The Shack is a postmodern (I’m not even going to discuss that term) book that takes for granted that a narrative or rhetorical style is a legitimate (or even preferred) mode for processing thoughts of God (doing theology). Conversational theology if you like… the book is FULL of it. If you think that theology dances better with a systematic/philosophical (modern) ordering of thoughts of God, then you (like my mate in the last post) will probably think that the author of The Shack has a “low” view of Scripture.
Personally, I think that doing theology in a narrative fashion is more consistent with how the writers of Scripture did theology. Therefor, I think that The Shack has a “high” view of Scripture, or at least it honors the way theology is done in the Scripture by mimicking the Bible’s method of processing and communicating thoughts about God.
I would grant that The Shack presents a “low” view of the traditional interpretation of Scripture (or of the traditional authorities of interpretation), but that’s different than a “low” view of Scripture itself. For example, Ghandi had a “high” view of Jesus, but a “low” view of people who claimed to speak (or live, or interpret “Christness”) on Christ’s behalf. I think that’s fair.
Whatdayou think?