Book Review: The Shack by Wm. Paul Young

Posted on June 20, 2009 by elizabeth

Images I should start this review by saying that I never intended to read "The Shack." I'm not especially fond of trendy Christian books like "The Purpose Driven Life" or "The Prayer of Jabez." I'm wary of any book that claims to be "life-changing" and especially dislike theological fiction–which is usually poorly written fiction with a heavy-handed message (think Frank Peretti's "Piercing the Darkness" or the "Left Behind" series).

However, so many people had asked me if I'd read this book that I finally caved. Fine, fine. I'll read it.

The basic plot involves a middle-aged father name Mack who loses his daughter to a brutal, serial kidnapper. This negatively affects Mack's relationship with God. One day God sends Mack a note–yes, an actual note–inviting him to spend some time with him at the very shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was discovered.

Mack reluctantly makes the trip to The Shack where he is effusively greeted by a "large, beaming African-American woman." (p.84) In other words, Big Momma. Except she's called "Papa" and she's God the Father.

I have to admit I almost quit reading right there. Young's portrayal of an African-American woman is patronizingly stereotypical. So is his portrayal of Jesus as a Middle Eastern man with a "large nose" (I'm not making this up). The Holy Spirit is a shape-shifting Asian woman. I don't even know what to make of that!

So, OK, if you can get past these offensive personifications of the Trinity, you might enjoy the rest of the book which hinges upon conversations between Mack and God.  In the end, Mack leaves a changed man. He's forgiven his daughter's murderer, asked some tough questions, and forsaken his "religious conditioning" which had hindered him from having a loving relationship with God.

The writing itself is mediocre although the pacing is fairly executed.
The characters themselves are not very complex. Mack struck me as a
shambling, self-pitying, passive-aggressive man who, we are told
repeatedly, is saddled with A Great Sadness (yes, capitalized just like
that). Blech.The characters of the Godhead are, as I mentioned, are stereotypical and somewhat patronizing. They are forever patting Mack on the back and telling him that he just doesn't understand. Yet.

There were some redeeming qualities about the book. I enjoyed the author's insight into the nature of love and relationships. As someone who was raised in an abusive, controlling church, it was refreshing to get a different perspective of God. My image of God the Father is often of a harsh judge waiting to execute judgment upon His errant, sinful children. "The Shack" produces an image of God the Father as an unconditionally loving, patient, often humorous parent.

This was helpful and heartwarming.

I especially appreciated the discussion about the nature of love and what love is. As the Holy Spirit (aka Sarayu–Asian woman) says to Mack, "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. 108)

Further on, Jesus speaks to Mack about why we value people based on their appearance and how we ought to value them for their intrinsic worth. "Being always transcends appearance–that which only seems to be. Once you begin to know the being behind the very pretty or very ugly face, as determined by your bias, the surface appearances fade away until they simply no longer matter." (p.114)

However, I was troubled by the loosey-goosey theology. There was a section where Jesus tells Mack that "most roads lead to nowhere. But I will travel any road to find you." So, yes, Christ can find us anywhere. But it also sounds awfully similar to universalism. This kind of double-speak ran through many of the conversational passages. If I was an new Christian without much knowledge of Scripture, I might be seriously confused. 

So, while there are passages that are insightful and interesting, there is a lot of doctrinal error, too. I can forgive mediocre writing if the story is compelling and the theology is good. Alas, this book falls short.

My recommendation is that you don't go out and buy "The Shack." Chances are your evangelical neighbor has already purchased a copy that you can borrow.

Just be prepared to hear that it's "life-changing." :)

This entry was posted in Book Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.sixblessings.blogspot.com Carmen

    A group of ladies at our church are having a book club about this book this summer. I don’t have much time to read so I skipped it. After reading your review, I’m glad I did.

    My husband wrote a review of “This Present Darkness” over at http://hatushili.blogspot.com/
    Check it out. Much of the same of what you said. Great minds think alike?! : )

  • http://www.oneordinaryday.com Ashley

    I completely agree. I too thought it could be an okay read for someone who is theoligically grounded, but very confusing for a new believer.
    Glad to hear I’m not the only one who didn’t find it life changing ;) .

