The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.71 You Save: $12.28 (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: The most important thing is not to have a God you like - but the God who is real!
Summary: 1 Stars
For those who have somehow managed to avoid hearing about The Shack (perhaps by living in the shed behind the ax?) the central question it seeks to answer is, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable injustice?" Young weaves his answer into a story based on a heart-wrenching past event: The daughter of the main character, Mackenzie (or Mack) was abducted by a pedophilic serial killer. The impact of this event, referred to as The Great Sadness, has left Mack alienated and in despair. He receives an invitation from someone named 'Papa' to spend a weekend in 'the shack', a reference to the abandoned building where the bloodied clothes of Mack's daughter were found. Mack decides to go in spite of his misgivings, and spends a weekend with the entire Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Given the subject matter, it is no surprise that this book has been controversial. The reviews have been both glowing and condemning. Dr. Eugene Peterson claims that it has the potential to do for this generation "...what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" Dr. Albert Mohler, on the other hand, says that the book contains "undiluted heresy." This is a polarizing book - most people either love it or feel that it borders on the sacrilegious and blasphemous. If you would like further proof of this, read the rest of the reviews!
I fall into the group of people who would mark this book as harmful and bordering on heresy. I know of many people who have read the book and found it to be inspiring and 'exactly what I needed.' I am not out to attack anyone or to judge their particular circumstance, but I would like to point out some areas where I feel this book is misleading and how it ultimately fails to give any meaningful answers to the many questions it raises.
If you have heard anything about The Shack, it is that God the Father is portrayed as a large black lady called Papa. This comes as a bit of a surprise to everyone, including Mack. Papa explains her/himself, "Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female... If I choose to appear as a man or woman, it's because I love you... To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes."(pg. 93) It is certainly true that God does not have anatomical physical features that identify him as male, but it is also true that God nowhere refers to himself as a female (Matt 23.37 notwithstanding). This indicates that gender is not merely a physical feature, but is primarily of spiritual origins. At the very least, Young is presuming to speak of God in ways that God himself never speaks of himself.
Many people have harshly criticized Young for portraying the Father as a Woman. However, I think that is missing the biggest problem. Young's portrayal of God is idolatrous not because God has been portrayed as female, but because God the Father is portrayed as a human. This breaks the second commandment which expressly forbids the setting up of an image of God. Michelangelo was as wrong to portray God as a elderly European white male on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, as Young is in portraying God as a matronly southern Negro woman. The defence could be brought, "He was not saying that God is a black woman, he only portrayed him that way to get us to think." Would portraying God as a Golden Calf, as the Israelites did (Neh 9:18) not get us to think differently about God, and break down preconceived notions? It would, but it was condemned by God as blasphemy. So, the problem is primarily that God the Father has forbidden a representation of himself, be it white man, black woman, or golden calf. Moses' solution was not to build a idol that did not reflect Egyptian religious preconceptions, but to destroy the idol altogether.
I am not overlooking that in many Bible stories, God is represented by a human - and certainly no one would accuse the Jesus or the apostles of blasphemous representations of God! Some people have suggested that reading The Shack as a parable helps to avoid some of the problems that arise from a more literal reading. However, this assumes that The Shack should or was intended to be a parable, when it is not. So, what is the difference between the parables of Jesus and Young's story? The primary difference is in the type of story. Jesus' stories (and Bunyan's and Lewis', for that matter) are allegories and parables. Young's book is not. A parable is a brief story that attempts to illustrate a singular point. Not all elements of the story are to intended to convey a parallel truth. For instance, the story of the unforgiving servant should not be used to prove that Christians can lose their salvation. Jesus' point is the absurdity of not forgiving when you have been forgiven much yourself. An allegory is much like a drawn out parable - Pilgrim's Progress being the most famous example. An allegory tells a story in which many events and circumstances are intended to mirror real-life or spiritual truths and experiences. An allegory does not seek to illustrate as much as it seeks to explain by way of parallel.
However, the serious errors in The Shack cannot be dismissed as part of the inadequacy of allegory. The Shack is neither parable nor allegory. It is vital to realize that Papa does not represent God, Papa is God. Young does not employ clever metaphors and symbolism to make us realize which characters in his novel are representing God, he instead has God enter his story. This is not an imagining of what it might be like within the Godhead, Young is instead telling us what it is like. So, while the book is obviously a work of fiction, it is meant to communicate real theological truths and is neither a parable or an allegory.
I am not 'picking' on this book because I am a stick in the mud who demands every theological 'i' to be dotted and every exegetical 't' to be crossed before something can be classified as helpful. It is not because I feel that God is portrayed as too loving, or that the relationships portrayed in the book are too good to be true. It is also not because I am trying to defend what Young so often attacks in 'dead Christianity' - he has many valid and useful criticisms. It is because I want people to have deep relationships with a loving Father that I feel this book is so unhelpful: It sells us a false bill of goods. I will be honest - there were parts of this book that put a lump in my throat. Anyone who reads this book without feeling the pain of the question, "Where is God in these awful circumstances?" is a stoic person indeed. However, the answers that 'God' gives in the book are not truly emotionally satisfying or truthfully factual.
By portraying God as having physically incarnated himself in order to answer these questions, Young downplays the significance of the fact that God has already answered these questions in the person and work of Christ! This is what Christmas is about - The Son incarnated in humanity in order to 'exegete' and explain the Father (John 1.18). The Son in turn is revealed through the work of the Holy Spirit who works through the written testimony of Scripture. By downplaying and casting serious doubt on the sufficiency of Scripture, Young is free to cast God in the way that makes most sense to him and appeals emotionally to him. Young does not take his cue from Scripture, but instead mocks it and casts it as something restrictive, 'orthodox', and relationship-killing. For instance,
"In seminary he [Mack] 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." (pg. 65-66)
What Young and many others do not seem to recognize is that it is not man who has bound God to a book, but instead, God himself has chosen to reveal himself in that particular way.
While there are many things that I disagree with in the book, I do not want to work my way through pointing out all the areas where I differ. There are fuller treatments out there on the Internet that deal with Young's serious errors concerning the Trinity, the atonement, and the extremely negative view of authority and rules. What I am arguing is that these errors are inevitable given the view that Young takes of how God is revealed and has revealed himself. The way that God is portrayed in this book tells us more about William Young than it does about God. The crucial thing we must realize is that no matter how emotionally appealing the way God is portrayed in The Shack, if it is not an accurate portrayal, Mr. Young is attaching us to an idol! The emotional appeal of an idea can only have true merit in so far as the idea is true. The idea that Bill Gates will write me into his inheritance has tremendous ability to lift my outlook on my financial situation - but it is not true, and it would be folly for me to act as though I had millions in my bank account! Feelings that we have 'drawn closer' to God are of no value if all we have been drawn to is our own idolatrous conceptions.
