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 Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: Read Jerry Bridges book, "Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts" Instead
Summary: 1 Stars
An associate at work insisted I read "The Shack." He wouldn't give me many details of the book but did say it revealed God's grace in personal tragedy. After a few false starts, I was able to finally start the book.
Not being a great fan of Christian novels, I was immediately disappointed but endeavored to continue reading. I confessed I was entertained by Young's prose in that he gave so much detail in visualizations of descriptions. I did become distracted as I begin to analyze his style and forgot about the message. However, all authors have their own distinct style and I should leave it at that. In chapter 7 he became C.S. Lewisesque with the transformation of the lead character's reality (Mark) into a fantasy land. Ugh..., Lord of the Rings here we go. (I enjoyed the movies but just couldn't hang with the books.)
If you have ever read C.S. Lewis, "The Chronicles of Narnia" or John Bunyan's "Pilgrim Progress," you understand how the authors use the power of metaphor and association to illustrate the character and attributes of God. Young uses contemporary metaphor to reveal God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He lets the dynamics of the family relationship describe his understanding of the trinity. The reader can immediately identify the three persons of the Godhead by the roles Young has assigned to them. I'll admit that God cast as an Aunt Jemima type threw me for a loop at first. However, "God" explained that "She" appeared in the form that Mark identified with or needed most, i.e., a nurturing mother. Jesus was portrayed as handyman fisherman good ole' boy. I never did figure out the Holy Spirit.
Leaving Young's entertainment value behind, I began analyzing his theology. I easily concluded that Young believes in classic Pelagianism. Which is what, you ask? Let me quote from Wikipedia, "It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will) Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology."
Young unfortunately in his attempt to personalize the Godhead did so at the expense of the Godhead sovereignty. Young's god is similar to the one theorized by Pelagius. God created the world and sits back and observes life as it acts itself out--only occasionally intervening, but doing so as to not interfere with man's so called "freewill." Of course, God often resists the temptation to intervene because of His love for His creatures. This is not unlike a clockmaker who winds up a clock, places it on the mantle, and watches time go by. The clockmaker's only chore is wind it up from time to time.
Young's casual approach to illustrate the sovereign God described in the Bible leads me to think he was influenced by Harold S. Kushner's book, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People." This little book was published in the early 1980's and was a big seller. In it, Kushner trashed God's omnipotence and omniscience. Kushner stated, "If God can't make my sickness go away, what good is He? Who needs Him? God does not want you to be sick or crippled. He didn't make you have this problem, and He doesn't want you to go on having it, but He can't make it go away. That is something which is too hard even for God." Of course, I have no idea if Young ever read Kushner, but the thought did pass my mind.
I'll give Young high marks for his description of lead character's encounter with the judge. Young captured the key cause of our character's continued remorse and brooding over his personal loss. Our hero was blaming God for his loss and angry at God for not intervening. People murmuring and complaining about how life has "dealt them a bad hand of cards" is a stab at God.
In my counseling ministry most people seeking solutions for their problems are unhappy that God didn't give them a better break. Whether it is a better set of parents or a more loving and responsible spouse, counselees are disappointed with God that He hasn't given them a hassle free life. They fail to see the purpose of suffering, and certainly don't appreciate Romans 8:28-29: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." How can "all things work together for god to them that love God?" I believe trials and tribulations ("things") help us to be more Christ like in our character and behavior.
I've met several people who have read or are currently reading The Shack. Young's talent has captured the minds of many and some are riveted to his book. It's unfortunate that they will be left with an image of God not of the scriptures. For instance, why did God create Pharaoh of Egypt? What was the purpose of the book of Job? How did Judas Iscariot glorify God? What is Romans chapter 9 talking about? The scriptures are loaded with themes and illustrations that demonstrate God's power. These events display His attributes and how they interact to create His perfect plan.
