In case you don’t know, “The Shack” has been a number 1 best selling novel that was released about a year ago. A few weeks ago it was still number 1 at Amazon.com. Today it is number 8. Because it is so popular, and because I heard of fellow missionaries who were excited about it and using it in Bible Studies, I decided to critique it. In my opinion it is a look at God and the gospel from a postmodern perspective in the context of a man’s struggle with God in the midst of personal and family tragedy. At best it is a rebuke to the church of today for not being the body of Christ–his hands and feet in a hurting world–and in that sense can be useful. But fundamentally it is “another gospel,” that exchanges the idols of modernism for those of postmodernism.
Critique of “The Shack”
Previous post: Prayer into song
Next post: Christmas help
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
It bothered me at first that you like parts of this book, while at the same time my pastor says that “These are the words of the Anti-Christ.” What a contrast! How can to wise and spirit-filled men disagree? So I found the opinion of another wise and spirit-filled man (George Grant). You can read it here: http://www.kingsmeadow.com/www/2008_07_01_blog_archive.html Just scroll down the the post called “Bad Books and Good Books.” He was more in the same view as my pastor.
But then I remembered: There are no absolute lies. That is to say, the devil is God’s devil, and anything he says MUST be within the bounds of truth and only twisted to whatever degree God allows. The devil cannot invent anything, but he is very skilled at twisting the truth into something appealing to sinful man. Therefore, even the most disgusting lie has truths in it, and wise and discerning people will always be able to find that truth.
The problem is, there are a LOT of people in the world who are surprisingly undiscerning. What a discerning man might view as obvious can be taken a completely different way by a man who does not know how to think. It is safe, though, for a discerning man to pick out the Biblical truths from the unBiblical distortions. But (and this is just my opinion) why spend time doing that, when you can get all of the undistorted truth there is, right in the Bible?
Those are the thoughts of a 16-year-old who hasn’t even read the book in question. Correct me if I’m wrong.
~Emily
Emily, thanks for your good thoughts. I actually thought my critique of the book was quite devastating. I believe that the book as a whole is “another gospel” and therefore very dangerous. When I say “another gospel,” I mean what Paul means in Galatians: something pretending to be the gospel but it really isn’t. So in that sense, they are words of the anti-Christ. Because “anti-Christ” doesn’t mean “against Christ.” It means “instead of Christ.” The book purports to be presenting Christ, but it is really presenting someone who pretends to be Christ–and with a false gospel.
But the book wouldn’t be so dangerous if it didn’t build its argument on some elements of truth. The truth in this case is that relationships are important and that God reaches out to hurting people through the body of Christ. The argument becomes more appealing to people who aren’t very discerning because in many ways the church of our day has failed to be the body of Christ. In other words, the church in our day has been more affected by the culture than most churches realize. In this sense the book might cause the church to think about why it (though fundamentally wrong) has such an appeal to people. In part the appeal is because people are very willing to accept a “god” who is on their level. But the appeal is also because of failures in the church as a whole.
Here’s an analogy: Suppose someone has a personality that emphasizes T. They are very direct and have actually made an idol out of being direct. They tell themselves that they are just loving people by telling them the truth, but in reality they “need” to win the argument and use logic as a kind of club to get their way. No suppose this person meets someone who is an F. And this person makes an idol out of having harmony. This person needs harmony so badly that he or she is willing to not confront people who need to be confronted, and willing to tell lies in order to make sure people like them. Here are two people who reflect God’s glory in different ways, but who both have made an idol out of what they are good at. In spite of the fact that they are both fundamentally wrong, behind that error is a reflection of God’s glory that is likely to be attractive to the other. The T might appreciate the apparently loving ways of the F, for example, which rebuke him for his idolatry of T. He might even try to mend his ways by “converting” to the F preference. But that would be changing one set of idols for another.
That’s my conclusion about “the Shack.” It attempts to change one set of idols for another. When I say there are things I “like” about the book, it’s not that I like the book as a whole or would recommend people read it to find out things they might not find anywhere else. And I would not recommend the book to people who might not have the discernment to see through what the author is saying. And I would recommend that people not use the book to try to help people. The book is very dangerous just because of the way it so subtly sprinkles truths throughout and because of the way it sometimes correctly criticizes the lack of emphasis on relationships in the church today. When I say there are things I “like” in the book, I don’t mean to say that it’s a good book. The overall context in which the truths are sprinkled makes the book a bad book.