This disregard for the word of God in preference for emotionally derived conclusions can be seen throughout the book. For example, consider this dialog when Mack is in the kitchen with Papa, and comments how she is so much different than he imagined:
"Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible? You just don't seem to fit the bill"
"I understand how disorienting all this must be for you, Mack. But the only one pretending here is you. I am what I am. I'm not trying to fit anyone's bill."
"But you are asking me to believe that you're God, and I just don't see..." Mack had no idea how to finish his sentence, so he just gave up.
"I'm not asking you to believe anything, but I will tell you that you're going to find this day a lot easier if you simply accept what is, instead of trying to fit it into your preconceived notions."
"But if you are God, aren't you spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?" Mack could feel his deep anger emerging again, pushing out the questions in front of it, and he was a little chagrined at his own lack of self-control. But he asked anyway, "Honestly, don't you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?"
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's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." (pg. 119-120)
Mack raises a very challenging question, even if the way it has been posed is a bit sarcastic - which is representative of the biting tone of the book. Papa does not answer Mack's question, but we can be easily fooled into thinking he/she/it has. In many ways, sin is its own punishment (Rom 1), but this does not answer Mack's question. What should be obvious to anyone reading this is that Young is making definite statements about the character of God, and that given his low view of Scripture, his statements are not based on God's self-revelation. You will notice that the Bible is represented as portraying God as 'running around killing people'. Papa does not seek to correct this straw-man representation of God's justice, but instead circumvents the problem entirely. God is indeed portrayed as being enraged at sin and humanity's wickedness in the Bible:
"Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless. I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger."
(Isa 13:9-13)
The idea that God does not actively punish sinners makes it easier to feel 'close' to him. However, Papa does not address the fact that God is revealed as a just judge who punishes with death in Scripture. Instead of explaining how Mack is mis-reading Scripture, she simply denies that he punishes sin! Over and over again, Young ignores what Scripture has to say on almost every issue, choosing instead to philosophize his way to a palatable God whose main goal in history is to have relationships. This can be seen in the discussions about hierarchy, power, the Atonement, the identity of the Children of God, and the structure of the Trinity. It is not that I disagree with Young's interpretations of certain passages of Scripture - I am shocked by the way that Young's theology manages to avoid being informed by the Bible. Compare this with Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, each page littered with Scripture references. Bunyan celebrates God's word, Young ignores it except when he seeks to condemn those who hold to it as God's final form of self-revelation.
It is not too serious a charge to say that Young's God is an idol and is not in fact the God of the Bible. I realize that some people are perhaps seriously offended by such a statement, because they love the book and by extension, I appear to be accusing them of loving an idol. I hope this comes across loud and clear: I am not saying that if you liked the book or felt helped along by it that you yourself are necessarily a heretic. There is much about the book that, if Young had been describing the Biblical God, could be described as an imaginative and helpful description. Sometimes it sounds as if he is describing the true God, and it is to these similarities that we are attracted. Let me use an example to explain what I mean: Have you ever had a conversation with someone and they mention the name of someone who lives somewhere. The name and place sound awfully familiar, so you ask, "John from Calgary? Tall guy with brown hair?"
"Yeah, about six-two?"
"Yeah, yeah, I think I know him! Did you meet his sister?"
"Mary?"
"Oh, I thought her name was Deborah."
"No - maybe we are thinking of a different guy? Does he hang out at the gym? Really big guy?"
"Uh - no. We must be thinking of different guys. The guy I know is a video game tester."
I believe that part of the reason The Shack has struck a nerve is because it portrays a God who is not merely existing as an abstract entity, but who exists in a relationship with others. This is a precious reality that is completely Biblical. So, in many respects, the reason many Christians feel this book is so helpful is because there is much in it that reminds us of our own Father. My concern is that many Christians, recognizing the similarities, will be seduced by these similarities into believing another God and another Gospel. The Father and Holy Spirit did not enter human existence as the Son of God (pg. 99), God did not overcome justice at the cross (164-165), the Father is not submitted to the Son (122-123). Like I said, I have hardly compiled a list of the many false conclusions that are contained in this book. What I am attempting to address is an attitude that says, "Well, there are lots of good things in it." If what I am saying is true, then even those parts that Young sounds good at are in fact visions of a false God. As Mark Driscoll says, "Do not drink from a toilet just because there is water in it." As far as I am concerned, deriving theology from The Shack is as dangerous as deriving theology from the Koran. Allah and Jehovah have many similarities - but it is the differences that we must be aware of and on guard against. Better go to a pure, undiluted source for your vision God.
If there has been one thing this book has accomplished, it is to show that the mainstream approach to Christianity has failed to engage people. People do not want rock concerts or dead liturgy. They want real answers to real questions and a relationship with a real God. The fact that a book like this has spread like wildfire shows that the leaders within the church have failed to provide their people with a solid foundation in the Word. I am not one of those guys who advocates that the Bible is the only thing we should read. The Bible is not your book or my book, it is the book of the universal church. We do ourselves no favours by ignoring the wise men who have gone before us. We do need to be reading other books, and talking, and explaining and living and breathing in the Word. Read the books of battle-hardened warriors of the faith, take reading courses, buy dictionaries and commentaries, learn Greek (yes, you can!), but strive to know God's word! The Bible was not written to hide truth from us or confuse us. Because of the scope and breadth, it takes a long time and some hard work, but the meaning of Scripture is not hidden to those who diligently set themselves to the work.
I hope that in the course of this review I have not come off as hating the idea of having a dynamic and imaginative relationship with God. I truly believe that this is what God desires. It is precisely because I do love these concepts that I think Young's book is harmful. I am saddened that it appears much of Christendom is willing to accept Young's explanation that the deadness and hypocrisy that is rife in the Church is due to holding too fast to a single standard of truth. The problem is in fact just the opposite - the Church experiences deadness and hypocrisy in direct proportion to the distance it has strayed from relating to God as he has revealed himself in the pages of the Holy Writ. Instead of seeing the Bible as the barrier between us and God, we need to realize that God invites us to experience life with him in the pages as they are revealed to us by his Holy Spirit. We need to stop viewing the Bible as a collection of confusing and archaic quotes, but instead as the revelation of God's story - a story which has a special and unique place for each of us in it. There is a deep and satisfying relationship to be had - but only with the God who exists, and who reveals himself in the pages of Scripture. We do not get another God - we must approach the one who is. Do not be disappointed, because he's far better, loving, and incredible than the ones we could imagine.