For whatever reason, Young seeks to feminize the Godhead by making two of the persons of the trinity women. On page 93, Papa says, "I am neither male nor female." That is a great stretch especially when you consider that of all the appearances of a deity to a human, or to a divine disclosure in the Bible (known as Theophany for God's appearance and Christophany for Christ), not one is feminine. If God made man in His own image, why was Adam created a man? Why not something else?
So why did Young want God to appear as a female? It's possible with his exposure as a missionary, Young wanted to introduce diversity; whether it be in sex, races, or culture. It's also possible he wanted humankind to identify more with God if Young could be successful in making God appear more human. If God used Christ's appearance in the Bible as Middle Eastern man to build the His bridge, why not introduce African and Oriental women to enhance the identification? Let's not quibble. At least when CS Lewis created the lion, Aslan, to personify Christ, the Lewis reader had no problem comprehending the comparison of a Lion to Christ.
My greatest problem is with Young's lack of understanding of sin and salvation and the Gospel message. Let me quote on page 225, Papa says "I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship." And later, "When you forgive someone you certainly release them from judgment."
Then what condemns a person to eternal damnation? In context, Young apparently is teaching it is the lack of a relationship that sends a person to hell. If this be true, then a relationship can only exist when one believes. So, if a person doesn't believe, then it must be the sin of unbelief that condemns a man.
The Puritan John Owen (1616-1683), posed the following question, "For Who Did Christ Die?"
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
1. If the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
Some may answer, "Because of unbelief (or lack of relationship)."
I would ask, is this unbelief (i.e., lack of relationship according to Young) a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment for it, or He did not. If He did, why must that sin condemn them more than their other sins for which Christ died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins."
The Bible clearly teaches that grace is what saves and uses faith as the means. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that even the faith is a gift of God so we can't boast. Furthermore, Young's theology leaves no room for the doctrine of Justification by Faith. How is a person declared righteous before God? Young needs a clear reading of Abraham's account in Romans.
Overall, The Shack is an entertaining read and I would put it on a shelf next to the Christian romance novels genre which my oldest son refers to as "Christian smut." It certainly doesn't belong near Pilgrim's Progress or near any good books on the nature of God.
If one is looking for a solid Biblically based book on how to deal with personal suffering, I strongly recommend Jerry Bridges book, "Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts" Bridges shows how we must learn about God's sovereignty, wisdom, and love if we want to know Him better. You won't be disappointed.
Book Review: reflecting on the shack
Summary: 1 Stars
I had read about the Shack in World magazine awhile back, and had wondered about it. I read it, and have some serious concerns about it. On the other hand it is easy to see the appeal it holds, because it does communicate truths in powerful ways. Much of the book has strong Biblical themes.
A good portion of the book struck me as true, but imbalanced. It seemed to be attempting to correct many false ideas and stereotypes, and went on to toss out the baby with the bathwater. It also bothered me that it went so far out of its way to pander to the other false gods of political correctness, such as the feminist movement. It may be a fine thing to destroy false religious stereotypes, but hardly at the cost of reinforcing others that are as bad or worse. An example of tossing out the baby with the bathwater... in chapter 6 we are introduced to Papa, the black woman. The point is made that both male and female are derived from God, and so appearing to Mack as a woman was to mix things up and release him from a false religious stereotype. While the truth about male and female being jointly made in the image of God is fully Biblical, this `stereotype' that the author is so quickly dismissing happens to be what Christ Himself taught us... He taught us "Our FATHER which art in heaven.." He could have said, if He chose, "Our PARENT which art in heaven.." To view God as "Father" is not a manmade stereotype, it is a picture handed to us by God Himself. In another place (pg 122) issue is taken with authority structure, and it is dismissed as something manmade and irrelevant to the Godhead. That is VERY unbiblical, the Scriptures speak often and soberly about the authority structure of the Spiritual realm, (see 1 Cor. 15:28, Matthew 8:5-13, and Romans 13:1) and that this is a critical truth we need to embrace. It seems to me the author is pretty quick to dismiss any `hard' truth that doesn't fit into his neat little "spirituality and knowing God made easy" puzzle. There ARE many striking paradoxes in the faith, that are no doubt stumbling stones to those who have not met the Lord and received Light from Him... but the answer isn't to take our scissors to the Bible and cut out the uncomfortable parts, which are many.