Why would I pick out the Biblical truths from the distortions? Just because so many people I know–even missionaries–are very excited about this book and even using it in their attempts to reach unbelievers. Many of these people are reading the book and interpreting parts that might seem dubious to them in the best possible light. They do this in part because of the true things that the author says. So they come out thinking the book is OK, maybe with a few minor errors. They aren’t looking at the book closely enough, or with enough discernment, to detect the lies in which the truth is embedded. If I just said, “This is a terrible book, don’t use it,” many people would react by saying, “But what about this, and this and this and this (pointing out all the true elements). Or they might say, “If only the church were more loving, as this book points out, people would be more attracted to the church.” And there is an element of truth there. So I find it much more strategic to say, “Yes there are truths there, and these truths might serve as an indictment to the church.” Then I come with the devastating critique and say, “but these elements are enveloped in huge lies that are very dangerous.” I think doing it that way makes my critique more powerful.
So I’m not saying the book is partly good and partly bad. But I am pointing out the true things in it to take away the argument of those who think it’s a great and useful book. In other words, for people who haven’t read the book–especially those who might not have the discernment to see through it, I would tell them, “It’s not a good book. Don’t read it.” But for those people who have read it and think it’s basically a good book, I need to show them that I see the elements of truth there, show if and how we can benefit from it, and then show them why the overall framework of the book ultimately messes up these truths.
Because of God’s common grace, any book–even books written by people who say they hate God–can have truths that rebuke or encourage Christians and the church. As discerning Christians we need to be able to identify these truths, and also show how the work as a whole twists those truths into a lie.
Let me know if this satisfies your questions.
I made a few changes to the document to help clarify any possible misunderstandings about my views, and have uploaded this modified version.
Thanks. That makes more sense, now. I think when I read your review, I mixed up what you said other people thought with what you thought, yourself. I get it now.
Thanks again!
Emily
Let me add this. To some extent we read the Bible through the lens of our culture. We tend to see in it what our culture emphasizes and ask of it the questions our culture is asking. Hearing people from other times, other generations, and other cultures–even if they are unbelievers and fundamentally wrong–sometimes (because of God’s common grace) challenges cultural assumptions that are incorrectly filtering our reading of the Bible.
Good thinking, Emily. I’m glad to see a 16-year old thinking such deep thoughts!
I have yet a different, and most assuredly unpopular view. You know I am always good for a strong opinion. In short, I think that there have been enough critiques by Godly folks that it serves no righteous purpose to read it. No offense to anyone here, but being able to relate and defend with non-believers isn’t a compelling enough argument for me to read it. I already know that, for example, (in the book) God acknowledges that a fish is wiser than He. Reading the book seems to give credence to, and validate the views of the author (can’t be in the top 10 best seller unless a lot of folks are buying it). It’s sort of like I don’t need to go to a whore house to know that it’s a bad place to be. I really liked what Dr. Grant had to say when he said it’s “just another of the tawdry passing fancies of a culture slouching toward Gomorrah”. Pretty much sums it up for me.
Gary, I am in no way judging that fact that you read the book. I am just sharing why it wouldn’t be right for me to read it.
One of the things I was trying to say in my previous post is that I am glad that wise, discerning people like you (Gary) read stuff like this so I don’t have to.
I am concerned, however, that many Christians seem to be so excited about such false doctrine.
Actually, I didn’t want to read it. But when I found out people in MTW were liking it and wanting to use it for Bible Studies, I decided I needed to give them some guidance that would deal specifically with their issues.
Wow, this was all very interesting. Gary, I’m glad you took the initiative to “guide” the people at MTW. Emily, I too am impressed with your depth of insight. Thank you for your comments. And David, I appreciate your comments.
I enjoyed reading this discussion. It is so nice to have people to share deep thoughts with 🙂
Yes, this discussion was very interesting to read. I found your argument very persuasive, Dad, because you acknowledged the truths that are in the book and then pointed out how they’re enveloped in a very wrong theology.