I  just finished reading the book titled The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. I had not planned to read this book, and, in fact, did not want to read this book. However, after hearing so much about it, after being asked several times if I had read it, and being involved in several discussions about the book with those of my own church, I decided it was time that I got informed. So, I read the book.

There is much to discuss concerning The Shack. To start with, it must be understood now and understood throughout this critique that The Shack was written as a fictional novel. So, it is an extremely difficult task to make a spiritual critique on a book that was written about God, but at the same time, understanding that everything said in the book, every conversation with God that is described in the book, is “fictional”. In other words, the book is written as sort of “if I were to sit down and have a one-on-one conversation with God, this is what He might say to me”.

Next, it is very possible and probable that the author of The Shack is using the characters, in the book, to vicariously express his own personal feelings and emotions surrounding his personal life struggles. It appears, after reading the book, and, after doing some research on the author, that in fact, he has vicariously expressed himself not in just one of the characters of the book, but, in multiple characters of the book…that is written as fiction. One point of note is that God the Father is portrayed as a highly relatable and friendly Black woman. You know, this doesn’t freak me out to be honest with you. It does present some problems with critique however. For you see, to be a Black woman is to be what we used to say in political science a “double minority”. It would be like saying something negative about outgoing Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who I think very highly of by the way. So, to get involved critiquing this book is now like walking through a field of land mines (anti-tank type mines!). But, I am going to believe that serious Christians can get beyond this sensitivity and look at this book with a mature mind. However, all of these factors put together make a critique extremely difficult.

But, none-the-less, here goes. First of all, upon reading just the first few pages one can clearly see that this book was not just “thrown together” or casually written as some are wanting us to believe. This book is very well written with every other sentence communicating powerful and vivid imagery. The story line, up to the point of Mackenzie’s daughter getting kidnapped, raped and murdered is very powerful and has a magnetic grip on the reader. No, I don’t think it is an accurate analysis to say that The Shack is some kind of thrown together after thought. This book is well written and was written to appeal to a broad audience. This book was written to make money and it is doing that in a very big way. We will visit that point later.

There is much being said about this book. One of the criticisms in that The Shack is somehow promoting modalism or, what is more commonly known as Jesus Only, Jesus Name or Oneness theology. Personally, having read the book, I don’t see this. If anything, the three characters or persons of the Godhead are portrayed extensively as three separate but yet combined entities. These three members of the Godhead are depicted as being highly interactive with each other and functioning in unison but yet, at the same time, having very distinctive characteristics apart from each other. This portrayal promotes the doctrine of a triune God. The book portrays God as a trinity and not as a modalistic God. At one point in the book, we see a scene in the kitchen of the Shack, where the father/mother god, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all in bodily form and having a conversation with each other about what they are cooking.  To portray all three members of the Godhead as being in the same place, at the same time, and all in different and separate forms absolutely does not fit with Jesus Only or Oneness doctrine.  It is the antithesis of Oneness doctrine. I don’t know how someone could draw the conclusion that The Shack is enforcing the modalistic point of view. I have had more than a little exposure to the modalistic viewpoint. Over the years, I have had many “debates” with Jesus Name or Jesus Only or Oneness Pastors and I can tell you, The Shack does not promote the view of this group. Not even close.

In fact, I will say that to draw such a conclusion about The Shack is to throw out a theological “red herring” that diverts the reader from something more serious. What I see as the primary problem with this book is that there appears to be a portrayal of God that seems to imply a sympathetic position concerning gender identity disorder. This book goes well beyond the concept that some people, because of a poor relationship with their natural father, struggle with the idea of God being masculine or “Father”. Such a thesis is very reasonable and it seems that there are many people who do have a problem when it comes to relating to God the Father. This is understandable. But, it doesn’t change who God is and, neither can any person change God into “something they can deal with”. And, this is exactly what the author of The Shack has done.

Not only is God portrayed as having a gender identity disorder but, Mack, the main character in the book also exhibits traits of gender identity disorder. This, I believe is the most serious problem with this book. At one point, on pages 147 – 148, we see Jesus and Mack having a conversation about the characteristics of men as compared to women and we see Jesus actually saying “…the world would be a calmer and gentler place if women ruled”.

