"The Shack" by William P. Young

There is perhaps no book within the last few months that has released such a firestorm of discussion as The Shack by William P. Young. As I write this review, the book is #12 on Amazon's bestsellers list and is maintaining a rating of nearly five-stars. To date, 388 reviews have been recorded with a majority, obviously, being positive. The noteworthy thing about The Shack is not the fact that it is receiving such positive reviews; the nature of those reviews is what is remarkable.  As I scanned the reviews at Amazon.com, I was amazed to see the number of people who commented that this book has transformed their lives, renewed their belief in God, made them wish they had not wasted money on seminary, and so on. To give you an idea of the high praise The Shack is receiving, the front cover features an endorsement by Eugene Peterson which says, "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!"
I do not try to in any way to read the mind of John Bunyan, but as you will hopefully see through the course of this review, I believe he would hardly be excited to have that analogy drawn.

It is appropriate at this juncture to say a few words about the author's intent. When dealing with theological fiction, as Tim Challies noted in his review, "...because of the limitations of the genre, it is sometimes difficult to really know what an author means by what he says. There is often some questions as to what comes from the author and what comes from the characters." This word is very important when reading The Shack. Also, a lot of people whom I know and have read this book often comment that it was a very "emotional experience" to read this book and that it left them "crying with each turn of the page." It is difficult when one gets caught up into a good book to discern appropriately what is worthy of keeping and that which deserves to be tossed aside. This is especially difficult in the case of The Shack. As Christians, we must discern our Truth from Scripture and reject anything that would contradict or call into question that which we know to be true from our final source of authority - the Bible. We must recall continually to our minds that we are to test everything and hold on to what is good. Some have stated that this book is simply a work of fiction and should be read as such. Young did, indeed, write this book for his own children and, he says, never really intended for it to be published. Yet, he did write it as a teaching tool for his children to better understand God as he had come to know him, so it is only fair to examine and critique the theology and the implications that must be drawn from that particular theology as one reads the book. Again, in the words of Tim Challies, "Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains. The book's reviews focus not on the quality of the story but on tis spiritual or emotional impact...This story is meant to teach theology that Young really believes to be true. The story is a wrapper for the theology." Please understand that I do not desire to demean Mr. Young as an individual but simply desire to compare what he says through the characters in The Shack to what the Scriptures clearly teach. With that being said, let's turn our attention to the content of the book.

The Shack is a story that revolves around Mack (Mackenzie) Philips. A little less than four years before the story begins, the Philips' youngest daughter, six-year-old Missy, was abducted while on a family camping trip. Though Missy's body was never found, police found sufficient evidence within an old to conclude that she had been brutally attacked and murdered by a serial murderer who preyed on young girls in similar environments. Mack, who has been living in the midst of his Great Sadness receives an unmarked envelope in the mailbox, apparently from God. The short, typewritten letter simply invites Mack to come back to the shack, the scene of the crime that has destroyed his family. As Mack approaches the door to the abandoned shack, he goes back and forth about what he should do when the door is opened and, presumably, God answers. The internal dialog goes like this:

Should he call him Father, or Almighty One, or perhaps Mr. God, and would it be best if he fell down and worshiped, not that he was really in the mood.

As he tried to establish some inner mental balance, the anger that he thought had so recently died inside him began to emerge. No longer concerned or caring about what to call God and energized by his ire, he walked up to the door. Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman.

No, you did not misread that last phrase. God the Father ("Papa" as he/she is referred to in the book) is represented in the personage of an African-American woman. We come to understand through the story that this is the manner in which God has chosen to reveal herself to Mack in order to communicate with him effectively. Near the end of the story, because Mack requires a more fatherly-figure, she turns into a gray-haired, pony-tailed man. Aside from that one instance late in the book, however, God the Father is this woman. Jesus is represented as a Middle-Eastern descent with a big-nose and a rather unassuming appearance and the Holy Spirit is played by Sarayu, a woman of Asian descent.