  • http://andi-horton.livejournal.com Andrea

    Wonderfully fair-minded review! I’ve not actually read it myself, so I can’t say if I actually agree or not, but looking at the points you raised I am guessing I’d feel much the same as you did.

    Actually I did mean to pick this up at one point, since my mother gave us a copy. However our dog found it on the bathroom floor where my sister had left it, and he and peed all over it before I got the chance to read it for myself. I wasn’t too cut up about the loss at the time, and now I am even less so– seems Dakarai shares my views on most evengelical pop culture :P

  • GrammaMack

    “Truth is a portrait, and to exaggerate one feature is to turn the portrait into a caricature.” Unfortunately, The Shack paints a caricature of God. It’s very sad that so many have bought into it and now hold as true a caricature of God instead of a biblical portrait. That’s a life change we can all do without!

  • http://www.abbyosborn.blogspot.com abby osborn

    ouch… that was a harsh review if you ask me. i have only read about half of the book so will not voice my opinions on it, but i did listen to a 90 minute sermon/talk/lecture that the author gave. in it he spoke of how and why he wrote the book, how it came completely out of his own journey with god and that it originally was supposed to be a story to his kids about his idea of god and how he found him on the 11 year (i think) journey of healing from sin/addiction, etc… it was very interesting and have since gone back and listened to it few more times. it gave me a totally different perspective of the book.

  • http://jen5972.blogspot.com/ Jen W.

    For some reason, I posted something and it never showed up! So I guess I will post it again. I read The Shack a few months ago for the first time, and I read in just 2 days. I loved the book for several reasons. As someone who has been through some major grief over the loss of my children through miscarriage (6 of them), I had some serious anger issues with God. I was told that it was “God’s will” that my babies died, and with each death, my anger towards God got even more intense. So I could completely relate to Mack’s anger at God in the book. Basically how he felt was how I used to feel. The book was very hard to read in certain parts for me because I could relate so well to his feelings. I could even relate to the name The Great Sadness, because grief like that consumes your life, so I can understand why it is capitalized. I grew up in a very legalistic church and I had a very warped view of God. Like Mack, I thought Jesus was loving, but I thought God was distant and angry. Mack’s description of how he viewed God almost made me laugh because it was exactly like mine had been. God has been doing a healing in my heart way before I read the book, but the book did help me to see God in a different light. I left the legalistic church I grew up in, and am now going to a Spirit-filled church. It has been a slow process trying to relearn who God is, and trying to learn that He has great love for me, not anger. I’m still trying to get my mind to wrap around that. I think that The Shack is an excellent book for anyone dealing with anger issues with God, and for anyone who has an extremely warped view of who God is.

  • http://restoringtheyears.blogspot.com Grafted Branch

    Well, that’s a few hours you’ll never get back! At least, by way of this review, you can’t call them a total waste…thanks for the warning. :)

  • http://www.seekingfaithfulnessblog.com Holly

    Elizabeth, I posted a comment this a.m., but don’t see that it came thru. Maybe it is in spam?

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Holly: I don’t know why certain comments aren’t showing up–I’m certainly not blocking anyone! :) Sometimes Typepad gets quirky! I’m sorry about that!

    Jen W.: Thank you for sharing your experience. I am so sorry that people told you it was God’s will that your babies died! That is just awful! I can definitely see how The Shack would be helpful to someone like you. Yes, grief like that can be all consuming. And yes, because of our common background in legalistic churches, I can definitely agree with you that the gracious portrayal of God was indeed refreshing.

    I love Gramma Mack’s comment on portrait vs. caricature. Interesting insight.

  • http://www.declarehisgreatness.com Cathy

    Elizabeth, you read my mind. I had planned to write a review after I finished reading the book. I’d heard so much hype about the book, and I, like you, tend to be wary about best sellers, and ones that Christians and non Christians deem life changing. I read an excerpt, swallowed hard, and held my nose. I don’t want to be rude or offensive, but doctrinally, this book has issues. “The Thirsty Theologian” addressed some of those issues some time ago on his blog. Al Moehler has an audio book review online which was helpful. I plan to read it in its entirety this summer just so I can articulate about it more authentically.

