****** - Verified Buyer
4.5
What an astonishing range of reactions Wm. Paul Young's little novel The Shack has provoked. The enormous number and variety of reviews suggest it is either a great work of literature comparable with Pilgrim's Progress if not the Bible itself; or worthless garbage on the grounds of its being: (1) anti-Christian and deceptive; (2) anti-intellectual and theologically bankrupt; (3) very weak literature that is: (a) arcane, ill-constructed, mush-mouthed tripe; (b) too simplistic; or (c) ponderous, impenetrable, and jargon-heavy. I don't agree with any of the above assessments, so let me propose a different one.The story of Mackenzie "Mack" Allen Phillips is presented as if ghost-written by his friend Willie; I think those who criticize the book on literary grounds are failing to allow for this nuance. The story has been accurately described many times in other reviews so I'll avoid repetition. For a father to lose a beloved child is hard enough; for this to happen in the way described in the book - her abduction by a mass murderer while the father was only feet away - would be as difficult an event to bear as almost any I could conceive. However strong someone's faith in God, these circumstances would surely test that faith to the full as is portrayed in Mack's "Great Sadness" and tension within his family. As a suicide counselor I heard countless people ask "Where was God?" in response to changes in their lives less profound than the fictional Mack's so I can relate to the issue on a personal level.For those who slam the book as anti-Christian I have this to say. It is a work of fiction; I thought of the events described at the shack as an elaborate dream that Mack experienced not as "real" even in the context of the story. But what is special about this dream (or real events if that is how others read the story) is that the experiencing of it brings about real and necessary changes in his life and those of his family. His faith in God is restored along with his engagement in the world and his ability to forgive; in fact his life is transformed by the experience for the better. I cannot see anything about this that could be described as anti-Christian; it is exactly what Christ asked of us.This is a short novel; I read it in under three hours. In no sense could it be expected to serve as an apologetic in the style of a CS Lewis, a Keller or a Copan. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the theology in the book, which at times is quite profound. Here's an example from p.127: "broken humans center their lives around things that seem good to them but will neither fill them nor free them. They are addicted to power, or to the illusion of security that power offers. When a disaster happens, those same people will turn against the false powers they trusted." Another is found on p.137: "Then is it's you who determines good and evil. You become the judge. And to make things more confusing, that which you determine to be good will change over time and circumstance. And then, beyond that and even worse, there are billions of you, each determining what is good and what is evil. So when your good and evil clash with your neighbor's, fights and arguments ensue and even wars break out ... And if there is no reality of good that is absolute, then you have lost any basis for judging. It is just language, and one might as well exchange the word good for evil." These extracts capture very well the reasons why we must not act as judges - which is one of Christ's strongest messages to us.Those who claim the book brings God down to our level or puts him in a box are missing the point of the narrative: I suggest they re-read it bearing in mind the points I have made above. All we know of God is that we know almost nothing - except that he is all good, all loving and merciful. So the fact that Young's allegory (actually that of the character in his story) for God may differ from someone else's is not valid ground for criticism; rather it should cause one reflection upon exactly why we feel that we have God figured out better than another person. The God described by Mack with Willie's help is clearly capable of appearing in whatever form suits his purpose; those who insist that God appear as portrayed in the Old Testament are actually more guilty of the "God in a box" error than Young. If it had achieved no more than warming the heart of a veteran (thank you Timekeeper Dave for opening your heart to us) this would be a worthwhile contribution to literature. That it has brought the faith debate down from the ether and into everyday conversation makes it especially valuable and I recommend it to anyone with an open mind.