As the story surrounds the tragic loss of Mack's youngest daughter and the depression and guilt that he feels over the incident, all of the theological portions of the book, too, surround this very issue in the character's life. The Shack is not a book full of only negative statements about God, so let's look at some of the positive elements. Young affirms the nature of evil and that it can only exist in relation to what is good. He rightly asserts that we can trust God completely only when we believe Him to be good and have our best interest at heart. The book does a good job of emphasizing the community and unity that exists within the Trinity, and the example that is to set for us in terms of our relationships. Young emphasizes, rightly I believe, that true life is only found with freedom in Christ. And, lastly, the author gives a beautiful picture throughout the book of the intimacy God desires with His children. Sadly, that is about where the positive aspects of The Shack end, and those aspects are very quick points within the book as a whole. Most of the book is spent looking at the relationship of the Trinity. Though, as I said, Young does a good job of pointing out the communal and relational nature of the Trinity and the impact that is to have on our lives with others, the majority of the book reveals all too troubling aspects of Young's theology concerning the godhead. Let's begin the negative critique, though, by examining the author's apparent low view of Scripture and knowledge that can be gleaned from its pages.

On page 63, the author remarks, 

In seminary [Mack is a seminary graduate] he 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 intellengentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?

It is evident in this quotation that the author's view of Scripture and the knowledge of God contained within it is barely worth the pages it is printed on.

Perhaps the most blaring deficiency in the book, among the many others that will be discussed, is the fact that God the Father is personified as an African-American woman. What is disturbing is not that the Father is represented as a woman, but that the author attempts to represent the invisible God as visible. God, according to the Scripture, is neither male nor female in the individual sense of the term. God the Father is, in fact, spirit and does not have flesh and bone as we do. Scripture is also clear, however, that we are to relate to God as Father, not mother. As Mark Driscoll says, this would amount to "goddess" worship, not Christian worship of the God of the Bible.

The book very clearly focuses on the Trinity as a means of communicating the love of God to Mack during his time of sadness. Though this is admirable, it is nonetheless heretical in the way that it speaks of the godhead. For instance, speaking of Christ's death on the cross, Papa tells Mack on page 94, "We were there together." When Mack questions "Papa" about the fact that Jesus cried about when the Father turned away, not able to look upon the sin that was upon him, "Papa" responds, "You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him." So, I guess, once again, Scripture is not to be trusted. On page 976, speaking of the Incarnation, "Papa" says "...instead of scrapping the whole Creation we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess - that's what we have done in Jesus." That sounds great, but again, try to make the line up with Scripture. The godhead did not become flesh and dwell among us -- Jesus, God the Son, took on that task! According to "Papa," Jesus did not even have power within himself to perform miracles (pp. 98-99). In this particular exchange, "Papa" says Jesus is simply the first to live fully out his relationship with Papa, something that we all have the ability to do, but choose not to do so. The author appears to be, in this exchange, likening Jesus to the likes of Buddha, being a fully enlightened human as a result of living in full communion with God. Additionally, according to "Papa," there is not hierarchy within the Trinity. On page 121, "Papa" says,

...we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because w are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.

This is great news to those who desire no authority in their lives. The Scriptures are clear that a hierarchy exists within the Trinity. Though we know and recognize that all three are equally and fully God, there is nevertheless a clear indication of hierarchy among the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus says that the Father has sent him; Jesus clearly sends the Spirit; Jesus states that he does not know when the end will come, and that only the Father knows such information. Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane for the Father to allow the cup to pass, but submits to the will of the Father and goes to the cross. These, along with others, are clear example of hierarchy among the Trinity. Speaking of submission, Jesus (in the book) says,

We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu 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.

Did you catch that? The godhead is submitted to us? According to the author, this is apparently the God that he serves. Jesus (in the book) continues by saying, "I don't want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me." The Scriptures are clear through the Pauline epistles, along with Christ's own words in the Gospels, that we are to be slaves and servants to the will of God, not merely "buddies" who are walking along life's path with him. We are to be submitted to the death to his glory and purpose in our lives. Not so if you follow the example of The Shack. If this example of submission is to be followed, the entire structure of the family as is laid out in Scripture crumbles. Fathers are no longer responsible for the spiritual lives of the families or the overall leadership within the home. Suddenly, egalitarianism is the proper model for the family, regardless of what is taught within the Bible.