Probably the most blatant rewriting of Scripture, that I found, was on page 162 where Wisdom is having Mack play Judge. "I am only asking you to do something that you believe God does. He knows every person ever conceived, and he knows them so much deeper and clearer than you will ever know your own children. He loves each one according to his knowledge of the being of that son or daughter. You believe He will condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from His presence and apart from His love. Is that not true?"
Then she goes on to tell him to choose 3 of his children for hell and 2 for heaven.
Then he asks to go to hell for them, and then the idea of Christ dying for our sins is introduced, with the obvious strong inference that the concept of hell as a real place that those in rebellion to God's Kingdom are sent is a false notion contrary to the love of God. Jesus paid the price for all so certainly ultimately all are saved. That is a very pleasant doctrine, but you have to throw away your Bible to accept it. Christ spoke more about hell than He did about heaven, so it seemed He wasn't too worried about scaring us. I'd encourage you to sit down and read every word in red in the gospels in light of this book's teachings. Even just the Sermon on the Mount.
When Christ's disciples asked "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
Jesus responded NOTHING like "The Shack" author. He said that wide is the way and broad is the path that leads to destruction, and narrow is the way and hard is the path that leads into life, and few there be that find it. Or how about this:
"Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matt 7:22-23)
As a matter of fact Christ's teachings were quite the opposite of this Christ of the Shack. "The Shack Jesus" was so amazingly inclusive while the Christ of the Bible often seemed more interested in thinning the crowds than drawing them.
(John 6:53-63) I know that the `Shack Jesus' was an effort to show the unfathomable love He is, and gives... but I do not believe to simply edit out many other truths that stand solid and strong in the Scriptures is any real answer to our great need. I believe it will, in the end, lead to deception and further darkness.
AW Tozer spoke much about `the old cross and the new'... and "The Shack" seems to be a shining example of the way of this `new' cross. Consider his thoughts:
"I have long believed that a man who spurns the Christian faith outright is more respected before God and the heavenly powers than the man who pretends to religion but refuses to come under its total domination. The first is an overt enemy, the second a false friend. It is the latter who will be spewed out of the mouth of Christ; and the reason is not hard to understand.
One picture of a Christian is a man carrying a cross. "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." (Luke 9:23)
The man with a cross no longer controls his destiny; he lost control when he picked up his cross."
"The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect...
The philosophy back of this kind of thinking may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-bye to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.
The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.
That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher place; we leave it at the cross... God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross... Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power."
All that said, I can certainly see the vacuums in our souls and thinking in this day and age that cause our hearts to leap up to stories like "The Shack". For one thing, in this day of materialism and unbelief, we lived starved for wonder, and The Shack touches that place in us. Also the USA version of Christianity has become so carnal and sterile and empty of substance (ie: Christ!) That much of what we call worship IS mere formality and emptiness. The Shack also touches us in this withering desert within and without. But how can we be restored to the heart of true faith and fellowship with God in any other way than deep humility, repentance, pouring over the Scriptures and willingness to obey? The Godhead will NOT fellowship with proud carnal Adam. He departed them in the Garden of Eden and He hasn't changed in that regard. The Cross of Christ, His death and resurrection bridged the gap... but not as a super highway that all will cross sooner or later. To teach fallen man this is to cry: "Peace! Peace!... when there is no peace."
One more quote of Tozer's from a chapter called: That utilitarian Christ.
"Our Lord forewarned us that false Christs should come. Mostly we think of these as coming from the outside, but we should remember that they may also arise within the sanctuary itself. We must be extremely careful that the Christ we profess to follow is indeed the very Christ of God. There is always danger that we may be following a Christ who is not the true Christ but one conjured up by our imagination and made in our own image."
