The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.68 You Save: $12.31 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: No Love Shack
Summary: 3 Stars
In this digital age, so many clamor for "bullet points." In the information age, most of us don't really desire too much information, we just want talking points. If anyone ever invents complete vitamins that taste like Grandma's famous pot roast dinner, the food industry is in trouble. I've written much of the following on other forums and, when I post it, so many others call out for bullet points. I'm a church historian / seminarian who believes that bullet points, cliffs notes, and summaries are not adequate for this topic. It's a sad commentary on Christian culture that we, as is our surrounding culture, are too busy to plumb the depths of God's nature and character. If you take the time required to engage the following review, I'm sure it too may prove thought provoking and may "change your life."
The Shack encouraged people to engage God in relationship. Part of that relationship entails pushing the limits of your mind's ability to love Him enough to engage in the hard work and study of The Book through which He chose to reveal Himself to us. Such love means taking the time, labor, and diligence that any relationship requires. Additionally, part of being a member of the Body is to engage in relationship with those Saints who have gone before us, as well as living Saints, who we will reunite with in Heaven one day. We should interact with them, through their writings, to see what they said about God's self-disclosure which we only get through reading His Word. We will have eternity to discuss many of these topics and I'm sure we'll all laugh at where we went wrong--unless we went too far wrong. '
Speaking of Heaven, do you recall any mention of that other place in The Shack? "NOT to believe in the devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea," wrote Dostoevsky in The Idiot. William P. Young approaches such Franco-smarminess in his utopian dreams of an affective, relational revolution in his Satan-less world in the popular The Shack. Not that I believe the Adversary carries much intervening power in our lives, but I do think we ought not to ignore his role in the origins of and alongside of our own sinful propensities. In a wave of unreflective popularity--reminiscent of The Prayer of Jabez--Young's The Shack is riding a Christian, sub-cultural tsunami into movie deals and sequels. Don't get me wrong--there are many appealing phrases and wishful desires expressed in The Shack--hence its popularity--yet, it falls disappointingly short of Eugene Peterson's platitudinal hope to see it reach classic-status next to Pilgrim's Progress on Christian bookshelves. In fact, Peterson's endorsement was by far the most startling aspect of The Shack that I encountered. Nothing inside the covers was earth-shattering, new, or particularly memorable. Back to Dostoevsky, part of the book's popular appeal seems to be its lack of reflection on sin, justice, hell, and the devil. Modern Christians, like the French of Dostoevsky's criticism, don't want to be bothered with the hard work of theology and doctrinal formation; so, such candy-coated works as The Shack appeal to the masses. Hence Dostoevsky's commentary applies well. Speaking of Dostoevsky, he was infinitely better at crafting a useful allegory as he did in The Brothers Karamazov which is well worth reading. Peterson is acquainted with Dostoevsky, and Bunyan, and countless other allegorists whose skills far surpass Young's skill. Peterson's own skills as a writer are superb which is why I was incredulous over his endorsement.
In fact, one of the great disappointments with The Shack is that it is not consistently well-written from cover to cover. One item I discovered after penning 90% of this critique was that several publishers passed on printing it. Given its popularity, they must have rejected it for the usual reasons--the writing quality, theological standards, marketability, etc. Young has his moments where he does some expert word crafting, but not consistently enough throughout the novel. Therefore, the only explanation I can find remotely plausible for its popularity in the face of mediocre writing and flawed theology has to be the visceral emotive response it invokes from anyone who has suffered from death--which includes all of us, even the Incarnate Christ.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the instant infatuation with something or someone that touches your heart. What I'm asking, is that once the honeymoon is over, if your reaction was purely emotional, step back and take a look with a rational set of eyes and see if perhaps you no longer feel the same way. See if you can take one of The Shack's themes to heart and attempt to love God with your mind, your intellect, your logic, reason, and your thinking--along with your heart, soul, spirit, and body. Love God with all you have.
I say the visceral, emotional reaction explains The Shack's popularity, because the positive reviews that are posted for this novel do not say anything substantive. "I loved it." "You will think about the Trinity." "Best book I've read." I have yet to see a reasoned positive critique on the Shack. This leads me to believe that: a) a great hoard of Christians do not read (hence the "best book" accolade); b) they've never studied the doctrine of the Trinity (hence the "thought provoking" cheers); c) and they've never read much classical literature whose authors' level of craft leave this book sitting on the Juvenile shelf. The popular appeal, again, seems merely visceral as most people can identify with the loss of a loved one. After hearing nothing but positive assessments of The Shack, I fully expected to find comfort and solace there but was turned off by its syrupy extremity. Others say it made them think and I found it did quite the opposite. It seems most readers have turned their brains off, again. Sadly, works like Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind which ought to receive accolades among the Body of Christ remains virtually unknown in Christian circles. I have a passion to help the Body learn once again how to dispassionately critique and think about pop culture. This novel disappoints as just one more in the long line of Christian culture attempting to imitate the world around us with little reflection along the lines that Noll sought to educate us about through his The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
Education is a quest for the entire truth. As one of my old professors said, "Beware of half-truths because you may have ahold of the wrong half." Always pursue the full truth. True education in pursuit of truth finds its end in the One who IS the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Truth, therefore, is a byproduct of love since by God's Love, the Truth spent Himself for us out of love. Truth and love, therefore, go hand in hand and you cannot have one without the other. As you go forth in this world, follow the beacons of truth and love. When you see one, look for the other and you'll know you're on the right track. If either appears without the other, look elsewhere. The Shack has a lot of love, but is missing the mark in the truth department. And, yes, we all realize it is a novel, but novels are created to present truth in more palatable means so that more people will recognize such in the midst of the common connections and human experiences that novelists devise into stories to bring truths to life. Young's book is so Pollyanna in outlook that he avoids harsh terms like sin, Hell, punishment because he believes they are barriers to unbelievers. He teaches others to adopt an aversion at even using the name, "Christian." He sacrifices the depths of theology on the porch-swing of relationship to such a degree that he now faces harsh criticism from the more theologically educated who have completed his story. Sadly, the prevailing comments from readers demonstrates an aversion to engaging in the labors of profitable theological tasks and reflects a pervading anti-intellectual spirit within the Body of Christ that still refuses to take up the full command to love God with heart, soul, MIND, body, and spirit. After reading a good deal of public comment, I'm starting to agree with that famous politician from the Democratic Party who laughingly smirked that Evangelicals are so easily led. Modern Evangelicals also appear to shun the arduous labors of scholarship; hence, we do not bear its fruit. We are wont to drown the truth in a bowl of mushy love, rather than allowing love to feed our quest for knowledge to know God better and engage him with heart, soul, mind, and spirit wholeness. So, the many Francophiles among us would rather not explore the depths of the ugly and negative aspects of theology and gather where all the warm-fuzzies dwell.
In fact, a ready example from The Shack presents itself when, so as not to offend modern sensibilities, Young refuses to use the word sin to refer to our relationship problem with God. In an egregious error, Young substitutes the word "independence" for the word "sin." Presumably, Young's motivation appears to be the revulsion that modern Western cultures have to the word "sin." Has Western culture gone so far down the road of leftist political correctness and the deep-seated reliance on entertainment over substance that we cannot even use the perfect word in the English language that signifies our rift with God? Additionally, we now have "theologically-correct" terms for believers which excludes the use of the term "Christian" because the world reviles the word. Why is this semantic slight-of-hand so fraught with meaning? Let's examine the ways. . .
First of all, a better, more precise word for the idea that Young was attempting to convey would have been "autonomy" over "independence." Avoiding cultural baggage that comes with our English word "sin"--which presumably Young feels offends too many readers to whom he seeks to appeal--should have led him to the word "autonomy" which literally means "self-law." "Autonomy" would have worked much better than "independence." The word "independence," especially in American circles, connotes a type of competency that is well-favored and desired. In addition, in the political realm (for which Young's disdain will be addressed later), the word "independence" holds such a positive view that it makes a wretched substitute for the word "sin." Substituting the word "independence" may be interpreted as a call to socialism rather than an encouragement to greater community in the Body of Christ. Young's obvious motivation is to express the separation between God and man using a term that shakes his audience to their core. However, there is a legitimately reverent fondness for political independence which will backfire on Young's motivation. Political independence is a blessed state of being. There's nothing wrong with being "independent"; the error resides in being "undependent" on God, or rather, autonomous. Perhaps Young's Canadian upbringing, his mission-field rearing and the abuse he sustained there, along with the Emergent Church's general abhorrence for perceived Western-arrogance allow a bit of anti-American political sentiment to overcome his better judgment in substituting "independence" for "sin." Along with the contemporary Ché Guevara fad, perhaps Young sees the consonant "rugged American individualism" as a true synonym for sin. The word "sin" conveys so much more than Young's faddish substitution of "independence."
Additionally, Young absolutizes love and relationship as synonyms for God's nature and character; he therefore downplays justice and avoids traditional views of sin. In such a context, then, Young's choice makes perfect sense to him but not to others--hence the possible backfiring against his intended outcome. Since Young neglects to specify "independence" as a lack of dependence from God and distinguish such from laudable, "political independence," some Americans will bristle against perceived attacks on political independence just to satisfy a need to feel relevant to contemporary readers. He will lose lovers of political independence because of this lack of definition and clarity.
Furthermore, this abhorrence of the term "sin" brings up a key element of Young's novel. The Shack follows the trend in postmodern churches to over-emphasize God's immanence (closeness to us) at the expense of His transcendence (holy-otherness). The trend is easily seen in contemporary praise songs that traditionalists characterize as "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" songs that actually contain more of the words "I, me, we, us" more than "He, You, God, Lord, Holy One" and which emphasize our experiences over accolades of God's character. So, in addition to a pervading anti-intellectual remnant from the Fundamentalist struggle of the last century, there is such a new, violent, anti-traditional element in modern Christianity that it blindly throws out anything over 10 years old whether it be hymns, doctrine, creeds, writings, and tenured pastors, etc. Young's novel follows this desire for novelty, relevance, and the avant-garde.
For example, Young's protagonist in The Shack, Mackenzie Phillips, decidedly loathes the traditional church. God answers, "That's because you're only seeing the institution, a man-made system. That's not what I came to build. What I see are people and their lives, a living breathing community of all those who love me, not buildings and programs... Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not sitting in endless meetings staring at the back of people's heads...just sharing life" (pp. 179-80). Christians have been perennially complaining along these same lines since the 1960's at least. (I'm sure older Christians would set that date back considerably.) As a matter of fact, Bruce Shelley, author of Church History in Plain Language used to point out the historical pattern where renewal groups seek to recreate the New Testament church, break away from existing institutions with "meaningless traditions", then organize, grow, and become institutionalized themselves and then newer groups then seek to renew and reform the "new churches."
Young continues to play to the Christian masses' propensity to create a straw-man argument against the traditional which argues that institutional churches fail at or ignore relationships and community. This trend perpetuates a false dichotomy that seeks to separate the actual persons of God from institutionalized religion. The problem is that all renewal movements eventually organize out of shear necessity. It does not mean that traditional churches lose their support for or recognition of the importance of relationships, it's just that the need for efficiency sometimes overwhelms the need for relationships as churches grow in size and membership. It also makes it hard for traditionalists to counter the new groups of renewal advocates that perennially arise because everyone agrees that relationships, especially our relationships with our Triune God are important.
This brings us back to Young's use of the word independence as a substitute for sin. Since relationships are paramount to renewal movements, independence flies in the face of the communal. Hence, to Young, independence is the greatest sin and therefore can be used as a synonym for sin. Young obviously intended peoples' personal independence to be exchanged for interpersonal interdependence in redemption--and rightly so in our relationships with God. An avant-garde accusatory focus causes Young to emphasize a narrow definition of independence with a double entendre which seems to take a poke at the American notion of "independence" on a personal level as well. However, to substitute "independence" for the concept of sin goes too far. He anticipated readers bristling at this part of his call to relational change so a certain amount of resistance was expected. This is where Young gets smarmy in his hopes to point fingers at our natural inclination toward independence and preach, "See, you're holding on to independence when you should be completely dependent on God." Young obviously desired this reaction. No Christian would deny this fallen proclivity to attempt to live independently from God's sovereignty. However, "independence" does not fully explain the separation with God that the word sin does. Young is overemphasizing the "independence" in our broken relationship as the focus of our rift with God. Although, the relationship breech is important and is the key aspect of separation with God, Young ignores the other aspects of sin that a full understanding and deep exploration conveys. Perhaps coining a new word like "undependence," if he didn't like the word autonomy, would have suited his purposes better. Still, much of the full-blown meaning of "sin" is diminished in either word choice. Since Young is emphasizing the relationship aspects of sin, autonomy would have been a better word choice to carry forth his theme that we need to live as ever-dependent upon our God. Independence is a narrow, weak and failed substitute for sin.
Like Young, the Postmodern, Emergent Church adherents are wont to misappropriate old words in a longing to be both avant-garde and relevant, assigning new meaning to them as readily as they seek the latest popular coffee concoction. Older generations, like Tom Brockaw's "Greatest Generation," who drank strong black coffee Sunday school classes after the service was over at least flirted with doctrinal issues and some actually read Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. The newer generations who drink frappes and lattes while the church service is going on are too busy to put forth any effort to think through doctrinal issues and prefer more relational religion (another word they hate by the way). The post-black-coffee church maintains this smarmy sensibility that eschews the scholarly accomplishments of the institutional church with an iconoclastic zeal to shatter all "traditions" and create new ones (like drinking coffee DURING church services).
Appealing to their iconoclastic tendencies rather than their abhorrence for labeling people [but they'll forgive me anyway especially since they appreciate a good sense of humor] the new generations are known as Starbucks' Christians. Young appears to fall into this category of Christian (another term that the Starbucks' Generation hates by the way). Yes, it's true; there are Christians who hate the name "Christian" as much as a brand of radical leftist Americans detest being called American. In an effort to redefine who Christ's followers are, the postmodernists want to change the language as well. On page 182 (paperback version), Young has poor, ignorant Mack ask Jesus, "Is that what it means to be a Christian?" Jesus, the Christ, and hence by definition not a "Christ-follower" which is what "Christian" means, says, "Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian." This passage parallels many a Christian-college-late-night-dorm-room-discussion that has taken place countless times in history where someone seeks to shock the room by stating, "Jesus was not a Christian." This tired contrivance has been done before.
However humorous and ironic Young was attempting to be, he goes beyond this statement and attempts to embrace the avant-garde and shock even more by continuing, "I [Jesus] have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved." The term "Christian" by definition means "Christ follower" and was originally a term of derision as all readers of Acts know. Young plays more semantic games designed to irritate and get people to react to his implicit derision of the term Christian. Of course God wants all to be Christ-followers, and when Young says God wants them to transform into sons and daughters he is playing mere semantic games in an effort to lovingly reach out to those who detest the term "Christian." God's sons and daughters ARE Christians and its ridiculous to play games the way Young does in another attempt to be relevant to people who are offended by the name Christian. Not that the following really happened, but in a little allegory of my own I picture young in an office conference room with a bevy of minorities, people of non-Christian religions, and atheists doing a market survey on what they dislike about Christianity as research for his novel. "Thanks for sharing. In deference to the Islamic community I'll avoid using the word Christian from now on since you seem to equate Christians with crusaders. Oh, Mr. Atheist, you hate the word `sin?' I'll be sure not to use that one. Thank you all for participating in our valuable survey today. Travel home safely and on your way out, please take a copy of this excellent book, `The Message,' (which I love by the way) as a token of our appreciation."
In addition to his glaring semantic flaws, Young intermixes, intermingles and just plain imposes the way humans "ought to live" in an unfallen state of being onto life in this fallen world. He imposes standards on his main character, Mackenzie Allen Phillips (Mack), that no human being could live up to and accomplish in this fallen world. Young is so impatient to live in God's "new heaven and new earth" environment and that he pushes post-eschaton standards too early into this earthly realm. He mitigates this view at certain points, especially at the end, but it is hard to swallow along the way. For example, Mack is berated time after time for failing to let his wife know he was visiting the shack where his missing daughter's last known whereabouts were confirmed and her bloody dress was found. Mack's friend, all members of the Trinity and what seems a poll of the host of angels all tell Mack that he should have told her his plans. In the real world, every husband knows that if Mack told his wife where he was actually going, the trip would have been cancelled and Young never would have had a novel in the first place. Experientially, if you divulge the travel plans and perhaps the companions, then the itinerary changes via divine spousal fiat.
Also, throughout the novel, Young continually relates all problems to independence and avoids the notion of evil manifested in Satan and his minions. It makes it easy then for Young to support Wesleyan notions of perfectionism as a real possibility in this life. Of course, Young narrows the scope of sin and evil to accomplish entire sanctification just as Wesley did. In another example, Young contradicts an earlier lauding of using our imagination in relationships when God tells Mack, "You cannot see in your mind's eye something you cannot experience." God gave us imagination so that we did not have to experience everything firsthand but sadly Young denies this in his experientialist focus. In another snide shot at organized Christianity, Young mitigates his universalism at one point when Mack asks, "Does that mean that all roads will lead to you?" "Not at all," smiled Jesus. . . "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you" (page 182). Young also mitigates his strong Arminianism in this statement by finally acknowledging God's role in conversion.
In addition, many online reviewers laud the book for helping them understand the Trinity. I hope not. On p. 98, Young writes, "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed." This statement approaches Monarchianism, a rightly-condemned heresy in the early church that mixed the distinct personhood of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Scripture is clear that the Father and the Spirit did not become incarnate as the Son did, and did not assume the limitations the Son did at the kenosis or emptying of Christ at His Incarnation. The three-ness of God's personhood must be stressed equally to His one essence or the oneness of being or `ousia' of God. Theological precision is not a strong point of Young's novel which many dismiss since it's a work of fiction. These same folks are not so glib to dismiss the theological mistakes of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Novels have always been a literary art form that sought to disseminate truth in a stringer form--through story--than through expository persuasion. Stories strongly preach truths in symbolic form, so much so that readers subconsciously adopt ideas readily and willingly if they're presented in a good story.
The best written portions of Young's novel include from the beginning to halfway through chapter 5 and then from chapter 17 onward. When Young begins his allegory halfway through chapter 5, his effectiveness diminishes. In fact, Young literally borrows The Oracle character from The Matrix film as his expression of God-the-Father to such a degree that I actually anticipated he was going to have God smoking a cigarette to relate better to Young's puppet Mackenzie. God the Father, characterized as an African-American woman named Elousia, is so much like The Oracle that Young has her baking pies (as well as preparing other dishes) while she attempts to impart knowledge to Mack, the ignoramus who seems not to have delved into theological thinking at any point in his life. My desire is that there would never be believers who were so theologically ignorant as Young's main character, Mack. But as I read online reviews of this book, I grow sadder and more disillusioned with the state of the Christian mind despite the library of literature and jeremiads crying out for Christians to love God with their minds as well as the hearts. There is such a one-sided emphasis on "heart-Christianity" in our modern times that the growing mountain seems nearly insurmountable. Thank God his power is still available to we who pray for a wholistic revival where Christians love God with their intellect as much as they do with their emotions. Mack is more wet-behind-the-ears than Neo ever was under The Oracle's tutelage. The whole Trinitarian allegory seems as forcefully contrived as using a jackhammer and funnel to pound Young's ideas into our brains. Poor Mack's brain cannot handle the constant hammering so he needs to take frequent breaks so that we can learn more about how the world should be. Actually, some of these welcomed breaks from Young's theology contain some of his best descriptive writing.
Despite the attractiveness of some of Young's phrasing in his descriptive passages, the banter in the dialogue was sickeningly manipulative. The Trinitarian dialogues which seem to shockingly appeal to so many online reviewers (who only add a sentence or two of unequivocal love) reminded me of a book I read over a decade ago. Way back in 1995, Donald McCullough warned Christians in his The Trivialization of God about a popular overemphasis on the immanent aspects of God which led the Christian church into adopting a God who was lovingly manageable. We see now the trends in open theism and the popularity of The Shack as examples of creating a manageable God who fits into our notions of fairness and love. Many readers see just the opposite, but Young's book follows the immanent trend which characterizes our Lord in the statement, "God is love," and leaves it at that. People ignore His holiness, His transcendence, His justice, and yes, even His wrath against something once known as "sin." At the time I read McCullough's book, I believed he went too far in attempting to move the church into supporting a more transcendent view of God. I now see that his correctives were timely and prophetic. I would love to see what Donald McCullough thinks about emotive hoards who exhibit no critical thinking skills regarding Young's novel.