Salvation is another topic that is broached rather quickly within the pages of The Shack. On page 109, Jesus (in the book), in talking to Mack about salvation, says "I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu. To see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you." This would have been a great opportunity for the author to clear up any ideas or misconceptions that he might be rejecting the exclusivity of Christ and holding on to at least this tiny sliver of orthodoxy. Instead, we see that according to Jesus, he is only the best way. In another portion of the book where, again, Jesus is speaking with Mack, he says the following in relation to what it means to be Christian. He [Jesus] says,

Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. 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.

Does that mean, asked Mack, that all roads will lead to you?

Not at all, smiled Jesus...Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.

According to this text, God will use any means necessary to draw you to himself, but does not desire for you to leave that particular system? If you're a Muslim, you can remain a Muslim. He has "no desire to make them a Christian." In other words, He has no desire to make them conform to the stuffy rules and regulations we find in Scripture. And, a last thought on the issue of salvation found in The Shack, "Papa" tells Mack, when he asks about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, "...through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world." When Mack tries to clarify that "Papa" means those who will believe in God, "Papa" responds, "The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is the reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally." Whether Young espouses Universalism is unclear, but statements such as this definitely leave the door open for such a possibility. According to "Papa," God is already reconciled to the world, regardless of how those in the world choose to respond. Elsewhere in the book, Papa makes another similar statement, saying that "In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship." It's difficult to tell if the author is saying that relationship is equivalent to salvation, but, again, this statement does little to clear up the enigma.

This leads into the next point of contention within The Shack. Mack must come, according to "Papa," to a place where he is able to forgive the man who gruesomely abused and murdered his youngest daughter, Missy. "Papa" says, "Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him." Since when does God need me to forgive someone who has wronged before He is able to redeem that individual? God is not bound by my actions in regards to the redemption of another soul! If God sees fit to save that individual, they will be saved, regardless of my heart toward that person.

In terms of the holiness and righteousness of God, The Shack again fall short. On page 119, "Papa" tells Mack, "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." In this view, God doesn't have a need to punish sin, but takes great joy in curing it. Again, there is no real clarity on the author's view of a literal place the Bible calls Hell, but this statement surely calls his belief in such a place into question. The holiness and righteousness of God simply has no place in The Shack.

Another troubling aspect is when Jesus tells Mack, "...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." So much for trying to live our lives by the example set by Christ. Additionally, Young seems to view God as being captive to our free will. Papa explains to Mack, "there was no way to create freedom without a cost." Somehow, in the view of Young, God is limited because of our free will. Our freedom "costs" him something, as though God is lacking if we do not choose to follow Him. God is always sovereign over the free will of men, regardless of whether we understand this concept or not. As Tim Challies so aptly stated, "Our inability to understand how this can be does not preclude us from the responsibility of believing it." Well said.

I want to be clear that I am all about God being present in our difficulties and comforting us in our time of need. On this point, I agree with Young. That is where my agreement ends, though. God has revealed Himself to us through His Son, Jesus Christ, through the Incarnation, and continues to reveal Himself to us daily through His Word. When in pain, we turn to Him as He is revealed through the Scripture. When you encounter someone in pain and who needs to experience God, point them to the God of the Bible. The last thing someone in pain and desperation needs is a God made in their own likeness or a God who is what they "perceive" would best suit them. What we all need, particularly those who are broken, bruised, and battered as Mack was in The Shack, is a God who is sovereign and Lord over all. We find that God in the Bible, revealed to us as often as we dare seek Him out through it's glorious pages. Where you will not find this God is in The Shack. The book is not worth your time or your money, and it is definitely not worth the risk that many are taking in being led down a path of heretical teaching on one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith: the Trinity.

 

Comments

[Keith Walters]

Tim,
Thanks for the fantastic review . . . I will think about it and comment more later but I wanted to let you know that I will be linking this up over at Ignite.

[JTapp]

I heard Mark Driscoll do a brief review of it in a recent sermon on the Trinity. He used it as an example of the heresy of modalism.

[Tim Morrison]

I heard that same sermon, Justin. Great sermon on the Trinity.

[Keith Walters]

"Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours."

Our problem is not hierarchy but our rebellion against it and abuse of it. As the image bearers of God hierarchy is essential to our nature because it is essential to His, a fact also seen as God has created a hierarchical structure even among the angels.