The Shack: A Pastoral Reflection
I have a confession to make: I saw The Shack. I had not planned to, but I did.
I write with some trepidation for I know the potential reaction from some believers. Reaction ranging from unease to outright hostility can be glimpsed among many conservative Christians toward William Paul Young’s 2007 bestselling novel. Such sentiments have resurfaced in light of the film’s release on March 3.
I’ve also observed a significant (and disturbing) amount of interest among many Bible-believing Christians toward the book and now film. Some of it perhaps is mostly curiosity in a cultural artifact of Christian origins and theme receiving mainstream notoriety. Some see the positive prospects of this notoriety, a sign of an American public that is still willing to consider a serious religious message. Some are even willing to suspend their misgivings about elements of the book/film as they sympathize with the bigger themes and truths they see it presenting.
My use of disturbing above betrays my place in the more critical camp. I had concerns several years ago when Young’s novel was released and gained great acclamation, even among some in my own church body. I did not read the book as I rarely read purported Christian novels or popular accounts of religious experiences that I anticipate will serve only to set my teeth on edge.
Then one of my church members asked me what I thought about it. Then I was sent a free clergy pass to the film from a Christian organization. Then I had a rare afternoon free. So I went.
Having seen the film, I certainly believe that it addresses an important theme, albeit in a problematic way. And as I’m mostly convinced that the film may have enough commercial influence to mislead some believers,[1] I offer the following pastoral reflection.
The Shack as Serious Art?
One of the questions that serious people often ask with respect to the art that they consume is whether it deserves to be taken seriously. One need not be a literary critic to know that there are substantive differences between a dollar romance novel and Pride and Prejudice—even if the same person may be as likely to read the former as the latter.
Accordingly, The Shack is the kind of film that enough people will see because of its relative quality as a motion picture film (i.e. the kind that doesn’t go straight to DVD).[2] It boasts of credible actors such as Octavia Spencer and Sam Worthington, as well as recognizable ones such as Tim McGraw, Graham Greene, and Radha Mitchell. At a run time of two hours and twelve minutes, it utilizes many of the conventions and techniques of modern filmmaking, even if not at an Oscar-level caliber. The film also tracks closely enough with the source material that it shouldn’t dismay the novel’s fan base.
If the box office figures are any indication, people are paying attention. In its first week in theaters, it raked in over $20 million dollars, making it number two among all films currently showing. This is significant when compared to other faith-based films in the last decade or so. Scott Mendelson of Forbes notes, “The Shack pulled off what I’d consider top-tier business for this kind of movie!”[3]
Despite any commercial success the film may have, ultimately any potential impact will be found in its message.
The Shack as a Serious Message?
The Shack is fundamentally a story about a Christian’s need to answer an inescapable question: Why does God sometimes allow needless, wanton suffering?
The story revolves around an Oregon family living through one of the worst tragedies imaginable: the abduction of a child. We are introduced to Mackenzie “Mack” Phillips, a father grieving the loss of his youngest daughter a few years earlier. Following the delivery of a cryptic note, Mack journeys back to the shack in the wilderness where his daughter Missy had last been before disappearing. It is there that his real journey begins—a journey to meet God.
What makes the film both unique and most controversial is its portrayal of God. Mack comes to meet the three persons of the Trinity, played by three distinct actors, including the Father and Spirit both being played by actresses. This is where many believers’ concerns about the film are understandably focused: the portrayal of the Divine as three different persons (literally different persons), with two being female.
Problematic as this is, the story itself is about a dialogue between Mack, a grieving father, and “God.” His encounter with the Divine forms the crucible in which Mack’s essential “why questions” are sorted out.
The Real Issue
Arguably, then, The Shack is about theodicy. Broadly speaking, a theodicy is an account of the ways of God in the face of suffering. More specifically, it is the Christian attempt to vindicate or defend divine goodness and sovereignty in light of evil’s presence in the world.
Traditionally, the discussion follows like this: God is all-powerful, and thus He could shield people, especially His children and/or innocents like little girls from gratuitous evil. God is also all-loving, and thus it seems that He should shield us and/or innocent little children from gratuitous acts of evil. However, we see all manner of evil in the world, including the abduction and murder of children. Ergo, where is God? How can we believe in a God like that? Should we?
Without exploring all of the philosophical issues surrounding the problem of evil, let’s focus on the way this is handled in The Shack. The film calls attention to Mack’s lack of sincere faith contrasted with his spouse and his neighbor and friend, Willie. This figures significantly against this backdrop of his daughter’s abduction. Presumably, if Mack were a better Christian (or an actual one), he would be better equipped to hear the truth about God, suffering, and forgiveness.
At this point two important observations emerge. First, understanding evil certainly has an intellectual component. Explaining how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could permit suffering is part of a rational defense of the faith. Second, we must also observe that the problem of evil is just as much an emotional issue as an intellectual one. This is part of the appeal of The Shack: What parent can’t relate to a father trying to maintain belief in God in the face of such evil? One cannot help but be sympathetic.