If you're among the lemming-like minions of relational groupthink, easy-believism adherents who have never enjoyed reading Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, you will enjoy the affirmation that absolves you from having to truly examine theological doctrines against the revelation of Scripture. If you hate the cold, rational propensity to put God in a cold steel box, you love this novel. If you put God in a box by stating that Christianity puts God in a box while "relationships" takes God out of the box, you will love this boxed-up, potpourri-scented, gift-wrapped relational God in an emotive box. If you've ever said, "God IS love!" without re-examining that statement, you will add this to your all-time favorites. You will further enjoy a minimalist concept of sin that wraps it up in our propensity for "independence." If you emote a universalistic desire that everyone make it into heaven clear and free, you'll also find a fondness in your heart for The Shack. If you support oneness Trinitarian movements, The Shack will become the living manifestation of the B-52's similarly named song for you. However, if any of these doctrinal tendencies bother you, forcing yourself through the allegory will be a test of tolerance just to gain the right to critique it. If you're among the crowds of online reviewers who label the novel as "thought provoking," you may detest reviews like this one that argue that it more likely reveals a lack of any existing modern movement in the church that truly provokes thought. The American church tends to avoid the labor of thinking at all costs and Young's novel seems to support such an assessment. Young's novel will appeal to the affective believers who avoid exploration of theology like the plague and will be problematic for the Lord's remnant of doctrinal purists. The writing has flashes of promise, but not enough to earn the accolades that Peterson, an excellent writer, showers upon Young's work. After all the hype, I was deeply disappointed. Christian publishers turned down this work for logical reasons, and they are legion. I wonder, since I did not actively love this work, does that mean in Young's Francophilic way of thinking that I've sinned in my independent thinking? Have I separated myself from a large chunk of the Body and hence created a rift between myself and Christ by exerting such independent thought? Naw, I think I just love good literature and good theology and. . . ssshhhhhh, independence.
Book Review: Beware of The Shack
Summary: 1 Stars
Every so often a "Christian" book emerges from the shadows of obscurity, causing major waves in the literary market. Over the past few months, The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity by William P. Young has acquired a place in the spotlight. Self-published by the author, The Shack has sold over 750,000 copies and is currently #8 on the Amazon.com Top 100 List. The Shack is quite the Cinderella story as Young's first publication which he did not originally envision publishing, but wrote only for the enjoyment of his children. Since the first of its seven printings in 2007, The Shack has enjoyed raving reviews, an enormously successful reception among Christians, and a most recent printing in hardcover. As a result, I have decided to read and review The Shack.
The Writing:
Young proves to be a decent writer, especially considering this is his first major work. Though the initial chapters are fairly amateurish, the remaining material improves in style and form. Probably, the best part of the general writing style is the pace. The story is faithful to quickly move from scene to scene. The reader is never left lagging or bored with the chain of events, which seems to be a difficult task for fictional writers. In addition, though Young's story is quite predictable from chapter to chapter and follows a fairly unoriginal murder-mystery paradigm, it does maintain a level of intrigue and interest. Likewise, Young also does a suitable job illustrating the events with vibrant terminology. However, at times his writing reads more like an over-acted episode of Dawson's Creek than a best-selling work of fiction. Now, we will turn our attention to the content, which, as I will show, is quite troubling and a fair piece down the road of heresy.
The Content:
As I mentioned earlier, the trouble begins at the start of the storyline. Let me note first, the degradation of Scripture's sufficiency and authority. The story begins as Mack receives a note in the mail which, the story at least posits, is hand-written by God Himself. This very thought draws into question the nature of Scripture. First, it indirectly suggests that the canon of Scripture is still open and growing. If this is so, it poses a major problem for Christians of all historical eras. In the 4th century, the early Christian church affirmed the completion of the canon, including the 27 books we call the New Testament. If the canon were open today, Christians would have to begin considering what they are missing, what is to be added, and when it will finally be closed. As you can imagine, this is a major theological problem because the suggestion draws into question the trustworthiness of Scripture which stands as the only rule of Christian faith and conduct. A major problematic component to the idea that God would write a modern "note" is the idea that God is still revealing Himself, which also contradicts Scripture and suggests the 66 books of the Bible are not sufficient in and of themselves.4 In fact, it is worthy to note that in all of history, we only know of one time in which God penned a document with his own hand. On this document was the inscription of the 10 commandments given to Moses.5 Therefore, it does seem a bit unusual that God would hand-pen the 10 commandments only to wait thousands of years to hand-pen an invitation to vacation with Him in the country. Perhaps this reveals a bit of the author's view of revelation, suggesting that God is still revealing Himself to mankind. If so, what does this say about Jesus who is the exact representation of His nature and the one through whom God has spoken in "these last days." In fact, Scripture states that Jesus spoke with such great clarity and finality that after He was finished, it was suitable to sit down at the right hand of God the Father, signifying the completion of divine revelation.6
Now, at this point, some may be saying, "Come on. Aren't you being a little picky?" To that, I must agree. I am being very picky. Again, this is not about the story, it is about the theology residing in the story. Theology changes lives, either for the good or for the bad. Therefore, theology that is publicly presented by mouth or pen is quite important. Remember, this book is repeatedly marketed as a theological work. In his front cover endorsement, Eugene Peterson (author of The Message Bible paraphrase) writes, "When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." Honestly, after reading the book, I am surprised by Peterson's comments, though I am not a huge fan of his. Clearly, William P. Young is in no John Bunyan and The Shack falls terribly short of his timeless classic. The purpose of Bunyan's book was presenting sound theology through the medium of allegory. Others may respond to this critique with, "It's only allegory. Your problem is that you are interpreting the book literally." Actually, it is not truly allegorical. Allegory consists of something figurative representing something real. The Chronicles of Narnia and Pilgrim's Progress are allegorical. The Shack consists of something real representing something real. Mack is a real man, living in a real time, in a real world, conversing with who is suggested to be the real Triune God. Even if The Shack was allegory, it would still not be okay to teach heretical theologies. With that said, let me move on to another major problem - which is probably the most devastating.
The Shack presents an altogether inaccurate, unbiblical, and disrespectful depiction of the Godhead. Upon their meeting in the shack, Mack realizes that God is not quite as he imagined. God the Father turns out to be an aged African American woman who enjoys cooking and mothering the other two Persons of the Trinity. Throughout the story she is called Papa, but prefers the name Elousia. However, the story does not reveal that Elousia is a greek term referring to the tenderness between Jesus and his mother, Mary. Is Young suggesting that God the Father is like a mother to Jesus? Though we could probably camp out here for quite some time, there is more reviewing to be done.
God the Son turns out to be a 30-something Middle-Eastern handy-man, clothed in blue jeans, a sawdusty plaid shirt with rolled sleeves, gloves, muscular forearms, and a toolbelt. God the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian songstress named Sarayu who enjoys gardening. The name Sarayu is derived from sandskrit meaning wind or flowing water. As a quick note on the issue of gender, keep in mind that though Scripture always speaks of the Holy Spirit with masculine or neuter pronouns, Sarayu is a purely feminine derivative of the sandskrit root "sar." With that said, let's start by considering Young's version of the Trinity in general and then deal with each Person individually.
Though the Persons of the Trinity have interests such as cooking, gardening, and home improvement, each member seems to equally enjoy and partake in the activities of the others. For instance, Jesus, though he enjoys "working with his hands," equally enjoys gardening and cooking.7 This ambiguity severely undermines the Trinitarian integrity by eliminating their distinct roles and relationships to one another. Though Young has attempted to humanize each Person by assigning a race and gender, neither of which are accurate except for the masculinity of Jesus, he fails to recognize that the most important component to Trinitarian theology is found in the distinct roles of each Person. Therefore, if each of the members maintain the same interests and, perhaps, roles, then the logical conclusion is an egalitarian version of the Trinity. What I mean by egalitarian is that all of the Persons are not only equal, but the same in role and function. A similar error in Young's depiction of the Trinity lies in his statement that "When we (the Godhead) spoke ourself (singular) into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human."8 Do you hear the error in this? Young is teaching that the entire Trinity experienced the incarnation, which is not consistent with Scripture, logic, or reason (not to mention the fact that no one in the Trinity was "spoken" into human existence). This error is also obviously intentional because in Young's story Papa has scars on his wrists along with Jesus. Therefore, according to Young, God the Father died upon the cross. In reality, Scripture explains that God the Father sent Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin on behalf of the world.9 This is impossible if God the Father also died upon the cross. In addition, it seems this also convolutes the Christian understanding that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. According to Young, God the Father gave His life on calvary as well. Though its difficult to pin down, what we have here is some kind of inverted modalism in which the entire Godhead act synonymously.
From my perspective as a reader, Young's entire theology grows stranger with the turn of every page. In addition, his view of the Trinity is furthered by the concept of mutual submission in which all the members of the Trinity, because they are not truly distinct, submit to one another. This is clearly not biblical either. Throughout Scripture, Jesus submits to the Father and the Father sends the Holy Spirit to help His people.10 This does not occur within The Shack's Trinity. In fact, at one point, Mack expresses confusion over the concept of mutual submission and Papa responds, "What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. That's your problem, not ours" (suggesting that headship and submission is a result of the fall).11 Hierarchy would make no sense among us? Scripture teaches it makes perfect sense among them. In fact, the entire world is supposed to be ordered according to the picture the Trinity paints through the gospel, in which the Son submits to the Father, man submits to the Son, and his wife submits to her husband, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the context of the church.12 Obviously, in a similar vein, the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the man, and the man loves his wife. That is essentially the gospel order which Scripture provides as the blueprint husband/wife, parent/child, and master/servant relationships. As we will see, Young's view of the Trinity deals a devastating blow to the rest of the book's theology. Reasoning out from his view of the Trinity, Young attempts to answer the age-old questions of sovereignty and free will, the existence of evil in the world, political injustice, among others. Since none of these can be adequately answered without sound biblical doctrine, Young's treatment does not help the reader. However, the problems do not lie merely in a faulty general understanding of the Trinity, but in part and parcel as well. So, let us take a moment to consider the individual members of the Trinity as Young portrays them.
As mentioned earlier, Young paints each member of the Godhead in an extremely disrespectful and unbiblical light. First, Young portrays God the Father as a heavy-set Aunt Jemima-like African-American woman who wears a long flowing African gown, complete with a multi-colored headband. While some may find this interesting, insightful, or cute, I found this depiction highly distasteful. God the Father/mother, whose name is oddly Papa, fits a highly stereo-typical view of African-American culture. Most notably, we find her in the kitchen, wearing headphones, shaking her hips and shoulders, while listening to blatantly non-Christian music. In addition, Papa uses poor grammar saying to Mack, "We is all you need," "Guess that's jes' the way I is," and "Sho'nuff."13 And if that is not stereo-typical enough, she also makes very tasty collard greens. Seriously? Seriously.
God the Son is not much better. Though he is properly portrayed with His true gender, He is also easily distracted, awe-struck by the sight of shooting stars, unable (by his own illogical choice) to catch a large trout, and spends his time walking on water for fun, skipping rocks across the lake, or woodworking in the shed. Jesus is also depicted according to stereo-typical characteristics such as his big Jewish nose (I'm not making this up).14 Finally, Sarayu, the female and Asian Holy Spirit character does not play a huge role in the story, but does sing a lot, works in a disorganized garden which reflects Mack's disorganized heart, and cleans everyone's dishes by hand.15 Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit, who is in reality most often neglected among the Trinity, is depicted in vague terms, unlike her counterparts. Mack says to Jesus, "Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?" Jesus responds, "Yes. She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit." While that may contain a kernel of truth, the Holy Spirit is not just the Spirit of Jesus, but a distinct Person Himself. There are certainly a number of other issues within each of these personification which I do not have time to discuss right now such as Papa loving surprises, Jesus' use of the phrase, "true that," and Sarayu singing a Gaelic tune.16 I would also like to discuss another person who is almost mistaken as a fourth member of the Trinity. She is named Sophia and seems to represent Proverb's Lady of Wisdom.17 Perhaps this will have to wait for another time.
Nevertheless, consider with me what this version of the Godhead is presenting to the reader. Young is presenting, in the context of Mack's life, a God of his own design. Throughout the book, one cannot help but notice the similarities between God and Mack. They listen to the same music (i.e. Bruce Cockburn, a pacific northwest musician who played Woodstock), enjoy the same food, and both express an aversion to organized religion. God does everything on Mack's terms and time. When they first meet, Papa senses Mack's unwillingness to deal with life and says, "Not ready? That's okay, we'll do things on your terms and time. Well, come on in. Can I take your coat?" Chapter after chapter, God merely yields and accommodates to Mack. For instance, in light of the abuse Mack suffered at the hands of his father, Papa chooses to reveal Himself as a woman, so as to not turn Mack off.18 He even takes on the character of Mack's culture in language, dress, and thought life. This brings us to another major problem, the exaltation of Mack. Throughout The Shack, Mack's circumstances dictate everything God does. In fact, all of life and all of God revolves around Mack. The purpose of life is to help Mack "fly" as he was created to fly.19 Mack is even recognized as having the power to change the world. In chapter 17, Sarayu says to Mack, "Because you are important, everything you do is important. Every time you forgive, the universe changes; every time you reach out and touch a heart or a life, the world changes; with every kindness and service, seen or unseen, my purposes are accomplished and nothing will ever be the same."20 I don't know how that sounds to you, but it sounds to me like Mack and the God of the Bible are eerily similar.
Additionally, the very nature of God conveniently coincides with the kind of God Mack would "want to worship."21 This is not merely a case of the creation worshiping the creation, but even more twisted. The Shack emphatically presents the Creator worshiping the creation. A number of times, God praises Mack, but not once does Mack praise God. Instead, Mack speaks to God in profanity, with sarcasm, and in disrespectful tones, which are all approved of, and even encouraged, by God. At one point, when Papa points out the obvious, Mack replies with, "No kidding, Sherlock."22 In the midst of it all, God pursues one thing, a journey with Mack. The theology of The Shack basically presents a God who is concerned above all else with Mack's well-being, Mack's happiness, and Mack's recovery. Even in forgiveness, the God of The Shack is preoccupied with Mack. Encouraging Mack to forgive his daughter's killer, Papa says, "I want you to. Forgiveness is first for you, the forgiver, to release you from something that will eat you alive; that will destroy your joy and your ability to love fully and openly."23 At one point, Mack is encouraged to talk to Papa only if he wants to24 and on the day Mack is to forgive his daughter's killer, Papa transforms into a male stating "this morning, you're going to need a father."25 In fact, God's preoccupation with and service to Mack is so great that it is to the neglect of the rest of the world and His own glory. Truly, throughout the story, God expresses concern for no one other than Mack. It is as if Mack has acquired the undivided attention of God, as if he is the only man on earth. While I understand that Mack's experience may be a mere dream, this Mack-centered scenario deserves pointing out. Whether it is a dream or not, the circumstances in which Mack lives are all about him. God does what Mack wants, when Mack wants, and how Mack wants. As a result Mack never has to repent of his ways or his opinions because they are quite consistent with his God's - rather, I suppose I should say that God's ways are quite consistent with Mack's. Likewise, we should note that Mack is never accused of sin regardless of how he behaves, feels, thinks, or reacts to his experiences. Then again, why should Mack be held accountable for anything in light of Papa's non-responsiblility as stated in chapter 14. Papa says to Mack, "Honey, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else...And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me."26 This is even carried to the extent of Papa claiming to be thrilled when Mack doesn't listen to her because it means she needs only to speak forty-six more times before Mack will pay her attention.27 Again, the demands of the true gospel are virtually absent from this story. Enough of that. Moving on...
Though I have not spoken with him, I assume that William P. Young is a Christian anarchist. At least this is the impression he gives through his book and his bio. Young says of himself, "I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere. The truth is that I doubt anyone would want me. From my perspective that is a very positive thing...for both of us."28 Again, I am only speculating this on the grounds of his book and online bio, but I assume this includes involvement in a local church as commanded in the New Testament. 29 To fill you in, "Christian anarchists believe that freedom is justified spiritually through the teachings of Jesus. This has caused them to be critical of government and local church authority."30 The concept of Christian anarchy runs consistently through the story and is embraced by both Mack and God. At the beginning of chapter 6, Young quotes famous Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul who wrote, "...no matter what God's power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself."31 Mack's Christian anarchy is expressed through his disenchantment with church all together. He rarely attends and is critical of the "rules" of church and religion. Mack's love/hate relationship with church and God is expressed through his desire to have the benefits without commitment or submission. Likewise, his God holds the same view. Remember that Mack's Trinity does not include hierarchy between the members who all despise authority. Jesus explains his entire purpose in the world this way, "Mack, the world system is what it is. Institutions, systems, ideologies, and all the vain, futile efforts of humanity that go with them are everywhere, and interaction with all of it is unavoidable. But I can give you freedom to overcome any system of power in which you find yourself, be it religious, economic, social, or political. You will grow in the freedom to be inside or outside all kinds of systems and to move freely between and among them. Together, you and I can be in it and not of it."32
This position, combined with the egalitarian Trinity considered above, certainly coincides with Mack's view of government and church authority. In chapter 10, Jesus explains to Mack that most of the world's problems are caused by men who try to lead.33 In other words, men should stop trying to find their place in the hierarchy of life, even within marriage, and should instead just seek equality with everyone else.34 Jesus suggests that all authority is manipulation. In contrast to a Complementarian view of biblical manhood and womanhood in which men and women are deemed equal, but different in role, it seems Young adjusts the account of creation a bit to release the tension between authority and anarchy. Jesus explains to Mack that "From the first day we [Godhead] hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him...Our desire was to create a being that had a fully equal and powerful counterpart, the male and the female. But your independence with its quest for power and fulfillment actually destroys the relationship your heart longs for."35 Not only has The Shack attempted to redefine God, but also redefine man, woman, and their relationship to one another.
As one would expect, with all these changes, the face of Christianity is severely distorted by The Shack. For instance, there is no mention in the book of eternity (except in the sub-title). There is also no real consideration for the gospel, repentance, or sin. One of the two references to sin goes like this, "I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside out. It's not my purpose to punish; it's my joy to cure it" (Papa speaking).36 Papa also says to Mack, "I don't do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation. They don't produce one speck of wholeness or righteousness, and that is why they were nailed to Jesus on the cross."37 Again, though I have not spoken to him (though I would like to), it seems to me that Young has attempted to totally renovate Christianity. In light of this, considering the views held by Mack and his God, we can easily see that Mack is probably not a Christian and neither is God. Probably the most striking evidence of this is to be found toward the end of the story. In chapter 12, as God continues to revamp Mack's theology, freeing him from all authority, both religious and secular, their discussion turns to the true nature of Christianity. Jesus says, "Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are fee to live and love without any agenda." Mack asks, "Is that what it means to be a Christian?" Now, listen to Jesus' response.
"Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian...Those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions...I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."38
Essentially, Young is proposing a veiled form of Universalism. After all, this makes sense if God has no need to punish sin, as stated on page 120. Likewise, in chapter 16, Papa states, "In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me..."39 You should also notice that Young quotes Unitarian Universalist, Buckminster Fuller at the beginning of chapter 14. Additionally, in chapter 14, Papa diminishes the value of Scripture claiming it is only a picture of Jesus and then encourages Mack to look in the Bible not for principles, but for "a way of coming to be with us [Trinity]."40 I am not sure if Young is a universalist, but it sure seems plausible. On the other hand, if this is the case, the book certainly makes a lot more sense.
Overall, whether intentional by the author or not, the theology of this book systematically dismantles Christianity by bringing God down to practically human, raising man up to practically divine, rejecting God-given authority, disorganizing the church, and creating a purely man-centered and highly experiential universe. All in all, it is a sad day when Christians read this book and call it Christian.
Conclusion:
Throughout this review, I have attempted to provide a general overview of the main theological failures within The Shack. An exhaustive treatment of the work's remaining errors would require me to comment on virtually every statement. Regrettably, I do not have time for that. I would, however, like to note that there are a handful of superficially accurate points of interest which I could discuss. Instead, I have chosen not to discuss these because they are, for the most part, undermined and conflicted by the surrounding heretical errors. I have also chosen not to discuss a strange experience for Mack in which Sarayu enables him to see the emotions of his father as bright flashing colors which is presented as the invisible manifestation of all interpersonal communication. In this, the colors people emit in their relationships change based upon the nature of their conversation, their feelings, and their level of conflict. Honestly, I do not know what to make of that yet. If I figure it out, I will amend this review.