    I gotta be honest, though, I am somewhat flummoxed and disturbed by the amount of Christians who LOVE this book, and tout it as a spiritual awakening. I read nearly 2500 reviews on Amazon (I REALLY wanted to know about this book) that were almost all positive in nature, and people who reviewed it were almost breathless in their take on the book. I think the doctrinal issues alone should be a deal-breaker. I think the same about another book that I read that was popular (not Warren’s book) a few years ago, but is still talked about as some great doctrinal treatise. In that book, the author wrote, “…there was something inside me that caused Him to love me.” Really? No, God loves me despite my sinful heart.

    Obviously, pastors can’t address everything that comes down the pike, but if they teach good doctrine, then people will recognize bad doctrine when they hear it.

    Thanks. You said it well.

    Cathy

    PS I totally agree w/Gramma Mack’s assessment.

  • http://www.declarehisgreatness.com Cathy

    Jen W.,

    While this probably sounds hollow, I am sorry about your miscarriages. I didn’t see your comment before I wrote mine, but my intent wasn’t to be flippant or rude, and hope that my comment doesn’t serve to add to your pain.

    Cathy

  • http://bellwhistlemoon.blogspot.com/ mary bailey

    I believe God can use anything, and He most certainly has used Young’s The Shack to help those who are hurting, angry, confused, curious, seeking, etc. That much we can tell from the testimony of others. I am glad for those it has helped.

    In my own personal opinion, The Shack is built on sand. The story tugs at the heart’s emotions and as the story reaches it’s climax, it bombards us with colorful, flowery, dream-like, fairy tale imagery and shaky, feel-good theology. There’s nothing solid to cling to. It left *me* feeling empty inside.

  • http://jen5972.blogspot.com/ Jen W.

    Thank you Elizabeth. I wanted to write a book after all of our miscarriages called “101 things not to say to someone who is grieving”! Lol! I was amazed at the well meaning comments that were just downright awful. I think the people were trying to be comforting, and just didn’t realize that what they were saying was so hurtful.

    Cathy, thank you. I wasn’t upset at all with what you wrote. God has been healing my heart, so my pain isn’t fresh like it used to be. I am so thankful for that :) . I do agree that The Shack was really week in the theology department. I think the author’s intent was to heal hearts that had been hurt by the church teachings that God was mean and horrible. I don’t think the book would be good for people who are wishy-washy in their faith because they could end up believing that any road leads to God. I do wish the book was more strong in certain areas, but for me, the book was really helpful in healing some painful areas in my life.

  • http://www.usborneconnection.com Tressa

    This is timely. My brother and I have discussed this book and Ms. Mary Bailey might as well be my brother… :-)

    How can a book be truely “helpful to those who are hurting, angry, confused, curious, seeking, etc.” and yet it’s foundation be “built on sand”? How can it “help” while leading them astray with feel-good theology.

    That’s akin to saying, “If it works for you, great!”

    There is only one way to Christ. With all the twists, turns and misleading concepts in this book… Well, it’s like getting directions to go home, on Mapquest (a map search engine we think we can trust), and being led 300 miles off course. You’d be lost.

  • http://www.declarehisgreatness.com Cathy

    Sorry to be such a chatterbox about this post.

    However, like Tressa, I also had the same thoughts after reading Mary Bailey’s comment. I agree that “God can use anything,” and to say otherwise is to limit His power. BUT, why in the world would you direct anyone who is hurting, to this book? It is rife w/doctrinal error (and that’s just in the limited parts that I’ve read). I fear that, even in Christian circles (and I’m in that circle), we’ve become so fearful of speaking the truth–in love–w/out compromise, that we water it down. I find myself being so concerned about offending someone that I will parse words, rather than doing the loving thing and pointing out error. If you read church history, many of the great theologians didn’t mince words, and didn’t bother to be PC. A holistic approach isn’t always the best one to take.

    Tressa said it better than I can.

    Cathy

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Jen W.: I think you should at least write a blog post about the 101 things NOT to say to a grieving person. That would be helpful to so many of us who really don’t know WHAT to say. I would be interested in reading your thoughts about that!

