Thursday, November 30, 2023

What Does the Bible Say about Modern Israel?

With recent events in the Middle East, we are seeing diverse reactions among Christians related to the modern nation called Israel.  While many of these reactions are made confidently and enthusiastically, they also include diverse forms of confusion regarding what the Bible really has to say about the modern Israeli state. 

In reality, Scripture says nothing at all about the modern Israeli state.  Instead, the perspective of Scripture, and of the first 19 centuries of Christian theologians, was that Israel was always the Church, and the Church has always been Israel.  This isn’t some sort of “replacement theology,” as some would accuse, because this does not assert that one has replaced the other, but that since the moment God called Abraham in Genesis, they have been one in the same. 

The message of the entire book of Hebrews is that the temple, priesthood, law, and nation of Israel were all pointing us forward to Jesus, and are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, and the book of Romans repeatedly shows that ancestry creates no special status with God, and it is trust in Jesus which saves even those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God’s people are those who trust in Jesus, whether they do so beforehand, in anticipation of His coming, or by trusting in the accomplished fact of His death and resurrection, regardless of ancestry or geography. 

For a finite time, a particular geographic location and ancestry largely characterized God’s people, but even during that time their land and genealogy were not exclusive.  Consider the example of Old Testament saints like Rahab and Ruth or the Israelites who were scattered across nations while still hoping in the coming Savior.  Consider that at the time of Elijah, God says that there were only 7000 among them (those who had not given in to idolatry) who were His people, or the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, British, and others who ruled that land between the time of Jeremiah the prophet and the present day. 

It was only in the 1840s that a man named John Nelson Darby first invented the idea that the end times involved a restored earthly nation in that land.  When a nation sharing the name and location of Israel was founded in the wake of World War II, followers of his new teaching began to spread the idea that it was coming into fulfillment. 

Whatever good reasons, from geopolitical strategy to mercy for those harmed by war, we might have for supporting this earthly nation, let us not be deceived by this only 150 year old notion that there is any spiritual or eschatological significance divinely associated with our secular ally who is currently under attack. 

Thursday, April 21, 2022

Easter - Ascension - Pentecost

 

Now that Resurrection Sunday has concluded, the average person probably thinks to the civic holidays of Summer (Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day) as the next highlights on the calendar, and Christmas as the next big religious event.  However, for the historic Church, the day that we English-speakers call Easter was really just the beginning of about 2 months of feasts and festivals remembering major events in the post-Resurrection life of Jesus and the birth of the Christian Church. 

 

We just began to celebrate the historic fact that after Jesus died on Friday afternoon, He rose to life again on Sunday morning, because Easter Sunday actually serves as merely the kick-off to an eight-week celebration of the Resurrection.  The 8 weeks represent the “8th Day” of the New Creation which is promised in Scripture and initiated in the resurrection of Jesus, and many of the readings for these Sundays show the events in which Jesus appeared to his disciples (Luke 24, John 20-21), other eyewitnesses, and even a crowd of hundreds (1 Corinthians 15)

40 days into this Easter season is the Feast of the Ascension, observing the day 40 days after the Resurrection when, while Jesus was talking with His disciples, Jesus began to be lifted up, and a cloud hid Him from the sight of the disciples.  Other New Testament passages speak of Jesus as presently being ascended into Heaven and that He is “seated at the right hand of God the Father…” as Christians confess in the Apostles’ Creed. 

 

Finally, on the 50th day after the Resurrection, the disciples appeared in Jerusalem, proclaiming the resurrected Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy in a miraculous event where they were understood by pilgrims of numerous languages and homelands, marking the birth of Church by the Baptism of 3000 people, which is celebrated by Christians as Pentecost. 

 

Before Jesus died, He had promised His disciples that after He had risen, He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of the things He had said (John 14-16), and just before He ascended, He again promised to send the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:8).  Through the Church, born on Pentecost, He fulfills these promises, which the rest of the New Testament urges us to seek out in the proclamation of Scripture, in Baptism, and in the Lord’s Supper, occurring in the gathering of other Christians, and through which the Holy Spirit causes people to trust in Jesus. 