With that said, I close with a suitable conclusion drawn from Mack's final experience with Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. As you read this excerpt, listen for the errors covered in this review, especially the debasing of God, the exaltation of Mack, the self-serving and inverted portrayal of the divine-human relationship, Christian anarchism, and rejection of the New Testament church model.
"Without any ritual, without ceremony, they savored the warm bread and shared the wine and laughed about the stranger moments of the weekend. He knew it was over and time for him to head back and figure out how to tell Nan about everything. He had nothing to pack. His few belongings that had appeared in his room were gone, presumably back in his car. He changed out of his hiking attire and put on the clothes that he had come in, freshly laundered and neatly folded. As he finished dressing he grabbed his coat off a wall hook, and then took one last look around his room before heading out. "God the servant," he chuckled but then felt a welling up again as the thought made him pause. "It is more truly God, my servant."41
You see, The Shack is not just a story. It is a statement of theology. This is why your parents taught you never to sign before reading the fine print.
[...]
Book Review: Into "The Shack" and Out Again - A Critics Tale
Summary: 1 Stars
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ," Galatians 1:6-10.
These words of the apostle Paul, spoken by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the church of Galatia nearly two-thousand years ago still hold true today. In this writers own life these words have taken on even greater significance as of late because of a book that has many Christians talking and has this writer wondering how the bride of Christ, the church of the living God, whom God's own Son purchased with His blood, could so easily, and so willingly be led astray.
The book mentioned is, of course "The Shack," by William P. Young, and it has taken the Christian community by storm. Many within Christian circles have become enraptured by this work of fiction and are discussing how this book broadened their understanding of God, deepened their faith in Jesus, even radically changed their lives. Even among leading Christians the book has received rave reviews. Eugene Peterson for example, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College and author of "The Message" Bible states that "The Shack" "has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's The Pilgrim Progress did for his," and musician Michael W. Smith states that "The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God." Ironically, Smith is correct, but for reasons other than those intended by his statement, for "The Shack" does leave the observant reader "craving for the presence of God" through the realization that in this book the God of the Bible is absent, having been replaced by the author's unbiblical characterization of the Lord with a God that is nowhere portrayed in Scripture in such ways as William P. Young seeks to describe him.
Unfortunately, for some, such a sweeping generalization of a work of fiction will be overlooked or derided. Authors who recognize the doctrinal error which this book teaches will be maligned by some of those who claim the name of Christ and every attempt will be made to paint those such as myself as fearful, weak minded, legalistic, judgmental, religionists. But let the criticisms come, as I am sure they will. As the apostle Paul sought not the approval of man in Galatians 1:10, neither do I seek the approval of anyone but God alone, who has saved me through His Son, and whose name and Holy character I seek to uphold and defend against any who would present God in ways apart from the manner in which he is described in Scripture or who would condone those who do. In fact, those who have already done so in previous comments to me about this book have only served as an inspiration to further study this particular work of fiction in order to be better acquainted with it so as to better refute the clear doctrinal heresies that are present in this book.
So here it is. After having thoroughly read William P. Young's "The Shack" in one sitting, my suspicions about the book were proven true, and the reviews I read by those such as Albert Mohler, Mark Driscoll, Michael Youseff and others were shown to be accurate assessments of this book. However, even these men of God did not touch upon all the false teachings presented in this book in their coverage of it. Only after my own careful reading of "The Shack" did I see it for all that it was.
"The Shack tells the story of Mackenzie Allen Phillips. A grief stricken father trying to deal with pain he is experiencing over the kidnap and murder of his young daughter, Missy, by a serial killer, while on a family camping trip deep in the Oregon wilderness. Missy's body is not initially found, but her blood soaked dress is recovered from an old abandoned shack.
Driven by his depression and grief over this horrific event, Mackenzie (or Mack as he is known throughout the book) plunges into what the author describes as The Great Sadness. As a result, Mack becomes a mere shell of the man he used to be as he relives each night in his dreams the circumstances that led up to his daughters disappearance and death.
A few years go by when one day a letter arrives in the mail from God himself, inviting Mack to return to the shack in order to spend some time together with him. The letter is signed Papa (the name which God the Father is given throughout the rest of the book).
Shocked at first by the letter, assuming it to be a cruel prank, Mack eventually suspects that perhaps the letter really is from God, and he decides to go to the shack and find out. Here the first of many heresies unfolds. On pages 65-66 we're told:
"Try as he might, Mack could not escape the desperate possibility that the note just might be from God after all, even if the thought of God passing notes did not sit well with his theological training. In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?"
With this statement William P. Young reveals his heretical view of Scripture and presents to the reader a view of the Bible that denies its absolute authority and its inspiration as the very Word of God. Elsewhere in the book this same idea is brought forth as the author states that God's "ability to communicate is limitless," not being restricted to the revelation of God in His Word (198).
The Bible, however, is quite clear that Scripture is God's only special revelation to mankind and contains all that God wanted to disclose to mankind about Himself, and all that He intends for us to think of Him. To go beyond that, as William P. Young does in "The Shack" and to describe God in ways outside of the realm of Scripture, or to imagine that He would ever reveal Himself in ways contrary to the Word of God is to mock, malign, and revile the name and righteous character of God by belittling the Word which he magnifies above that name (see Psalm 138:2; Matt. 5:17; John 14:26; John 16:13; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Hebrews 2:3-4, etc.). Furthermore, the revelation that God has given us through His Word is entirely sufficient and complete (Hebrews 1:1-4). There is no need, nor do we have any right to add more to our thinking of God than what is already revealed to us in Scripture.
That is not putting limitations on God, as some have wrongly suggested, because these are limitations that God in His Word and by necessity of His nature as God has placed upon Himself. In fact, it is precisely when one goes beyond the confines of Biblical revelation to describe God in ways they imagine him to be that one actually succeeds, not in expanding upon peoples understanding of God, but rather placing the very limitations upon God that they claim to be lifting, by superimposing their own imperfect imagination upon Him, and thus in the process creating in their minds and in the minds of their readers an image of God that is less than what He truly is. Through "The Shack" this is what William P. Young achieves.
As the story of "The Shack" unfolds further, Mack travels to the forest to see if the note he received is true, and there is met by a highly unorthodox representation of the Trinity. God the Father appears to him as a large black woman, named Elousia, who also calls herself Papa, (which she is known as throughout the rest of the book). God the Son appears as a Jewish man dressed similar to a construction worker, and the Holy Spirit appears as a hippie like Asian woman known as Sarayu, who seems to float everywhere she goes and can only be seen clearly out of the corner of the eye.
Here the author of "The Shack" takes incredible liberties in his representation of God, and in doing so blasphemes and maligns the Holy and Righteous character of Almighty God. God has not chosen to reveal Himself as a women, or in any manner other than those that He has already revealed Himself through in the pages of Scripture. Since the canon of Scripture is closed and God's special revelation to mankind ended with the completion of the New Testament, we can be assured that God will never reveal Himself in ways not already described for us in the Bible (see Matt. 5:17; John 14:26; John 16:13; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Hebrews 2:3-4, etc., etc., ). Therefore, to represent God in a manner outside of how He is portrayed in the pages of Scripture is simply wrong. To depict God in the way William P. Young does in "The Shack" is idolatry, plain and simple. In an attempt to bring God down to our level William P. Young makes of God something that He is not. In his attempts to create a more relatable God, Young tosses aside all reverence and honor for God and replaces the God of the Bible with a caricature of who God really is. As J.I. Packer states in his classic book, Knowing God, "To follow the imagination of one's heart in the realm of theology is the way to remain ignorant of God, and to become an idol-worshipper - the idol in this case being a false mental image of God, made by one's own speculation and imagination, " (Knowing God, p. 78). How true such a statement is. It is disheartening, however, that so many Christians seem unable to recognize this obvious fact when reading "The Shack," and would prefer instead to enjoy the emotional experience they receive from reading this the book rather than take issue with the unholy and irreverent representations of God that William P. Young makes.
Equally disturbing is William P. Young's denial of several additional fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christian faith. On pages 95-96 (see also page 222) as Mack talks with Papa we're told,
"Papa didn't answer, only looked down at their hands. His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his." "'We were there together.' Mack was surprised. `At the cross?" Now wait, I thought you left him - you know - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.'"
With these statements William P. Young reveals his belief in an ancient heresy known as Patripassionism. Adherents to this heresy believed that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross. This is a denial, however, of the clear teachings of Scripture, since the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ spoke to God the Father while on the cross. This belief also undermines the Scriptural teaching of God's impassibility, which indicates that God the Father cannot suffer or be affected by outside stimuli (Job 22:2-3, 35:6-7; Acts 17:25; Romans 11:35-36).
Additionally, these statements by William Young in "The Shack" reveal Young's belief in the heresy of Sabellianism, which so diminishes the clear distinctions within the Godhead as to present the members of the Trinity in such unity that they cease to be three distinct persons at all. The preceding statements show evidence of this heresy in "The Shack" along with similar statements made elsewhere in the book. For example, on page 99 Papa states that "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood."
Notice in this quote the usage of the word "we." "WE spoke ourself into human existence," "WE became fully human," "WE chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed," "WE now became flesh and blood." According to Scripture, however, only the second member of the Trinity, God the Son, was incarnate in the flesh and became human. To propose that all three members of the Trinity were manifest in the flesh is to deny the essential nature of the Trinity and the distinct roles within the Trinity, and by logical consequence is the same as denying that such a Trinity exists at all. This is obvious heresy, and statements by the author in support of such a belief can be found also on pages 84, 103, 145, and 222.
As if these heresies were not enough to prove the demonic origins of this book, William P. Young adds fuel to the fire by denying on pages 191-192 the subsitutionary atonement of Christ. There Mack asks,
"`Papa, can you help me understand something? What exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?' She was still looking out into the forest. `Oh," she waved her hand. `Nothing much. Just the substance of everything that love purposed from before the foundations of Creation.'" "`Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.'"
Yet, according to Romans 5:10 "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we see that through the work of the cross "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself," and not the other way around as William P. Young suggests.
Furthermore, to state that "nothing much" happened at the cross of Jesus Christ except some sort of ambiguous demonstration of the substance of love belittles the sacrificial atonement by which Jesus Christ appeased the divine wrath of God against sin and paid the penalty for mankind. Surely such a statement as this is enough in and of itself to alert the discerning believer to the dangers of "The Shack."
