My mother often said, especially when I was waxing smart-mouthed, “Mind your p’s and q’s!”
I think the expression originates with young apprentices in the old-technology printing trade. They needed to pay attention when they were setting p’s and q’s, which are so easy to confuse, especially when one is viewing them in the reverse, as type appears.
So I am about to be careful how I answer the following questions about William P. Young’s The Shack. “Oh, Lord, keep me from being an impertinent smart-mouth!”
Q: Read it?
A: Yup.
Q: Recommend it?
A: Can we save that question for later?
Q: Sure. Do you think it’s a well-written book?
A: I do not consider myself an expert literary critic or to be particularly well-read in fiction. (Seeing I have taught high school English for thirty years, I should have read half the library by now!) My fiction-reading roll-call is limited to mostly hall-of-fame wordsmiths like Shakespeare, Dickens, Milton, Melville, Twaine, Steinbeck, Conrad and the rest of the college of masters. Honestly, stylistically, The Shack cannot rightfully be mentioned in the same breath as these classics.
Q: Have you read any novels that were written in the last fifty years that you think are particularly well-written?
A: Of course, lots of authors are simply geniuses of style. Can I add, however, that because a book is well-written stylistically, I do not read it if it will expose my spirit to offensive content. I just don’t get enough out of such a book to endure the discomfort. For instance, I think Toni Morrison has amazing command of English, but I do not read much of her stuff because the graphic descriptions of sin bother me. I guess I am revealing why I haven’t read half the library, yet.
Q: Any chance you will you be reading The Shack in your English classes?
A: Nope.
Q: Is it simply not worthy language, worthy style, for a high school English curriculum? It is, after all, a runaway best seller from a decidedly Christian perspective. Wouldn’t it be nice for your classes to read something fresh and Christian?
A: Its lackluster style is part of my “nope.” There is no reason to lower academic reading assignments to mediocre style. I think the first two thirds of The Kite Runner by Hosseini would be a worthy model for Young as far as writing power goes. Anyone who is a serious writer ought to be able to achieve Hosseini’s level of artistic expression. The Kite Runner (again, the first two thirds) is solid fiction style, nothing extraordinary. To me, Hosseini’s command of English would be minimum for inclusion in the English department’s stock. Young is simply a third-tier artist.
Q: Why are so many people loving the book even though the style is mediocre?
A: There is a gap in the popular literature when it comes to the theology of suffering. At one end of a spectrum there is Wiesel’s Night or Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People, in which the writers depict God as powerless at best, dead at worst. At the other end of the spectrum are the rosey books, like Osteen’s Your Best Life is Now or Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life, which ignore the hard questions. (BTW, how can a Christian ever make a claim that his best life is now?) That books at both ends of the spectrum are best-sellers shows that readers want to know how to relate to God in a troubled world. The gap-filler is a book that respects the intelligence of people who are hurting in this war-zone of a world, but still affirms the control of our loving and all-powerful Lord. The Shack has scratched this itch. In fact, it is attempting to stop the hemorrhage and bandage the wound. People hunger for a book like The Shack because they have not been satisfied with what their churches have served up on the topic of suffering. I applaud Young for recognizing a need.
Q: Do you think you will read it with your Bible class or with a church reading group?
A: Nope. But I am not going to give an easy and dismissive explanation why. That’s why I am granting this interview.
Q: Okay. What do you like about it?
A: I agree with the book’s position on crime, that God doesn’t want it, let alone ordain it. Crime is something he endures because he has to for the sake of his project with us and the over-all good. Life’s injustices are something the Lord will make right in eternity. Please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying I agree with all of The Shack’s message. It turns out I don’t. But I agree with its position on the relationship between God and our crime-filled world. I also agree with the basic premise of the book that God is working toward having a relationship with us. And I like the priority the book gives to God’s love over God’s power.
Q: Is the relational theology the same theology you are teaching in Not Even God?
