| A review of William P. Young's, The Shack. The success of The Shack is an inspiring tale in and of itself – the sort of story that will perhaps inspire a book itself in the near future! William Young wrote the book as a personal project and after unsuccessfully shopping it to the major Christian Publishers, decided to publish it himself. With an initial budget of $300 for marketing, the fact that there are over 4 million copies of The Shack in print is nothing short of remarkable! Judging by the multiple enthusiastic customer reviews on websites like Amazon.com and Christianbook.com that promise to “...give a copy to everyone I know for Christmas”, it is inevitable that The Shack is once again destined to be a subject of conversation this holiday season. I have read the book multiple times now and hope to add my voice to the conversation surrounding this book. 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 reviews that have been written about it in the customer comment sections of Amazon.com. 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. 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. 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. 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 perhaps 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 Christian living 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 sometimes takes a long time and 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.
|
