Pity the poor preacher trying to keep his flock theologically in line. He may be able to keep them from attending heretical churches or even from reading un-Christian material. But how can they keep Christians from reading inspiring Christian books?
irst it was the Left Behind series which undoubtedly shaped the American Christian views on Armageddon more than anything preached from most pulpits – despite offering a controversial and idiosyncratic view of scripture. (I was particularly taken with Jesus’s ability and proclivity to melt people by looking at them, which seemed more in the spirit of X-men than Xmas.)
Now we have The Shack, by William P. Young, which has been on the New York Times Bestseller list for 37 weeks, currently at #1. It’s a powerful, hopeful, deeply Christian book, yet it’s been criticized by many Christian clergy.
It is the story of Mack, a man struggling to deal with the brutal murder of his daughter. He ends up at the Shack where the murder took place and talks it over with Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit.
Suffice it to say, it departs from the literal Bible often. God is an avuncular, rotund black woman called “Papa” who will almost have to be played by Queen Latifah in the movie version. Jesus is a tad homely. And the Holy Spirit seems to be some sort of mystical eastern creature. They cook, tease, and laugh more than they preach.
The Trinity make pronouncements contradicting Biblical doctrine. For instance, God commits to not interfering in human choices – a belief that cuts against those who feel God answers prayers and intervenes in our lives.
Christian writer Tim Challies summarizes:

“He presents a false view of God and one that may well be described as heretical. He downplays the importance and uniqueness of the Bible, subjugating it or making it equal to other forms of subjective revelation. He misrepresents redemption and salvation, opening the door to the possibility of salvation outside of the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross. We are left with an unbiblical understanding of the persons and nature of God and of His work in this world…..He oversteps the bounds of Scripture while downplaying the Bible’s importance. He relies too little on Scripture and too much on his own theological imaginings.”

Popular radio personality Al Mohler urged Christians not to read the book and author Hank Hanegraaff declared, “Young has Jesus — the Jew with the big nose — declaring ‘I am not a Christian and I have no desire to make them’ – and the them is Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, etc. – ‘Christians.’ Indeed, Young describes Christians as religious fanatics and part of a sinful world system.”
Yet the book is wildly popular among Christians. I suspect it’s because, while it misses on important points of doctrine, it connects on two big ideas.
The first is the Holy Trinity, which has always been one of the most unfathomable parts of Christian doctrine. As corny as it sounds, by incarnating the three for the weekend, and having them work together on the grieving Mack, one gets a sense of how they complete each other and offer more to the Christian together than separately.
The second idea is “God’s love.” You can sit in church every week of the year and hear about how God’s love is supposed to help you with your suffering but The Shack puts the idea to the test in the most gruesome way. Mack confronts his deepest pain, challenges God to her face, and only comes out on the other hand after a convulsive journey.
Theologically, the message is quite traditional: God loves you, God loves you, God loves you. Even if you don’t understand what He does or why He does it, you can be sure that, as Papa puts it, she is “especially fond of you.” Hokey though it may be, there’s something undeniably thrilling when that love is expressed physically, with a hug and an adoring paternal look.
The Passion of the Christ made Jesus’ suffering seem real. But suffering without love can make Christians feel grateful but not treasured. The Shack completes the picture. In this case, Biblical literalists may have to decide whether they’re wiling to sacrifice some “accuracy” to promote their larger “truth.”
[SPOILER ALERT. Click here for some further thoughts for those of you who have already read the book]

SPOILER ALERT
For those of you who did read the book already, I wanted to tease out some facets that struck me.
The most wrenching part is God’s demand that Mack forgive Missy’s killer. But there’s something unsatisfying to me about the moment: part of how he’s able to go through with it is that God showed him Missy’s current happiness. Most people don’t get that gift and indeed it’s not part of what God promises in Scripture. Many of us would be forgiven for saying: “well, I’d get over my grief fast too if you could show me my loved one.”
Also: it seemed like a bit of a cop-out that they were able to catch and punish the killer. Part of the message initially seemed to be that you shouldn’t try to understand God’s modus operandi through human notions of justice. But then in the tidy ending, God does make sure the bad guy gets what’s coming. It was emotionally satisfying but I thought it might have been a bit braver to go with the idea that Mack would have to hold on to God’s love while knowing that the killer escaped judgment, at least in this lifetime.
What did you think of the book?
A version of this piece first appeared on WSJ.com