I read The Shack by William Young over the weekend. If you haven’t heard of it, it is a very popular book at least in Christian circles, and beyond. I found it to be a very fascinating eloquently written story about an everyday man in the face of a great sorrow and his journey to come to terms with the great sorrow. It is a book that, with creative license, takes a rather fresh approach to many of the questions everyone struggles with concerning God. Some compare it to the classic Pilgrim’s Progress; however, as much as I love reading a good classic, this book surpasses the former at least in today’s culture. I was intrigued to find a lot of the questions we grabble with on this site wrestled with in the book in a way I cannot due justice. There is something to telling of truth in a story that can capture the mind and heart in a way straight up facts fall short. I would say The Shack is a parable of sorts that has a very beautiful message. I recommend it to Christians and non-Christians alike, including the most ardent skeptics. Further, if there is even the smallest of embers flickering in your being of desire of knowing God's love you may find some hope in settling back and reading this book. If nothing else, you will have enjoyed an amazing story eloquently told.Monday, March 30, 2009
Book Review: The Shack
I read The Shack by William Young over the weekend. If you haven’t heard of it, it is a very popular book at least in Christian circles, and beyond. I found it to be a very fascinating eloquently written story about an everyday man in the face of a great sorrow and his journey to come to terms with the great sorrow. It is a book that, with creative license, takes a rather fresh approach to many of the questions everyone struggles with concerning God. Some compare it to the classic Pilgrim’s Progress; however, as much as I love reading a good classic, this book surpasses the former at least in today’s culture. I was intrigued to find a lot of the questions we grabble with on this site wrestled with in the book in a way I cannot due justice. There is something to telling of truth in a story that can capture the mind and heart in a way straight up facts fall short. I would say The Shack is a parable of sorts that has a very beautiful message. I recommend it to Christians and non-Christians alike, including the most ardent skeptics. Further, if there is even the smallest of embers flickering in your being of desire of knowing God's love you may find some hope in settling back and reading this book. If nothing else, you will have enjoyed an amazing story eloquently told.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Must be a short book. I have the audio version, but haven't listened to it yet.
It's about average for a fiction book. My mother listened to the story via audio version. I think it may come to the big screen sometime in the future. I have to say I thought of you when I was reading it, just because some of the topics we have discussed are addressed in the book.
I'm due to start reading a book on Socrates soon (I understand that you have an interest in him). I'll let you know when I do the review - it should be by the end of April I think. I've got two fiction reviews to do & should finish a different non-fiction next week so there's a few books ahead of it yet.
I am interested in Socrates. I have about 6 or 7 books in line to read and a few more I aim to buy soon. I get a lot of books for birthdays and Christmas.
I read about 50-60 books a year ATM. So I mainly do a review or sometimes two) most weeks.
I have lots to read sitting in various piles throughout the house. It's good to have choice [grin]
You've got me beat. I've been aiming at the equivalent of one a year, but haven't topped 42 yet in a year. At least not since high school. I could read 10-15 fiction books in a three week period back then. I don't think I'll see those days again. I didn't read non-fiction then. I mostly read Nancy Drew and Star Trek books back then. My husband is a big reader too. We keep running into the "problem" of more books than bookshelves. I only do reviews on a few here and there.
whoops that was to be "one a week" not "one a year"
Video games have ruined pleasure reading for me for many years. I need to lock up all of my computers and video games and just read.
karla said: I've been aiming at the equivalent of one a *week*, but haven't topped 42 yet in a year.
In my youth - when I had time on my hands and no computer I could probably manage 100 a year... Mostly fiction though.
mike said: Video games have ruined pleasure reading for me for many years. I need to lock up all of my computers and video games and just read.
Indeed. I *try* to restict myself to 2 hours a day.
If I was just reading fiction I could read a whole lot more. I usually knock a fiction book out in two days. However, the main thing that diverts me from reading is writing which I have come to love a bit more than reading the last few years. So when I get free time it's a toss up between grabbing a book or sitting at the computer to write.
I pulled out my old Super Nintendo a few months before Christmas and was enjoying Mario. That was the extent of my video game experience. However, my sister got us a PS2 for Christmas, our first. But I don't play that much. I haven't found a good Mario game for it (-:
karla said: If I was just reading fiction I could read a whole lot more. I usually knock a fiction book out in two days.
I guess that about 75% of my reading is fiction (and about 75% of that is SF) - but then again I mostly read for entertainment rather than enlightenment [grin].
