Few people who run in Christian circles have not heard of The Shack, a surprisingly successful book that the author, William P. Young, originally wrote as a personal story for his children. In 2007, Young published the novel himself at the suggestion of friends and has watched as it has sold over 1 million copies. It is the fictional story of a man named “Mack” whose young daughter was abducted and killed by a serial murderer in a shack in the Oregon wilderness. Years later, Mack receives an invitation from God to meet Him at the shack so that He can help Mack work through the pain and anger he feels toward God over the death of his daughter. When Mack arrives at the shack he meets God as a trinity of a large African-American woman, a Jewish man, and a small Asian woman who correspond to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively. Most of the novel is dialogue between Mack and the members of the trinity as they explain the nature of life more fully and seek to disabuse him of several misperceptions he has about the nature of God. The object of this divine dialogue is to relieve Mack from “the Great Sadness” that has descended upon his life since the murder.
Judging from the sales figures and the buzz that this book has generated, it is clear that people are finding something compelling in The Shack. Everyone I know who has read the book has come away with strong opinions, some positive and some negative. Several people have asked me to read the book and provide them with an assessment of its message. They have asked me to do this because they feel that this is a novel that clearly has some lessons it is trying to teach about how we should relate to and understand God. I have read no other opinions or reviews of the book so that my assessment might be as unbiased as possible. I do, however, view this book, as I must view all lessons, through the lens of God’s Word. I have endeavored to be like the people described in Acts 17: “And the people of Berea were more open-minded … and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth.” (Acts 17.11 [NLT]) As believers, we are called to be an open-minded but discerning people. It is in that spirit that I read The Shack and have come away with serious concerns about many of the assertions that it makes. My concerns fall within three broad categories which I will describe below.
My first concern is that The Shack paints a rather dim view of Biblical revelation and the teaching ministry of the Church. I would be the first to admit that churches are not what they should be and that the Bible is too often taught in a spiritless, impractical manner, but Young seems to be taking issue with more than the fact that there is room for improvement in these areas. In various places in the novel, his main character, Mack, expresses frustration with the very idea that God principally reveals Himself through the Word of the Bible and the work of His Church. Consider passages like the following:
“In seminary [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 … 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.” (pp. 65-66)
Apparently, God needs to make Himself more plain to us than is possible through reading and being taught the Scriptures. This comes to Mack in the form of a note from God in the mailbox. In response, Mack comments that “part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note.” (p. 71) Mack thinks that a note is a better way for God to express His love for us because otherwise all we have is a dusty book whose study is often 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 … excruciatingly long prayers.” (p. 107) This is the way that interaction with God’s Word is described in the book, and it is not presented as the biased view of one particular man. It is crucial for the reader to understand that the God of Young’s book is constantly challenging Mack’s “religious conditioning” and his “preconceived notions” which is the obvious agenda of the novel. The Shack is not targeted at unbelievers but at those of us who have grown up under Biblical instruction all of our lives, and the essential message is summed up by what God, the Father figure, (i.e. “Papa”) tells Mack: “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.” (p. 119) Unlike the Bereans, Mack is not urged to assess whether his notions are Biblical but rather to abandon his notions en masse. As he does so, he tells God that “This weekend, sharing life with you [i.e. with God] has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.” (p. 198)
Similarly, Mack is told to abandon the way in which he has commonly understood the Church. The Jesus character tells him that Christians have gotten the Church all wrong by failing to understand that, “It’s all about relationships and simply sharing life.” (p. 178) There is certainly a valid critique in this assessment of the Church as it is understood by many, but Young’s description of the “ideal Church” as needing no organization or expectations is overly simplistic and puts forth an organic and natural association that requires no effort, struggle or work. Mack responds to this revelation in these excerpts:
“For Mack these words were like a breath of fresh air! Simple. Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not the sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know. Just sharing life.” (p. 178)
“I find the way you are so different from the will-intentioned religious stuff I’m familiar with.” (p. 179)
“Mack was thinking of his friends, church people who had expressed love to him and his family. He knew they loved Jesus, but were also sold out to religious activity …” (p. 181)
I have no problem admitting that the Church needs to always keep relationships and life sharing at the center of its existence, but I do have a problem with the way in which Young portrays life sharing and relationships as being diametrically opposed to “meetings”, “exhausting work”, and “religious activity”. He seems to be advocating a Christian life that has everything to do with “being” and very little to do with “doing”. It is closer to the truth to say that our being and our doing must work in tandem.
