The Shack reviewed...

Let me confess- I haven't read The Shack yet.
I'm actually afraid to.

I have it sitting on my shelf- it was sent to me for review... The thing is, I know a bit about the plot, and to be honest, since having kids, I have a really hard time with books/movies that portray horrible things
happening to children. The idea reading a book in which the murder of a little girl is discussed is honestly terrifying to me.

But...

500,000 copies of a self-published book! Man. Talk about phenomenon.
So, yeah- I'll read it.
One of these days.

One of my favorite Professors in Seminary was/is Dr James DeYoung. Dr DeYoung was writing about postmodernity, finding meaning in Scripture beyond the obvious, and the role of women in leadership when the emerging church was just a gleam in Brian McLaren's eye.

My understanding is that he's known the author of the Shack for many years, sat in theological discussion groups with him on many occasions... and has now published an extended interaction with the Shack: The Back of The Shack.

He's even set up a site to talk about it, with a number of linked (positive/negative) reviews...
TheShackReview.com

Comments

[Rick]

Interested to see what your take will be. I've got to wait for some of hte hype to die down, but I love these same guys on their weekly podcast.

[grace]

Bob,
I think you can get the gist of the book even if you skip most of chapter 4 (except pages 64-66 of that chapter). That would be my recommendation for anyone with small children. As you said, you know what happens in general, and the specifics aren't necessary to the rest of the book.

Chapters 1-3 are intro to the plot and characters. Nothing too traumatic here.
Chapter 4 is descriptive of the abduction. It is not overly graphic, but still very difficult to read. The difficult aspects of the story are mostly contained in this chapter.
Chapters 5-18 are really the core of the book and deal with the resulting grief. It is the ideas in these chapters that are being discussed and debated.

I'll be interested to hear your perspective.

[Aaron Stewart]

Driscol's review was pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y

[Jason]

@Aaron Stewart: Driscol's 2nd point about "goddess worship" was way off base, but totally expected. I'm surprised that wasn't his biggest problem with the book.

[Aaron Stewart]

@Jason

Can you explain a little more about how it's off base? I'm genuinely interested.

Thanks,
Aaron

[Tina]

DeYoung was one of my Bible profs and at the end of the term one of his recommendations to me was to read this book...I am intrigued.

[Mike Morrell]

Driscoll's review was terrible...sorry to be negative. ; )

And anyway, if authorial intent counts at all in responding to accusation, this would be my main response to Dr. DeYoung's main thesis, that The Shack promotes universalism. This is from the co-publisher's blog, a post titled "Is The Shack Heresy?":

"Does The Shack promote Ultimate Reconciliation (UR)?

It does not. While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father’s love that has to be forced on the biblical text.

Since I don’t believe in UR and wholeheartedly embrace the finished product, I think those who see UR here, either positively or negatively are reading into the text. To me that was the beauty of the collaboration. Three hearts weighed in on the theology to make it as true as we could muster. The process also helped shape our theologies in honest, protracted discussions. I think the author would say that some of that dialog significantly affected his views. This book represents growth in that area for all of us. Holding him to the conclusions he may have embraced years earlier would be unfair to the ongoing process of God in his life and theology."

Read the rest http://lifestream.org/blog/?p=530>here.

[sonja]

Aaron, I haven't read MD's review and don't plan on it, but from what I understand he believes that The Shack promotes Goddess worship because God the Father is presented as an African-American woman during much of the story-line. If that is the case, MD has sadly missed the point of the whole presentation. During the whole story God is called "Papa," regardless of the gender in which S/He appears. It's made very clear at the beginning of Her appearance that she is a woman because the main character has trust issues with a father figure (which the reader knows because of his back story). Later in the story, when Mack has resolved those issues, Papa appears again as a man. So the Father's gender is not the issue, but the relationship which S/He desires to have with each of us is clearly the central point of the story. What is very sad to me is that MD has missed out on that.

BTW, Bob, I agree with grace's advice to you on how to miss the icky parts but still get the goodness of the book.

[Tina Lips]

Mike...thanks for the link. It was a good response to the criticism.

I did listen to MD's response and I disagree with his goddess worship accusation...Sonja summed up my opinion real well so I won't reiterate it.

I also struggle with Christian leaders who say stuff like don't read it. I say read it and think it through. Even DeYoung who wrote a lengthy response/critique to the book recommends to read the book. Leaders need to stop "thinking" for their audience and simply raise their concerns, listen to the response of the original authors, and let people think for themselves.

It is interesting that when we interpret the Scriptures we are taught to consider the author's intended message, and if we had the author to speak to we would most definitely go to her/him. I would love to have a face-to-face with Jesus, Paul, Timothy etc. and ask the hard questions. In a way we can however we all must admit the communication is often less than clear. In the instance of this book we do have him to talk to, to hear his response to the criticism and to not take that into consideration is foolish. And it sounds like the author through his editor is stating that he is not promoting goddess worship nor universal reconciliation.

I am looking forward to reading the book and seeing for myself if there are any "heresies behind the bush" or simply a good story trying to communicate some aspects of God in a different way, a way that will help others dig further into the depths of God.

[Mike Morrell]

Sonja, Tina...I whole-heartedly agree. I think that The Shack is good Trinitarian theology, personally, and it strengthened my daily encounter with God-as-Trinity. I'd say that anyone who enjoys the writing of folks like Brennan Manning and Henri Nouwen would have zero issues with The Shack. And I think Young maintains that dance that some (not me necessarily) consider to be the hallmark of good orthodoxy--strongly emphasizing biblical truths without falling into some sort of 'ditch.' Young strikes me as the fiction-writing counterpart of NT Wright--deeply orthodox, committed to the wide and generous mercy of God, but not falling into that perceived extreme of universal reconciliation. Strong inclusionist, yes, but universalist, no.