I continue to be asked questions about The Shack. While, I have not taken time to review it myself, I would point people to two different resources.
First, Tim Challies has written an excellent review that you can find here.
You can also watch this clip from Mark Driscoll. Mark is less irenic about his views. But, he raises some good questions.
I have read the shack and at first I thought the way they depicted the Trinity was not good at all. Then I understood why they depicted God the Father the way they did, then I changed my mind completely again. I had been told by so many people that it was excellent, that I should read it but I was a bit surprised.
Driscoll is blunt so let me be blunt: he shows himself to be completely ignorant on this issue. There are several reasons, but let me mention a couple:
First, the book is not about the Trinity. The book is about God helping a man grieve the loss of his daughter. That is why he is at the Shack, not to comprehend doctrine. Second, would Driscoll ban Da Vinci paintings that show the finger of God in creation as violating the second commandment? The issue here is not paganism, but the book clearly states that God is accommodating himself in human form to help Mack learn. I think this may have happened in Genesis once or twice. Finally (and I could go on), the book clearly lays out why God appears as a woman. It is not goddess worship as Driscoll says, it is because God is accommodating himself to a man who had an abusive white father, so he clearly says he is appearing in this form to help him. Even Calvin agrees with divine accommodation.
I agree with Driscoll on this: if people view The Shack as an accurate source of theology (on the Trinity or anything else), they are in trouble. It is fiction, not doctrine.
I understand his concern that it may lead people astray…but the man has to relax a little (or perhaps relaxing and accepting fiction is not what real men do…)
Brian: Good to hear from one side of the Triangle.
It is fair to be blunt with Driscoll.
And, I admit that I haven’t written my own review of the Shack because I have only perused it. Still, do you think you can suspend the discussion that much when talking about the Trinity. While, certainly we can make anthromorphisms (sp?) without crossing the line – – this seems to me to go too far, regardless of whether or not the author qualified it.
What did you think of Challies review?
I have skimmed Challies’ review. It is much better and more balanced than Driscoll’s. While I imagine that I agree with Challies theologically, his review still lacks a little. Why? Because most Christians reviewing this book review it as if it were a systematic theology text. For example, Challies complains that it has an “incomplete gospel” Some of the best Christian fiction I’ve ever read is subtle and understated in its theology…good fictional writing doesn’t need to present everything perfectly and clearly. Afterall, the Left Behind books present a pretty clear gospel but they are still theological junk in many respects.
A final beef I have is that many Christians, Challies included, read this book through their own theological lens. For example, he complains “he claims that God has already forgiven all men for their sin but that it remains for humans to accept this forgiveness.” I disagree with this theology because I’m a five-point Calvinist. However, I realize that this theology represents a large swath of evangelicals in the world, doesn’t it? A similar comparison is made about eternal submission. Challies doesn’t like the fact that the Shack downplays Trinitarian submission, but the reality is (even based on a recent Christianity Today article), evangelicals debate the eternal submission of the Trinity. Just because a book offers a different view doesn’t make it not worth reading. Otherwise I’m not sure I could read anyone.
This was a little long, perhaps I should blog on it! Overall I thought the book was entertaining, fun, stimulated thought in some respects, but is not my basis for theology, but then again, it never intends to be!