My second broad concern is that The Shack seeks to explain something of the nature of God as three persons in one essence; however, it does so in ways that must be approached with caution. As the Trinity is an incomprehensible reality, I am inclined to grant Young a significant amount of latitude and artistic license in his portrayal. He rightly indicates that relationship is bound up within the very nature of God and that love is not merely a created reality, but that it is the essence of the dynamic that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No doubt the portrayal of this in the book will provide some help in attempting to apprehend this reality; yet, Young makes certain assertions about the nature of the relationship within the Trinity that need to be read with discernment. The two assertions that are most problematic concern authority and gender. The Bible is clear that God does not possess gender, bot He clearly reveals Himself to us in Scripture in masculine terms. Young’s portrayal of God the Father as an Aunt Jemima figure (a.k.a. “Papa”) is intended to be an iconoclastic way of declaring that God is neither male nor female. As “Papa” tells Mack, “For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning” (p. 93) Here we see what we have seen earlier, namely that “religious conditioning”, even that formed by Biblical truth must be overcome. In light of this, Mack asks why God seems to prefer being referred to in masculine terms in the Bible:
He asks, “why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.”
“Papa” responds, “Well … there are many reasons for that and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are needed—but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.” (p. 94)
In other words, the principle factors that have motivated God’s self-revelation in masculine terms have been pragmatic. God reveals Himself as Father because the state of fatherhood is so deplorable. Presumably, He would have revealed Himself as mother had motherhood not been in relatively good shape. This is the typical way that feminist scholars deal with the Bible’s treatment of gender. Any portrayal of gender roles or distinctions are attributed to God’s accommodating Himself to cultural pressures or practical realities and are never seen as being in any way essential to the nature of God Himself. It should be understood that there is no Scriptural reason to believe that God’s masculine self-revelation is simply a concession to human depravity.
Young’s treatment of authority is equally troubling. He asserts that all authority is a result of man’s attempt to exert his independence from God. Authority structures have absolutely been corrupted by the fall, but the message of The Shack is that submission to authority itself is a result of the fall. Or, in other words, the universe is intended to have no authority structure to it because God’s nature is without authority. Jesus explains this to Mack as follows:
“Papa [i.e. “the Father”] is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu [i.e. “the Holy Spirit”] to me or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”
“How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?”
“Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” (pp. 145-146)
The concept of sharing life is Young’s central picture of what it means to have achieved godliness. It is a vision in which there is no authority but rather a simple being being one with everyone else. This conception bears far more similarity to the Hindu idea of Atman or the Buddhist idea of Nirvana than it does to the Christian notions of our submission to God as bride, servant, and child. Gone apparently is the Lord Jesus before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess. Gone apparently is the King seated upon the throne of David judging the nations with equity. It is certainly a comforting truth to know that God lowers Himself to be of service to us, but the assertion that the Father is submitted to the Son is nowhere found in Scripture. Likewise, to contend that God is submitted to me in the same way that Jesus is submitted to the Father is to empty the terms "submission" and "authority" of any meaning.
Next week, I will treat the most significant problem I have with The Shack, namely its insufficient portrayal of the nature of the ministry and work of Jesus on behalf of sinful people.
Judging from the sales figures and the buzz that this book has generated, it is clear that people are finding something compelling in The Shack. Everyone I know who has read the book has come away with strong opinions, some positive and some negative. Several people have asked me to read the book and provide them with an assessment of its message. They have asked me to do this because they feel that this is a novel that clearly has some lessons it is trying to teach about how we should relate to and understand God. I have read no other opinions or reviews of the book so that my assessment might be as unbiased as possible. I do, however, view this book, as I must view all lessons, through the lens of God’s Word. I have endeavored to be like the people described in Acts 17: “And the people of Berea were more open-minded … and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth.” (Acts 17.11 [NLT]) As believers, we are called to be an open-minded but discerning people. It is in that spirit that I read The Shack and have come away with serious concerns about many of the assertions that it makes. My concerns fall within three broad categories which I will describe below.