And this is exactly what has occurred with the Trinity (All) within the pages of "The Shack". This is a spiritually dark day indeed, aren't we warned that the end times will be marked with tremendous and powerful deceptions?
`Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved...'
The fear of God is the beginning... and without the beginning there will neither be a middle nor an ending. We'd better keep hold of it.
Book Review: Heretical theology in the guise of fiction
Summary: 1 Stars
Make no mistake about it. This is a book about theology in the guise of fiction, and it is dangerous at that. How any Christian bookstore can justify placing this on its shelves is beyond me. I have read many reviews about how people have had their view of God challenged, transformed, or, to take a word from the After Words of the book, revolutionized. Unfortunately, though, this book goes to great depths to undermine the very revelation of God Himself to the world.
...the Bible somehow left his hand... (115)
Christians believe that the sixty-six books constituting the Old and New Testaments are the sole authoritative and infallible source of God revealing Himself to us. The Bible itself exhorts the disciple of Jesus Christ to study to show himself approved. It is the "word" that is the lamp unto our feet and the light unto our paths.
The Shack, however, places communication with God on a face-to-face level that has not existed since man fell into sin in the Garden of Eden. While we as human beings might long for something tangible that we can see and hear and touch, the Bible teaches that faith is the evidence of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. The author associates searching the Scriptures with Sunday prayers and hymns that "weren't cutting it anymore... Cloistered spirituality... little religious social clubs" which left the main character, Mack, wanting more (66). These are not so veiled shots at not only the sufficiency of Scripture, but against the church. Young uses pejorative and prejudicial language that takes the worst presuppositions about the church and assumes them as universally true for all who might hold to a high view of the Bible.
Overall, the Bible is viewed in a negative light, as is serious study of the Bible and theology in general. Mack's seminary education is never referred to in a positive fashion.
Jesus' work on the cross in constantly cited, although I'm not sure Young ever refers to Him as "Christ" or "Messiah." Yet, His work on the cross, while extolled in the narrative, is downplayed by Mack's longing for more. "I guess part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note," says Mack (71). Yet, Bible-believing Christians would point to a simple verse like John 3:16, or better yet, 1 John 4:9-10, to show that God's care for those He loves is summed up in the fact that "God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." This craving for more than what is revealed in Scripture is not uncommon among many who sit in pews every Sunday, but it undermines the fact that God HAS manifested His love in Jesus Christ.
One of, if not THE, most sickening part of this book is its absolutely heretic display of the Trinity, which is historically understood as God manifesting Himself in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - equally, eternally, and simultaneously. Young intentionally uses multicultural and multiethnic persons to represent the Father (a large black woman named Elousia, but called "Papa"), the Son (Jesus, a Middle Eastern Jewish carpenter), and Sarayu (an Asian woman who is erratic in her appearance), a not so subtle shot at many white people's view of God. Yet, the Bible is clear that God is not to be described in terms of an image, but that God is spirit (John 4:24).
Scripture is also clear that while all three Persons in the Trinity are equally one being and work in harmony with one another, they do function in distinct roles. The Father has the function of headship within the Trinity. The Son functions in submission to the will of the Father, serving as an example, by the way, that we should follow in His steps (1 Pet 2:21). And how do we know the will of the Father? The Scriptures.
The Shack, however, absolutely denies biblical truth about the Trinity. Relationships predicated upon submission, as that biblically displayed by God the Father and God the Son, are viewed negatively. Instead, it's all about love and relationship. The masculine image of God is called into question. God's revelation of "itself" in masculine personages is explained away by the world needing a father more than a mother. The hypostatic union of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man is affirmed in word in the book, but the more His work on the cross and His ministry are explained His deity is diminished for the sake of Him appearing "more human" than Papa or Sarayu.