I used to read a lot of non-fiction in my youth when the fires of knowledge seeking burned a bit higher. These days I tend to read non-fiction in the evenings or at bedtime so it takes me that much longer to finish them. Also non-fiction books tend to be a lot bigger than their fictional cousins. I do miss non-fiction though and I'm making more of an effort to read it. Presently that means mostly Philosophy (for my university course generally), History and Science. But normally I just read whatever I think will be interesting at the time. I have a wide range of interests and quite a few passions so I find that there's always something worth investigating.
Ok, I've gotten about as far as I'm going to get into The Shack, which is not a conservative Christian book at all, which is kind of shocking considering how many conservative Christians recommend it. I got to the point where Mac, the main character, has come to the shack and interacted somewhat with the people who live there. The middle eastern fellow just dropped the bowl of sauce or something and then I decided to go to Amazon and read the 1 star reviews.
This book puts forth a liberal Christianity or even new agey beliefs, which I think are an improvement over a lot of what conservatives believe, but still, not at all what I expected.
This review in particular sums up my feelings so far: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1RP1K2RX2OILM/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
The book reminded me, at least in it's amateurish style, of some other newer Christian fiction attempts. Examples would be Dinner With A Perfect Stranger, A Day With A Perfect Stranger, Babylon Rising, Bob Larson's attempts at fiction and a few others I can't recall.
This book, like Phillip Yancy's Disappointment with God, really only speaks to people who already believe in God and will be found preposterous by atheists.
Check out the one star reviews. Most of the Christian ones are similar to what I would have written when I was knee deep in Christianity.
Since I won't be finishing it, I won't be posting a review.
I'm confused. Your disinterested in it because you think it isn't conservative? I didn't find it "new agey" at all. The three people he meets are allegorical of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It gets quiet good and delves into some deep questions and issues that we have discussed here about God's love and goodness. I have read some reviews that I was surprised the person was describing the same book. I thought you would like an out of the box approach.
No, I just found it bad, and even worse once he got to the shack. The image of God so far in the book seems completely different from the God of the OT. The Holy Spirit can't stand to hold the gun, yet God wiped out tons of his "children" in the old days.
Bad writing or story telling? Or bad theology?
Mike said "The image of God so far in the book seems completely different from the God of the OT. The Holy Spirit can't stand to hold the gun, yet God wiped out tons of his "children" in the old days."
It seems your idea of God is wrapped in an Old Testament box and a misconstrued one at that if I may be so bold. I really thought you would be open to the book. I must say I am baffled by your response. There is controversy amongst Christians about the book, but it's only the very legalistic more religious Christians that seem to have any concerns about it. It is a fiction book and is is presenting truth in a parable fashion of an allegory of sorts. It's not meant to be taken as a literally portrayal of God, but the subject matter discussed is very accurate.
Bad writing, which damages the story. Each stage of the book has practically blurted out what the next stage would be. It's very predictable and emotionally manipulative. It reminds me of what they call glurge emails. Designed to push emotional buttons to preach some viewpoint.
I have no problems with the theology in the book, since I don't believe in God.
After leaving Christianity I was no longer required to reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. The Shack, so far anyway, seems to completely ignore the God of the OT.
Do you think this book would encourage people to become Christians? Do you think they would be surprised to find out that traditional Christian theology doesn't agree with this book?
Calling them legalistic for holding to traditional theology is hardly fair.
My reaction was such because I was under the impression that this was such a wonderful Christian book, and then found that it was liberal almost new age Christian theology and was shocked that so many people I know who are biblical literalists love this book so much, and they are normally far from liberal or new age concepts. Maybe this should give me hope that the trend is moving towards those ideas so we can see some more love and tolerance from Christians.
I don't embrace liberal theology. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, albeit, charismatic. I found it in accordance with Scripture. If you only read to the part he meets the three at the shack you haven't read much of the doctrine at all. I really enjoyed the writing style -- the way the words flowed. Some Christians are offended by the portrayal of God and the Holy Spirit in the feminine, but as we know God is genderless and that portrayal was well explained. Some can't see past that though and have ridiculed the book for that. I've heard others complain Scripture wasn't out right quoted, and others complain that their wasn't a salvation message (I think there was). I really didn't see anything overtly contrary to Scripture (the allegorical appearance of God aside). Anyways, I'm not trying to push you to read it further, I am just surprised at your aversion to it. I guess you are reading it from a very different perspective than I. I wasn't trying to recommend something emotionally manipulative. I didn't see that in it. I don't like such tactics.