My advice would be to stay away from this book and read Pilgrim's Progress or the Holy War if you want some imaginative Christian fiction.
Book Review: Pure Poison
Summary: 1 Stars
If not for the fact that many people have been deceived by the insidious material in this book and thousands are passing this book around and begging people to read it as if it were the inspired word of God, I would have thrown it in the trash and laughed it off. It appeared to be just another vacuous attempt to water down the truth of the Christian gospel, another slipshod exercise in constructing a house upon the sand that would surely blow away in the next hefty breeze.
Still, The Shack continues to dominate bestseller lists. Online reviews exclaim in ecstatic verbiage how the story has radically transformed lives. Shoppers arrive at the checkout line with a dozen copies declaring their intention to freely deliver this new gospel to their friends.
Such is the deception.
Although others have undertaken the task of exposing The Shack for the shoddily written, unbiblical, poisonous book that it is, I have decided to write my own report.
(***Spoiler Alert***)
The Shack begins with a man named Mackenzie (Mack) who receives a note from God, inviting him to visit a certain shack, a place where the murder of Mack's daughter took place. The story then flashes back to describe the daughter's (Missy's) kidnapping, thus capturing the reader's emotions and generating sympathy.
It is a rare parent who isn't horrified at the thought of losing a daughter to a rapist-murderer, so the author, William P. Young, uses this bait-and-hook technique to its fullest. Once the hook is set, the story then turns to the longest sermon I have ever seen in a story, Mack's meeting with the trinity in the aforementioned shack.
Since Young puts words in the mouths of all three persons of the godhead, it is crucial that the words reflect truth. But they are often far from truth, as I will soon point out. Some people have defended the book by saying, "It's fiction!" but that changes nothing. Fiction is a powerful vehicle for dispensing and illustrating truth. Fiction stories have altered major courses of events in nations all over the world and throughout history. If a fictional story teaches a lie, we must reject it and expose the story for the lie that it is.
Young reveals hints of his doctrine early on when he recounts an Indian legend about a princess who jumps from a cliff in order to bring healing to her tribe. Then, Missy asks her father a series of questions about the story. These questions, and Mack's answers, foreshadow nearly everything that follows. The author ties Missy and the princess together when Missy asks, "Will God ever ask me to jump off a cliff?"
Although Mack replies "no," the rest of the story makes the reality of an affirmative answer quite clear. Mack equates the Indians' Great Spirit with the true God. He also equates repent-free forgiveness of self-inflicted sin with healing of non-self-inflicted sickness. Both equations are troubling. Sure, Mack could simply be wrong, but the rest of story affirms these and many other falsehoods, as we will see.
Young sets up his errant view of revelation and authority in the following paragraph, in which Mack is pondering a note from God inviting Mack to a meeting at the shack:
"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 fit 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."
This paragraph becomes Young's straw man, that is, the idea that must be destroyed, and, of course, the straw man is defenseless. The author uses the rest of the story (a protracted sermon, really) to destroy Mack's ideas about the authority of the Bible. When Mack meets with this author's God, he learns that revelation derived from a relationship with the divine supersedes (and contradicts) what he has learned from the Bible.
Although Mack is a seminary graduate, his attempts to defend what he has learned from the Bible become laughable. Young uses Mack as a bumbling foil, apparently attempting to show that serious Bible adherents are incapable of defending the truths gained from Scripture. This is an insidious use of the straw man fallacy.
In fact, Young even denigrates family devotions in which the Bible is used:
"Often, it was a tedious and boring exercise in coming up with the right answers, or rather, the same old answers to the same old Bible story questions, and then trying to stay awake during his father's excruciatingly long prayers. And when his father had been drinking, family devotions devolved into a terrifying minefield, where any wrong answer or inadvertent glance could trigger an explosion."
Does the author provide any contrast? Maybe a view of a family reading the Scriptures with real devotion? A loving father teaching the word with enthusiasm and without hypocrisy? No. Because for Young, Christianity isn't defined within the pages of God's holy word. It comes through subjective relationships.
When Mack meets God, "God" is an overweight black woman who claims to be the "Father" of the trinity and wants to be called "Papa." Some claim that it's fine to portray God the Father appearing this way, but they misunderstand the trinity. The Bible says of Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God," (Colossians 1:15) and "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature." (Hebrews 1:3) (These and all other quoted Scripture are taken from the New American Standard Bible.)
To see God the Father is to see Jesus. As Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9) Jesus is the appearance of God the Father. He doesn't visibly appear any other way. To portray the Father physically in one form in concert with a simultaneous physical appearance by Jesus in a different form is to confuse the truth about the trinity, especially when the author shows nail marks in Papa's wrists. The Father did not die on the cross. The Son did. Young sets the reader up for a warped view of the godhead.
Young portrays this Papa as a brusque, even vulgar woman. For example, at one point she says, "Don't just stand there gawkin' with your mouth open like your pants are full." Would God use coarse jesting in violation of his own precepts (Ephesians 5:4)? I don't think so. Young constantly tweaks the reader's sensibilities and concepts about God in this way, lowering the Father to the status of a bathroom-level jokester, a gun phobic Aunt Jemima, and a lover of anger-inspired rock music (which would be in violation of Galatians 5:20, James 1:20, and Colossians 3:8).
Every complaint I have so far is really minor compared to what I found in the rest of the sermonized story.
I could write on and on about the myriad fallacies the author puts in God's mouth, the internal inconsistencies, and self-contradictions, which are bad enough, but I will focus on the worst of these errors--the author's belief that God doesn't punish sin and rescues everyone in a universal salvation, whether they call upon the name of Jesus or not and whether or not they repent of their sins.
These falsehoods begin when Papa tries to counter Mack's view of God:
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 is my joy to cure it.
The Bible says otherwise. Here is just one example: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)
Young paints a skewed portrait of God, a sugar-daddy deity who doesn't demand obedience, as the following excerpt shows:
"For now I just want you to be with me and discover that our relationship is not about performance or you having to please me. I'm not a bully, not some self-centered demanding little deity insisting on my own way.
On the contrary, God does demand that we please Him. "The person who sins will die" (Exodus 18:20). "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might ... for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 6:5, 15)
That doesn't make Him a bully. He is God, and we are His sheep. We are not on an equal plane. And if we don't obey Him, He sends wrath both in this life and, if we don't turn to Him in faith, also in the afterlife. That's the biblical God, but Young is trying to invent something else, a god who just wants to be friends.
There are so many examples in which Young puts words in the mouths of his invented trinity that directly contradict the Bible, it would be impossible to list them all. So I will go on to the most dangerous teaching this book foists upon its readers, and it will take some time to present how the author sets up his emotion-baited trap.
When Mack visits another female, who seems to be the personification of wisdom or justice, he is invited to sit in a seat of judgment. When she begins her instructions, she says. "Judging requires that you think yourself superior over the one you judge." It's clear that Young is trying to take away the foundations by which we are to make judgments, and by doing so, the reader is made to feel wrong, perhaps prideful, when he or she makes a judgment.
And that would be wrong. We are told to make judgments all through Scripture (e.g. 1 John 4:1, the protests of those appealing to a false interpretation of "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves," notwithstanding). We cannot survive without judgments. We cannot make sound decisions regarding whom to trust or to whom to render service unless we make judgments. And if the responsibility to judge is taken away and judgment itself is vilified, then the basis for God's judgment is also swept to the side, which we will see.
When Mack is asked to make a judgment regarding a man who would prey on innocent little girls, he suggests that the man should be condemned to hell. So wisdom personified demands that Mack decide which of his children will go to heaven and which to hell, and he must choose only two of them to go to heaven. The only basis the story gives for the judgment is that his children have sinned. But Mack refuses to make the choice and asks if he can go to hell in their stead.
To this, the woman replies, "Now you sound like Jesus. You have judged well, Mackenzie. I am so proud of you!"
Does that sound like Jesus? To the undiscerning reader, it might. Jesus died so that we wouldn't have to suffer judgment. But our salvation in Christ is dependent on our turning from sin, believing in Jesus' atoning work, and surrendering to God in obedience. In Young's world, you obtain salvation automatically. No turning, no faith, no repentance. There isn't even a hint that anything is required, not even faith in Christ.
Young sets up a false view of God's judgment, that God arbitrarily sends some sinners to Hell and other sinners to Heaven, without consideration for repentance and faith, and dashes that idea, thus killing a straw man. So, what is left to believe after this contrived debate? That God takes everyone to Heaven, because with Young's false dilemma, that's the only option remaining.
The following excerpt should make it clear that Young believes in universal salvation, even for those who don't call upon the name of Jesus. In the book, Jesus says,
"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were 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 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 key is the author's words, "I have no desire to make them Christian." This, by itself, should have raised red flags for every reader. Of course Jesus wants all people to become Christian. In the Bible, He tells people to come and follow Him over and over. They can't be saved without being His followers.
Young portrays God as someone who has no expectations on our behavior (As Papa says in the book, "I never placed an expectation on you or anyone else"). There is no judgment. Everything is about relationships. Although our relationship with God is crucial, it is not something that supplants our obedience and God's justice regarding those who do not obey.
As the story winds down, Mack is given a vision in which he sees his father in a heaven-like place. Of course, there is no hint given that his father ever repented and turned to God, so we are left wondering how he made it to heaven. Though in Young's world, turning from sin has no saving value, so this is really no surprise. Mack, in concert with this repentance-free economy, forgives his father, again pulling the reader's emotions into acquiescence with this false view of forgiveness.
In Young's world, God, because of the sacrificial work of Jesus, forgives everyone, whether repentant or not, whether a Christian or not. As "God" says in this book:
"In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship."
If this isn't universal salvation, then what is? I could write pages about Young's warped view of forgiveness, but here it is in simplicity. Forgiveness is simply deciding not to punish someone, regardless of whether or not that person has repented. So God doesn't punish anyone, whether they have turned from their sins or not, or even whether they believe in Jesus or not
This twisted view is exemplified in Mack when he "forgives" his daughter's murderer, though he has no idea whether or not this killer is currently raping and killing another innocent girl. What nonsense! This isn't forgiveness. The killer hasn't repented. He hasn't sought forgiveness at all. All this is is Mack trying to feel better. It is merely the self-centered flushing of negative feelings. It does nothing to redeem the offender, though Young thinks it does.
"Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him."
Somehow, God's redemption is predicated on Mack's decision to forgive the unrepentant rapist-murderer. Such is Young's view of God, a deity who demands nothing but a touchy-feely relationship. There are no expectations, no responsibilities, only a kiss on the lips and a pat on the head when his creatures rebel. Everyone will be saved, no matter what.
God has become the Great Spirit in the bedtime story who sends a princess to jump from a cliff, thereby healing everyone no matter the condition of their heart or the confession from their lips.
It is such a tragedy that so many in the church are accepting this blatantly false view of God, judgment, and salvation. A book like this should never have become a bestseller. It is poorly written, it is obviously false, and it is an insult to God.
Book Review: A false god
Summary: 1 Stars
The Christian community today desperately needs a literary talent to convey the Christian faith in a compelling way such as C. S. Lewis or John Bunyan did for previous generations. Unfortunately Wm. Paul Young is not that man. I am not qualified to judge its literary quality but by training and vocation I am qualified to speak of its theological content. Unfortunately from that standpoint the book is simply dreadful - and on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to begin.
What Young attempts is rather audacious. He presumes to put words in the mouth of God - not mere snippets that relate commonly accepted proverbial truths but whole chapters of dialogue in which God tries enlighten a modern day Job (whose name is Mack) who has experienced an awful tragedy (his young daughter has been abducted and murdered by a sexual predator) regarding the mysterious ways of God. In short, Young attempts to answer Job-like questions - something God Himself refused to do for Job in the Bible - by putting his own speculations into the book's dialogue as Mack has weekend long encounter with God in the very shack where his daughter was murdered.
The result is rather predictable and disappointing. The god of The Shack looks far more like a wish-fulfillment of a postmodern western intellectual than the God revealed in the pages of the Bible. Politically correct sensitivities are duly observed as the trinity revealed in the Shack appears to Mack as `Papa,' a "large beaming African American woman," (p. 82) `Jesus' a Jewish carpenter and `Sarayu' a spirit-like Asian female. Other left wing sensitivities emerge. `Papa' is clearly anti-gun holding Mack's at arm's length between two fingers while disposing of it (pp. 84, 88) and religiously active patriotic Christians are portrayed as sincere but sadly misguided (p. 181). Careful readers will note too that `Jesus' informs Mack that "Marriage is not an institution. It is a relationship.... I don't create institutions; that's an occupation for those who want to play God." (p. 179) Of course, if marriage is not an institution, then we are not bound by the rules of the one who instituted it and if relationship is its essence then logically it would seem that any type of relationship would qualify. Whether he intended it or not, Young's depiction lends itself to our culture's attempt to redefine marriage. Whatever else may be said of the god of The Shack, she is up to date - which also means that she will soon be out of date.