A: Basically. I not only deal with crime in Not Even God. I also explain the other two great sources of suffering–natural disaster and sickness. In contrast to The Shack, I do not enter into the ultimate realm of eternity in my discussion. I only try to explain the inter-relations of the dynamic triangle in this life–the loving and powerful Lord, sinful man, and our chaotic world. I exalt the Lord as perfectly dedicated to his project of love.
Q: Do you like how much Young has made the book’s outcome depend on Mack the protagonist?
A: Yes. In my thinking, God is always doing his part. Often, it is we who make the will of God happen or not. God, in his love and wisdom, wants us to be genuine partners in determining what goes on in the world. I go into this idea in great detail in Not Even God, which has the subtitle, The Curious Partnership of God and Man.
Q: I am searching for what you don’t like. Are you, by any chance, one of those old traditionalists who have a problem with God being called “Poppa” in The Shack?
A: Hey! I am not that old!
Q: Sorry, there Pops!
So how about calling God “Poppa”?
A: That is not my specific problem, not at all. The Bible encourages us who have received God’s Spirit of adoption to call him (in the Aramaic language) “Abba.” In English, the equivalent of “Abba” would be “Daddy” or “Poppa.”
Q: Do you have a problem that God the Father is depicted as a loving black “aunty,” sort of an Aunt Jemima?
A: You are getting warmer–nothing against Aunt Jemima.
I understand what Young is trying to do. He is telling us that God will meet us where we are. God will start by talking to us in a voice we can hear, and then he will move toward talking to us in a way that we should receive from him. God wanted to be Mack the protagonist’s “Poppa” all along, but he temprarily morphed himself into an aunty image that Mack could accept more easily. God is depicted as a father figure by book’s end.
Q: So what’s your problem with the Aunt Jemima depiction?
A: Young is having his God come so far toward Mack, he is not the God of the Bible any more. In two thousand years of Bible study, Bible commentary, and Christian literature, the mainline church has not felt the need to depict God as a female. The Bible’s reference to our God as our Father is sacred, not only because Jesus introduces the concept in “The Lord’s Prayer.” All through the Bible, God is spoken of with great reverence as our Father. I suspect something is not quite right when Young starts morphing God in a new way that the Bible has not done. Even so, The Shack’s depiction of God the Father as a woman is only pointing to a much more significant problem I have with The Shack.
Q: Is there even one verse in the Bible where the Lord is portrayed as a woman?
A: I think there is one in Isaiah. The Lord is thoroughly frustrated with his people’s fascination for female deities, so he compares himself to a woman who has given birth. The passage is the exception that proves the rule. We are not supposed to think of the Lord as a female.
Q: So what is the crux of your disagreement with The Shack? It sounds like you view Aunt Jemima as a symptom, not the sickness.
A: Let me treat The Shack as Young’s attempt to teach. In teaching there is the “Curriculum” (Let me give it a capital C.) as distinct from the “hidden curriculum.” In English class, the big-C Curriculum includes lessons on the interpretation of texts, figurative language, grammar, vocabulary development, etc. In contrast, the hidden curriculum includes more or less unspoken lessons on love, respect, and responsibility. Teachers teach helpful hidden-curriculum lessons in numberless unspoken ways. We need to allow our students to finish their thoughts during a class discussion even when they are struggling. We also need to prepare our lessons diligently, grade papers with the right combination of sympathy and high expectation, and insist our students stay on task during the entire class period. We also need to make time to engage our students about their lives outside of the classroom. When we do these things, we model love, respect, and responsibility. Classroom teachers teach the hidden curriculum by possessing a professional, knowledgable, loving ethos. All teachers are modeling good and bad lessons via their ethos whether they try to or not. The hidden curriculum stems from the personal connection teachers make or do not make with their students. The spirit in the classroom teaches the hidden curriculum. Students usually learn the hidden curriculum much more deeply than they learn the explicitly stated Curriculum. My problem with The Shack is that the hidden curriculum is all wrong.
Q: Oh, boy, I don’t really follow you. Can you be specific?