The fact that the plot unfolds four years removed from the tragedy makes the story more believable. The why questions asked about suffering are initially, especially in the first few months after a tragedy, more emotional in nature. Later, as our emotions stabilize, our mind begins searching for answers that make sense. For this reason, it isn’t surprising that Mack’s conversations with God include real intellectual content that the viewer can and should weigh biblically.
Two Concerns
Ultimately, while The Shack offers some answers that are consistent with Scripture, I believe it fails to offer a fully helpful Christian response to evil for two reasons: the limitations of the medium of film, and the incomplete picture of God.
I have always questioned the efficacy of film as a medium for theological instruction, and certainly for pastoral care. I’m not dismissing the appropriateness of film for Christian reflection or even for aesthetic appreciation. And I would concede that good literature and even film can convey truth. If God could use Balaam’s donkey, certainly artistic mediums used well may shed light onto complex questions.
But modern filmmaking cannot sufficiently help us understand the horror of sin, the mysteries of God (revealed and otherwise) and develop an adequate theodicy. Since The Shack tries so explicitly to help viewers accomplish as much, I think it must be measured accordingly.
I have written elsewhere that there is more than one reason why books are almost always better than the movie. But because The Shack provides some misleading answers to a few key questions (more below), reading the novel will not allay this first concern. The Trinity and theodicy are complex enough without muddying the waters with controversial, visual depiction. This is not even to mention some of the other theological confusion in the film.
This leads into my second main concern. One cannot talk about suffering and forgiveness without speaking of justice and holiness, two aspects of God’s character that are largely absent from the film. When they do appear, they are either redefined or explained so nebulously that their connection to sin, judgment, and forgiveness is finally unclear.
In one key scene, Mack questions Papa (God the Father) about wrath, to which she responds querulously. Isn’t sin enough of a punishment, she reasons. Of course, this obscures the very active role of God in initiating divine judgment in both the Old and New testaments. At best, it reinterprets, and at worst ignores, God’s holiness, for which wrath is an unavoidable corollary.
Divine wrath is not so much an attribute of God as it is an expression of the attribute of holiness against sin. However, increasingly in modern Christian thought, love must win. The camera is careful to show the nail-scarred wrists of each Divine actor, reminding both Mack and the viewer of God’s great love. And without giving away other key elements of the film, many poignant moments emerge where love, healing, and reconciliation are in focus.
My question, however, is this: can we truly experience God’s warm embrace without also being confronted with His majesty? The filmmakers appear committed to emphasize the immanence (nearness) of God at the expense of His transcendence. Yet it is His transcendence as seen in Divine holiness and Trinitarian mystery that will not allow us to dismiss wrath, entertain misrepresentation, or say to a suffering parent, “You just need to trust God and quit trying to understand everything.” Theologically-informed, pastoral counsel requires more nuance and care than this.
Loving Our People
A few years ago a blogger at the Gospel Coalition penned some helpful words on The Shack. Among the reasons he mentions for why the novel sold like wildfire was the prevalence of broken, fatherless homes and the film’s inclusion of this theme. Certainly those who view the film carefully will discern this element also.
No doubt we all bear scars from the past, and we wonder if the Bible addresses those pasts. I believe it does. So insomuch that The Shack misrepresents that message at times, it makes me believe that the film will do little more than stir people’s emotions about their struggles with fatherlessness, or any other felt pain, more than it will lead them into the arms of our true Father as He has chosen to reveal Himself.
As a pastor, my hope for my people—those who have suffered greatly, or who no doubt will suffer in the future—is that they would seek solace not in a darkened theater viewing an incomplete story. Rather, my prayer is that they would embrace the people of God whom He has given them to walk with through suffering, to study Scripture with, and to be an embodied (not cinematic) agent of comfort unto.
____________________
[1] According to boxofficemojo.com, The Shack has moved up fairly well on their list of films which are “produced by Christians that promote or embody their religions” since 1980. “Movies produced by Christians that promote or embody their religions. 1980—resent, Box Office Mojo; http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=christian.htm; accessed on 10 March 2017; Internet.
[2] As further confirmation of how wide the gap can be between critical acclaim and audience opinion, see https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_shack; Accessed 14 March 2017; Internet. Critics rated the film at the very low score of 18%, while audiences reviews (now exceeding 9,000) rated the film at an impressive 86%. This is illustrative of the divide which often exists between professional film critics and mainstream audiences.
[3] Scott Mendelson, “Weekend Box Office: ‘The Shack’ Snags Divine $16 M Debut, ‘Before I Fall’ and ‘Table 19’ Stumble, Forbes, March 5, 2017; https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/03/05/weekend-box-office-the-shack-snags-divine-16m-debut-before-i-fall-and-table-19-stumble/#55a76dd611dc; accessed 11 March 2017; Internet.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks