This was written in order to be presented to the ministry staff at my church here in Michigan, but I wanted to share it with you all as well.
The Shack
The Shack, the first book written by 53 year old businessman and father of 6, William P. Young, tells the fictional account of Mack Philips’ incredible weekend spent with the Trinity in the hills of the Oregon wilderness. The story follows the emotional healing experience of Mack after his youngest daughter, Missy, is abducted and killed by a serial killer while the family is on a camping trip. Evidence from the crime leads police to an old shack in the woods where they find the bloodied dress of the young girl but no body and no killer. In the years following, Mack is plagued by The Great Sadness until he receives a letter in the mail from “Papa” (Mack’s wife’s name for God) requesting to meet him back at the shack for the weekend. Mack is reluctant but convinces himself to go. Once at the shack, the supernatural begins to happen, and Mack’s healing journey begins.
It only took reading the first few pages to see why the book has been and remains so popular. The story is well written, and the topic of “Where is God in the pain?” resonates in the hearts of believers and unbelievers alike. The book was originally written in 2005 as a story from Young to his children in order to communicate in a creative way much of his own life’s emotional journey. Young’s journey includes being raised as a missionary kid with a “stone-age tribe in New Guinea,” being sexually molested while at a missionary boarding school, and committing adultery with his wife’s best friend. I say all that in order to give a small explanation as to why the story and the author’s story have captivated the hearts of millions of readers.
On the flip side, one significant observation worth pointing out is that in reading the endorsements on the book’s website, I failed to find any endorsement of the book by a credible, orthodox theologian. I did, however, find a news story about the book in USA Today wherein Al Mohler calls the book, “Dangerous” and Mark Driscoll is quoted as telling church members, “If you haven’t read The Shack, don’t!” [1] The rightful outrage concerning The Shack is in regards to it’s theological content. I will mention just a few of the theologically erroneous threads that run through the book.
First, the Trinity consists of an African-American woman (Papa), a Hebrew carpenter (Jesus), and an Asian woman (Sarayu) as the author’s depictions of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit respectively. This depiction promotes goddess worship and is a breaking of the 2nd commandment. Moreover, in the author’s depiction of the Trinity, both the Father and son have scars in the their wrists (95), and Papa says, “I am truly human, in Jesus (201).” As Driscoll rightly points out in his March 30, 2008 sermon on the Trinity, William’s treatment here of the Trinity teaches theological modalism[2] - a heresy refuted in A.D. 263 by Bishop Dionysius.
The second thread of Theological error in The Shack deals with the relationship of Divinity and humanity in Jesus. On page 99, Papa says that Jesus, “has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being (emphasis his).” This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the kenosis passage in Philippians 2. Jesus did draw upon his nature as God when He forgave sins (Luke 5:20), rebuked the wind and waves (Mark 4:39), fed the 5,000 (Mark 6:33-44), and did countless other acts.
A third error concerns the effectiveness of the atonement. Young teaches universalism when Papa says, “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship (225).” Additionally, Sophia (the female personification of Wisdom introduced later in the book) tells Mack, “Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right (169).” According to Matthew 7:13, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, and a host of other passages, not all humans are forgiven and judgment is about destruction.
Lastly, Jesus’ character, makes this startling comment to Mack: “To force my will on you…is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy (145).” This comment ranks right up there with, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Young’s statement would only be true if, for starters, the doctrines of election and irresistible grace weren’t in Scripture and passages like Genesis 9:6; 20:6; Exodus 10:20; and Romans 9:18 didn’t exist. Practically, is it not loving to reach out and grab a child by the arm if they are about to run into a blazing fire? Love does result in imposing one’s will when the other’s best interests are at stake.
These are just some surface observations of some of the major Theologically erroneous themes that run through the book. I would not recommend the book for anybody, regardless of spiritual maturity, and I would echo the words of Mark Driscoll by telling my Junior High students not to read it. The book does contain some solid teaching on a few matters, but one should not need to search the ocean floor for pennies when there is bank on the beach.
4 comments:
Maybe we should take a machete to any copies of the book that we find. I guess that would be...
...wait for it...
...Hack-the-Shack.
Thanks for the review. Did you happen to read challies' review?
Hi Kevin!
I have also read the Shack and so was curious to see your perspective. I found you made some interesting points but if your argument were to be presented to those in support of the Shack I see some areas where you might be able to "strenthen" your comments.
1. You mention a brief history of the author including a "moral" failure. But then you also quote Mark Driscoll. What sin issues has Mark dealt with in his life? Should I applaud a person for being public with his sin issues? Or should I support those who don't mention where they have experienced God's forgiveness? I realize Mr. Young's history is more relavant to his story but you could read the story without knowing his background and it wouldn't change the story.
2. You didn't find any endorsements from a credible, orthodox theologian. I have been reading Janette Oke and other "Christian" fiction authors for years. They never have the type of endorsement you mention. Normally only non-fiction books have that endorsement. Why is important to have it with the Shack?
3. Marv had read an interview where the author described why he portrayed two parts of the trinity as a woman (in part based on his life story with men). You mention goddess worship. Does the author promote the fact that God is a female? I was under the impression that he used that as an attention grabber and "comfort" to those who struggle with a benevolent male figure in their lives.
4. I understand your "grabbing the child out of fire" scenario. But imposing your love will doesn't always work. Otherwise parents wouldn't have rebellious children - they would force them to be nonrebellious. We know that isn't what happens when a child is outwardly obedient but seething inside. How else could you describe that love does result in imposing one's will?
5. And then one final challenge - did you read the Shack before reading Mark Driscoll's concerns about the book. Did you already have arguments against the book? And why did you read a fiction book with the purpose of critiquing it from a theological point of view? Have you done the same with other popular Christian books such as the Chronicles of Narnia, The Pilgrim's Progess, etc?
Anyway, those were some thoughts I had when reading your comments. I know your comments weren't meant to be all inclusive. These were just things I thought of when processing your thoughts :-)
Thanks for the honest comments. I'll give a response to each comment and then maybe throw in some free stuff at the end.
1. I did not include Young's moral failure in an effort to discredit him. If anything, Young's past moral failure gives him more credibility in relating to issues of emotional pain. I simply included it in my brief bio of him because it was THE major turning point in his life (according to an interview I watched on www.722.org) and the pastors for whom I'm writing the critique know nothing about the author. And yes, I agree with you and I praise God for Young's repentance and for the forgiveness God extends.
2. While other Christian fiction books do not have the endorsements, they also are not subject to such public opposition from Christian “leaders.” Very few fiction books attempt to get as deep into the issues as The Shack does, so I credit Young for his honest attempt, but deep does not mean accurate. Christians must stand for the truth of Scripture, and when heretical or unbiblical teaching in the name of Christianity, whether it be implicit or explicit, rises to national popularity, Christians must speak up.
3. I wish I could have gone more in depth with this critique, but I was trying to keep the critique to a page and a half so I had rest my case without giving sufficient evidence to support the claim. Uncle Marv is correct in his comments, and I believe I briefly heard a similar interview on a radio program I heard while driving to the library one day. As young presents in his book, God is neither male or female as we know it here on earth. God created man in His image, both male and female. This might be, in part why Young’s breaking of the 2nd commandment (making a graven image: presenting God in such a way as is not found in Scripture [but is comfortable for our liking]. God does not have a body, but is spirit – John 4. Breaking the 2nd commandment also includes adding or detracting from the character of God as to present Him morally or personally different than He portrays Himself.) is the foundation for his error in presenting God in a female body. This also would be true of those who present God the Father as an old man, a Zeus look-a-like, a hunter with a goatee and a flannel shirt, or any other fashion not seen in Scripture. God is a God who speaks. He is not a God that is seen, touched, smelled, or tasted. He is heard. No one has seen the Father except the other members of the Trinity. Even in visions of heaven, God the Father is never seen. In regards to the female presentation of God, God never refers to Himself as mother. God is Father. Scripture, written by God, refers to Himself as a “He.” Israel and the church are presented the “she’s” in the relationship. God is very intentional in communicating himself in masculine terms. A God who is seen as Female is not God, but a goddess. Not exclusively, but just as much goddess as god. This whole issue is avoided by sticking with how Scripture presents God, and not breaking the 2nd commandment. Lastly, God presents himself as the perfect Father. Just because humanity suffers from such poor fathering (as I believe is the point trying to be made by Young when he discusses this in the book), God does not abandon His Fathering role but rather teaches how He is the perfect Father. Where earthly fathers fall short and abandon their God-given task, God never falls short and will never stop being a Father.
4. Loving imposing one’s will might not always “work” but it is nonetheless still loving. The results do not discredit the motives or rob the action of its moral goodness. Additionally, there is a time and a place to impose ones will “when the other’s best interests are at stake.” Sometimes, what is best is to let the other person walk in their folly hoping that the kindness of the Lord will lead them to repentance. Disciplining a child is imposing the parent’s will on the child. No child “wills” to be spanked at the time, but in the best interest of the child, a good whoopin’ is often necessary. The child might “will” to run into a fire, but true love steps in and says, “You do not understand what is best for you right now. I do. I am older and wiser and know what will happen if you run into that fire. Therefore I will impose my will on you and grab your arm to save you from inevitable doom.”
5. I heard about the book when Mark Driscoll talked about it in his message on the Trinity. Therefore, my first exposure to the book was hearing a brief, but harsh critique of it’s teaching of Theological modalism, (the quote “I am human, in Jesus” was Mark’s quote of choice) goddess worship, and the corresponding breaking of the 2nd commandment. After hearing about the book, I began to see it all over the place at bookstores so I decided to read the book in order to form an honest opinion, rather than taking someone else’s word for it. I did not read any other critiques, and still have not, with the exception of the USA Today article I found online. (The article address the idea of controversy behind the books but contains no specific critiques as I recall.) I did go into the book with skepticism but also an open mind to the rest of what it had to say. Like I said, I only knew about God being a woman and a quote teaching modalism.
I did not read The Shack with the intent of writing a critique. I read it because of its current popularity and in order to form my own opinions and not argue from second-hand knowledge of the book. I have not read many or written any critiques of other Christian fiction books because I don’t read much fiction these days. Also, there doesn’t seem to be a vibe of controversy surrounding many of the Christian classics (Narnia, Pilgrim’s Progess), at least that I’m aware of. While reading The Shack, I asked friends if they had read the book but none of them had, and then the Pastor asked me to write a critique of the book and present it to the staff next Monday, therefore you have read my first ever book critique.
See Douglas Wilson's critique here.
Post a Comment