Catholic Review of: Shack

    After reading the accolades on the back of the book, famous figures raving about it as a new way to experience God, I got a little suspicious.  I kept an open mind as I read, but about half way through there were too many things that didn't make sense coming from Papa who was the author's representation of God the father.  Even the figure meant to represent Christ started to contradict himself.

    The character of Mackenzie is one that I found very likable and relevant.  He asked the tough questions  we all have.  He was a man suffering after the brutal murder of his six year old daughter and the absolute withdrawal from life of his 13 year old daughter in its aftermath.  His own life was fantastically brutal and this seemed to be the last straw.  Mackenzie seems to embody the worst of sufferings we experience.  His experience with God has been one of contradictions throughout his life.  His ideas were formed by his abusive father, a failure to finish seminary and the abuses of humanity in warfare.  He is understandably confused and wounded, and sees God as a distant father figure full of judgment without mercy.  Young brilliantly describes the events that lead to Missy's abduction and murder and the immediate aftermath.  He draws you into the family's grief and the “Great Sadness” Mackenzie describes as his constant companion.

    He receives in his mail box a note from God signed “Papa”  after which he falls and knocks his head.  (The first of several devices that leave me wondering if Young was in a hurry, he doesn't seem to develop them.)  I am guessing this was there to make Mack question his sanity for the rest of the story, I can't be certain.  He is invited to go to “The Shack” where the only evidence of his daughter's murder was found, to spend a weekend with God....

    Long story short Mack can't resist and encounters God as the Trinity but in a form most traditionalists and anyone with any religious training begin to question.  Personally I didn't have a problem with the use of a black female to portray God the Father to Mack.  (Be patient don't stop reading yet.)  The reason is one of logic, God created Man and Woman in his image.  Why wouldn't he appear in a way Mack could relate to?  God is not limited to sex as we are.  He is not human, neither is the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is both Truly God and Truly Man.  (Young failed miserably in explaining this.)  At first it all made sense to me until he got to the scars in Papa's wrist as well as in Jesus'.  I passed this off as the acknowledgment of Christ's Divinity until Papa stated that Jesus had “no power in himself to heal...”

    The book soured after this.  It is obvious that Young is writing from a protestant perspective.  At least suffering is seen as a part of human experience, and not explained away or glossed over. (Mostly) I just wish he'd have named evil for what it is.  Young acknowledged that Sin divided us from God and that God seeks a relationship, not distant, but intimate relationship with us. (duh) However he never named it for what it is. 

    My lowest opinion of the book came when papa stated that religion was not necessary for relationship with God.  He separated religion from relationship.  I have two takes on this.  On the surface he challenges the  institution of Religion and Law as man made and a result of sin and separation from God.  He frames those things as a result of evil and leaves one with the impression that religion is bad.  Again I don't think he explains this well enough.
   
    The need for law was brought about because of  Sin.   This is true.  Religion practiced for its own sake is empty, just a law without love is meaningless. It is the  same with justice without mercy.  I think this is what Young was driving at but he took it too far in the wrong direction.  Religion is Man's way of communing together with God.  The rituals and traditions developed over two thousand years of practice enhance our relationship with God.  It's part of the relationship, not something separated from it.  People can practice religion but not know what it means to do so.  I think Young tried to explain this but waxed new age by having the figure of Jesus embrace “...all his children, Muslim Buddhist etc.” but then contradict this when Mack asks, “...so, all roads do lead to you.”  Jesus admits “Some roads don't lead any where.” 

    I think Young meant to attack the Pharisaical adherence to traditions used to control people or to set the self righteous  above others.  The same things that Jesus spoke out against in the gospels.  I have seen people follow all the rules and rituals and be absolutely terrible people.  Young took it too far in the wrong direction and rambled a bit.

   Many people, because of their lack of understanding of tradition are hurt by it.   Young seems to be one of these people.  His disregard for it in the odd scene where Jesus washes Papa's feet and the unceremonious breaking of and sharing bread and wine near the end of the weekend, is clear evidence of a misunderstanding of the meanings of these acts.  He may have been trying to say that because God was present with Mack in the form of the trinity, these things were not necessary in the same form that we use them in our state of separation.  Even in this light, these things distract from the message instead of enhancing it.  Young was pulling elements from his experience and projecting them on God.  When he had Papa speak, it sounded more like he was filling in gaps with his own understanding, instead of really trying to have Papa speak from what the bible and two thousand years of Tradition has confirmed.

   The imagery used throughout the book was beautiful and artistic in the sense that he tried to paint an emotional picture of what God's love was capable of.  In this I don't have any disagreement.  He could have done more to develop the ending though.  The story careened to a resolution sounding more rushed like there was a deadline to meet.  This book read more like one of those after school specials I grew up watching than a really good novel.

    Over all, the message of God's yearning for a relationship with us and his boundless love for all of us came shining through.  The mechanics and the theology left a lot to be desired.  It was a good first attempt at this but not one that delivered.  I don't recommend it as serious reading or something to start a discussion group about. This story could have been so much better, and more healing for the reader if Mr Young could have taken the time to research and understand what he was writing about.  I suggest that you read it for what it is and then go learn the truth Young left out.