    Mary B: You know, that’s how I felt, too. I wanted something meatier to hang onto. Something true and solid. But instead I felt really disappointed. Thanks for that insight.

    Tressa: Dude, I know EXACTLY what you mean about Mapquest. I can’t tell you HOW many TIMES I’ve been led astray by that dumb thing. Arrrrgh.

    Cathy: Yeah, it concerns me that so many Christians were enamored by this book. But maybe this is encouraging news? Maybe there are a lot of newish (or hurt) Christians out there who need a softer approach. It’s OK to drink milk if you don’t have teeth to chew meat.

    Sometimes the soft approach meets someone who would never step foot in a theologically rigorous church.

    Perhaps this book’s popularity is indicative of a lot of hurt Christians who have struggled with abusive churches(*waving my own hand*).

    My review wasn’t meant as a dismissal so much as a word of caution. I think most discerning Christians would be able to read this book without any problem. And in fact, some like Abby & Jen W. (see above comments) have gleaned something helpful.

    I’m loving all this discussion!! :)

  • http://www.seekingfaithfulnessblog.com Holly

    Oh, I know, EE. I probably just typed the code wrong or something and my comment didn’t appear.

    So, I’ll retype. But I’ll preface my comment with an assurance of love and appreciation for you. :) That’s the most important thing, in my estimation. I love you, girl. :) I think you are awesome – and love that we can have independent thought. God is so creatively GOOD!

    So.

    I loved the book The Shack. Not because someone told me to. I expected to really, really dislike it. After all…anything that everyone else “liked” probably wouldn’t interest me, ya know? :) I haven’t liked any other of the pop evangelical books…

    But I loved it. Not that it was written well. The writing was rather cheesy. I kept waiting for it to get better in that respect. :)

    I didn’t love it for its great theology…but it wasn’t intended to teach great theology. I think of some of the other great books that I have loved, that might teach us some theology but certainly not a perfect picture of God, sin, and redemption…books like LOTR or the Narnia books. (Which, I recognize, many Christians loathe those books too.)

    I loved it because it provided a different perception of God than we often pick up. I think that the Church in America (and not just the evangelical church, but all of the Church) has this really, really bad portrayal (true or not….) of being angry, and sometimes mean, and fearful, and judgemental, and unloving. That’s not from the media – that’s from young people who are polled by Barna and overwhelmingly find the church filled will people who do not love them and who will only judge them and who want something from them. (The book unChristian is a really good book to read to get a grip on understanding this.)

    I have always had a hard time loving God. I have loved Jesus – but God? That was hard for me to do. I think it is because I also found it hard to balance his love and his justice. My view, my understanding of his love was skewed.

    But it is important to understand his love. Yes, he is justice, he is our judge…but when you take it down to the core, what is his extreme motivation? Love. Yes, love. Not just for me, the elect, but for all people. And I’m pretty sure that *all* people don’t get that. I think this book is a good starter for that. I think it is vital for people outside of the Church to know that God loves them, that he is for them, wants to help them, that he knows them, rather than think that they are judged and condemned. No – you don’t want someone to read the book and assume that it is the totality of knowing and understanding God…but even in the depths of the deepest systematic theology and heaviest commentary we still don’t get a complete and total picture of God. This is why young believers or unbelievers, if you will, who read this book or any book about God need to have life contact with those who are more mature in their faith. I don’t think God intended young believers to grow alone.

    As to specifics: I took the comment about “most roads lead to nowhere, but I would travel any road to get to you” to actually refute universalism. That does not mean that there is no judgement, or no sin, that even the darkest, most depraved unrepentant sinner receives a blissful eternal life – but that God will go to amazing lengths to reach us. I can not find anything there that I would disagree with. His love *is* amazing and he did travel the path to the cross to win us. Where, exactly, would he not go to reach us?

    As far as the presentation of God as an African American woman. This topic, too, was discussed clearly within the book. “Papa” said plainly that God is neither male nor female (which I believe, too, that both genders are expressions of God…but He usually does express himself to us in terms of a Father. Then, I have to ask myself, but is that because the scriptures were written in a time and culture of patriarchal societies?)