Thanks be to God for this rich observance of our Lord’s resurrected life in the heritage of the Church, which we continue to receive, even nearly 20 centuries after the original events.

Thursday, December 30, 2021

"...in Jesus' name"

 

Under the Old Testament law, infant boys were commanded to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth.  It was also custom that they would formally be named at the time of their circumcision.  Because of this, the Church Year observes the Feast of the “Circumcision and Name of Jesus” on January 1 (or the evening of December 31), which is the 8th day after we celebrate His birth on Christmas. 

 

In the Gospels, the adult Jesus frequently speaks of those who trust in Him doing things such as praying, preaching, gathering, and other actions “in my name,” and the epistles will also speak frequently of the name of Jesus.  In light of this, we English speakers might hastily jump to the conclusion that there is some spiritual power to be exercised simply by speaking the syllables of the name Jesus in these settings. 

 

Jesus, however, is promising something far greater than this.  In the Old Testament we frequently see the phrase “Name of the Lord” used.  That name is the one given to Moses at the Burning Bush—YHWH, or as we sometimes see it in English, “I am.”  In light of the commandment not to misuse the Lord’s name, the people of Israel eventually came to never speak it out loud and would instead substitute “Adonai” (which means Lord) or “Ha-shem” (the Hebrew words for “the Name”) when reading it out loud.  Later in the New Testament, St. Paul will proclaim the simple creed, “Jesus is Lord.”  In saying that, Paul is not making the assertion that Jesus is simply our master, but rather that “Jesus is YHWH”, eternal God with the Father. 

 

So Jesus is promising something far greater than the ability to use His name as a magical incantation or to assure our prayers are heard simply because we concluded them with a formula including His name.  After all, if this were the case, we would have the trouble of figuring out whether we should go back to the Hebrew Yeshua, its English equivalent Joshua, or the Greek Iesus or whether it’s ok to use the anglicized rendering Jesus. 

 

Instead, Jesus and St. Paul are assuring those who hear and read these promises that those who rely on Jesus are relying on God Himself, and those who trust in the promises of Jesus are trusting the promises of the Triune God Himself—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  As a result, those who pray trusting in Jesus have access to YHWH Himself, and those who gather around the proclamation of Jesus are proclaiming and receiving the same God who is their creator, who took on human flesh to be our Savior, and who still comes today in His Word and Sacraments. 

Thursday, October 7, 2021

"...know that I am the Lord."

 “You will know that I am the Lord”


God stating that someone will “…know that [He is] the Lord”  is a familiar refrain for those who read the Bible even casually.  Chances are that this language probably brings to mind a picture of God’s vengeance for most who hear it.  In fact, the most famous cultural reference to this Biblical phrase comes from a movie almost 30 years ago where one of the main characters, a hitman, paraphrases Ezekiel 25:17 as the last words his victims hear before death, saying, “And I will I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger…  and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!”

 

The Old Testament speaks of those who will “know that I am the Lord” 88 times.  Mostly in Ezekiel and Exodus.  In a few cases, such as the prophesy against Philistia quoted above, and the promises to defeat Pharoah in Exodus, these words are a reference to the defeated knowing God’s vengeance.  However, it is more commonly a sign of God’s mercy and rescue for His people instead.

 

Sometimes it is Israel knowing that He is the Lord.  Other times it is the nations knowing that He is the Lord, so that they might turn to trust in Him, when they witness Israel being rescued.  Never, though, is it merely directed vengeance executed for its own sake, nor is he achieving victory for His own sake.  Instead, whoever is to know that He is the Lord, it is in the act of rescuing His people, and His victory is on their behalf.  In His rescue of those He has chosen, He is known. 