Honestly God cannot be reduced to only His attribute of a Righteous Judge. I don't think that does Him justice. This is one of the matters that gets addressed in the book that I thought was well illustrated. But maybe it won't communicate that to you. I don't know.
I'm still reading out of sheer curiosity.
"Honestly God cannot be reduced to only His attribute of a Righteous Judge."
It's one thing to not reduce him to that, it's another to gloss over it. I just read the part where Papa avoided the question about the wrath parts of the OT. Maybe she will address them later.
okay. It was recommended to me from people of a variety of denominational backgrounds including Catholic and Messianic Judaism and Assemblies of God.
It addresses the issue of God's goodness, not OT things specifically if I remember correctly. It is mystical in places, but it is fictional and allegorical. Christianity has mystical elements as well so it seemed fitting to me.
If it's an allegory it's not very subtle. Aslan as Jesus I can see, Jesus as Jesus, not so much.
yeah, it's not a straight up allegory, I just don't know a better genre for it. Lewis didn't even think his an allegory and called it a "supposal." I'd say Hinds Feet In High Places is a better example of an allegorical literary style.
I guess it doesn't really need a label per se. It's been compared to Pilgrims Progress, but I don't really see it like that. I like classics but I was bored with Pilgrims Progress for some reason.
I can't remember if I've ever read Pilgrims Progress. I'm pretty sure I own it though.
I didn't finish it. I would like to go back and read it, just to have read it.
Mike, any more thoughts as your reading?
I was thinking about what you said about the author telling you in advance what was coming in the story, I think though, while that's not good fiction writing, it was to alleviate suspense and emotionalism rather than to cause it.
Well, it's really only obvious if you know his brand of theology, it's really predictable in that regard.
This book is like the kinder, gentler Book of Job. I'm at the point just after Mack walked across the lake with Jesus, that was a tad cheesy.
What do you mean by "his brand of theology." Why do you see it as so unorthodox?
Well, I wasn't making a judgment about it with that statement. I just meant that once you understand his way of thinking, the theological statements don't come as a surprise.
Now, as to the question of why I see it as so unorthodox is because so much of what he says is unscriptural or flies in the face of scripture, at least as I see it now. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. Jesus said "Who said anything about being a Christian?" Ummmm...the Bible, that you supposedly inspired. So far 99% of this book makes God, in all three forms, seem nearly completely oblivious to the idea of him/she/it inspiring Scripture.
Mike, Jesus never called his disciples Christians. Acts 11:26 is the first mention of the term. "Christian" was a term given to the followers of Christ as a derogatory term. It means "little Christ" but the term today has lost much of it's meaning of being one who follows Christ. Scripture records that the followers of Christ accepted the term, but again today it has been greatly misused. C.S. Lewis titled his book "Mere Christianity" to try and return to a core understanding of a much misused term. I hear people all the time say they are a Christian and all they mean is their parents were or that they went to church as a kid or some other reason that has nothing to do with a personal life with Christ. I think the author was addressing this. The statement sounds kind of shocking to read, but it's true. It's that difference between joining a religion and following Christ personally. Does that make sense?
You'll have to clue me on on the other things you think are un-Scriptural. Of course the literary creativity of the portrayal of the three forms aside. No one can do justice in metaphor to the reality of each person of the Trinity. It's the gist of the message of the love of God that is important.
I've never read any legitimate source stating that Christianos means little Christ. It means follower of or servant of Christ, yes it was given to them by outsiders, but it stuck and obviously is used to this day. For "Jesus" to ignore it's origins and act like it's wrong to use that title is ridiculous. This line of discussion reminds me of these cute video spoofs; Christian vs. Christ-follower
I think it is the literal translation of the Greek. I'd have to consult my Greek lexicon to confirm that.
Regardless it isn't a wrong term. It just has a lot of cultural baggage these days in it's modern use. I took the point the author to be making to be a way of differentiating between the religion and the personal relationship. Maybe the wordage didn't communicate that to you.
Was there something else in particular that seemed at odds with Scripture, something that makes more of a difference than the name of followers of Christ?
P.S. I think the first century believers called themselves the followers of the Way before they adopted the name Christian.
Yes, as I understand it, they did. I'll have to think about it, but there were several things that struck me as unorthodox.
Post a Comment