    However, Papa said that *she* appeared to Mack as a mother, a nurturer, because Mack was not prepared to receive a father. He had too much anger toward his father. God’s goal with Mack was healing – of his memories and of his present – and of reconciliation. Later, God appeared to Mack as a father. Awesome. God – not limited – but able to be all things for the sake of his child. I had no problem with this presentation, either. It caught me off guard, and I expected to hate it – but upon further examination found it to be what I believe too.

    I guess I find it troublesome that many find it troublesome that some Christians liked the book, particularly when many of those who are troubled haven’t actually read the book. They’ve read reviews, but not the book, so they’ve already formulated their opinion before they read. :)

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Holly,

    Thank you for re-posting your comment. I really needed to read it!

    Perhaps what I failed to mention in my review was that my view of God was very similar to Mack’s view. In other words, I also viewed God the Father as a harsh judge. I really appreciated a different perspective: God as Love, not as judge.

    Maybe my own problem with reading this book is that my religious conditioning tells me to second-guess my emotions. On one level, I would like to love this book. But there’s another part of me that tells me not to trust that feeling. In other words, God as Love seems too good to be true, y’know?

    But the Christians I love the most are the ones who are loving, open-hearted and non-judgmental. Yes, they believe orthodox theology, but they live it out in love, kindness and gentleness.

    So, maybe their understanding of God is more “Shack-like” while mine is more “Old Testament wrathful God-like.” Which one is true? Perhaps they both are.

    Holly, thanks for offering another perspective. I love how your mind works! And I know you love me! :)

    XO
    EE

  • http://bellwhistlemoon.blogspot.com/ mary bailey

    “It’s OK to drink milk if you don’t have teeth to chew meat.” ~EE

    Very well said.

    When I was a new Christian in 1999, God used the “Left Behind” series, which I probably wouldn’t read now, and certain tv evangelists, whom I definitely wouldn’t watch now, to nurture my growing faith. That was the milk. I moved on to the meat of the Word quite awhile ago.

    Yes, I think The Shack has very weak theology. But I pray someone who is “hurting, angry, confused, curious and seeking” is not limiting themselves to a portion of pop-fiction when the whole feast of God’s Word is available.

  • http://linda-walkingintheword.blogspot.com walking in the word

    I was talking to a friend of mine last night and she asked me if I had read The Shack. I told her I hadn’t and she proceeded to give me the same review you did. The ironic thing is, she doesn’t read your blog. Thanks for a good review. I didn’t find it harsh, but cautionary.

  • http://www.usborneconnection.com Tressa

    Thought provoking discussion. Good post, Ms. E.

    There were several references to not being ready to receive a “Father”. I can relate to this, as a child my earthly father was abusive. In a child’s thinking I expected my heavenly Father to be like that of my earthly father. Conditional, harsh, distant. It was through my loving, Godly Grandmother that I came to know and love God and reaffirm my belief in Christ.

    As for Mary Bailey, I had to check out your blog and make sure you weren’t 6 ft tall and bald, like my brother… You’re comments are so in line with that of my brother. :-)

  • http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com molly

    Holly said:

    “”"But I loved it. Not that it was written well. The writing was rather cheesy. I kept waiting for it to get better in that respect. :)

    I didn’t love it for its great theology…but it wasn’t intended to teach great theology. I think of some of the other great books that I have loved, that might teach us some theology but certainly not a perfect picture of God, sin, and redemption…books like LOTR or the Narnia books. (Which, I recognize, many Christians loathe those books too.)

    I loved it because it provided a different perception of God than we often pick up. I think that the Church in America (and not just the evangelical church, but all of the Church) has this really, really bad portrayal (true or not….) of being angry, and sometimes mean, and fearful, and judgemental, and unloving.”"”

    Molly here:

    (Okay, so the TRUTH is that I wanted to quote Holly’s entire comment but figured it might seem weird, so I just pulled part of it…)… :lol:

    Holly said what I was going to say. I keep wanting to say more but she just said everythign I wanted to.

