Anyone Read THE SHACK?

[Virginia (Ginny) Smith]

Several writing friends recommended a book called THE SHACK recently. One even offered to send me a copy if I'd promise to read it. So I did. Talk about 'edgy.' It's a self-published book about a father whose child is abducted and killed in a horrible way in an old run-down shack. A couple of years later the guy gets a note from God in the mail saying, "Meet me at the shack this weekend."

I was told this book was going to 'redefine the way you think about God.' Okay, so I admit -- I don't want my definition of God redefined. And the book did not do that. But it did present some ... interesting ideas. There was one section that I really did take offense to, but other than that the author merely offered some interesting (and sometimes compelling) explanations of the nature of God, the Trinity, Love, and Forgiveness.

Generally, though, I just kept thinking throughout the book, "Gosh, this guy's story could have really benefitted from a good editor." (Sorry if the writer reads this!) I won't recommend the book to others for several reasons, but I do have to admit that it has stayed on my mind since I finished it, and I find myself wanting to talk about it.

So... anybody else read it? Anybody care to offer an opinion?

[Timothy Fish]

I haven't read it, but from its current sales figures, it is clear that it has crossed the tipping point.

[PattyU]

I recently bought this book. It was highly recommended by a friend. I read a few reviews on Amazon. The book has a strong 5 star average, but I always check the negative reviews. I am now hesitant to read it based on some of the comments although I probably will eventually read it.
Ginny, do you. mind sharing what offended you?

[Virginia (Ginny) Smith]

No, I don't mind. It was a brief snatch of dialogue that occurs between Jesus and the viewpoint character, Mack. It says:

“Is that what it means to be a Christian?” It sounded kind of stupid as Mack said it, but it was how he was trying to sum everything up in his mind.

“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian.”

The idea struck Mack as odd and unexpected and he couldn’t keep himself from grinning. “No, I suppose you aren’t.”

They arrived at the door of the workshop. Again Jesus stopped. “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraquis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.”

“Does that mean,” asked Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?”

“Not at all,” smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

Okay, I'm not at all attached to the label 'Christian,' and I definitely don't believe that heaven will be filled with only people who go to church on Sunday mornings. But I am definitely attached to the Bible's directive that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. This snatch of dialogue seems to indicate that people don't have to accept Jesus' sacrifice as the only way to salvation. Now maybe that's not what the passage was trying to say, but that's how it reads to me.

Other than that, my biggest complaint about the book was also mentioned in a couple of the Amazon.com reviews I glanced through - the writing isn't very good. That, and the idea of God personified was derivative, IMO. I was vividly reminded of three different popular movies.

That said, the message of forgiveness --both receiving and giving forgiveness in very, very, very difficult situations -- is powerful. And there is no doubt this guy is making a tremendous splash with his book.

[Timothy Fish]

I'm left with the impression that this isn't as clear as it could be. I tend to pick things apart and the thing that stands out here is the use of the word were. We can truthfully say that many of the followers of Jesus Christ were Buddhists, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, etc. If the author is using the term Christian to refer to a set of religious practices then I would probably agree with what the author says here. Many people can say that they were not made aware of Jesus by church attendance, but encountered him while they were living whatever lifestyle they were living. If could be that the author is trying to say that, but it certainly isn't very clear.

[Virginia (Ginny) Smith]

Maybe. (She said hesitantly, still unconvinced. :-) )

[Jack Burchett]

When he switches from "were" to "are", that is where the confusion for me begins. It seems the author intended to portray Christ as inclusive but stumbles a bit, though I could be wrong.

[Timothy Fish]

I noticed the "are" also, but he uses it in reference to occupation, ancestory and homeland rather than religious organization. I can't really say that he is wrong, though I don't think being a bookie is an occupation a Christian should be involved in.

[Jack Burchett]

I generally prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt whenever I can, but in this case, a little housekeeping would have helped. I'm still not sure exactly what he was trying to say.

[Michelle Sutton]

Boy that is tricky. If he means were as in "before they died" and that all faithful people who believe Jesus existed get in then that is obviously theologically off-base. If he meant they came from past religious backgrounds but changed to faith in his then it/s right on. The conversation gives me weird vibes, though.

[Virginia (Ginny) Smith]

EXACTLY, Michelle. Weird vibes. It just hit me as wrong. Just plain wrong.

I think the author must have been trying to push as many hot buttons in this book as he possibly could (judging from all the other 'conversations' with God in the book). Most of them I agreed with 100%, but on this one he really pushed my button. Even if the 'were' is indicative of what he's saying (as Timothy says), then by listing Mormons (who didn't exist before 1836) he's apparently saying that these people didn't accept Jesus while they were alive, but now (presumably in heaven) they've accepted Him, and that's okay.

I don't know the author's intention, but I have to say that section right there is one that stops me from recommending the book to others. That, and the poor writing, and the derivative nature of the plot. Which is a shame, because it has some other very powerful messages.

JUST MY OPINION, of course, and obviously I don't agree with the majority on this book!

[Jack Burchett]

Ok Michelle, I have to agree with you and Ginny. There is something inherently wrong with this passage. It would seem that the author would have taken great pains to get this stretch of dialogue right. It is a shame that a good book with a lot to say can get completely derailed over a misguided page or two. Oh well.

[Michelle Sutton]

SO who is the majority of the opinions you sort of referred to, Ginny? I never heard of this book