This thing has over 16,000 reviews on Amazon. Sixteen thousand. Wow.

I get the impression that this is one of those “oh my gosh this will change your life you must read it” books that e v e r y o n e has heard of, and you either really, really love it… or really, really hate it.

I’m not in either of those camps, honestly, but let me point out to any readers who might disagree with my assessment: these are just my personal opinions. Take ’em or leave ’em.

What exactly is The Shack?

For anyone who hasn’t read it, The Shack is basically the story of an angry middle-aged man who goes to a shack in the woods where his daughter died and spends an… otherworldy weekend with physical personifications of God. Papa is God the Father, Sarayu is the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is… you know. Jesus.

The Plot

When I started reading, I thought this was actually one of those “true story” faith books, like that kid who went to Heaven and came back — it’s written that way. But even as a fictional narrative, the idea of a person meeting the Trinity in a shack in the woods to learn about theology, trust, love, forgiveness, and relationships is fascinating. I enjoyed the premise more than I expected.

The Characters

God as Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu, I loved. I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m aware of it, so I did keep picturing Papa as Octavia Spencer, which was perfect. Kudos to the casting team on that one. While I didn’t necessarily agree with all the book’s theology (more on that below), I thought Papa (God the Father) and Jesus were well done. Their mannerisms, speech, values, and messages fit the God of the Bible suitably, in my opinion.

Sarayu… the Holy Spirit was a little weird. The author clearly intends for her to come across as ethereal and difficult to understand or pin down. I did appreciate her being portrayed as feminine, which the Spirit often is in the Biblical texts. But the physical descriptions of her, intended to make her out as a being more of wind and light than tangible matter, got wordy and repetitive. Sarayu “seemed” to sit, or Mack hugged her, “kind of,” or she “sort of seemed” to nod. It was tedious.

The Writing

Gotta be honest. Not a fan of Young’s writing. I don’t read many books written from the perspective of (or written by) average middle-aged white guys, so I don’t know what the norm is for these characters. But it felt so clunky and sometimes forced to see things through Mack’s eyes. His dialogue often felt forced as well. The focus was more on preaching the message than natural narrative dialogue, which made for stilted writing, and the disconnect between God’s eloquence and Mack’s painfully basic syntax came across as the author trying too hard. Descriptions of the setting and events around Mack pulled me from the story many times; I think Young wanted to paint exactly the picture he saw in readers’ minds, but it didn’t work well. And in both descriptions and actions, there was a bit too much “tell not show” going on.

The Details (some spoilers!)

I did cry once reading this book. It’s not all clunky and preachy.

Mack’s first conversation with Papa felt like the most meaningful part of the book to me. She says she’ll “be the papa you never had” and explains how God is genderless, filling both paternal and maternal roles. Mack asks why, then, does she always present herself as male and paternal in the Bible; her answer is that the fallen, broken world was more in need of fathering than mothering. I really connected with that concept, as someone who questions and wrestles a lot with concepts of gender and gender roles in theology and the Bible.

I also appreciated the ‘family dinner’ scene where God explains to Mack that relationships and society were never intended to have hierarchies or rules. The specific inclusion of marriage on the list of things that isn’t supposed to have a hierarchy was nice (even if the book spends a grating amount of time establishing Mack’s wife Nan as an annoyingly traditional, perfect, doting wife/mother character).

Similarly, God’s presentation of submission as existing to invite love and trust into relationships — being a mutual submission of all parties in a relationship to each other, including God choosing to submit to man — brings the Biblical foundation of love back into human relationships in a way traditional church teachings have lost. Jesus also tells Mack that “filling roles is the opposite of relationship” (specifically in reference to male/female gender roles). The book completely ignores the reality of intersex or LGBTQ people, but it’s a start.

As the book progressed, the theology God is presenting to Mack — and the way Mack responds — shifted from refreshing to grating. Like I said above, the dialogue feels far too preachy and forced. Mack’s lines feel like overly simplified, one-size-fits-all questions and responses from traditional conservative church folks, written to guide the conversations to God’s/the author’s (very wordy, theologically written) points.

For example:

Also, there was a family dinner in which God explains to Mack that responsibility and expectations have no place in relationships. They talk about expectancy (good) versus expectations (bad), which is a distinction I can’t make sense of, though I read the scene a few times through. Either way, you expect certain things to happen in a relationship; you just have to think about how you respond when those expectations are sometime, inevitably, not met.

The scene where Mack forgives his father was especially frustrating to me. What, exactly, Mack’s father did so terribly wrong as a parent is never explained. At least The Great Sadness and the events of Missy’s death are laid out for us. We know the details of what happened and can understand and relate to Mack’s pain and anger. But both the problem and the solution of his relationship with his father are skimmed over. He just runs and hugs his dad and that’s that, all is forgiven? No discussing or even acknowledging anything that happened? The entire exchange, if you can even call it that, is less than one page!

A final note: when Mack first arrived at the shack and started talking to God, I was excited to get to the real heart and meat of the story. But as his weekend progressed, the story felt a little too bogged down by dialogue. Too much theological conversation, not enough story.

Overall Conclusion

I understand why this book is so popular, and so meaningful to a huge circle of people. I believe it would be much more impactful to someone just beginning to question and wrestle with the assumptions and false theologies of the traditional institutional church. For me, it just grew cloying and boring as the story progressed.

The message is superior to the writing, and the book works better as a theological vehicle than a fictional narrative or structured story. Some of what God says in the story — like Jesus hating politics as a whole, or the lack of LGBTQ diversity in his explanations of gender — I wouldn’t support theologically, but I can appreciate most of the concepts the author introduces to challenge unbiblical church assumptions and long-taught doctrines. I did love that Papa made a clear, firm distinction that forgiving someone does not mean or require having a relationship with them or letting them back into your life.

The theology, I would give four stars. The writing and storytelling, closer to two. So as a whole, this book earned three stars from me. But don’t take my word for it; read it for yourself. Let me know what you think of this sensational Christian bestseller.