My first concern is that The Shack paints a rather dim view of Biblical revelation and the teaching ministry of the Church. I would be the first to admit that churches are not what they should be and that the Bible is too often taught in a spiritless, impractical manner, but Young seems to be taking issue with more than the fact that there is room for improvement in these areas. In various places in the novel, his main character, Mack, expresses frustration with the very idea that God principally reveals Himself through the Word of the Bible and the work of His Church. Consider passages like the following:
“In seminary [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 … 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.” (pp. 65-66)
Apparently, God needs to make Himself more plain to us than is possible through reading and being taught the Scriptures. This comes to Mack in the form of a note from God in the mailbox. In response, Mack comments that “part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note.” (p. 71) Mack thinks that a note is a better way for God to express His love for us because otherwise all we have is a dusty book whose study is often 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 … excruciatingly long prayers.” (p. 107) This is the way that interaction with God’s Word is described in the book, and it is not presented as the biased view of one particular man. It is crucial for the reader to understand that the God of Young’s book is constantly challenging Mack’s “religious conditioning” and his “preconceived notions” which is the obvious agenda of the novel. The Shack is not targeted at unbelievers but at those of us who have grown up under Biblical instruction all of our lives, and the essential message is summed up by what God, the Father figure, (i.e. “Papa”) tells Mack: “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.” (p. 119) Unlike the Bereans, Mack is not urged to assess whether his notions are Biblical but rather to abandon his notions en masse. As he does so, he tells God that “This weekend, sharing life with you [i.e. with God] has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.” (p. 198)
Similarly, Mack is told to abandon the way in which he has commonly understood the Church. The Jesus character tells him that Christians have gotten the Church all wrong by failing to understand that, “It’s all about relationships and simply sharing life.” (p. 178) There is certainly a valid critique in this assessment of the Church as it is understood by many, but Young’s description of the “ideal Church” as needing no organization or expectations is overly simplistic and puts forth an organic and natural association that requires no effort, struggle or work. Mack responds to this revelation in these excerpts:
“For Mack these words were like a breath of fresh air! Simple. Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not the sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know. Just sharing life.” (p. 178)
“I find the way you are so different from the will-intentioned religious stuff I’m familiar with.” (p. 179)
“Mack was thinking of his friends, church people who had expressed love to him and his family. He knew they loved Jesus, but were also sold out to religious activity …” (p. 181)
I have no problem admitting that the Church needs to always keep relationships and life sharing at the center of its existence, but I do have a problem with the way in which Young portrays life sharing and relationships as being diametrically opposed to “meetings”, “exhausting work”, and “religious activity”. He seems to be advocating a Christian life that has everything to do with “being” and very little to do with “doing”. It is closer to the truth to say that our being and our doing must work in tandem.
My second broad concern is that The Shack seeks to explain something of the nature of God as three persons in one essence; however, it does so in ways that must be approached with caution. As the Trinity is an incomprehensible reality, I am inclined to grant Young a significant amount of latitude and artistic license in his portrayal. He rightly indicates that relationship is bound up within the very nature of God and that love is not merely a created reality, but that it is the essence of the dynamic that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No doubt the portrayal of this in the book will provide some help in attempting to apprehend this reality; yet, Young makes certain assertions about the nature of the relationship within the Trinity that need to be read with discernment. The two assertions that are most problematic concern authority and gender. The Bible is clear that God does not possess gender, bot He clearly reveals Himself to us in Scripture in masculine terms. Young’s portrayal of God the Father as an Aunt Jemima figure (a.k.a. “Papa”) is intended to be an iconoclastic way of declaring that God is neither male nor female. As “Papa” tells Mack, “For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning” (p. 93) Here we see what we have seen earlier, namely that “religious conditioning”, even that formed by Biblical truth must be overcome. In light of this, Mack asks why God seems to prefer being referred to in masculine terms in the Bible:
He asks, “why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.”
