Dangerous Ideas

The Shack is a compelling story of tragedy and restoration. Admittedly, I approached the book skeptically as I’d heard it expressed some un-orthodox views of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I understood the book is fictitious and the author seeks to extend some ideas to those who struggle with a strict religious background, unforgiveness, or tragedy. To this end, The Shack may be successful. The way in which the author gets there is exceedingly unorthodox.

I don’t mind stretching my mind to comprehend things about God. The Shack certainly does that and expresses God’s love, forgiveness, grace, desire to indwell people, and walk in relationship. The last seems to be the strongest point made about God and people; He wants relationship, not religion. Well said.

The Shack opens with Mack, the main character receiving a note from “Papa” who requests he visit “the shack.” The story then spins backward four years to the time when Mack’s youngest daughter, Missy was abducted and murdered by a serial killer. “The shack” is where they found Missy’s clothes; her body had not been discovered. Mack reluctantly returns to the shack, the place of his deepest pain.

Mack is guided by God through a series of conversations to face his pain, forgive his past, and also forgive his greatest offender: Missy’s murderer. The story unfolds nicely and  draws you into itself making you hungry for the next episode. It is a compelling story.

Papa, the name Mack’s wife used for God, meets Mack at the shack. Here’s where things get strange. Papa, who is God the Father, appears to Mack as an African American woman; you can almost hear Oprah’s voice when she talks. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is an ordinary man, not the risen and ascended Jesus of Revelation.

This departure from Biblical imagery is troubling. I understand that the author wished to help people get outside their self constructed boxes of what God is like. This certainly does it, but I’m not sure if something is lost in the translation. This is not the “wheel within a wheel” in Ezekiel. Neither is it the Jesus of Revelation. This is a poor construct by the author.

What makes a book like The Shack difficult to comment on is that it is a fictitious story that also makes statements about reality, especially God. Any time someone leaves the Bible behind and tries to describes God, more than likely you’ll end up in trouble. That God the Father is a loving parent doesn’t elevate God, but lowers Him to humanity. The author’s descriptions of the Holy Spirit represented by an Asian woman does the same thing, no matter how many colors accompany her. It lowers rather than raises an understanding of God.

Then there are the statements that aren’t biblical. Young makes statements that all people are God’s children, that the Trinity became flesh in Jesus and also was on the Cross with him. That is erroneous at best, heretical at the worst.

There are other elements that are simply wrong. As much as The Shack does say, what it doesn’t say is as important. It never mentions why the price Jesus paid is the way to relationship with God. It does mention Jesus’ death but never in relationship to forgiveness of sins. There is never a call for repentance, but a “re-turning.” This seems like a postmodern deconstruction and reconstruction. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, didn’t fall – they turned. And now they must re-turn. It’s sort of like doing a 180. There is no repentance.

The Shack does make “independence” a problem but it is never called sin. You have to give up your independence and allow God to lead you. Well enough, but it doesn’t quite say it like Peter did in Acts 2 or 4. The Shack is touted a one of the most poignant messages in our lifetime. I find that a bit difficult. I mention this because it is nothing like The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis. Nor does it compare with anything allegorical like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Pilgrim’s Progress, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra or That Hideous Strength. The Shack isn’t close to Lewis or Tolkein on one of their bad days.

Here are some quotes from The Shack that are troubling:

Mack: “Why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father?”

Papa: “Well, responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the kitchen, “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 father ins necessary because of the enormity of its absence.” pg 94

Although God as Father is in the Old Testament, it is a revelation brought clearly by Jesus in the New Testament. Only those who receive Jesus and believe in Him have the right to call God their Father. This is not a reaction to man’s sin, but how God determines to reveal Himself. In other words, God would not equally reveal Himself as “Mother” according to the Scripture. Although God is without gender or sex He chose to reveal Himself as Father. What Paul Young wrote in The Shack is not just conjecture, but is fiddling with God’s nature.

“When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created  universe, we now became flesh and blood.” pg 99

This is heresy. God the Son became flesh, The Word became flesh, the Holy Spirit did not, nor did God the Father. It sounds from this that this is confusion of persons in the Trinity – denying they are distinct persons in one Godhead. Some may think this is a “Jesus only” heresy.

Mack gingerly reached out and took the poisonous twig, “ If you had not told me this was safe to touch, would it have poisoned me?”

“Of course! But if I direct you to touch, that is different.” pg 132

This could be considered a violation of natural laws which God only miraculously overrides. This sounds like “voluntarism” that God can do whatever He likes, but doesn’t live out of His essence.

“Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy, being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus,’ it means for your independence to be killed.” – The Jesus character, pg149

Paul exhorted the church to “imitate him as he imitated Christ.” Obviously Jesus is the supreme example of selfless love, submission and obedience. Being a follower is being an imitator. If Jesus is not our example, who is? If the author wished to express that believers ought to let Christ live through them and not follow Him he ought to have demonstrated how this works without imitating Christ.

As far as literary style I’d give The Shack an “A.” As mentioned,  this is a compelling story. In relevance to the Bible I’d give it a C and in theological content I’d give it an F. The Shack as I’ve said is compelling as a story but it goes too far astray from the Scripture and leans more on one’s feelings. God is only love but not wrath. He is forgiveness but not holiness. The Shack doesn’t respect the Scripture but takes a “Joan of Arcadia” approach to God’s person. I can’t recall one Scripture quoted. In fact, only once is the Bible mentioned in a constructive way.

The Shack is a mixture of Bible themes, New Age, Emergent, and Oprah-ology. Perhaps some would consider that to be too harsh. The problem with books that state they are fictitious and then make theological statements is that they bear no responsibility. Because there isn’t an “argument,” there is nothing to formally refute or agree with. Several times I had to wonder if the author was proposing universalism, that everyone will be saved. My conclusion was that I didn’t believe he was, but I couldn’t be clear as neither was the author. Pragmatists will declare how many people are helped by this book. That may be so, but pragmatism is not a test for veracity. One must be careful that this is not proposing “another gospel.” The message of The Shack is warm and fuzzy; that is a sign of the times.

The book may be helpful to people who receive the message of forgiveness and abandon themselves to God. Readers ought to remind themselves that the book is fictitious but makes some theological statements that aren’t true. The troubling part is that some statements are true and others aren’t. This serves only to confuse unsuspecting people.

The Shack has taken on a life of its own. Producers are speaking about making this a movie. Again, this is unfortunate because it creates unbiblical illusions about God. Although it portrays God as approachable, that is both true in one sense and untrue in another. It is true that God is approachable, but not without conditions. The conditions are believing in Jesus as Savior. The Shack gives the impression that there is no distance between humans and God. According to the Scripture the distance is made by sin and must be bridged by Christ and His atoning work. Our culture wants an approachable God without the cross, without the blood of Christ. Cultures may want an approachable God, but Scripture is clear about what the right way is; we can only approach God through the person of Jesus.

The Shack is a good read, a welcoming story. However, it has some pitfalls as I’ve mentioned. I find this to be the most disturbing thing about the book. It’s kind of like running into low clothes lines. My recommendation is to read with caution; enjoy the story but don’t take the theology seriously at all.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Shack", url: "http://www.thomisttacos.com/the-shack" });