For those of you familiar with William Young’s self-published phenomenon The Shack, you might like to know about the diversity of reactions to the book. I was given the book by a good friend and read it with interest, especially because of the strong endorsement from Eugene Peterson, a very faithful voice indeed. But in reading the novel, I have to admit that I was conflicted by its artistic license, especially in its attempt to describe the Trinitarian God in conversation. I generally feel that such is impossible and not entirely helpful, and, at worse, can be heretical. I have not come to such conclusion yet and I do see value in the book in many ways; I am taking time to work through what my reaction to this book actually is.
On the one hand it is, of course, a work of fiction, which means that it is privileged to a describe its own set of terms. Reading fiction means that we understand that the world created by the author is just that — a fiction — but that it is so constructed in order to describe truth, not in literal terms, but in the context of the author’s metaphor and simile. Becoming a literate person means we become skilled in doing this. As a reader of good fiction, I thoroughly understand this and fully support the integrity of this method for portraying transcendent truth.
But good fiction, especially when it attempts to describe theological truth (which The Shack does attempt), must submit itself to theological distinctions. Young’s novel would be helped by understanding that there is a distinction between God’s inner and outer life. My basic critique of the novel is a theological one in that it attempts to describe the inner life of the trinity in a way that is better left untouched. It is generally my opinion that we cannot describe such aspects of God directly, even if we use a form of “suspended belief” which a novel is given license to do. We are simply not privileged to the inner life of the trinity; we do not know the inner counsels of God. Instead, we are directed toward the very real and human life of Jesus, who reveals God to us. My reticence in endorsing this novel is in this lack of theological discipline, in the way the author assumes to speak for God beyond the obvious Biblical constraints. There are things we can say about God because he has revealed those things in Scripture and in the life of Jesus. There are other things we cannot know and which God keeps in his own mysterious being. Such things await the revealing of the life to come. So we focus on Jesus, and while we can speak faithfully and accurately from what his human life reveals, we simply cannot speak with much more than speculation on the inner life of the trinity. The distinction between these two aspects of God is the difference between Biblical revelation (what God reveals about himself) and our speculations (which can get us into trouble). A novel can be an exploration of good theology when it disciplines itself within this distinction.
If you are interested in the variety of views that are out there, check these out. Blogger Tim Challies takes a generally critical review of the book and you can track his ongoing thoughts at his site. He is generally fair and even handed, I think, and his criticisms are worthy. In contrast, theologian John Stackhouse sees The Shack in a much more favorable light. Although Stackhouse sees flaws in the book, he also see its intrinsic value in bringing the imagination alive towards God, and endorses the book. Since I generally trust Stackhouse, I continue my musings and admit that I can stilled be swayed by other good arguments. What do you think?
