop dance lessons. I am torn between thinking, “Hooray! I hope when I am that age I still do new stuff” and agreeing with the rapper Nas, “Hip hop is dead.”
3. “Stop analyzing it. It’s a work of fiction.”
When people disagree with the theology of the book or the way God is represented, readers often respond by reminding you it’s just a work of fiction. Again, that’s true. The challenge though is that so were the parables. And if you tried to tell someone how much you loved the prodigal son story and they replied, “Why are you analyzing it, it’s just fiction?” that would be really frustrating. We, as a culture, are constantly pulling truth and wisdom and knowledge from things that are fictional. Facing the Giants was a fictional movie but lots of people found truth and encouragement in that for instance. And clearly there’s a difference between Young writing a fictional novel and Jesus telling a parable, but that’s not the point. The point is that labeling something as fictional does not automatically mean that we should accept or reject the very non fictional ideas within it. Young’s characters wrestle with real things and just because they are done within the context of a novel does not mean we can’t approach them with care and consideration.
4. God is portrayed an African American Woman.
That’s true and I will admit, some of the folksy language that the God character used in this book threw me at times. Hearing her say things like, “Child, you ain’t heard nuthin’ yet” felt foreign to me. And sometimes the “she-ism” of the whole thing felt a little forced to get a rise out of the reader, like on page 177 when the main character remarks, “So I guess all I can do is follow her.” Young could have easily said, “follow God” in that situation but maybe it would not have had the same impact. But I didn’t have a huge problem with Young portraying God as a woman and here’s why – I do the same thing in my heart sometimes, only in a very different way. At times, I have made God an angry tyrant, out for my destruction and waiting for me to fail so He can punish me and shame me. I have twisted His nature of love with brutal clarity into a nature of judgment so many times. So instead of responding to Young’s interpretation, I was forced to look at how I often have written God in my own heart. And although what I found was gross, Young’s version inspired me to think on my own and for that I am extremely grateful.
5. The book is emotionally manipulative.
I think “manipulative” is a strong word and doesn’t reflect the heart of the authors, who appear to be genuine and compassionate in their desire to share this book. I will say however, that the book is “emotionally deliberate.” In choosing the death of a little girl as the framework for the story, the authors choose the most emotional situation known to mankind. And they admit as much in the context of the story on page 59, “Something in the heart of most human beings simply cannot abide pain inflicted on the innocent, especially children … Even in such a world of relative morality, causing harm to a child is still considered absolutely wrong. Period!” If instead of Missy, the adorable 6 year old, Young had told a tale of his 42-year old brother getting murdered the impact would not have been the same. The book would not have touched, “the heart of most human beings.” But I applaud Young for that decision. He wanted the most people possible to connect with this book so he chose the most powerful example. And that’s not unusual. If in the movie, “The Sixth Sense,” the main character had been a 38 year old dentist instead of the little boy that could see dead people, would you have liked the movie as much? I too understand the need to emotionally engage people. When I wrote about how I would like to start a charity I didn’t just say, “I should start a charity.” I started the post by saying that my four year old daughter thought a picture of a starving African child was pretend. I wasn’t t
rying to manipulate you. I was trying to engage you.
6. I don’t like one section, therefore the whole book stinks.
There are sections of the book I disagree with. Things that are different than what I believe or choices that are made that I might not make. But I struggle with the idea that because I don’t agree with certain pages or certain ideas, I must discount the entire book. The reason is that nowhere else in my life is that approach true. When I write about having my faith encouraged by a Pearl Jam lyric I am doing the very opposite. I am pulling one line out of a song and ignoring everything else about the band Pearl Jam that does not point me toward God. When I sense the story of Jesus in the movie Man on Fire, I am ignoring the violence and torture that dominate most of the film. When I celebrate the sunset as a sign of God’s love, I ignore the devastation and heartache of a hurricane. I am not sure I am right or wrong on this idea, but it is something I was forced to think about when I read the Shack.
7. The book gives the elbow of death to seminaries and churches and WWJD.
The book does talk about the institutions and processes and systems we have tried to build up around our faith. The main character comments about his seminary and does question the church’s approach to tradition and rules. But so do I to a degree. I don’t think the book means to criticize the many people that have benefited from seminary or the beautiful things the body of Christ, as the church, can do. I think it means to tear down the negative stuff we’ve associated with God that might be of God. I will say that if I ever write about the whole What Would Jesus Do movement and get criticized, my first response is going to be, “Whoa, it’s not like I shacked it.” On page 149, the main character sarcastically says to the Jesus character, “You mean that I can’t just ask, ‘What Would Jesus Do’?” The Jesus character chuckles, “Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works out for you, if that’s the way you choose to go.” Clearly that’s just a section of a much larger conversation that you should read on your own but I did verbally say, “Dang, Jesus just leg dropped those bracelets” when I read it the first time. (And it’s not that Young is slamming traditional religion so that he can say all roads lead to Jesus. On page 182, when the Jesus character is asked that direct question, he replies, “Not at all.”)
This is so much longer than I anticipated but I felt like the subject deserved some thought. And I won’t try to stand in the middle on the book. I liked the Shack. I felt like it really challenged how I view my relationship with God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There are some really beautiful parts that were encouraging and crushing and uplifting and a million other things. I rarely read books again but this is one that I will.
That’s what I think about the ripples and conversations the Shack has helped start. And I hope we can have a new one here on this site as we wrestle with this book.