The persons of the Trinity, in the view of the author, enjoys an altogether creepy relationship with one another. At one point Papa and Jesus will enjoy a moment that will leave the reader wondering if their are quasi-sexual overtones being implied by Young. Meanwhile, the enjoyment of Father, Son, and Spirit is put in fully anthropomorphic terms - laughing at kitchen accidents, enjoying meals, etc. Worldly chaos, and not the order of creation, is seen as that which brings God pleasure.
But if that were not enough, The Shack promotes an absolutely unbiblical view of salvation in which Christ's work on the cross is looked at "fondly," but the reason for His sacrificial death is never explained in any semblance of fashion representing that which the Bible explains. The idea that God poured out His wrath for the sins of those He was saving on His only begotten Son on the cross is outright refuted. "I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie," says Papa. "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 sin; it's my joy to cure it" (119-20). So Jesus' work was not about God displaying His love for people by punishing Jesus for their sins, according to Young. This is a denial of penal substitution, a denial of how the Bible describes the cross.
But wait, there's more. Not only did Jesus not die for the punishment of sins, but it is not even necessary to believe the gospel in order to be saved.
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 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. (182)
Those are the words of Jesus, by the way, to which Mack responds, "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 fo find you. (182)
This passage in a crucial section of the book does not teach universalism, the view that God saves each and every person who ever lived. However, it does teach an equally false gospel of inclusivism, the view that God will save, through Christ, "true seekers" in all religions. So not only did Jesus not die to absorb the wrath of God against sin, as a propitiation (Rom 3:21-26; 1 John 4:9-10), but now you don't even have to believe the gospel to be saved.
The Shack amounts to an extremely dangerous textbook of theological psychobabble, a therapy session if you will, for anyone who suffers (meaning everybody). It denies Bible teachings left and right. I've only scratched the surface, not even really commenting on what it says about gender distinction in marriage relationships, the parent-child relationship, the idea of Christ being on a spiritual journey, and especially what it says about the church.
I find it shocking and sad that many Christian bookstores, including Lifeway Christian Stores (more on that in an upcoming post), have this book on their shelves. That gives the book an endorsement in a sense that the undiscerning reader has and will fallen prey to. One need only to look at how popular this book is, a New York Times #1 Bestseller, to see that I am right. Eugene Peterson, who has written a popular paraphrase of the Bible (which I do not endorse), has said 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!" Contemporary Christian recording artist Michael W. Smith says the book "will leave you craving for the presence of God." As if the church doesn't have enough self-inflicted trouble communicating truth, now it shoots itself in the foot by not calling this book what it is: heresy.
So I implore you, readers, to hack The Shack for the good of your soul, for the church, for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and for the glory of God.
Book Review: Some Thoughts on "The Shack"
Summary: 2 Stars
I really didn't want to read The Shack. I only have so much time in a day.
But a number of people have asked me to make some comments on the popular novel by William Young. And because church members eventually started asking, I decided to give it a go.
I have heard people rave about this book (in a good way), and I have heard others rave about this book (in a bad way). Some described it as the best book in the past 50 years. Others described it as the worst heresy to ever hit the Christian bookstore.
In the end, I found that The Shack wasn't nearly as good as some had said, and it wasn't nearly as bad as others had charged. It has everything positive about contemporary evangelicalism, and yet it has all the drawbacks of current evangelical expression too.
Before we get started, let me deal with (by far) the biggest objection I have gotten when offering a critique of The Shack...
"Don't you realize that The Shack is fiction?"
Some Shack enthusiasts dismiss the very notion that one can critique fiction. When theologians and pastors critique the portrayal of God in this book, Shack fans quickly revert to the idea that one can't properly judge fiction. Dan Brown has made a similar case regarding the factual errors of The Da Vinci Code. (I am not putting Brown and Young's books in the same category, only pointing out that both authors have questioned the legitimacy of critiquing fiction.)