In addition to the above mentioned heresies, William P. Young also makes statements in "The Shack" that support the teachings of universalism. Universalism is the position which advocates the idea that eventually, all will be saved, whether or not they ever personally come to faith and repentance in Jesus Christ. In universalism the unifying principle is love, and this attribute of God overrides all others. This belief is clearly seen in William P. Young's statements throughout "The Shack." On pages 161-163, as Mack stands before a personification of God's wisdom in the form of a female judge, he is asked to pass judgment upon the world, but more specifically as the judge explains,
"You must choose two of your children to spend eternity in God's new heavens and new earth, but only two." "What?" he erupted, turning to her in disbelief. "And you must choose three of your children to spend eternity in hell." Mack couldn't believe what he was hearing and started to panic. "Mackenzie." Her voice now came as calm and wonderful as he heard it. "I am only asking you to do something that you believe God does." . . . "I don't want to be the judge," he said, standing up. . . There was no way he could sentence Katie, or any of his children, to an eternity in hell just because she had sinned against him. Even if Katie or Josh or Jon or Tyler committed some heinous crime, he still wouldn't do it. He couldn't! For him, it wasn't about their performance; it was about his love for them. "I can't do this," he said softly. . . "Could I go instead? If you need someone to torture for eternity, I'll go in their place." . . ."Mackenzie, Mackenzie," she whispered . . . "Now you sound like Jesus. You have judged well, Mackenzie. I am so proud of you."
In these statement it is clear that William Young would have us believe, that just as Mack could not send anyone to hell because his love for them is too strong, God would not do so either, hence Young's statement, "Now you sound like Jesus." Here the common denominator of universalistic teachings, love, is seen in these statements.
Elsewhere in "The Shack" William P. Young seeks in a similar manner to exalt God's love above His other attributes, and turn him into nothing but a love-struck cosmic companion that dotes over every human on earth while completely ignoring their sin. For example, on page 102, Papa states that "The God who is - the I am who I am - cannot act apart from love!," and on page 191 Papa states that "My purposes are always and only an expression of love." Yet Jesus himself states in Matthew 25:41 in speaking to those who will reject Him as their Savior and Lord, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and at the end of this passage in verse 46 Jesus reiterates the same idea by stating that "these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Clearly then, many will suffer for eternity in hell for their rejection of Christ, and God's love for them, no matter how strong, cannot override His righteousness and holiness, and his punishment of sin.
Elsewhere in "The Shack" this idea of universal redemption is alluded to and the idea that all roads lead to God is clearly presented by the author of this book. On page 31 Mack's daughter Missy, prior to her kidnap and murder, asks
"Is the Great Spirit another name for God - you know, Jesus' papa?" Mack smiled in the dark. Obviously, Nan's nightly prayers were having an effect. "I would suppose so. It's a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great."
Then on page 182 the character of Jesus states that "Those who love me come from every system that exists," "I have no desire to make them Christian," and "I will travel any road to find you." In addition, on page 110 of "The Shack" Jesus is the referred to as "best way" but not the way, and on page 137 he is described as "a door" but not the door. Similar statements abound in "The Shack." For example on pages 119 and 225 we are led to believe that God does not judge sin. On page 136 the author denies the existence of evil. On page 186 the author denies the need for guilt, as well as on page 223 where Papa states, "I don't do humiliation, or guilt or shame." With each of these statements the case mounts against "The Shack" and the falsehood and error which it teaches is revealed.
Beyond this, Young also takes issue with many aspects of the church and Christianity in general. He criticizes seminary education (65, 91), attacks the institution of the local church (which should be expected from William p. Young, since he states in his personal blog, "I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere") (177-78, 181), rejects theological certainty (203), maligns the use of the word "Christian" (182), rejects the Lordship of Christ over the lives of believers (145), denies the need for repentance, rejects the pre-fallen role of Adam as a tiller of the ground (147), teaches that the Spirit of God can direct someone to do something contrary to truth (132), and advocates antinomianism, which is the belief that those who live under the grace of God are free from the law of God to do whatever they please (203, 206).
In addition, the author of "The Shack" also teaches that there is no hierarchy or clear functional distinctions within the Trinity on pages 121-122. On page 107 the author reverses the roles of authority within the Trinity, thus contradicting his later statements on pages 121-122 but teaching an unbiblical idea nonetheless.
There are also pervading overtones of New Age and occult ideas present through many large sections of the book, particularly pages 209-217, and there is even a push by the author in certain statements throughout the book in favor of pantheism and Platonic idealism, (see pages 112, 122, 124, 145-46, 148).
All this being said, it is my heartfelt hope and prayer, that those of you who have read "The Shack" or are considering reading it because of the many rave reviews it has received, will recognize it for the dangerous and heretical work which it is.
Many, carried along as it is by the emotional attachment they have formed to this book, and the so-called transformation and broadening of understanding which it has wrought in their lives will choose to remain willingly ignorant of the truth of the statements here, supported as they are by the unshakeable Word of God. Sadly, such is to be expected in a day in age where orthodox theology is looked upon with disgust, and people are more apt to be moved by heresy than by theologically sound works of produced by great men of God gone by.
Some will naturally object as well, that "The Shack" is merely a work of fiction and should not be taken so seriously or "policed" for its doctrinal content or judgment passed upon its author. However, history has shown that fiction has always been one of the greatest vehicles of self-expression, and theologians, philosophers, politicians, and other thinkers have always used fiction to convey their ideas to the masses in an effort to convince their readers of the truth of such beliefs. Plato's Republic, Jean-Jacque Rousseau's The Emile, Thomas More's Utopia, Aldoux Huxley's Brave New World, Albert Camus' The Stranger, B.F. Skinner's Walden Two, and Harriet Beecher Stowes' Uncle Tom's Cabin are just a few examples of such works of literature, that were written with a clear agenda, borne along by a specific set of beliefs, of which the author through his or her work was intent upon convincing the reader to adopt as his or her own. These were works of fiction that were highly influential in the public arena at a certain point in time, and therefore, no work of fiction, especially one claiming to be Christian, such as "The Shack," should be exempt from such careful scrutiny as has been given to it here.
Furthermore, any author who prepares such a work as this should also be placed under examination in order that it might be known what particular agenda is brought to bear upon the writing of a work such as this. As William P. Young states himself in his personal blog, "`The Shack" will tell you much more about me than a few facts ever could. In some ways my life is partly revealed in both characters--Willie and Mack." Therefore, it cannot be denied that William P. Young sought to include his own personal beliefs about God in this book and that what we read of the characters portrayed therein is representative of William P. Young's own heretical beliefs.
Finally, let it be stated here, that this author is fully aware of the statement released by Windblown Media, (the publishing company of "The Shack") in which they seek to counter the accusations of heresy that have been leveled against this book. Their attempt is noteworthy, but does not succeed in doing anything but to add support for that which has already been included in this critique. The publishers attempt to show that the book does not teach universalism, and suggest that it teaches the very opposite. They fail to address, however, the numerous passages which have been cited here and to explain how each one of them does not teach universalism, when in fact they do. The publishers also attempt to show that "The Shack" does not devalue Scripture, distort the Trinity, promote New Age ideas, or advocate any of the ideas which have been outlined in this review. However, in each attempted rebuttal, the publishers once again fail to address even a single sentence that has been quoted in this and other reviews, and therefore reveal that their response to reviews such as mine is only a clever ploy, through which, it seems, they have attempted to detract attention from the heresy that is clearly present in this book.
Mr. Jason Kleber, B.S., M.Min., M.A.B.S., M.Div. (studies)
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Tennessee Temple University
Couples Director, Highland Park Baptist Church
Graduate Assistant to the Academic Dean, Temple Baptist Seminary
Book Review: Heretical Not Helpful! Guard Yourself Against This Awful Book!!!
Summary: 1 Stars
This book defaces scripture, the trinity, church, and salvation left and right and clearly disregards what God's Word says . . . it's horrible! Please deny this book and stand victoriously on God's Word Alone . . . instead of this skewed, heretical theology! Read about all of the MANY PROBLEMS with "The Shack" below in a review from a great Christian Apologist that I found at:
http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html
The Shack: Helpful or Heretical?
A Critical Review by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach
A Brief Evaluation of the Book
Young's point is clear: forget your preconceived notions about God, forget your seminary training, and realize that God chooses to appear to us in whatever form we personally need; He is like a mixed metaphor. We cannot fall back into our religious conditioning (91). The Shack attempts to present a Christian worldview through the genre of religious fiction, but just how Christian it is remains to be seen.
*Problem One: A Rejection of Traditional Christianity
Beneath the surface of The Shack is a rejection of traditional Christianity (179). He claims that traditional Christianity did not solve his problem. Even Seminary training didn't help (63). He insists that Christianity has to be revised in order to be understood, reminiscent of McClaren's Emergent Church book titled, Everything Must Change. However, one might question whether it is Christianity that needs revision or Christians that need to be revitalized. One thing is certain, Christianity should not be rejected because it has some hypocritical representatives. To be sure, some Seminary training is bad, and even good Seminary training doesn't help, if you don't heed it. But the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Christ established the Church and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:16-18). The Shack, as gripping as its story is, trades a church occupied with people who hear the Word of God preached for an empty shack where there is neither.
*Problem Two: Experience Trumps Revelation
An underlying problem with the message of The Shack is that it uses personal experience to trump revelation. The solutions to life's basic problems come from extra-biblical experience, not from Scripture (80-100). Non-biblical voices are given precedent over the voice of God in Scripture. These alleged "revelations" from the "Trinity" in the shack are the basis of the whole story. While biblical truth is alluded to, it is not the authoritative basis of the message. In the final analysis, it is experience that is used to interpret the Bible; it is not the Bible that is used to interpret experience. This leads to a denial of a fundamental teaching of Protestantism.
*Problem Three: The Rejection of Sola Scriptura
The Shack rejects the sole authority of the Bible to determine matters of faith and practice. Rather than finding a Bible by the altar in a little old country church and getting comfort and counsel from the word of God, he is instructed to go to an empty shack in the wilderness with no Bible and get all he needs to cope with the tragedies of life from extra-biblical voices. The Shack's author rejects what "In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture.... God's voice had been reduced to paper.... It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients.... Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book" (63).