And, then there are all the “touchy feely” moments as described between the three members of the Godhead. There are the times that God gives Jesus a kiss on the cheek as He is leaving the room and the moments when the Holy Spirit and Jesus hold each other and make protracted eye contact as if locked in some type of divine emotion for each other. It is all quite feminine to me. God is definitely not portrayed in a masculine way. And, here is a serious problem because the God that is portrayed in The Shack is very different than the God that is portrayed in the Bible. But, then again, The Shack is fiction. But, even though it is fiction, and even though it was not written as a serious theological treatise, it is being promoted extensively by the Christian media.

Next, there is the issue of the “independence” of man. The primary issue between God and man is described as one of man wanting to be independent from God. The book describes the original sin of man, in the Garden of Eden, as being one of seeking independence from God, not one of willful disobedience. Then, in a discussion concerning all of this, we see on page 149 where Jesus says “…My life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being My follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus’, it (rather) means for your independence to be killed”. Again, remember that this book is a fictional writing.

It seems almost as if, when looking at pages 147- 148 that the book is implying that the world has all the problems that it has, because there are men in the world. In fact, Mack says exactly this on page 147. You can also see some of Mack’s struggle with masculinity on page 93.

It seems like, you could say that the meeting between God and Mack is described in a way that is extremely self-focused. It seems that Mack is describing his meeting with God as if it is all about him (Mack) rather than God. In other words, it’s like “God gets to meet me” rather than “I get to meet God”. There is a big difference. I mean, take a moment here and remember Isaiah chapter 6.

Again, The Shack is a fictional writing. But, fiction or not, an author will write from his or her life’s frame of reference. And, this leads me to believe that there is a whole lot of vicarious expression going on in this book. Not only through the character of Mack, but also through God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and I might add, there appears to be some vicarious expression going on with the character of Mack’s young daughter who is raped and murdered.

The other area of serious concern I see in this book is one of portraying Jesus as being against organized religion. One page 179 we see Jesus talking with Mack about religion and institutions. Then, we see Jesus inform Mack that He is against organized religious institutions. This is gravely serious. This implies that all Christians should abandon their organized churches and denominations and simply float around in some dreamy way without rhyme or reason and just “exist” and whatever will be will be.

The author of The Shack may have had his experiences with organized religion but, that doesn’t give him the authority to portray God as being against organized religion. In fact, if one reads the Bible, it can clearly be seen that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all supported, promoted and endorsed organized religion. It is heresy to say otherwise. If we don’t organize as Christians, then we will simply wander around aimlessly without focus, without direction and without vision or purpose. This is one of the most serious faults I find with The Shack and I think it is inexcusable for the author to have portrayed God as being against religious organization. But, then again, the book is fiction, right.

Some final thoughts on The Shack. Why is the family cat named “Judas”? Why is the word sin, and concept of sin, substituted with the word “sickness”. Why is the Holy Spirit portrayed as saying that it is OK to view the stories in the Bible as “myths or tales”? It appears that on page 182, the door is opened for Ecumenicalism.

One more thought before I close. I cannot help but address this issue. This book entitled The Shack is being portrayed as having been written almost on a whim, as having been written as an afterthought, as being thrown together on the spur of the moment. I think not. The book I read is not thrown together. It is masterfully written as far as writing skills and writing mechanics go. I think it is false humility to say that it’s just a momentary product of a momentary thought. It is not. And, it has generated a ton of money. This paperback copy sells for $14.99. This book has now sold over 2,000,000 copies. So, let’s see $14.99 x 2,000,000 = $29,980,000. My friend, this is not casual stuff. And, I can guarantee you this book will have a sequel. With that kind of money involved, are you kidding!

In closing, I will say that the real dangers of The Shack are found in the theological subtleties. And, these subtleties are significant. It seems that, in the book, you get the sense that God is portrayed as having to deal with Mack rather than Mack having to deal with God. It seems to be “all about Mack” and that the universe evolves around Mack. God is stripped of any and all sovereignty and majesty. God is portrayed as quite common. Granted, Jesus did come the first time in very lowly estate, born in a manger, a carpenter, lived a humble life and was crucified. But, that was then. If you read the Book of Revelation, we see a very different Jesus. Granted, Jesus does relate to us as a man and He is very human, but, He is at the same time God. It is OK, I believe, to think of Jesus in human terms and relate to Him as a man, but, at the same time, one cannot set aside Jesus as described in the Book of Revelation. And, it is this Jesus who will return.

Publish Date: January 10, 2009