Love Shack

One of my friends wrote me an e-mail today saying they had read The Shack, by William P. Young twice now and wondered if a) I had read it and b) if so, what did I think. I'm going to answer by way of this blog because this is not the first time I've been asked over the past 6 months. The answer to my friend's first question is, "Yes." I first read it about 6 months ago on the recommendation of my daughter, Kristi, who had read it and wanted me to read it so we could dialogue on it. Which we have.

The answer to the second question is, "I thoroughly enjoyed this book." (The title of this blog is a bit misleading, I admit, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get your attention. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot. But, "Liked It A Lot Shack" didn't have the same ring to it.) There are several reasons for my enjoyment of the book. First, as my friend alluded to in her e-mail, it causes you to think. I found myself repeatedly lowering the book, then sitting there muttering, "Hmmmm. Never thought of it that way before." I love when books do that. They can do that by saying things that I agree with or by saying things I disagree with. Much in the book I agree with, and some things I disagree with. But in both cases, it has caused me to stop taking my perspective on God for granted. It has taken me back to an even better book, The Bible (maybe you've heard of it?).

Second, the imagery the author uses to attempt to describe the relationship between the three members of the Godhead is so much better (and biblical) than the hackneyed images of an egg (shell, white, yolk) or a three-strand rope or water/steam/ice. It is more personal, more relational and more true to how Scripture describes the relation and inter-relation among the Trinity. Frankly, there's not an overabundance of Trinity verses, so we're working with slim material to begin with. But Young's treatment is certainly more in keeping with the images in Scripture than the impersonal analogies used in systematic theology books.

Third, I love the author's choice to have the God character say that while He has no favorites, He is "especially fond of you." As I have told my friends at SMCC repeatedly over the years, God's most personal name, YHWH, carries the connotation of "I will be to you all that I am." God is withholding nothing of Himself from us.

Finally, a couple of observations directed to those who have railed against the book. First, it is a NOVEL. By the very definition it is a work of fiction. It does not claim to speak absolute truth on all issues. Had it been marketed as a "real life adventure" I'd have far more concern about those areas where I disagree with him. But he doesn't claim the events, or anything like them, happened. He creates a story that pretty much forces the reader to think, once again, about life, death, justice, evil, and eternity. That's not a bad thing. And my guess is that because the fiction is grounded in a Christian worldview, people who read it are more likely to "read more about it", as Reading Rainbow always suggested, in the Bible than in Deepak Chopra.

Second, the author does come dangerously close, in my opinion, to a Christian universalism, but he steps back from the ledge and makes clear that salvation is found in Christ alone. Like many movies, I would have loved some editorial authority in a few places, but overall it points us to God's love for each person and it attempts an answer to the age-old question of theodicy. That is, why is there evil if there is a good God? (The author, in my opinion is better at raising and illustrating the question than providing a fully satisfying answer. But then I'm not sure there is a completely satisfying answer (from our limited, human perspective) even if there is an answer. The reason the question keeps getting asked is that bad things continue to happen to people we know and love and we are forced to square that with what we know of God's character. It is like my position on divorce. I know what it is and how to apply it until it is happening to people I know and love. Then, without changing my position, I am forced to look at the issues once again. I appreciate that about the author's attempt. He frames the question in a context that allows most readers to feel the main character's pain and his responses without it feeling contrived.)

I plan to read The Shack again, just in case I missed some blatant heresy along the way. But having looked at some of the anti-Shack websites, I can tell you I didn't see what they saw. But I'll go back and double check. I'd hate to have my 13 readers led astray by my musings. After all, I'm especially fond of you.