However, the Bible clearly declares that "Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added). Indeed, our comfort is not found in extra-biblical revelations but is realized in that "through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). In short, the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. No new truth beyond the Bible is needed for doctrine or living the Christian life. Of course, this does not mean that God cannot bring biblical principles to our minds when needed through various experiences, even tragic ones. He can and He does. Nor does it mean that God cannot guide in circumstances that help us in the application of biblical principles to our lives. He can and He does. But these experiences bring no new revelation. They are merely the occasion for God focusing our attention on the only infallible written source of His revelation, the Bible and the Bible alone.To forsake this fundamental principle is to leave Protestantism for Mysticism.
*Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God
In addition to an errant view of Scripture, The Shack has an unorthodox view of the Trinity. God appears as three separate persons (in three separate bodies) which seems to support Tritheism in spite of the fact that the author denies Tritheism ("We are not three gods") and Modalism ("We are not talking about One God with three attitudes"--p. 100). Nonetheless, Young departs from the essential nature of God for a social relationship among the members of the Trinity. He wrongly stresses the plurality of God as three separate persons: God the Father appears as an "African American woman" (80); Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern worker (82). The Holy Spirit is represented as "a small, distinctively Asian woman" (82). And according to Young, the unity of God is not in one essence (nature), as the orthodox view holds. Rather, it is a social union of three separate persons. Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since "God is spirit"--Jn. 4:24), the members of the Trinity are not separate persons (as The Shack portrays them); they are only distinct persons in one divine nature. Just as a triangle has three distinct corners, yet is one triangle. It is not three separate corners (for then it would not be a triangle if the corners were separated from it), Even so,God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
*Problem Five: An Unbiblical View of Punishing Sin
Another claim is that God does not need to punish sin. He states, "At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. `I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it'" (119). As welcoming as this message may be, it at best reveals a dangerously imbalanced understanding of God. For in addition to being loving and kind, God is also holy and just. Indeed, because He is just He must punish sin. The Bible explicitly says that" the soul that sins shall die" (Eze. 18:2). "I am holy, says the Lord" (Lev. 11:44). He is so holy that Habakkuk says of God, "You...are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong..." (Hab. 1:13). Romans 6:23 declares: "The wages of sin is death...." And Paul added, "`Vengeance is mine, I will repay' says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).
In short, The Shack presents lop-sided view of God as love but not justice. This view of a God who will not punish sin undermines the central message of Christianity--that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1f.) and rose from the dead. Indeed, some emergent Church leaders have given a more frontal and near blasphemous attack on the sacrificial atonement of Christ, calling it a "form of cosmic child abuse--a vengeful father, punishing his son for offences he has not even committed" (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, 184). Such is the end of the logic that denies an awesomely holy God who cannot tolerate sin was satisfied (propitiated) on behalf of our sin (1 Jn. 2:1). For Christ paid the penalty for us, "being made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God through him" (2 Cor. 5:21), "suffering the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18).
*Problem Six: A False View of the Incarnation
Another area of concern is a false view of the person and work of Christ. The book states, "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this universe, we now became flesh and blood" (98). However, this is a serious misunderstanding of the Incarnation of Christ. The whole Trinity was not incarnated. Only the Son was (Jn. 1:14), and in His case deity did not become humanity but the Second Person of the Godhead assumed a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit (who are pure spirit--John 4:24) became human, only the Son did.
*Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation
Another problem emerges in the message of The Shack. According to Young, Christ is just the "best" way to relate to the Father, not the only way (109). The "best" does not necessarily imply the only way, which then means that there may be other ways to relate to God. Such an assertion is contrary to Jesus' claim, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes unto the Father except through me" (John14:6). He added, "He who believes in Him [Christ] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (Jn. 3:18). Jesus is not merely the best way, but He is the only way to God. Paul declared: "There is one God and one mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
*Problem Eight: A Heretical View of the Father Suffering
The book also contains a classic heresy called Patripassionism (Literally: Father Suffering). Young claims that God the Father suffered along with the Son, saying, "Haven't you seen the wounds on Papa [God the Father] too?' I didn't understand them. `How could he...' `For love. He chose the way of the cross... because of love'" (p. 165). But both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) made it very clear that it was Jesus alone who "suffered" for us on the Cross. And that He did this only through His human nature. To say otherwise is to engage in "confusing the two natures" of Christ which was explicitly condemned in the Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451). Suffering is a form of change, and the Bible makes it very clear that God cannot change. "I the Lord change not" (Mal. 3:6). "There is no shadow of change with Him" (Jas. 1:17). When all else changes, God "remains the same" (Heb. 1:10-12).
*Problem Nine: A Denial of Hierarchy in the Godhead
The Shack also claims that there is no hierarchy in God or in human communities modeled after Him. He believes that hierarchy exists only as a result of the human struggle for power. Young writes of God: "`Well I know that there are three of you. But you respond with such graciousness to each other. Isn't one of you more the boss than the other two.... I have always thought of God the Father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know being obedient....' `Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us; only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command.... What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power.... Hierarchy would make no sense among us'" (121).
However, Young cites no Scripture to support this egalitarian view of God and human relations--and for good reasons since the Bible clearly affirms that there is an order of authority in the Godhead, the home, and the church. Submission and obedience are biblical terms. Jesus submitted to the Father: "O My Father,... not my will be done but yours" (Mt. 26:39). "He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death..." (Philip. 2:8). In heaven "then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). Children are to submit to their parents: Paul urged, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord..." (Eph. 6:1). Likewise, women are urged: "Wives submit to your own husband, as to the Lord" (Eph. 5:22). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). Members are to "obey your leaders" (Heb. 13:17). Indeed, citizens are commanded "to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient..." (Titus 3:1).
The hierarchial order in the Godhead is the basis for all human relationships. And pure love does not eliminate this; it demands it. The Bible declares; "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 Jn. 5:3). Portraying God as a Mother, rather than a Father, reveals an underlying anti-masculinity in Young's thought. He wrote, "Males seem to be the cause of so much of the pain in the world. They account for most of the crime and many of those are perpetrated against women.... The world, in many ways, would be a much calmer and gentler place if women ruled. There would have been far fewer children sacrificed to the gods of greed and power" (148). He does not explain how this would not be a hierarchy if women "ruled" the world.
*Problem Ten:Ignoring the Crucial Role of the Church in Edifying Believers
The Shack is totally silent about the important role the community of believers plays in the life of individuals needing encouragement. In fact there is a kind of anti-church current born of a reaction to a hypocritical, legalistic, and abusive father who was a church leader (1-3). However, this is clearly contrary to the command of Scripture. A bad church should not be replaced with no church but with a better church. God gave the church "pastors and teachers, to equip the saints...for building up the body of Christ..." (Eph. 4:11-12). Paul said, "To each [one in the body] is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7). Young replaces a Bible-based church in the wildwood with a Bible-less shack in the wild. Comfort in bereavement is sought in a lonely, Bible-less, empty shack in the wilderness where one is to find comfort by heeding deceptive presentations of God. At this point several scriptural exhortations about being aware of deceiving spirits come to mind (1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; 2 Cor. 11:14). As for the need for a church, the Scriptures exhort us "not to forget the assembling together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as we see the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25). Without the regular meeting with a body of edifying believers, proper Christian growth is inevitably stunted.
*Problem Eleven:An Inclusivistic View of Who Will be Saved
While The Shack falls short of the universalism ("All will be saved") found in other emergent writings, it does have a wide-sweeping inclusivism whereby virtually anyone through virtually any religion can be saved apart from Christ. According to Young,, "Jesus [said].... `Those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist, or Muslims, ...and many who are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institution.... Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa....' `Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?' `Not at all.... Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'" (184).
Again, there is no biblical support for these claims. On the contrary, the Scriptures affirm that there is no salvation apart from knowing Christ. Acts 4:12 pronounces that "There is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved." 1 Tim. 2:5 insists that "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." And Jesus said, "unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). For "whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (Jn. 3:36). And "whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (Jn. 3:18).
*Problem Twelve: A Wrong View of Faith and Reason
The Shack embraces an irrational view of faith. It declares: "There are times when you choose to believe something that would normally be considered absolutely irrational. It doesn't mean that it is actually irrational, but it is surely not rational" (64). Even common sense informs us that this is no way to live the Christian life. The Bible says, "'Come now let us reason together,' says the Lord" (Isa. 1:18:). "Give a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15); "Paul...reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). "These were more fair-minded [because] they searched the Scriptures daily...whether these things be so" (Acts 17:11). "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God" (1 Jn. 4:1, emphasis added in above quotes). Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living," and reasonable Christians would add, "The unexamined faith is not worth having."
*Problem Thirteen: It Eliminates Knowledge of God
According to Young, God is wholly other; we can't really know Him. He wrote: "I am God. I am who I am. And unlike you..." (96). "I am what some would say `holy and wholly other than you'" (97). "I am not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think" (97).
One basic problem with this view is that it is self-defeating. How could we know God is "wholly other"? Wholly other than what? And how can we know what God is not unless we know what He is? Totally negative knowledge of God is impossible. Further, according to the Bible, we can know what God is really like from both general and special revelation. For "Since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen...even his eternal power and Godhead..." (Rom.1:20). As for special revelation, Jesus said, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also" (Jn. 14:7) and "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" (Jn. 14:6). God does speak of Himself in His written Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and when He does it tells us something about the way He really is. His words are not deceptive but descriptive.
*Problem Fourteen: It Entails Divine Deception
According to The Shack, God is revealed in ways contrary to His nature. The Father is revealed as a black woman and having a body when He is neither. The reason given for this is that in love God revealed Himself in ways that would be acceptable to the recipient (who had a bad father image) but were not so. But this is case of divine deception. God is a spirit (Jn. 4:24) and He has no body (Lk. 24:39). God is never called a "Mother" in the Bible. It is deceptive to portray God's Nature in any way that He is not, even though ones motive is loving (91-92). A lie told with a loving motive is still a lie. Of course, when God speaks to finite creatures He engages in adaptation to human limits but never in accommodation to human error. Portraying God as having a black female body is like saying storks bring babies. Young calls it a "mask" that falls away (111). But God does not have masks, and He does not masquerade. "It is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). Paul speaks of the "God who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). It is only the Devil, the Father of lies, who engages in appearing in forms he is not. "For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14). To be sure, there are figures of speech in Scripture, speaking of God as a rock or a hen, but they are known to be metaphorical and not literal, since there are no immaterial rocks and God does not have feathers.