Of course, no one is suggesting that The Shack and The Da Vinci Code are works of non-fiction. However, fiction forms us. Violent entertainment can be labeled "fantasy." The same with romance novels. But we would be silly to think that this type of fictitious entertainment has no formative influence upon us. Fictional stories can exert a great deal of influence on how we see the world.
Fiction is not off limits from critique. Brown speaks of actual historical figures. Young delivers a memorable portrayal of true Persons (the Trinity). When you deal with non-fictional characters, you inevitably open yourself up to criticism.
Let's say you meet an author who wants to use your grandparents as the main characters in a novel. The author tells you that the narrative will be fictional, but that your grandparents will have the starring roles. Sounds great! you think.
But when the manuscript arrives in your hands, you discover that the story does not accurately represent the personalities of your grandparents. The relationship between them is all wrong too. Grandma berates Grandpa. Early on, they run off and elope (which is totally out of character). At one point, they contemplate divorce.
When you complain, the author responds, "Remember? I told you it would be fictional."
"Yes," you say, somewhat exasperated, "I knew the story would be fictional, but I thought you would get my grandparents right. The grandparents in your story aren't anything like my grandparents."
"Who cares?" the author responds. "It's a work of fiction."
"Well, I care," you say, "because people will put down this book thinking that my grandparents were like the way you portrayed them."
My biggest problem with The Shack is its portrayal of God. I understand that the book is a work of fiction, not a theological treatise, and therefore should be treated as fiction. But the main characters are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are actual Persons. To portray God in a manner inconsistent with his revelation to us in Scripture (and primarily in Jesus) is to misrepresent living Persons.
When people put down The Shack, they will not have a better understanding of the Trinity (despite the glowing blurbs on the back cover). They will probably have a more distorted view of God in three Persons.
The Positives
To be fair, I found a few things I liked about The Shack. Here are the positives:
The story doesn't sugarcoat evil. It takes sin and suffering seriously.
The book focuses upon God meeting us in our suffering. God is not absent in our pain. When someone is in the deepest of grief and despair, God often makes himself most present.
The book shows the need for a personal encounter with God. Christianity is about communion with a personal, relational God.
Now to the negative aspects of The Shack:
A very low view of the institutional church.
Jesus claims to not recognize the institution of the church as something he started. I understand the intense pain of being burned by a local church. Some readers will resonate with Young's description of local church imperfections. But evangelicalism is already plagued with solutions to suffering that emphasize "me and Jesus" or "me and God." We need community! The Shack compounds the problems of individualism and makes the institutional church unnecessary and irrelevant.
A low view of the Bible.
The Shack so emphasizes the personal encounter with God in Mack's mystical experience that the Scriptures become irrelevant. The Bible is reduced to words on paper that need to be decoded by those with theological training. Instead, "you will learn to hear my thoughts in yours," says Sarayu (the Holy Spirit). "You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow..." In other words, look everywhere else but the Bible to find God. Oprah would be pleased.
The distorted view of the Trinity.
There is absolutely no sense of transcendence and holiness. It is the "God is my buddy" perspective on steroids. Compare (better yet, contrast!) Mack's encounter with God to the final chapters of Job or the stunning vision of God that Isaiah witnesses in the temple. One can hardly imagine Young's "Papa" eliciting the same kind of response. The God of the Bible cares deeply how he is portrayed. To tamper with the way God has revealed himself is to put forth a false picture of God.
Why is this book popular?
We should never let a cultural phenomenon go by without wondering about the reasons for its popularity. Here are a few reasons I think The Shack is so popular:
Missing fathers. So many people have grown up with absent daddies or abusive father figures. For many, the mother is the rock of the home. To portray God the Father as a matriarch is bound to resonate with a good number of people.
The anti-authoritarian tendency of our culture. At one point in the book, God speaks of there being no roles of hierarchy in the Trinity. God even submits to humans. This resonates with a culture that already eschews traditional understandings of role and authority. (I can picture my Romanian friends rolling their eyes at The Shack and saying, "That's so American!")
