So I finally read The Shack. The hype over this book was like five years ago, but I still wanted to read it for myself. I come away challenged and inspired, yet also a little confused.
If you’re going to criticize the book, you should definitely read it first.* The story is powerful. And the author presents it in such a way that challenges traditional thinking, forcing the reader to think critically. That’s good. If we always read books that don’t require much discernment we get lazy as readers.
I especially enjoyed the way William P. Young (the author) would ask a question or say something that leaves the reader hanging. Many times I thought, “Yeah, that’s true . . . but that’s not what I would have thought.” It’s good. He doesn’t leave much room for just going by what you have been told.
The book is over two hundred and fifty pages long, so I’m not going to dissect everything he said. Rather, I’d like to share four general observations I had as I read the book.* Let me start by briefing you on the story.
Mack and Nan Phillips are a middle-aged couple with four children. Mack doesn’t have much of a relationship with his Dad and barely a relationship with God. After his daughter dies, even his relationship with God goes to nothing.
One weekend while he is camping with his children, his youngest daughter is kidnapped by a child abusing murderer. They eventually, they find the dress she was wearing, all bloodied up, in a shack in the mountains close to where they had camped.
As a result of this experience, Mack turns inward. Kicking himself and blaming God for everything that happened. Nan turns to God and develops an even closer relationship with Him.
One day, several years later, Mack receives a note in the mail from “Papa,” which was Nan’s name for God. It said, “Meet me at the shack.”
He doesn’t know if it is someone playing a dirty trick, if it’s the killer, or if it really is God. He almost doesn’t go, but when Nan and the kids take a weekend trip to visit her sister, he decides to check it out. He hadn’t been back to the shack since the death of his daughter.
At the shack, Mack meets God. Only, God isn’t as he always imagined. God the Father is represented as a bustling African-American woman. Jesus is a middle-aged, Middle Eastern man. The Holy Spirit is an Asian lady named Sarayu.
While at the shack with God, Mack experiences what God is really like, His uninhibited love for His children. Mack is led to healing from the pain in his relationship with his Dad and from the pain of losing his daughter.
Here are my four observations from the book:
Representing God As a Women Doesn’t Solve Any Problems of How We View God, It Only Shows Another Part Him
I think the story could have been more powerful if the author would have represented God as a man the whole way through the book. He does at the end, and it’s interesting that the part of the story where God appears as a man is when Mack needs to face his deepest pain. That’s good. Many men run from their pain, but God moves into it and brings order and healing. Exactly what real men should do.
At the beginning of the book, when Mack discovers this lady he is talking to is God, he asks her why there’s such an emphasis on Father in the Bible.
She responds,
“There are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the creation was broken that true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me—both are needed. But an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.” (p.94)
There is a desperate need for true fathering in our world. I think Young represents God as a woman to Mack because he felt that if God came as a man Mack would react based on his experience of “father.”
Mack did not have a good relationship with his Dad. But that’s why I think the story would have been more powerful to have a man acting like “Papa” does in the book. Mack expects that of a mother, albeit he doesn’t expect it of God. If “Papa” was a man it would have gone against everything he knew fathers to be.
For some reason God chose to reveal Himself as a man. There are a few scriptures that hint at God comparing Himself to a mother, like “as a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you,” but when God directly reveals Himself to creation, it’s as a man.
I don’t understand why that is. Somehow both male and female display parts of God, but He still chose to come as a man when He came to earth. Jesus constantly talked about His father. There is significance in that.
The reason we bristle at God as father isn’t because the Bible uses the wrong pronoun for God, it’s because fathering as we know it (generally speaking) is so far from who God is. Representing God in His true character and as a man would have been even more effective, in my opinion.
Not Everything Young Considers “Religiosity” Is Actually Religiosity
The author makes sweeping statements about religiosity that add confusion, not clarity. For instance, he says Mack’s perspective of God as a man is religious conditioning. (p.94) God revealed Himself as a man, it’s not religiosity to take what is said in scripture as being what is meant.
Young also gives the impression that to develop a concrete belief from scripture or to embrace any form of responsibility and expectation is only trying to create certainty out of uncertainty and is religiosity. (p.221)
Is embracing the responsibility as a believer to “go into all the world” religiosity? Christ commanded it. Do we just ignore what’s commanded? Or the expectation that my wife isn’t going to cheat on me because we made a vow before God—is that my vain attempt at creating certainty out of uncertainty? I don’t think so. First of all, there is still uncertainty. Secondly, as followers of Christ, that’s what He calls us to in marriage. It’s a form of expectation.
I say this carefully because I believe Young says some great things about religiosity versus true love for God. That’s why I think it adds confusion. There are many voices out there attempting to address religiosity but end up bringing confusion because they add their own reasoning and exclude some clear biblical teaching.
The goal of our lives should be to experience Jesus. Studying God’s Word is a valuable and necessary part to truly experiencing Him. Understanding and believing it is not a form of religiosity. Neither is embracing the responsibilities of following Christ.
Young Affectively Illustrates God’s Relationship with Us
I found the story incredibly meaningful in how it showed God’s love for us and how He chooses to relate to us. Other than the fact that I’m not sure about representing God as a woman, how the author had God relate is pretty Biblical.
One of my favorite illustrations in the story is how God relating with us is like a father who gets on his hands and knees to play with his children. The God of the Bible is much more loving and relational than many people interpret Him and I thought this book did a great job at bringing that to life.
The Shack Is an Amazing Story of Reconciliation
How Mack finds healing, both from his relationship with his Dad and from losing his daughter, is deeply moving. You will have to read the story for yourself to get the whole picture, but here are a few quotes that really spoke to me.
“Forgiving your Dad yesterday was a significant part in your being able to know me as Father, today.” –Papa
“At this point, all I have to offer as an answer are my love and goodness, and my relationship with you. I did not purpose Missy’s death, but that doesn’t mean I can’t use it for good.” –Papa
“Forgiveness is not about forgetting, Mack. It’s about letting go of another person’s throat . . . Mack, I am God. I forgot nothing. I know everything. So forgetting for me is the choice to limit myself. Son, because of Jesus there is now no law demanding that I bring your sins back to mind.” –Papa
One More Thought
Overall, I enjoyed the read. It is a powerful story of God and His love for His creation. However, I would give one word of caution. William P. Young, purposefully created the narrative to be extremely out of the box. He is not just wanting to offer another perspective; he’s wanting to blow apart traditional thoughts that might actually be in error.
Because of this, I do not recommend taking what he says as definitive for biblical theology. He may be just as wrong as the people he is criticizing, and, as you read, you will want to walk prayerfully with Truth and with people who know Truth and love you better than you do.*
Having said that, if you decide to read the book, let me know what you think. If you have read it already, go ahead and share your thoughts in the comments.
“Relationships are never about power, and one way to avoid the will to hold power over another is to choose to limit oneself—to serve.” (p. 109)
“When you chose independence over relationship you became a danger to one another. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness.” (p. 128)
“Remember, the people who know Me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda.” (p. 196)
*This post was originally published January 30, 2015, but was updated January 28, 2017.
