There are currently 748 customers reviews at Amazon for The Shack. Of those, 572 of them are 5 star. It’s indicative of the hype that has swept the religious community, and the profusion of praise for this short, parabolic tale.
- “I think this book is the best conceptual description of God presented since the Bible was written.” — Michael Bremer
- “If all the world had this understanding of God there would be a GOD Revolution of such magnitude that the Godless would fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness.” — D.R. Dillon
- “This book is so awesome. After I read it, I ordered five more copies to give away to people I love. Every page had something beautiful on it. I’d have to stop and put the book down and just breathe for a minute to absorb what I’d just read.” — K. Lal
- “This is the best book on the Trinity and on relationship that I’ve ever read. The depth of the story has impacted my life forever.” — Cheryl L. Hartman
- “I will read this book once a year for the rest of my days. ” — William Dahl
How can this many people be wrong? And when it comes to life-changing personal experiences, does it matter? Lynn Garrett, Senior Religion editor for Publisher’s Weekly wrote this about The Shack: “People are not necessarily concerned with how orthodox the theology is. People are into the story and how the book strikes them emotionally…” And isn’t that the most important thing about inspirational fiction, how it strikes us emotionally?
In a recent New York Times article entitled Christian Novel is Surprise Best-Seller, orthodoxy appears incidental to this publishing success story:
[The Shack] is the most compelling recent example of how a word-of-mouth phenomenon can explode into a blockbuster when the momentum hits chain bookstores, and the marketing and distribution power of a major commercial publisher is thrown behind it.
The article notes that “Sales have been fueled partly by a whiff of controversy, ” which is a bit of an understatement. While some ministers and readers have hailed the book’s profound, but simple message, others are calling it subtly deceptive and deeply troubling, if not heretical. (For a good single summary of these concerns, check out Tim Challie’s Review of the Shack.)
The success of this book, in my mind, raises many important questions. While I have never put much stock in the American public’s literary or spiritual discernment, the widespread acclaim for The Shack (as well as the divergent opinions) is indicative of a powerful spiritual climate. And this is precisely the type of thing the NYT misses. While the Times is busy chronicling “marketing strategies” and “word of mouth” momentum as a template for aspiring authors, the underlying spiritual dynamics of the book’s success goes unnoticed.
Fact is, there’s a growing trend toward, and acceptance of, open-ended, non-confrontational, one-size-fits-all spirituality. Whether or not intended by the author, The Shack seems to fit in with the host of spiritually-convoluted, self-help style best-sellers. It’s not coincidental that the NYT article compares it to Eckhart Tolle’s New Age hybrid, The Power of Now. This, apparently, doesn’t matter to the average religious reader. Why? Because the book makes them feel good.
Oh, well. If the primary goal of publishing is to sell books, it only stands to reason that orthodoxy will often take a back seat to emotionalism. But, in the end, The Shack might say more about our own spiritual vacuum and disregard for sound doctrine, than provide a template for publishing success.
Orthodoxy absolutely does matter, regardless of the genre, although the definition of orthodoxy must be applied to the specific genre.
For example, a parable doesn’t need to a correspondent orthodoxy for every element but absolutely must be water-tight in orthodoxy for its moral (see also Jesus), but an allegory should try to have correspondent orthodoxy for as much as possible. A fiction novel doesn’t need to have orthodox characters, but the author’s worldview should be.
Having said that, the emotional content needs to be there too. It sounds to me that The Shack’s sin isn’t its emotional appeal, but its lack of orthodoxy.
Of course, failed orthodoxy holds its own emotional appeal.
I wonder if the Shack would “connect” if it were written in the exact same style but was more adherent to orthodoxy. Not having read the book, I have no idea if its emotional appeal is wholly substantiated on its subversive qualities, or if there is a blend of bronze and clay, and that it could have been more had it remained on a narrow path.
I haven’t read it either, but I suppose I eventually will–I’ll borrow it, thank you very much, not pay for it.
Two people I know personally have read it. These were their paraphrased comments. One said she realized she had put God in a box and was too legalistic after reading it. (She was born and raised in the faith, now in her early 50s.) The other said it helped her understand the Trinity better. (She came to know Jesus later in life and she is now in her early 70s.)
Not having read it, I can’t comment on its orthodoxy, doctrine, etc., but I will admit to being suspicious about it from the variety of commentary.
Mike, I read Tim’s lengthy review of the book, and he cited some good examples for errant theology. However, his analysis of “mediation” confused me and made me wonder if he isn’t Catholic. Whether or not he believes God can or cannot speak to us in any other way besides through His Word, the way he communicated it was convoluted. He completely left out Abraham’s physical experiences with God, the visions Peter had, and the inherent way the Spirit can choose to speak to us whether audibly (less common) or to our hearts/minds. Yes, of course everything lines up with the Word, but the Lord definitely communicates with us directly in that still small voice as well.
Nicole, from what I understand, Challies is a conservative Protestant believer of the Reformed persuasion. As such, I’m guessing he believes revelatory experiences — such as visions and words from God — went out with the Apostolic Age. We have God’s Word, which is enough. While I would agree God’s “speaking voice” (visions, dreams, prophetic words, etc.) never supersedes his Spoken Word, I personally believe the supernatural is very much a part of our Christian existence. If I’m not mistaken, the main address of the article is not to undertake the issue of whether or not God still speaks to us, but what is the plumb line for any apparent revelation we receive.
Thanks for the interpretation, Mike. Makes more sense now. 😉 No one will ever convince me those supernatural events/communications died with John. Too much personal proof/experiences which line up with the Word to dispute it. Thanks, Mike.
Hi Mike. I appreciated every word of this review! Thank you.
Count me among those who heard the hype & read The Shack. Sorta. I was open in the beginning to having my life changed, as one online friend promised. Trouble is, I couldn’t stomach the author’s seemingly idolatrous images of God. Neither could I sleep without some Aunt Jemima/ Papa/Elousia image flipping pancakes in my mind. If it weren’t so sad, I’d laugh.
There were certainly lovely expressions of grace & truth throughout the story, but overall, I don’t think The Shack’s deity is the biblical Jesus I know.
So I quit reading 3/4 of the way through after underlining the parts that disturbed me. A lot disturbed me.
This book seems to foreshadow the universalistic, mystical bent in which the church is headed, if not already embracing…flavored with eastern mythology. Apart from that, does it grieve us the least how this book elevates man’s touchy-feely experiences over the Word of God? Apparently, not so much.
Doesn’t the Bible tell to watch our doctrine carefully? To not be deceived? Like you said, orthodoxy has taken a backseat to emotionalism. We too easily embrace a God of our own making.
And the more I learn about publishing–Christian publishing–the less I want to write.
Thank you for this post, Mike.
Kudos & blessings for speaking up.