Regarding The Shack

Recently, I had the privilege of reading The Shack by William Paul Young. I'd heard whispers of things about the book and knew it would be, if nothing else, unconventional and it indeed was not only unconventional, but also extremely creative, thought provoking and perhaps most importantly Gospel-filled. It has been well noted by numerous critics, bloggers and authors themselves that the Christian publishing world has been severely lacking in the spreading of the Gospel. Many Christian publishers seem to be concerned with producing material that reflects the moral standards and values of a typical (very often conservative) Christian church. While I don't think there is anything wrong with emphasizing morals and values in a society where those things are ever decreasing, there is something wrong with not presenting the message of forgiveness and salvation to a world that always has and always will need to hear such a message of grace and mercy.
The Shack is a book after my own heart because it is something that was (or at least would have been) utterly rejected by all Christian publishers because of its controversial nature and also utterly rejected by all secular publishers because of the unavoidable message of salvation in the book. I too have a book of this nature in the editing stages. It is however, probably more controversial than The Shack for reasons I'd rather not divulge at this time.
If you have not read the book, the basic bare bones premise is that the main character spends a weekend with God and asks many of the difficult questions many people in the world ask internally but are afraid to ever voice publicly. I.e. Why doesn't God stop bad things from happening on Earth?
The answers the main character gets to his questions are the heart of the book. His conversations with the three persons of the Trinity help the believer to re-think their paradigm of who God is, what human beings are in relation to God, and even who God is in relationship to Him/Herself (yes part of the Trinity in the book presents itself as female).
For the unbeliever, I believe this book provides a relevance and beauty that might open doors wide enough for a person to perhaps give God another look.
It most certainly makes light of some of the views that are currently out there about God; that God is mean, vindictive, wrathful, egocentric, selfish etc. and attempts to explain (and does a very good job of explaining) where those views fall short of the truth.
There are many who have criticized this book for many reasons, some for its theological content. Some of the more prevalent criticisms I've heard are that the author fails to mention the sacraments, that the author presents a bit of universalism in some of the dialogue, that the author holds Scripture in low regard and various other more detailed complaints. Believe me, you don't have to go far to find complaints; they are all over. While I understand where many people can disagree with Young, I think they could be failing to recognize the entire point of the book. The book asks you to rethink how you've come to believe what you believe and it would seem that part of the vocal minority of people who have come to criticize this book have failed to take part in that rethinking. Indeed I don't know how long certain critics have struggled with this book and its assumptions, assertions and implications, but I get the feeling there are some who approached this book with such a vindictive attitude and closed mind that they refused to reconsider their own paradigms. Perhaps they all did. Perhaps they struggled with where they've learned what they've learned and thoughtfully said, this is wrong, but that type of careful thought is not explicitly present in some of the reviews I've read. Some have been thoughtful. One blogger I read on a regular basis said that it presented the Trinity in a way he'd never thought of before and in a way that helped him understand the profound need for relationships in this world.
I don't think anybody is saying that this book should be accepted as another book of the Bible (ok perhaps a few are); of course there are things wrong with the book. Purity of doctrine is not something we can truly expect ourselves as humans to produce. What we can expect is that we can make each other think. We can challenge each other with perspectives and ideas that we had never considered before and we can grow from considering those things, even if we reject them.
I wish I would see more consideration from the reviews that are out there condemning The Shack. I think it would be a helpful step in engaging in further dialogue.
My review would simply be that while there were parts that I didn't full agree with or fully understand, The Shack opened my eyes to many possibilities and complexities regarding God that I had not considered before. It helped me to think about what I believe, how I treat my neighbor and how great God is for intersecting world through the person of Jesus Christ, how loving Jesus was in His death and resurrection, and how glorious God is for continually blessing us despite our constantly falling short of His glory.
If you get an opportunity to read the book I would highly recommend it, not because it is absolutely perfect, but because it is thought provoking and all in all it lets the Gospel predominate.
If you already have read it, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts about it, either via a blog comment or in person if we have the ability to do so.