The Shack: A Review

My sister gave me a copy of The Shack on Saturday. I finished it a few minutes ago and this is my impression of it.

Have you ever seen a musical in which the songs just flow out of the story, or are even necessary for the story? I have in mind, Fiddler on the Roof. It is an amazing experience which leaves one feeling like the whole play is one beautiful dramatic and unified song. Another kind of musical is Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. The songs are nice enough but they do not flow naturally from the story. The story is merely an excuse for performing the songs.

Like musicals the Shack has a story and there are, not songs, but theological vignettes. Unfortunately, this book shares nothing, except the English language, with Fiddler on the Roof. The vignettes, are not only ugly but have nothing to do with the story. It is obvious that the vignettes are preconceived and strung together like wooden pickets stapled to chicken wire; like the songs in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers; like the speeches in an Ayn Rand novel.

And then there are the vignettes and the theology they attempt to portray. Beginning with God the Father appearing as Oprah Winfrey in The Color Purple it only goes down hill. Jesus seems more like a New Age Jewish Grizzly Adams than the person revealed in the Bible. The Holy Ghost is shown as an Asian woman, I suppose, because Asian women are mysterious.

Perhaps the most flabbergasting thing in the book is when the persons of the Trinity have family devotions, during which Jesus tells The Father/Oprah that he loves him/her; as though the Son's eternal self-sacrifice is insufficient. But even aside from that, the hubris of the author's speculation regarding the inner life of the Holy Trinity is utterly astounding.

Another major problem with the book is the absence of the Church, which most Christians think of as the primary mode of God's self-revelation. In the protagonist's encounters with God in the Shack he is alone. The Church is not with him, he is not shown as being part of the Church. It is the same mindset that produced the song, "I Come to the Garden Alone", which of course is not true. The only thing anyone does alone is go to Hell. Furthermore, when the Church is discussed (in the chapter 12) it is completely wrong and ahistorical; seemingly ignorant of the New Testament text and the teachings of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons. If the author understood what the Church does he might have written the family devotion part differently, for the Church, which really is the Body of Christ continually offers worship to the Father.

Regarding Jesus, specifically, the author writes as though the Ascension never happened, as though Jesus is limited by his Incarnation and not the Lord and Master of all, as though the Father has not given him all power in Heaven and on Earth.

This is not to say the book is a total waste of trees. What it says about living in the present is true. What it says about willful independence is true. What it says about several things is true. But there are better books where that truth can be found; books that won't poison a person against the Church, which is Jesus Body and the Ark of Salvation.