Next week is the (highly) anticipated release of The Shack movie. I’ve been looking forward to it since I’d heard it was in production, and watching the theatrical trailer further stoked my expectations. It’s quite possible that you’re familiar with the book and its supporters and/or its detractors, but in advance of seeing the movie next week (yes, we have opening night tickets), I wanted to share some observations.

The author, William Paul Young, wrote this fictional man-meets-God story for his kids and never intended anything to happen besides make a few copies at an office supply store. The story was so captivating and original, though, that many friends asked for copies, and interest grew from there. I happened to read a short but highly favorable review online, and I purchased an early edition in the summer of 2007. I was engrossed and finished it within the week, and was a pivotal moment in my journey.

As a work of fiction that desires to communicate theological perspectives and explore spaces on the outer edges of conventional orthodoxy, it’s easy to see how the lines can blur between biblical literalism and creativity. One common critique is that Papa (Abba) is portrayed as a black woman – played by Octavia Spencer in the movie. I’m intrigued by that criticism because it’s as if the personal characteristics are more important than the substance of the character. Put another way, respectfully, it’s as if the wrapping on the birthday gift is more important than the gift itself. I don’t understand why this is a concern – the image of God is in all of creation. Why does the packaging (the age, gender, or skin color) of the actor matter?

That’s just one of many critiques that I’ve read about The Shack in recent years, and you can easily find more by searching. I don’t wish to attempt to identify or summarize the rest, nor rehash the consistent responses I’ve heard from the author in presentations and question / answer sessions. One pattern I have observed is that some critics do not claim to have read the book, yet position themselves as gate-keepers of orthodoxy and proclaim their lack of bias and innate credibility. Instead, they might have read a portion (and presumed its context) and reinforced the cottage industry of self-reflecting detractors that distort or amplify perceived theological errors.

I anticipate that the movie will represent to the best of its ability the vision and intent of the author. In some ways, I expect the magic of movie-making to surpass the rich textures and imaginative prose already found in the book. I’ve also heard of a few God-moments during its filming that the author and one of the producers shared during an online forum, and they commented that even having watched the movie dozens of times, there are nuances and layers that they hadn’t noticed in earlier viewings. I doubt we’ll only see it once.

If you haven’t read the book or intend to watch the movie, I have a few questions I’d like you to consider should you ever choose to.

Are you willing to entertain and explore concepts for which the Bible is quiet (or silent), yet seem plausible given the nature and character of God?
Is your personal interpretation of Christian orthodoxy settled to the point that creative representations are to be dismissed without consideration?
Is the gift wrapping more important than the gift?
Does truth depend more upon the voice and background of the person speaking than what is being said?

I believe that the truth matters more than the image or the packaging. I also believe that implicit bias exists and is frequently hidden from our view. No work of art is ever ‘perfect’, nor can a creative endeavor be considered inerrant. To me, that’s as rational as trying to describe the flavor of argyle – you can’t get there from here.

If you’d like to learn more or watch the trailer, click here. One week to go :).