 

The ultimate victory in which He is known is in the cross and resurrection of Jesus.  While we might long for the kind of the displays Israel repeatedly witnessed throughout her history by which the Lord was made known, those served only to foreshadow the greater rescue which He would achieve in the cross of Christ and greater victory which would be displayed when Jesus rose from the dead.  That greatest victory is the foundation upon which all truth is built, and the assurance that God will rescue all who rely on Him from the penalty for sin and give them instead the eternal, resurrected life which is promised to all who trust in Jesus.

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Heritage and Truth

 

It would probably be safe to conclude that everyone agrees that the church should have a concern for truth.  Our history in the English-speaking world, not to mention some modern-day yard sign battles, might indicate a divergence about what that truth consists of, but that divergence actually highlights the common understanding that the church is concerned with truth. 

 

At one time, it was also commonly understood that the church had a concern for heritage.  Some might see the term tradition, when referring to this heritage, as derogatory, but the term as used in Scripture simply means that which has been handed down.  It was used to refer to the teaching of the apostles, as it was handed down to their students, and as they recorded it in their writings, but it also referred to the heritage of the way they conducted themselves as the church gathered. 

 

In fact, the apostles had such reverence for what had been handed down that they retained many practices from the synagogue as they began to gather around preaching and the Sacraments after Pentecost.  If your congregation follows a Church Year (whether just Christmas and Easter or a fuller calendar), if you hear a series of three readings on Sunday, or if you sing a canticle in the Communion liturgy called the Sanctus, which begins with the words “Holy, holy, holy” from Isaiah 6, these are just a few examples where you witness elements which go back not just to the apostles, but which they and Jesus would have experienced in the synagogue during Jesus’ earthly ministry. 

 

At the time of the Reformation, the question of how to handle this heritage emerged.  Some advocated keeping what was handed down to them, only editing where necessary to remove error that had arisen, while others chose to build new forms and orders, after which later generations of those streams largely repeated the effort. 

Advocates for constant novelty in the church often have good intentions, seeking to avoid thoughtless repetition and encourage sincere expression, but notice how unique this is in human experience.  Opening ceremonies of sporting events, the awarding of Olympic medals, academic graduations, never face such accusations, but rather we largely embrace what has been handed down because it teaches and assimilates those who observe and engage in the event.  How much more appropriate when that tradition carries eternal truth to those who participate!

 


Thursday, July 15, 2021

The Vocation of Matryoshka

 

Several weeks ago, as St. Peter’s and a number of other congregations in greater Grand Rapids joined forces to raise funds to support a seminary in Siberia, we had a number of Russian Matryoshka dolls that we would sometimes give to donors or volunteers.  Having a genuine Matryoshka doll in hand for the first time caused me to recall an illustration I had frequently used them to make while teaching in the past.

 

That is that the various roles we serve in human life, also known as vocation, serve to reveal insights into the relationship between our Creator and humanity.  The clearest instance of this is in marriage as Paul describes in Ephesians 5, saying, “…it refers to Christ and the Church,” and another frequent and familiar example is the reference to God as Father.  The roles we hold in family, church, and society are all variations which reveal to us facets of the truth about how our Lord relates to us. 

 

So we see in the relationship between husband and wife an icon of Christ and His Church.  Just like Christ does not die for Himself and the Church does not worship herself, a husband is united to a wife in marriage.  In the life of the church, pastors represent the Lord Himself as they baptize, absolve, and commune the gathered Church, which is collectively Christ’s bride.  Pastors serve as spiritual fathers in their roles, and the Church herself is routinely referenced in the history of Christian thought as the mother of Christians.  For example, 3rd Century bishop Cyprian of Carthage wrote that one cannot have God as His Father without the Church as his mother. 

 

Likewise, the relationship between father and child, brother and sister, ruler and subject, master and servant (or employer and employee), or manager and property serve to reveal other facets of how God and man relate.  We see these and many other examples sprinkled throughout the writings of the prophets, and we see them vividly portrayed in the parables of Jesus.  Viewed together, they nest into one another like the Matryoshka, to jointly reveal to us the greater reality of our Creator and Redeemer who desires to forgive sin, preserve the world in order, and ultimately restore His creation to its uncorrupted state on the Last Day, which Scripture commonly portrays as the wedding feast between Christ and His bride the Church. 