The immanence of God. Evangelicals too often bring God down to the level of understanding, faithful friend. Ultimately, this view of God is shrunken and reductionist. Just like it is misrepresenting God to make him so other that he is virtually unknowable, it is misrepresenting him to make him so close and human that his God-ness is absent.
The Challenge for Evangelicals
It is easy to sit back and critique The Shack. (There is so much to critique!) But perhaps evangelicals who can see the problems with The Shack should instead invest some creative energy in writing stories that resonate with people in a similar way. As I have written elsewhere:
Do you ever wonder why stories often have a greater impact than debating the theological minutia of Bible interpretation?
C.S. Lewis could have written a fine theological treatise on what the world would have been like had Adam and Eve never sinned. But Perelandra worked much better. Lewis could have (and sometimes did) describe in colorful theological language the nature of the atonement, but Aslan sacrificing his life for rebellious Edmund fired up our imaginations. In his advice to aspiring writers, Lewis reminded them to describe truths vividly - not merely multiplying adjectives, but working hard to help people feel the beauty of the truths presented.
When I consider the phenomenal success of The Shack, the seminarian in me rises up and wants to make a detailed list of the book's many theological aberrations. But perhaps the greater challenge for someone like me is to recognize the power of a good story and then to take a bestseller like The Shack as an incentive to write better stories.
Book Review: Standing knee deep in a river dying of thirst
Summary: 1 Stars
Almost 40 years ago, pilot and author Richard Bach wrote an engaging book that asked the reader not only to suspend disbelief but to push it through a shredder. Briefly, "JonathanLivingston Seagull" was about a Seagull who lived to fly and whose passion to fly and commitment to discover the physical limits (if any) of flight eventually made him an "outcast" to his flock because he had broken the timeless dogma of the flock by doing so. Think "Enemy of the People" but instead of a scandinavian doctor taking on the local government, we had a seagull and, as the story went on, seagull angels, a sage-like Seagull who taught Jonathan the secret of bio-location, and at the end the suggestion that Jonathan was the "Son of the Great Gull" himself. "JLS" not only asked to willingly suspend our disbelief but to push it through a shredder.
Much like the "Hula Hoop" and "The Twist", every so often something comes along--a book, a piece of music, a television show (think "Gilligan's Island") that really doesn't deliver much but manages to attract a huge following. Now comes "The Shack". Count me as one of the infidels who just doesn't get it. As mentioned by others, the premise is about as substantial as a single strand of a spider's web and the theological underpinning, at least to me, was simply frustrating. I don't mean offensive or as others do "unscriptual". That kind of criticism smacks of arrogance to me. The greater part of my lack of enthusiasm for this book is that it takes itself way too seriously.
Consider, for example "Oh, God!" written by Avery Streiber. We see essentially the same device william P. Young used: a man of little importance has a personal encounter with God who manifests himself in a totally unimaginable but thoroughly endearing way--as an old man who looks like he's about to hop on a charter fishing book for the day. Streiber's God is not a septuagenerian, she is a black woman. (The concept of God manifesting as a mortal is hardly novel --no pun intended. "Steambath", a play written by Bruce Jay Friedman, portrayed God as a hispanic attendant in a steam bath which was a weigh station of sorts for the dead who didn't believe they were dead.) I'll leave it to others to decide which of these works were the most provocative (theologically) by randomly picking a passage from each:
"The Shack": Sarayu: "Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence. I am Light and I am Good. I am Love and there is no darkness in me. Light and Good actually exist. So, removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness. Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death because you have separated from me: Life"
"Oh God!": Why is it so hard for you to believe? Is my physical existence any more improbable than your own? What about all that hoo-ha with the devil awhile ago from that movie? Nobody had any problem believing that the devil took over and existed in a little girl. All she had to do was wet the rug, throw up some pea soup and everybody believed. The devil you could believe, but not God? I work in my own way. I don't, I don't get inside little children; they got enough to do just being themselves. Also I'm not about to go around to every person in the world and say, 'Look it's me, I wanna talk to you.' So I picked one man. One very good man. I told him God lives. I live. He had trouble believing too, in the beginning. I understood. I'm not sure how this whole miracle business started, the idea that anything connected with me has to be a miracle. Personally I'm sorry that it did. Makes the distance between us even greater. "
"Steambath: Tandy: If you said one, intellectual assault on my mind, maybe I would believe you.