“Papa” responds, “Well … there are many reasons for that and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are needed—but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.” (p. 94)
In other words, the principle factors that have motivated God’s self-revelation in masculine terms have been pragmatic. God reveals Himself as Father because the state of fatherhood is so deplorable. Presumably, He would have revealed Himself as mother had motherhood not been in relatively good shape. This is the typical way that feminist scholars deal with the Bible’s treatment of gender. Any portrayal of gender roles or distinctions are attributed to God’s accommodating Himself to cultural pressures or practical realities and are never seen as being in any way essential to the nature of God Himself. It should be understood that there is no Scriptural reason to believe that God’s masculine self-revelation is simply a concession to human depravity.
Young’s treatment of authority is equally troubling. He asserts that all authority is a result of man’s attempt to exert his independence from God. Authority structures have absolutely been corrupted by the fall, but the message of The Shack is that submission to authority itself is a result of the fall. Or, in other words, the universe is intended to have no authority structure to it because God’s nature is without authority. Jesus explains this to Mack as follows:
“Papa [i.e. “the Father”] is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu [i.e. “the Holy Spirit”] to me or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”
“How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?”
“Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” (pp. 145-146)
The concept of sharing life is Young’s central picture of what it means to have achieved godliness. It is a vision in which there is no authority but rather a simple being being one with everyone else. This conception bears far more similarity to the Hindu idea of Atman or the Buddhist idea of Nirvana than it does to the Christian notions of our submission to God as bride, servant, and child. Gone apparently is the Lord Jesus before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess. Gone apparently is the King seated upon the throne of David judging the nations with equity. It is certainly a comforting truth to know that God lowers Himself to be of service to us, but the assertion that the Father is submitted to the Son is nowhere found in Scripture. Likewise, to contend that God is submitted to me in the same way that Jesus is submitted to the Father is to empty the terms "submission" and "authority" of any meaning.
Next week, I will treat the most significant problem I have with The Shack, namely its insufficient portrayal of the nature of the ministry and work of Jesus on behalf of sinful people.
3 comments:
I'm glad to hear your take on this. I've always appreciated your open-mindedness.
I've heard of the book but haven't read it myself. Of those who have read it, I have encountered strong opinions as well.
(Not having read the book, my assessment may be completely off, but I'll give it anyway.)
While I agree with all you've said, Sam, the root problem with all these crappy books that so-called Christians devour is that they all make God no longer God, and that is what most people want. The whole fictional dilemma (the man's daughter being killed) is just one example of The Problem of Evil argument. How can bad things happen if God is all powerful and loving? The success of these books only show how important this question is. In fact it may be The philosophical question. The true answer, that God is most (perhaps even only) concerned with glorifying Himself and that if your daughter is raped and murdered or whatever other horrible thing happens to you or those you love, it is because God will be most glorified by that, is not a very popular answer. So this book, like all the other popular quasi-Christian books make much of man and little of God. And this, just as it was for Adam and Eve, is what we most want, to be our own God.
Great insights Sam. I am a seminary student and I read the book last summer after several close friends recommended it.
My major concerns included: No accounting for God's sovereignty, No hierarchy in the Trinity, an imbalanced view of men and women's fallen nature, No mention of repentance (!) in salvation. Although the term is dated, I believe I would call this book "heresy proper"
The One chapter I found helpful was the one that took place in the cave, where Mack lets go of his anger.
My wife and I went through the most painful phase of our marriage this past fall- and I would not dare seek solace in the pushover god portrayed by The Shack.
By contrast, and with regard to the problem of evil, I found an excellent resource in Spectacular Sins. I found by the end of the book that I was Mack in the cave- but instead of forgiving God for hurting me, I asked His forgiveness for my upward fist-shaking! (A place the Shack would not have led me to.)
-Stephen Carter
Post a Comment