The Shack

The Shack is a 248-page paperback written by William Paul Young and published by Windblown Media in association with Hodder.

It has been at number one on the New York Times Bestsellers List. This is unusual for a Christian book.

It has been compared by Eugene Peterson (author of the Message) to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Yet David Robertson (editor of the Free Church Monthly Record) dismisses it as 'dangerous' (November 2008).

After my flatmate brought the book home declaring it to be 'the new Pilgrim's Progress' I hesitantly granted it a read. And I must say that on the whole I thoroughly enjoyed it. I get a hard time for being conservative. But after reading David Robertson's review and watching Mark Driscoll slate 'The Shack' on YouTube I'm starting to fear that I'm not all that conservative after all!

The book begins with the story of Mack losing his young daughter. He find's a note in his mailbox years later asking him to meet Papa at the Shack where they think the girl was killed. He goes.

And at the shack he has an encounter with God. He meets the Father - portrayed by fat black woman who's always cooking, the Son - portrayed by a not so beautiful Jewish man and the Holy Spirit - portrayed by a wee asian woman who physical state is rather vague.

In his time in the Shack he experiences fellowship with the three persons and learns more and more about them. More than this he learns that there is a meaning and a purpose behind all that goes on in this world and that though life may look untidy as we look upon it - yet God is going to make something beautiful and worthwhile out of all of it.

In this review I would not like to give away the story. If you want the story then go buy the book or I'll lend it to you (I have three copies!).

One of the major problems people have with 'The Shack' is it's portrayal of the Father. I think we must recognise that William Young is not saying that God the Father is a fat, black woman who cooks a lot. He is saying that God the Father is not an old gray-haired and bearded man in the sky. Papa (as the Father calls himself in the book) explains:
'"Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I chose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it's because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning"...
"...He believed, in his head at least, that God was a Spirit, neither male nor female, but in spite of that, he was embarrassed to admit to himself that all his visuals for God were very white and very male.'(p93).

David Robertson accuses the author of ignoring the second commandment. In April 2004 the Monthly Record carried a very positive review of Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' by then editor Alex Macdonald. The Free Church need to decide what we mean by making images of God. 'The Shack' creates a verbal image and says - 'this image is not God' and Robertson says it is idolatry. Mel Gibson tells us here is Jesus and his sufferings (a visual image) and Macdonald says - 'worship him'. I'm confused.

The author doesn't come across to me as a man who doesn't know what he is talking about. In fact the opposite is the case. He seems to know exactly what Christian Joe Public is struggling with. The questions, the troubles, the doubts and the temptations and he deals with them all in a biblical way trying to reconcile the Sovereign God with the God of love portrayed in the Gospel.

The one question I would raise is whether The Shack raises the idea of a universal salvation for those outside Christ. Young in an interview on YouTube says that he wants everyone to come to know the God of love that he knows because Jesus is the only hope for the whole world.

Robertson tells us:
"So unless everyone is saved, it looks as though God’s will is thwarted. Which leads us on to the implicit universalism in The Shack."
I think the fact that he has to talk about 'implied' universalism says it all. I did feel at times that Young was heading that way but I can't say that he went there. If we were looking for fault then we could make this accusation but then we could also, perhaps, accuse the Marrow men of the same.

I can't say I felt entirely comfortable reading The Shack. At points I was decidedly uncomfortable and waiting for the author to fall into error. However, it is a book dealing with complex issues. It is a book that really makes you think.
Any book that makes me wrestle with issues such as intra-trinitarian relations, theonomy, the glory of heaven and the free offer of the gospel as well as the relationship between law and grace - whether I can whole-heartedly give my Amen to it or not - I cannot but recommend that my brethren read it and enjoy it.