More importantly, Sarayu, in true postmodern fashion, is careful to inform Mack that relationships are never about exercising the will to power over others (p. 106). Indeed, `Papa' is reticent to impose her will on anyone, repeatedly insisting to Mack that he is free to do whatever he likes (pp. 89,182) and that she will proceed on his "terms and time." (p. 83) In fact, The Shack god takes offense when Mack asks what she expects of him (p. 201). The idea that God might have expectations is even treated as an insult. If this is the same God who spoke through the Old Testament prophets (who had just a few expectations of his people and let them know it) or of the Apostles (who commanded all men everywhere to repent in Acts 17:30) then he has undergone a radical transformation over the centuries. The Shack `Jesus' goes so far as to inform Mack that it would be contrary to love if he were to force his will on him (p. 145) - again, a stark contrast to the Jesus of the Gospels who had no such qualms saying, "If you love me you will obey what I command." (John 14:15) In fact, biblical love is defined bluntly in terms of obedience. "This is love for God: to obey his commands" (I John 5:3; cf I John 2:3-5). But Sarayu insists that Mack has no rules to follow, is under no law and has no responsibility or expectations (p. 203). In fact, she assures Mack that "I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else... And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me." (p. 206) Such an all-affirming god may soothe the self-esteem of postmoderns but she bears little resemblance to the God who spoke through Jeremiah or John the Baptist.
It is true that the New Testament does tell us that we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but it also insists that we are "not free from God's law but (are) under Christ's law." (I Cor. 9:21) And while it is certainly true that we cannot earn God's favor by keeping rules, it is simply false to say that God has no rules or expectations of His people. A much more accurate representation is to say that when we are transformed by God's grace, we become a people who desire to do his will, his commands are no longer `burdensome" (I John 5:3) because His law is "written on our hearts." (Jer. 31:33) This kind of careless theology is dangerous in a culture that is all too eager to cast off any and all restraints and justify its autonomy.
It should not surprise us then to find that `hierarchy' and `authority' are bad words to the god of The Shack. "Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you." So the `Jesus' of The Shack informs us (pp. 122-3). But they are words that are hard to reconcile with the real Jesus of the Bible who was not embarrassed to speak in hierarchical terms of his relationship with the Father: "the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father commands." (John 14:31) Unlike the biblical Trinity (I Cor. 11:3), there is no hierarchy among the members of The Shack's trinity who find such a concept incomprehensible (pp. 121-122, 124). In a perfect world, we are told, "there would be no need for hierarchy." (p. 124) Again, this flies in the face of the biblical depiction of the perfect world God created in the garden of Eden where He commanded Adam and Eve not to take of the fruit of the tree of life. In fact, the fall in Scripture is portrayed as a violation of the hierarchical order that God had established. And paradise in Scripture is only restored when "every knee will bow and ever tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Phil. 2:10-11) It all sounds rather `hierarchical' to me.
This is no small error but one that goes to the very heart of true biblical faith. Salvation occurs when the heart of an individual is brought back into loving submission to its proper Master. C.S. Lewis captured the beauty of that concept well when he said that "Equality is a quantitative term and therefore love often knows nothing of it. Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live." (Weight of Glory, p. 170) But The Shack is so enamored with postmodern fads that it cannot perceive even the most basic spiritual realities. Significantly, the biblical metaphors for God are all authority figures to whom submission is appropriate and necessary: Father, Shepherd, King, Judge, etc. It is certainly not coincidental that the god of the Shack is portrayed in far more effeminate terms.
Since authority is jettisoned as unworthy of God, the concept of sin likewise is all but absent. How can we violate the will of a God who has no expectations and is never disappointed? The book speaks much of `brokenness' and of `horrendous and destructive choices' (p. 190) but little about human rebellion and wickedness - even though the story revolves around a horrific crime. The Bible tells us plainly that God "hates" and "abhors" wicked men and judges them accordingly (Ps 5:5-6; 11:5-6; Prov. 3:32-33). Sinners may come to experience the grace of God, but not because they are lovable but in spite of the fact that they are not, because of the sheer greatness of God's love, not our inherent value or worth (II Kings 17:15). Only one human has ever been truly worthy of God's love and that is Jesus. God's grace is dispensed freely to unworthy sinners only by virtue of the fact that they are in the Beloved One (Eph 1:6). But the god of the Shack repeatedly informs Mack that she is `especially fond of' everyone (pp. 118-119) and that as humans, we are "deserving of respect for what you inherently are..." (p. 190) "Guilt'll never help you find freedom in me" she tells Mack (p. 187) nor does she "do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation." (p. 223) She certainly doesn't "need to punish people for sin" (p. 120 - the only reference to sin that I can remember in the book). In contrast, the God of the Bible, though "slow to anger...will not leave the guilty unpunished." (Nahum 1:3) He is a god who "will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction...." (II Thess. 1:8-9)
Since sin is marginalized, the atoning work of Christ is downplayed as well. We are informed significantly by `Papa' that when Christ cried out on the cross `My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' he was actually never forsaken at all. He only "felt" abandoned. (p. 96) This subtly drains the cross of its meaning. It implies that Jesus was not actually taking the punishment for our sin which truly does alienate us from God and required that the Father turn His back on the Savior as He bore that sin on the cross. Instead, the meaning of the cross is reduced to Christ's own subjective spiritual growth - "He found his way through it to put himself completely in my hands. Oh what a moment that was!" says `Papa' (p. 96). When Mack asks specifically what the significance of Christ's death is, `Papa's' explanation says nothing of sin, or of God's wrath (Rom 1:18; Eph 2:3), or of the shedding of blood as an atonement in our place (pp. 191-193). The discussion predictably emphasizes reconciliation since that has to do with relationship and relationship is where its at among postmoderns. But there is no indication that our alienation is due to our real guilt - our violation of God's Law - i.e. - His expectations of us. The impression we get is that reconciliation is needed not because the holiness of God has been offended but because Mack is "really scared of emotions." (p. 192) In other words the barrier to relationship is not his guilt, but his own psychological frailty and fear that keeps himself from opening himself up to God's love.
Since sin and judgment are underplayed, conversion is not very important to the `Jesus' of The Shack either. Those who love Christ, we are told, come from every religious system that exists including Buddhists, Mormons and Muslims and `Jesus' has "no desire to make them Christian" though he does "want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into brothers and sisters, into my beloved." (p. 182) We are not told how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements. At one point, Sophia, a personification of wisdom whom Mack encounters, seems to imply that even the murderer of Mack's daughter is a child of God and exempt from judgment (pp. 161-2). Admittedly, the dialogue is somewhat cryptic but it implies that God is above condemning sinners. This is certainly a far cry from the clarity of Scripture which warns not to be deceived into thinking that the wicked will inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9). Sophia's words at best open us up to just that sort of deception.