    Nuff said. :)

    (Oh, wait, I did think of something. After we read it, my two friends and I kept saying, “Do you think it’s really true…? That God could be this good…?” And that convinced me more than anything that Paul Young, fallible human that he is, stumbled on SOMEthing in his book that was right on the money. Because we were sitting there like the Pharisees going, “Yeah, He can’t be the Messiah,” because they were busy thinking of God as this wrathful righteousness-demanding perfectionist who, if they would only get their act together better, would show up and remove all their physical problems. And the Jesus in the Gospels, as well as the general portrait of God painted in The Shack, were distinctively DIFFERENT. So when I caught myself in worshipful wonder and awe deliberating if God could REALLY be Love like that, it was one more clue helping me see how much I’d painted God in my own image (not Love) instead of seeing Him in His.

    Opinionated opinions, of course, but they are mine. :)

  • http://www.seekingfaithfulnessblog.com Holly

    Elizabeth, I read “The God of All Comfort” for the first time about, oh…6-8 months ago. Up until that time, I’d struggle. “Yes, God is love…BUT…he’s also such a heavy handed, angry, ready to chastise God.” The lovey dovey stuff kinda made me sick. Surely THAT can’t be an accurate representation of God, right?

    But the more I read, the more I began to see, and the more God began to work in my heart, and I began to allow the view that he is love to move into the proper balance. I thought I was balanced before, but I was not. I skewed to judgement, not quite able to believe this amazing love he had for all of humanity! His love really is to good to be true, isn’t it? :) But it is. It is.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Holly & Molly: “Do you think it could be true? Could it be that God is this good?” Yeah, I’ve asked myself that question 8 million times. The truth is, I LONG for God to be that good. But part of me feels like I’d be giving in to all that mushy stuff, y’know? I don’t want to be weak, but I have to admit, my experience of God the Father as Harsh Judge was pretty much all I knew growing up. It’s hard for me to realize that might not be true? At least, that it’s a skewed perspective.

    Maybe what’s too good to be true really is true! Since leaving an abusive church I have come to know Him as the kind, gentleman, the unconditional loving Father….

  • http://www.declarehisgreatness.com Cathy

    As my former pastor used to say, “You were worth a Son to God.”

    Awesome, TRUE stuff.

    I was brought up in a pastor’s home, no less, in a legalistic environment. My dad lived a completely different life in public than he did at home. He could have gone to jail for the things he did (and that’s not hyperbole), so you’d think that my brother, sister and I would have departed the faith long ago. But, praise God, His Spirit has kept us, and continues the sanctifying work in our lives and hearts.

    While I’m light years away from where I used to be, I know that God is still at work in my life. I can rejoice that God delights in me, a notion that, at one time, I had a hard time believing.

    Cathy

  • http://papuagirlindallas.blogspot.com/ Kacie

    Interesting review, I know many people that share your feelings. I read it and also wondered why so many people were powerfully impacted by it – and even found out that my dad wept while reading it. I’m not sure – maybe it’s particularly powerful for a certain generation?

    In any case, my curiosity was most piqued because Young grew up as a missionary kid in the same place I did, only long before I got there. He says he was sexually abused both in the tribe and in the boarding school he went to. In any case, his life story of moving into the Christian world and Christian ministry and then breaking down and having to face his own sin and his own pain is what is metaphorically pictured in The Shack.

    Actually I really didn’t mind the depiction of the Trinity, because the Trinity IS three persons, and it is far beyond our ability to really understand so I liked that Young made it all unconventional – although I am only okay with that if it’s all presented as fiction, which it is.

    What I most disliked was the presentation of God’s lack of sovereignty. In a conversation with God the Father, Mack asks how God could cause all the pain he’d been through, and God answers that He didn’t have anythign to do with it. THAT gets me… that is a powerless God who loves but … isn’t really God. Open theism, really.

  • http://forgivingararat.blogspot.com/ Sharon Lee

    I loved the Shack for what it was…a creative work of fiction. I found it an imaginative way to spread God’s love and no more than that. Elizabeth, I’d also like to suggest another book for you to review. It’s called Forgiving Ararat by Gita Nazareth. It’s about a woman who unlocks the mystery of her own murder from the afterlife. It is a supernatural thriller with a wonderful Christian message and I’d love to know what you think of it. I’m a publicist and fan of the book. Thanks for your consideration.