The distorted view of the Trinity.
There is absolutely no sense of transcendence and holiness. It is the “God is my buddy” perspective on steroids. Compare (better yet, contrast!) Mack’s encounter with God to the final chapters of Job or the stunning vision of God that Isaiah witnesses in the temple. One can hardly imagine Young’s “Papa” eliciting the same kind of response. The God of the Bible cares deeply how he is portrayed. To tamper with the way God has revealed himself is to put forth a false picture of God.
Why is this book popular?
We should never let a cultural phenomenon go by without wondering about the reasons for its popularity. Here are a few reasons I think The Shack is so popular:
Missing fathers. So many people have grown up with absent daddies or abusive father figures. For many, the mother is the rock of the home. To portray God the Father as a matriarch is bound to resonate with a good number of people.
The anti-authoritarian tendency of our culture. At one point in the book, God speaks of there being no roles of hierarchy in the Trinity. God even submits to humans. This resonates with a culture that already eschews traditional understandings of role and authority. (I can picture my Romanian friends rolling their eyes at The Shack and saying, “That’s so American!”)
The immanence of God. Evangelicals too often bring God down to the level of understanding, faithful friend. Ultimately, this view of God is shrunken and reductionist. Just like it is misrepresenting God to make him so other that he is virtually unknowable, it is misrepresenting him to make him so close and human that his God-ness is absent.
The Challenge for Evangelicals
It is easy to sit back and critique The Shack. (There is so much to critique!) But perhaps evangelicals who can see the problems with The Shack should instead invest some creative energy in writing stories that resonate with people in a similar way. As I have written elsewhere:
Do you ever wonder why stories often have a greater impact than debating the theological minutia of Bible interpretation?
C.S. Lewis could have written a fine theological treatise on what the world would have been like had Adam and Eve never sinned. But Perelandra worked much better.
I had a profound experience with The Shack because of the loss of two of my own children and my resonance with Mack, the protagonist. As well when I had problems continuing the book, listening to the author’s CD of why he wrote The Shack including an account of his own journey was an intensely moving experience. Finally, at various points, I was helped in my journey through the book and in working through my own experience by a pastor.
Many people have given this same sort of personal testimony about the book, rather than about its theology or characterizations of the Trinity.
The Shack is not about the Trinity but rather forgiveness which lies at the heart of the gospel. Many folks have the pagan view of God – a deity easily angered and in need of being placated. The idea of unconditional love is appealing as it should be. The real question about The Shack is why this is a new message.
I really didn’t mind the “cool” Trinity. The line that bugged me the most was “God doesn’t want to make Christians.” The author apparently denies the atoning sacrifice of the cross.
I do believe that the book is a good conversation starter.
I loved [i]The Shack[/i]. That does not mean I’m taking it as gospel. It is deeply flawed in ways that both the review and its commenters have highlighted, though I don’t share all of their critique. Its view of the church is more palatable if (as I did) you take it as directed at the institutionalised church rather than the body of Christ. Its view of the Trinity is unbalanced, but as an antidote to the distant and judgmental Trinity that many have grown up with it may be acceptable. However, its universalism and emaciated view of the atonment are definitely not acceptable at all.
Despite all of that, like AllanC, I found the book resonate deeply with me where it speaks of suffering and forgiveness, and reading it was a very moving experience. I have no trouble believing it can be used by God. As a pastor, though, I would want to make sure that people reading it were aware of its flaws theologically.
I tried reading The Shack, and frankly, I just got bored about 2/3 way through. It was like watching a movie whose basic premise is interesting, but after a while, every scene is predictable.
Because I read books by and about Karl Barth, I can’t help but wonder what he would say about The Shack. After all, it was Barth who said, “You can not say God by saying man in a loud voice.” I agree with the reviewer that says that God as met in the book of Job or Isaiah is profoundly more majestic and exciting and able to save, without becoming our buddy. This same God is incarnate in Jesus Christ. In the Shack, Christ, as well as the depictions of the first and third persons of the Trinity, appears to be more interested in word games and riddles than in salvation and the tranformation of the universe. As one comment said, this is so American, so very “God is my therapist.”
“One can hardly imagine Young’s “Papa†eliciting the same kind of response” Obviously Mr. Wax is not familiar with the thousands of profound responses and claims of changed lives etc.
“The God of the Bible cares deeply how he is portrayed” I would like to see a reference to this one.
“God speaks of there being no roles of hierarchy in the Trinity. God even submits to humans.” part A “For we are one” -Jesus. part B.-John 3:16
“One can hardly imagine Young’s “Papa†Mr Wax doesn’t seem to know what “Abba” means.
As I have alluded to in the past some people have the bow drawn to far.
BTW Dr. Harmon it is my opinion that our Lord aand saviour is the “heart of the Church” ….not Theology. With respect and blessings.