The Shack has finally made it to the big screen. The bestselling 2007 novel hit a crazy, successful streak in 2009, and by 2010 had sold over 7.2 million copies. Now it has reached the rare status of a novel with over 10 million in sales–unprecedented for any novelist, let alone a first-time author like Paul Young.
Young drew on personal childhood pain when he crafted this short book that chronicles a man’s horrible loss of his daughter, and his invitation to return to the site through a note from “Papa,” aka, God. When he arrives, “Mack,” the main character, encounters all three Persons of the Trinity, who take him on a conversational journey of discovery and healing. The biblical Heavenly Father is represented by “Papa,” an African America woman who clearly mirrors the Oracle of The Matrix. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is, well, Jesus–a Jewish Carpenter.
I have no doubt that the film will be a success, simply because the book is so popular and the actors are stellar. Fans will rally to the cause. That’s good. And that’s bad. Let’s look at the bad first.
The depiction of God in The Shack is heresy, plain and simple (in Young’s nonfiction book Lies We Believe About God he expounds on his unbiblical theology). The doctrine of the Trinity is the way we describe the biblical revelation of God (one God in three Persons), which acknowledges His mystery and majesty. As far as I know this is the first time that the Trinity has ever been depicted on the big screen, and for good reason. Even great theologians stay 500 feet back. To portray it in fiction requires depth and precision. Young lacks both.
Young uses the Trinity as a narrative tool. One of the Bible’s most mysterious and inexplicable doctrines, boiled down to an object lesson. So not surprisingly, Young is simply not up to the task of tackling this doctrine–or theological fiction, for that matter. The God of The Shack turns out to be a fluffy, shallow hipster and, of course, non-judgmental. In short, this God is the God that Young wants it/him/her to be. But it is not the God of the Bible.
To use the Trinity as a literary device, he drains it of its mystery and majesty and reduces this robust doctrine to a feel-good illustration. That’s why the God of The Shack drifts away from the moorings of what the Bible presents as the nature of God.
So what’s good about The Shack? It opens the conversation. True, The Shack gives us an idea of what people want God to be, and it’s an unsettling image. But the sales numbers show clearly that people are hungry to know God and to have life’s hard questions answered. That’s where we come in.
Christians should use The Shack, and other feel-good faith-based films that drift from truth, to open a conversation about who God really is. To explain that God’s love and justice go together. That God’s wrath was satisfied in Christ. That God retains His mystery and majesty when He comes to us in Christ.
And that there is hope in the God of the Bible, but not in the God of The Shack.
I agree the book and film are a great conversation starter, but heresy? That goes too far. “The Shack” doesn’t pretend to be scripture — it’s FICTION! I experience the story as a thoughtful way to convey the relationship between the Trinity and the different ways God relates to us…inviting us into relationship with Him, doing for us what we can’t do for ourselves (as His many names imply), but honoring our free will. What about that scene in the cave, where God appears as Wisdom in the form of a Hispanic woman? To me, it’s a pretty sound message on God’s rightful place as Judge.
This blog by Crystal Olmos nicely captures my take on the controversy: https://crystalolmos.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/my-response-to-christians-who-are-boycotting-the-shack-film/
Question: How many Christian boycotts and cries of heresy have helped bring someone to faith in Christ?
Hi Beverly,
Great point! Thanks so much for stepping in. But in fiction or non-fiction, the writer has a responsibility to what is truth and and to accuracy. Part of my point is that Young is writing theological fiction, so he has a responsibility in what he presents. For instance, Tolkien and Lewis spent years debating whether allegory (Lewis) or myth (Tolkien) were most appropriate for conveying the great truths of the Bible. These were literary heavyweights and they understood the implications. Just because we can imagine God a certain way, doesn’t mean we should– or that our presentation is theologically sound. By the way, I did not actually advocate boycotting the film. Thanks for referencing the blog above. I’ll take a look at it.
Thank you Bob for your insight into this movie. I’ve heard from both sides on this issue, but you’ve been the first to put it in perspective for me. Thanks again.
Sure thing. Thank you!
Someone gave the this book years ago but I never read it and after seeing trailers for the movie I am glad I didn’t. I had been told that the book was a good read and focused on God…that is not the case from what I have seen. I will never willingly take part in anything that directly contradicts what I know to be the truth from God’s word, The Holy Bible! Thank you pastor Bob for this review!
Thank you, Linda!