A: Sorry. I sometimes get lost in an analogy. Young wants to express that God is looking for a relationship with us and how God takes initiative in seeking this relationship. This is Young’s Curriculum with a capital C. I agree with it. I teach the same thing all the time. My book Not Even God teaches this very lesson. My problem is with Young’s hidden curriculum, as expressed in his story choices. One choice is depicting God as a woman. His God is going farther than the biblical God goes. In fact Young’s God is on an extraordinary campaign for Mack’s healing. He sends Mack a note in the mail and meets him in the shack for a couple days where Mack’s daughter was murdered. God cooks him breakfast. God takes him through a series of visions and discussions to heal Mack’s inner wound, overcome his psychological inhibitions, and build his faith. I would call The Shack misleading about God. Young’s God is coddling. He’s a therapist! OK, God does speak and heal and save–absolutely–but he doesn’t send mail, make appointments for a therapy session, operate a bed and breakfast, or give tours that put the departed on display through one-way glass. Young has created a fantasy, not a depiction of the exalted Lord of the Bible. Young’s God is too human-centered. I don’t suppose Young think of it this way, but he is trashing the way God really works, through people sharing the Word of God with others.
Q: Didn’t God become a man and walk among us to seek out a relationship with us?
A: Yes, and he even cooked some fish for the apostles! But Jesus went back to heaven. Now we have to believe in the invisible God by hearing the Spirit of God that comes through God’s Word, the Bible. I am reminded of Jesus’ story about Abraham’s conversation with a rich man in hell (see other comments on this blog). The rich man told Abraham to send a dead man back to his living brothers with a warning about the judgment to come. Abraham refused such an extrordinary idea. Abraham informed the rich man that his brothers were going to have to “hear” the Bible. Jesus’ story establishes the pre-eminence of God’s written word.
Let me put it another way. God has already come to us in the person of Jesus. Now we have to come to him on his terms. Young’s God does not have nearly the strong terms that the God in the Bible has. They are different Gods. Again, Young is misleading us. I think, in his effort to be fresh, he has stretched his God out of true shape. I can’t tolerate that.
Q: Aren’t you lacking poetic sensibility? Don’t all writers create “worlds” when they write? Aren’t all fictions fantasies?
A: Yes, a writer is the creator of a world. He certainly has the freedom to put God in “the world of his book” or even leave him out. If he chooses to put a God in the world of his book, he can make the God any way he wants him to be. My point is exactly that the God of The Shack is not the God of the Bible. Young’s God is too plastic and too humanistic to qualify as a representation–figurative or literal–of the Lord of the Bible. It is not true to the Spirit of the biblical God. I am not saying Young was not free to create such a God. I am only saying that I am going to exercise my freedom not to promote such a book. Am I being smart-mouthed?
Q: Only a little. Do you mean that Young’s God displays expectations for man that are too low?
A: Partly. I do indeed smell an inclusivist social agenda that is not biblical. Young is on a campaign against a God who has any expectations for man. Somehow, according to Young, love is supposed to be the abandonment of all expectations. Ironically, while so much of his relational theology is the same as mine (the same as that in Not Even God), Young’s campaign against a God with expectations is exactly opposed to mine.
Q: You say partly. What can you add?
A: I guess, to give Young as much credit as we can, we can say he is creating an anthropomorphic fantasy to represent, poetically, the inner struggle a person goes through when the Lord is trying to draw him out and heal him. I just think the vehicle of expression has become irreverent in The Shack. Young has stretched his image of God so far as to put the effort outside the bounds of the Great Commission, which is to teach all people to obey the commands of Christ. Young’s God doesn’t command. So there is no need for Mack to obey. Obedience has been pushed off the table by therapy!
Q: Wow. Thanks. That’s kind of interesting.
A: My pleasure.
Q: If someone in cyberland might have another question, is it ok for them to ask?
A: Of course.






“God the Word will become a man.”
The Lord raised his voice to break through the distraught angel’s hysteria, “Katan!”


There once was nothing, only God,
Why did He come, our Lord of Lords?

But even that is not the end,