In short, the god of The Shack is a god that is very comfortable and very human (even having accidents in the kitchen!) - Mack feels right at home in their company from the start. In contrast, every human-divine encounter recorded in the Bible leaves the human recipient trembling in awesome fear. This alone should alert the reader that something is seriously amiss in Young's presentation.
I have just scratched the surface regarding the errors that I encountered in this book but this review is too long already. I have tried to limit myself to the most egregious offenses. Time and space forbid me from addressing numerous problems with regard to his portrayal of the Trinity and the incarnation. Whatever merits the book may have are clearly overshadowed by these serious deficiencies.
Young's aim in trying to lead the reader into an encounter with the living God is admirable. And his portrayal is no doubt appealing to people of our generation. Many hearts will be stirred by his sympathetic identification with those suffering from pain and doubts arising from tragedy. But unfortunately the god that Mack meets in The Shack is not the God of the Bible. They are two very different gods and in the end we are forced to choose whether we will submit to the authority of the one true God on His terms as expressed in the very first of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex 20:3) or cast our lot with appealing figment of Young's imagination.
Book Review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS ONE!
Summary: 1 Stars
Christians,
My wife and I have recently read the book, The Shack. This book seems to be growing with rising popularity, especially in Christian circles. While we were first somewhat excited to read it, we were left feeling profoundly disturbed by its content. I've heard several people say that it is the best book they have ever read. In fact Eugene Peterson (author of The Message paraphrase) says that, "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." I have to confess that Young's characterization of the Father as a large, beaming African-American woman, the Son as a Jew with a large nose, and the Holy Spirit is a mysterious Asian female makes me more than just a little uncomfortable. Whether you have read this book or not, most likely some of your friends or loved one have, so please allow me to take a few minutes to share with you a word of caution. It is books like this make our discernment as believers even more necessary than ever before.
Someone else recently said to me, "Come on Julian, it's just a novel!" Let me tell you Christians, this book is not just a novel. It is Young's platform to spoon feed people his theology (universalism), which in a free society is fine, but it is his own personal belief and not the Truth found in God's Word. God is concerned about doctrine (His Truth) way more than we are, but we should be cautious nonetheless. John 4:23-25 says that, "a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." He said Truth. Not feelings or relationships but simply Truth. Not false religions such as Christian Universalism, or Mormonism, or Jehovah's Witness, the prosperity gospel, or even the Emergent Church. Truth as found in God's Word and His Word alone. John 14:21 says that "whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." 1 Timothy 6:3-5 says "if anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain." Fellow Christians, please allow me to exhort you to be very careful and discerning when entertaining supposed "fiction" books like The Shack. The Bible is crystal clear about the fact that there is one way to a relationship with Jesus Christ and only one. Young, however, claims the polar opposite in this book. He is rejecting the Truth of the One and only God and His infallible Word, and in doing so, is leading many well-intentioned believers down the path of destruction.
Christians, virtually every theological heresy begins with a misconception of the nature of God, and unfortunately, The Shack is no exception. The Bible declares that everything we see, hear, and read must be examined before God's Word. This is how we discern His Truth from error. This is particularly true if something sounds almost right, but is dangerously wrong. After reading The Shack, I find it necessary to bring to light some of its errors. One man stated that, "The book is like a deep ditch covered with beautiful flowers - and sadly, many Christians are falling into this ditch". I couldn't agree more. My prayer is that we will all develop a sense of discernment so that we may be able to determine what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ (see Philippians 1:10). After reading The Shack, I wanted to find out more about the author, William Paul Young. As I did, the overall message of his now bestselling book made more and more sense to me. Apparently, Young was the son of missionaries to New Guinea. He went to Bible school, and he had some pain in his life. He once believed in biblical Truth until about four years ago when he embraced Christian Universalism. Universalism declares that Jesus is "a way," maybe even "the best way," but not "the only way" to the Father in heaven. So regardless of your belief system, we all get to the same destination: heaven. Christian Universalism destroyed Christianity in England and in all of Europe, and is now at work toward the same end in America.
To his credit, Young attempts to answer the question, "Where is God in a world full of pain and hurt?" The novel is about a man named Mackenzie (Mack) Phillips whose daughter, Missy, was brutally murdered by a serial killer. Three years after this tragedy, he receives an invitation by mail to meet with the holy Trinity in the same shack where his daughter was murdered. Each member of the Trinity appears in a bodily form. God the Father is called "Papa," but his actual name is Elousia, which is Greek for tenderness. Papa appears in the form of a large maternal African American woman who is always cooking in the kitchen. Though, by the end of the book, she turns into a pony-tailed, gray-haired man to assure Mack that God is both male and female. Jesus is a middle-aged Middle Eastern man, dressed in a plaid shirt, with a tool belt around his waist. The Holy Spirit appears as a delicate Asian woman named Sarayu, meaning "air," who loves gardening. Mack also meets another woman, named Sophia, Lady Wisdom. The novel is primarily a dialogue between Mack and the Trinity. Chief among the topics discussed are the nature of the Trinity, the cross, and forgiveness. As the dialogue progresses, Mack's faith in the God of the Bible falls apart completely and is replaced by a new understanding of who God is - transforming him into a changed man. The Holy Spirit depicted in the novel declares that the greatest evil is man's independence from God. Yet this evil is precisely what the author promotes in the pages of his book - declaring his independence from the God of the Bible in favor of a new god, with very little resemblance to the true God. Thankfully there are others who are just as concerned about The Shack as I am. Some of these have called it subversive and seductive, while others refer to it as "undiluted heresy."
One of the most devastating aspects of The Shack is the absolute disrespect and disregard for God by the main character. Think about it. When Isaiah saw a glimpse of God's glory, he was so overwhelmed that he cried out, "Woe to me for I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips and dwell in the midst of people who of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of Hosts." In contrast, Young not only presents a false view of God; he mocks the importance and the uniqueness of the Bible. He makes the Bible equal to whatever your personal imagination says about God. This is what we know from Scripture: God is Spirit, and He does not have a body, yet He chose to reveal himself in the masculine form. Nowhere does God reveal himself as a goddess. The Bible is very clear: Dare not portray God in an image. It is impossible to make the Creator part of the creation. Jesus said, "God is Spirit, and he who worships Him must worship Him in Spirit and truth" (John 4:24). The second commandment forbids us from making a visual portrayal of God. To worship such an image is pure idolatry. To worship an image of God is to worship the creation, not the Creator. Since Adam and Eve first sinned, there has been one plan for our redemption. God revealed it through the pages of the Old Testament, and then 2,000 years ago, at His appointed time, He fully revealed that plan in His Son, Jesus Christ. The plan was for Jesus to pay the punishment for our sin - for everyone who comes to Him and receives Christ's payment for himself and for herself. That's the plan of God.