Conclusion
The Shack may do well for many in engaging the current culture, but not without compromising Christian truth. The book may be psychologically helpful to many who read it, but it is doctrinally harmful to all who are exposed to it. It has a false understanding of God, the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the nature of man, the institution of the family and marriage, and the nature of the Gospel. For those not trained in orthodox Christian doctrine, this book is very dangerous. It promises good news for the suffering but undermines the only Good News (the Gospel) about Christ suffering for us. In the final analysis it is only truth that is truly liberating. Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32). A lie may make one feel better, but only until he discovers the truth. This book falls short on many important Christian doctrines. It promises to transform people's lives, but it lacks the transforming power of the Word of God (Heb. 4:12) and the community of believers (Heb. 10:25). In the final analysis, this book is not a Pilgrim's Progress, but doctrinally speaking The Shack is more of a Pilgrim's Regress.
*Dr. Geisler has a BA, MA, ThM, and PhD (in philosophy). He is an author of some 70 books and has taught philosophy and ethics at the College and Graduate level for fifty years. His articles and materials are available at www.normgeisler.com or www.InternationalLegacy.org.
Book Review: Sunshine on the Parade
Summary: 5 Stars
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches that God is a woman?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches universalism?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches that God is not a trinity?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches God is not concern about sin?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches that Christ isn't the necessary Sacrifice for sin?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book teaches any other way to salvation except by grace through faith by Jesus Christ?
· Can anyone with intellectual integrity say that the book distorts the Trinity?
Critics have said The Shack, readers meet a permissive "God" that "submits" to their human ways. They charge that the characters look through the veil between life and death, see the joy beyond, and communicate with loved ones -- subtle examples of "calling up the dead," which the Bible bans (Deuteronomy 18:11). Mack "sees" the colorful "auras" that show spiritual maturity among the dead-but-alive. He even practices astral travel -- what The Shack calls "flying" -- a word popularized by Maharishi Yogi long ago.
What one must remember is this is all a work of fiction a dream. The Shack is not a theological textbook. One of the problems I have with critics are they use guilt by association. Many conservative pastors, like Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, have quoted William Barclay. Does this mean that they don't believe that Jesus walked on the water or multiplied the fishes and loaves? Or that at least that they are sympathetic with those positions because that is what Barclay teaches. Of course not! This methodology of guilt by association is flawed. If one of our Sunday School classes has a rainbow on the wall does this mean we approve of homosexuality? When we speak of angels are we promoting New Age understandings of spiritual reality? The method of guilt by association is a poor substitute for true scholarship.
Secondly, they make judgments about meaning out of context. Also some clearly use a new age grid for interpreting the book even using new age language to describe it or compare it to "The Course on Miracles". Many critics have little to no understanding of the interpretation of allegory and would have a difficult time reading CS Lewis using the same interpretative rules/grid. Some use loose labels and prejudicial wording that associates The Shack with error and accuses it of things for which they can't offer any support.
Does the Shack teach a Feminist God?
"...the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman. Instinctively he jumped back, but he was too slow. With speed that belied her size, she crossed the distance between them and engulfed him in her arms...." [p.82]
We also recognize Scripture uses traditional female imagery to help us understand other aspects of God's person, as when Jesus compares himself to a hen gathering chicks. (Matthew 23:37)
Just because in The Shack God appears as a woman does not change God into a woman anymore than God is a burning bush because God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. (Exodus 3), or God is a bird because He is described with feathers and wings in Psalm 91:4: He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.
Remember The Shack is a novel, Not Scripture. However one pictures God in their imagination does not make God what they imagined. Mack later sees God as man with "silver-white hair pulled back into a ponytail, matched by a gray-splashed mustache and goatee." [p.218] Neither description would be what we might think of about God. That is ok it is a novel, not scripture.
Does the book promote universalism?
On page 182 of The Shack Mack asks Jesus; "Does that mean that all roads lead to you?" Jesus answers "Not at all". The Shack flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may be. Just because Jesus can find followers in the most unlikely places, does mean those places are the way to God.
Jesus tells Mack; "Those who love me come from every system that exists." And then puts those systems in the past tense when he says; "They were Buddhists or Mormon", etc.
The Apostle Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Maybe it could have been clearer, but people quote portions of the book out of context and then draw false conclusions. The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the Light of the world. John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. God gives revelation to every person. Remember Peter's confession; "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:16-17) Revelation comes from God and is given to everyone. II Peter 3:9 God is not willing that any should perish.
Does The Shack promote Ultimate Reconciliation?
It does not. Wayne Jacobsen friend of the author and editor of the book says:
"While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author's partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call Ultimate Reconciliation, I made it clear at the outset that I didn't embrace Ultimate Reconciliation as sound teaching and didn't want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view Ultimate Reconciliation is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father's love that has to be forced on the biblical text."
Most simply put, the Ultimate Reconciliationist believes there will come a time when the wicked even if they have died, along with the devil and his evil angels, will be released from the torment of hell and be "reconciled" back to God.
While the idea may sound good to some it just doesn't fit with the Scripture. In Hebrews 9:27 it says: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." We also have Jesus' teaching about judgment and death when he used a parable found in Luke 16 27-31 "The Rich Man and Lazarus" Lazarus says "I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment." Abraham said to him, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' But he said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' There is a time of salvation.
Does the Shack reveal God as unconcerned about sin?
Does God let Mack off on anything? No. God deals with every lie in his mind and every broken place in his heart. God confronts and heals Mack inside a relationship of love and compassion not often seen or taught by the organized church. It becomes threatening to those who see God as the God of judgment and accountability.
On page 120 papa says to Mack; "I don't need to punish people for sin, Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." And on page 186 Mack says to God; "But I always liked Jesus better than you. He seemed so gracious and you seemed so . ." God finishes the sentence; "Mean? Sad, isn't it? He came to show people who I am and most folks only believe it about him. They still play us off like good cop/bad cop most of the time, especially religious folk."
The reality is that Jesus said if you have seen Him you have seen the Father and the work that Jesus did are not His but the Father's. John 14:9-10 " . . . He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, `Show us the Father'? . . .The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
An example used from The Shack of God's lack of care about sin is: "I'm not a bully, not some self-centered demanding little deity insisting on my own way. I am good, and I desire only what is best for you. You cannot find that through guilt or condemnation...."
John 3:16-17 says exactly the same thing. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
An example of God's love and grace is seen in the Apostle Paul. In First Timothy 1:12-15 "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."
In the Shack Mack is allowed to be insolent because of his unbelief and God deals with Mack's unbelief with love because it is all about reconciliation not condemnation. It's all about God reconciling us to Him because He loves us. I John 4:8 God is love. Titus 3:3-5 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 "Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
God hates sin but loves His the crown of His creation and is not willing that any should perish. God is longsuffering toward us and patiently works to reveal Himself to us that He might redeem us and reconcile us to Himself.
Does the Shack distort the Trinity?
On page 124, papa says to Mack; "We want to share with you the love and joy and freedom and light that we already know within ourselves. We created you, the human, to be in face-to-face relationship with us, to join our circle of love." And on page 145, papa tells Mac; "Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect."
In John 17:20-23 Jesus prays: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." The Trinity is clear in Scripture. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. So what is this circle of relationship that papa invites us to join?
Let's look back to the beginning when man was created. We were created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him." John 4:24 God is a Spirit So we are created with a spirit. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. God breathed His Spirit into man and man became a living being. Then God made woman out of man. Genesis 2:23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
Then man sinned against God and broke the Spiritual relationship, died in his spirit. Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." But God who is rich in mercy and grace sent a redeemer to restore spiritual life. This redeemer would come out of woman. Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman."
Now through the woman came Jesus Christ the savior who was able to buy us back to a Spiritual life and fellowship with God.
For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Therefore it is through Jesus and Jesus only that we are reunited with God. (Romans 5:17-18) This makes Jesus the only one who is able to unite us with God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." So we have a circle of relationship established. Out of God came man, Out of man came woman; out of woman came Christ, out of Christ we become one with God. As it was in the beginning the restoration is accomplished.
In John 17:20-23 Jesus prays: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
What we have in the Trinity is not a hierarchy but a circle of relationship. Headship does not mean a forced dominance and rule. You might ask; what about passages like 1 Corinthians 11:3? "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." It would appear to be a top down authority. But look at it from God's perspective of love. God gave His son to die for us. Jesus gave his live for us and the man is to give his life for his wife. Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her." This is giving relationship not a demanding one, serving not being served and loving not based on performance. Matthew 23:11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant." God is a God of order and there is authority but the strongest can be the most gentle because of their strength. Responsibility for others is the highest call for a leader not a forced dominance but a caring, nurturing and the doing what is best for others. The relationship is not built on a military structure of authority, giving orders, managing by expected obedience, and impersonal relationship. But responsibility is seen in the light of a family. A kind, gentle father caring for his children with an older brother who knows what it is to be a kid.
When Jesus became a man and dwelt among us he freely limited himself to a human. We find this in Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. On the other hand man has usurped the authority of God.
Adam tried to rob God of His position and be equal with God judging good and evil. We find the story in Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." It is this very thing that has caused mankind it' greatest problems. Mankind has chosen to make judgments about God, people and circumstances based on our ideas of what is good and evil.
In the book The Shack on Page 165 Sophia says: "Give up being his judge and know papa for who he is. Then you will be able to embrace his love in the midst of your pain, instead of pushing him away with your self-centered perception of how you think the universe should be."
In the circle of relationship we surrender our judgments of good and evil to God. God chooses what is good and evil and we are released from that burden. We need only to take Solomon's advice to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5) For "It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man." (Psalm 118:8)
Listen to what Wayne Jacobsen friend of the author and one of the editors of the book says:
"Let me assure any of you reading this that all three of us who worked on this book are deeply committed followers of Jesus Christ who have a passion for the Truth of the Scriptures and who have studied and taught the life of Jesus over the vast majority of our lifetimes. But none of us would begin to pretend that we have a complete picture of all that God is or that our theology is flawless. We are all still growing in our appreciation for him and our desire to be like him, and we hope this book encourages you to that process as well. In the end, this says the best stuff we know about God at this point in our journeys. Is it a complete picture of him? Of course not! Who could put all that he is into a little story like this one? But if it is a catalyst to get thousands of people to talk about theology--who God is and how he makes himself known in the world--we would be blessed."
Wayne says about the author:
"This is a story of one believer's brokenness and how God reached into that pain and pulled him out and as such is a compelling story of God's redemption. The pain and healing come straight from a life that was broken by guilt and shame at an incredibly deep level and he compresses into a weekend the lessons that helped him walk out of that pain and find life in Jesus again."