God. De gustibus non disputandum.
Tandy: That's it? Freshman latin?
God: How's this? Consider the mind, an independent substance planted within the soul and incapable of being destroyed.The City of Satan? Whatever its artifices in art, war or philosophy, it was essentially corrupt and impious, its joy but a cosmic mask and its beauty the whitening of a sepulcher. It stood condemned before man's better conscience by its vanity, cruelty, and secret misery...a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion.
As I look at the three excerpts, the first--from The "Shack"--seems like a stream of consciousness monologue that no matter how many times I read it I cannot get past an obvious contradiction:"evil and darkness" do not have any actual existence." (Sell THAT to the parent of a little girl mowed down by a drunk driver.) Let's assume that "darkness" does not exist. How in the name of Sarayu can then you be "plunged" into it--even if sepereted by the Holy Spirit--if it doesn't have any "actual existence". At the same time, if Sarayu is contradicting herself about darkness, why should we
believe her when she says evil doesn't exist--or rather has not "actual" existence. And here's another headscratcher: what in the name of Kant is the antithesis of "actual" existence. Existence is ALWAYS actual. But, wait, it gets worse.If Sarayu isn't an A-list epistemologist why do we think "PAPA" is the real deal? Doesn't he sould like something of an intellectual snob who worse still, doesn't take responsibility for much?
Papa: "There are millions of reasons to allow pain and hurt and suffering rather than to eradicate them, but most of these reasons can only be understood within each person's story. I am not evil. You are the ones who embrace fear and pain and power and rights so readily in your relationships.
Fair enough, Papa: just give me three reasons why humans should have to endure pain rather than to eradicate it--which by the way is a tendency so deeply built in human beings (to escape pain) and which (although I am not a biblical scholar) seems to me to have been an important, even essential, element of the ministry of Christ. Jesus went so far to tell two disciples who asked him if he was the savior (Mat 11:4) Jesus said, "Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."
Now--and again I am not a scholar (or a Christian)-- butthat sounds like to me a "sign" of the approaching new world order WAS the eradication of suffering, at least to some degree. "Papa", too, then wanders into the grey sphere of moral relativity: suffering can only be understood anecdotally--"mostly" .
Nonsense.
Two people are lying on the sand on Patong Beach. Thirty seconds later they are dead, crushed by a tsunami. "Don't look at me. I had nothing to do with it. Yeah, it was frightening and painful but a lot of you are masochists and get off on that sort of thing."
To cut to the chase, there's a great deal more comfort, wisdom, spiritual humility, and enlightment that can be found in more books than I can think of. It's mindboggling to me that this book has sold 7,000,000 copies but as the Harry Potter series proved, in the world of publishing the incomprehensible happens with startling regularity. It seems to me that many of those people who made this happen are like the woman who sang, "Standing Knee-Deep in a River Dying of Thirst. If they could just take a deep breath, be content with not having any of the really important answers ("Why am I here?), and just drink in the world, the kind of thirst that drives them to books like this might be quenched. Books like this, however, are like drinking salt water.The more you drink, the thirstier you get.
And, Jesus (or Pappa) as to the question "Who wants a God who is totally comprehensible?", I do. It just might be possible that if we knew God completely we just might love him to a degree that we now find impossible, "trust in him even though he slay us" and who knows, maybe the world would be a better place.