The day is coming when Jesus Christ is going to sit on the judgment bench to separate those who have accepted His Father's plan from those who have accepted another plan. He will separate those who tried to stretch His plan, who are trying to make the plan popular, or are trying to rewrite His plan. The question that we must ask ourselves is this: Am I willing to accept God's gift of eternal life as it is revealed in the Scripture? Our eternal life hangs in the balance and depends on the answer to this question. We simply cannot be blown away by every wind of doctrine, or by our emotions. We should never allow emotions to control our minds. Rather, our mind should be the thermostat that sets the temperature of our emotions.
So Christians, as we continue to develop our sense of discernment, informed only by the Word of God, may we all cling to the God who loves us so much that He gave His all. Don't be mislead by all kinds of warm and fuzzy descriptions that do not fit God's own personal revelation in His Word.
THIRTEEN HERESIES IN THE SHACK (TAKEN FROM LEADING THE WAY MINISTRIES)
1. God the Father was crucified with Jesus.
Because God's eyes are pure and cannot look upon sin, the Bible says that God would not look upon His own beloved Son as He hung on the Cross, carrying our sins (Habakkuk 1:13; Matthew 27:45).
2. God is limited by His love and cannot practice justice.
The Bible declares that God's love and His justice are two sides of the same coin -- equally a part of the personality and the character of God (Isaiah 61:8; Hosea 2:19).
3. On the Cross, God forgave all of humanity, whether they repent or not. Some choose a relationship with Him, but He forgives them all regardless.
Jesus explained that only those who come to Him will be saved (John 14:6).
4. Hierarchical structures, whether they are in the Church or in the government, are evil.
Our God is a God of order (Job 25:2).
5. God will never judge people for their sins.
The Word of God repeatedly invites people to escape from the judgment of God by believing in Jesus Christ, His Son (Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1-3).
6. There is not a hierarchical structure in the Godhead, just a circle of unity.
The Bible says that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. This doesn't mean that one Person is higher or better than the other; just unique. Jesus said, "I came to do the will of Him who sent me. I am here to obey my Father." Jesus also said, "I will send you the Holy Spirit" (John 4:34, 6:44, 14:26, 15:26).
7. God submits to human wishes and choices.
Far from God submitting to us, Jesus said, "Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life." We are to submit to Him in all things, for His glory and because of what He has accomplished for us (Matthew 7:13-15).
8. Justice will never take place because of love.
The Bible teaches that when God's love is rejected, and when the offer of salvation and forgiveness is rejected, justice must take place or God has sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross for nothing (Matthew 12:20; Romans 3:25-26).
9. There is no such a thing as eternal judgment or torment in hell.
Jesus' own description of hell is vivid ... it cannot be denied (Luke 12:5, 16:23).
10. Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, and it doesn't matter which way you get to Him.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will come to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).
11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us.
Jesus, who dwells in the splendor of heaven, sits at the right hand of God, reigning and ruling the universe. The Bible says, "In Him there is no change, for He is yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 11:12, 13:8; James 1:17).
12. There is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because everyone will make it to heaven.
Jesus said, "Only those who believe in me will have eternal life" (John 3:15, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40).
13. The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
The Bible is God-breathed. Sure, there were many men through 1,800 years who put pen to paper (so to speak), each from different professions and different backgrounds, but the Holy Spirit infused their work with God's words. These men were writing the same message from Genesis to Revelation. If you want to read more about the place of Christ in the Scripture, read "We Preach Christ" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Book Review: When the Lord becomes real, and not a mere dogma, a real PERSON!
Summary: 5 Stars
The story was a bit of drudgery to me in the beginning as the scene setting took a few chapters, but once immersed in the discussion with God one finds it reads with more thoughts as well as more ease. The character of the poofy wife is too syrupy, and she represents a lot of Christians who think they know all there is to know about God and ARE perfectly comfortable with their state no matter what befalls them. But for those of us who dare to ask and recognize that we know so little, Mack is our hero. He echoes our heart's cry for pain and frustration and definitely our doubts. The syrup doesn't satisfy this man, and so he wants meat. It is fair to say that her syrupy character is eclipsed by what is genuine and he becomes the teacher. What is genuine is going to prevail upon what is syrupy.
In "The Shack", Mack's daughter is murdered in the shack, her blood is spilled and stands the floor. After a year, with the sadness and the guilt laying on him like a blanket, God calls Mack back to the very scene of the place where his heart was severed from God. This reminds me of a passage of the Bible where we read that our God turns the curse into a blessing and it also reminds me of the episode of Jacob wrestling with God, a passage I struggled a lot with as a Muslim in 1987, before my conversion. In the shack, Mack faces all the memories and even the very stain of her blood on the floor. This makes him realize that this is all he has left of baby girl. It wrecks him emotionally like a train wreck. At that point, questions are asked to God: how could you do this? how could you let it happen? why weren't you watching out for her? In a fit of anger Mack says, "It's just like you, not to show up when I need you the most. You didn't come when I was beaten by my father, you didn't help my daughter, and you didn't help me find her, and you asked me to come here to the shack , the place where she was murdered! The place of Mack's nightmare! And you didn't show up! He feels taunted and teased like God is toying with him. Mack also tries to apologize, even beg little Missy for forgiveness. In discouragement he leaves feeling abandonment. As he was walking away, he asks God,"Was it too much to ask to bury her body in peace?" Then, and this is a crucial moment, Mack feels a warm breeze of air in the midst of winter. He turns back to the shack in shock. He discovers that the shack is no longer a shack but a warm cozy home that it once was, restored to its newness again. The winter fades and the summer blooms around him. When still shocked, he is still angry and he decides he will knock on the door in anger but the door opens. Then his anger is diffused by finding not a God figure but a woman, a black woman, who embraces him and says his name in full as though she has known him since he was in the cradle and missed. In her he meets God who is his Mother. The shack, the place of the daughter's death, becomes the home of His restoration and new life. The end of of winter, being a symbol of death, has come. Life begins here anew. There is always a resurrection after every crucifixion of suffering.
Again, this book can be misleading to some of us who just judge it by the first 70 pages or so. The author, William P. Young, is not one of those "Christian authors" who are inundating the market with nothing but fluff, two dozens of them a dime! He is not one of those "Christian writers" who write to you about God in attempt to show you how you can milk God and get whatever you can from him in a utilitarian relationship. No, sir! While his work might sound like simple fiction, Paul P. Young is, indeed, a theologian par excellence. He knows what he is doing. You look at the surgeon and don't think much of him but the surgeon knows what he is doing. He surgically deals with minute details with amazing accurateness, sensitivity and excellence. Every image in his work of fiction is well-placed. He is not just writing.
When Mack gets near the the dilapidated shack (p.81) which had been replaced by a sturdy and beautifully constructed cabin, he is angry like many of us and ready to shake his fist in the face of God. He walks up to the door and decides to bang loudly and see what happens, "but just as he raises his fist to do so, the door flew open" (p. 82). From this I learn that God doesn't wait for us to force our way with anger seething in us, but he takes the initiative and opens himself to us, laying himself bare in his beautiful self-revelation. He says in Isaiah, "Let us reason together". He doesn't talk to us from above condescendingly but comes down to our level and looks us in the eye and opens himself up for us. It is interesting that the door is opened by a Black woman who later symbolizes the Father of us all in his infinite affection and compassion and cheerfulness. She says his name in full "Mackenzie Allen Phillips" which reminds me of Isaiah 43: 1 "I have called you by your name, you are mine.". This is God as a mother tenderly calling us by our names as the One who knows us all and his bowls of affection yearn for us as it says in Jeremiah 31: 18-20:
18 I have indeed heard Ephraim's grieving, 'You flogged me, I took a flogging, like a young, untrained bull. Bring me back, let me come back, for you are Yahweh my God!
19 For, since I turned away, I have repented; having understood, I beat my breast. I was deeply ashamed, I blushed, aware of the disgrace incurred when I was young.'
20 Is Ephraim, then, so dear a son to me, a child so favoured, that whenever I mention him I remember him lovingly still? That is why I yearn for him, why I must take pity on him, Yahweh declares.
This black woman is interesting. Mack asks to identify who they are and who is God in the midst of these 3 persons, the Black woman, the Asian woman and the Middle Eastern man. Mack feels overwhelmed by that meeting with the 3 persons of the trinity and asks, "Are there more of you?" (p. 85). The three look at one one another and laugh. The Black woman chuckles and says in what sounds as uneducated Black English, "We is all that you get, and believe me, we're more than enough". At first you would think this sounds "racial" but if you think deeper, you will see how William Young, our author, is as a theologian. "We is all that you get". The trinity speak of one mind as ONE person and they are not "WE ARE" but definitely "WE IS", it is not a multiplicity of gods but one God who is the Father revealing Himself fully as HE IS in the Word, our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit is the life of them both. The author might on the surface attempt to sound uneducated but in reality he did it on purpose as an astute artist and a skilled theologian.
In these 3 persons in the novel we merely are presented with "images" of the trinity: the Black woman represented the Father our God, the Asian woman representing the Holy Spirit and the Middle Eastern hard working man in his jean representing Jesus. The author wants to eloquently tell us that the entire humanity in its diversity is fully included and beautifully represented in the heart of the Trinity; that man wherever he or she is from is the passion and longing of God himself and they are in His heart and he is seeking their reconciliation. The author is no doubt a missionary at heart and thinks of God's goodwill towards the "nations" and that longing is represented in that ethnic diversity about which Mack, in his customary ethnocentricity, wonders in amazement, "But two women and a man and none of them white?" Mack is here ready for a wake up call that God is unlike anything he has ever conceived or has seen portrayed in media or art. He is not on his image but now was the time for Mack to rise above his ethnocentricity and realize that God is "for" all "nations" and that he is also not in our image but we have to be transformed daily to be in His image. How many times we have perceptions of God that we picked up here and there and them, boom! God comes and tells us that he is now here to shake this bit of dust off us and give us a purer understanding of who He really IS. He is definitely not gendered and he is not definitely going with what he always calculated in our narrow-minded dogmatism. In chapter 6 on page 87, the author does a fantastic job along these lines by quoting Jacques Ellul (By the way, I once dreamt I had a visit with him, Ellul) who says in his book "Anarchy and Christianity" something very true:
[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:]
One point that struck me about the book is that the best "apologetics" about God we will come to learn not from books but "at" the shack, the place of where the horrors of life took place and where our worse disappointment with God ripped our hearts apart. In that very place, our "Shack" the Lord begins to reveals himself and speak about Himself in his own way; in such a convincing way like no other work of apologetics in the whole world. All apologetics tend to be human wisdom and human philosophizing but "in the shack" God speaks with more distinctness and accurateness.
In the kitchen God in the person of this Black woman is listening to music. Mack wonders what kind of music would God really like. Back to the same old trite question of "WWJD" i.e. What Would Jesus Do? Mack is astonished to know that God is listening to "Eurasian funk and blues with a message, and a great beat"(p.90). Mack wonders, how that can be really spiritual, and that poses before us what is really spiritual. Mack comes to discover that what is spiritual doesn't have to sound "churchy" but God is there in everything we come in contact with in order that He may sanctify it, a point the early Fathers of the Church discovered like Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, St Maximus the Confessor.
In 1985, when my pen pal presented me with the idea of the God who has to punish sin, it didn't make any sense. How can he be calling himself love and still want to punish? Yet, I memorized what my penfriend taught me by means letter correspondence. I even had my brother repeat it and like a parrot we went around the house shouting,"Sin has a penalty. God had to punish sin". I frankly have to admit that I always struggled with the idea of a punishing God. The Shack book deals with my dilemma on pages 119 and 120, where Mack has a question for the God who is giving him the privilege of opening up to him in conversation. Mack asks a question that Atheists today do ask and get confirmation as well as vindication from Christian Fundamentalists for why it is right for them to stick to Atheism. Mack asks God,"What about your wrath? It seems to me that if you are going to pretend to be God Almighty, you need to be a lot angrier". God personified in Papa, this warm-hearted Black lady, deals directly with his questions, thus revealing His true nature, without mincing words. He says to Mack, "I am not what 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's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it". (p. 120). I will have to admit that I shouted for joy when I read these words as it excites me to know that there are people who have the right perception of the Heavenly Father they are communing with. Here it is a question of how well you think of your Heavenly Father. Do you see him as a cruel taskmaster or he is indeed the Abba, Papa?