 

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Christians Mark Time Differently

 

Just a couple weeks ago, we celebrated Easter.  Of course, we in the English-speaking world are the only ones who use this term, or anything like it.  The ancient Church, and present day Christians of other languages use some variation on the term Passover or Resurrection to refer to the day of celebrating Jesus’ rising from death.  This is because the day celebrates more than a mere season, but an event that occurred in real time and space, and that event is the anchor of a way of marking time completely different than that of the surrounding world.  Much like the future eternal life of the Christian is one that will be lived out in space and matter, the present life of the Church is also one marked within time and space, rather than one which disregards these material facets of our existence. 

 

Days like Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Memorial Day, and Super Bowl Sunday are not a part of this calendar, since those are national holidays, unique to the United States.  Instead, this includes seasons like Advent, Epiphany, or Lent, and festivals like Pentecost, Ascension, and All Saints.  The resurrection is the anchor point of this calendar, as both the oldest and most significant event it contains.  Leading up to Resurrection Sunday is a series of seasons and festivals related to the life of Jesus, and following the 8-week festival of the Resurrection continues with a time that reflects on the teachings of Jesus and the life of the Church as it awaits his return.

 

This way of marking time was so prominent in the lives of Christians that during many centuries of church history, they did not date their letters and speeches with the Gregorian dates we presently see uniformly used, like March 25, 2021, Instead, they would use a reference to the church year, such as “Fifth Sunday in Lent, AD 2021” or “Thursday of Pentecost 12, AD 2021.”  When we understand time in such a way, and revolving around the life of Jesus, we also live, knowing that our future is in His hands, and free from the anxiety of carefully watching the world’s dangers and disasters, or and living by its time and its fears, but knowing with certainty what is prayed during the Easter Vigil: 

 

“Christ Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and forever, the beginning and the ending, the Alpha and the Omega.  His are time and eternity; His are the glory and dominion, now and forever.  By His wounds we have healing both now and forever…  May the light of Christ, who is risen in glory from the dead, scatter all the darkness of our hearts and minds… Amen.”

 

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Soul Doctor

 

This week marks the one year anniversary since everyone’s life changed in the name of protecting the body from infection.  We have changed behaviors, adjusted our distance in relation to one another, added precautions and barriers of various kinds, and so much more in order to care for the body. 

For a few centuries now, our culture has been conditioned to see the material aspect of our existence (the body) from the immaterial aspect of our existence (whether one wants to speak of the mind, the soul, the spirit, or some combination of the above).  It’s not that novel an idea, as it also can be seen in some of the Greek philosophers and other ancient thinkers.  However, it is novel in terms of a Biblical understanding of humanity and in terms of being introduced to a Christian worldview. 

 

Scripture doesn’t deal with humans as if the material body were incidental to the real person who is immaterial, and it doesn’t treat these material and immaterial aspects as if they were isolated entities with isolated needs.  Instead, it deals with people as an integrated whole.  One of these aspects cannot act apart from the other and one cannot be affected apart from the other. 


Medical science had even begun increasingly acknowledge (at least until the pandemic status descended upon us) that their efforts to heal the body are not entirely separated from what is going on in the thoughts and spiritual life of the patient.  This is something that had been a core part of the Church’s understanding of pastoral care, and Scripture even recognizes it as it speaks of the “soul,” which is not understood in Biblical literature to refer to the immaterial aspect of a human person, but rather should be translated as “self” or another term that includes the whole person.  At the time of Reformation it was even common to refer to pastors with a word that translates to “soul-curer” or “soul doctor.”

 

As we look back in hindsight, we will undoubtedly recognize that our protection of the body was undertaken with the false perception that I began with, which seeks to protect the body without regard for the whole person.  As we are beginning to see risk decline and people perceive formerly-normal activities as safe, it will be the task of churches to discern how they might correct the damage done by the widespread neglect of the whole soul this past year, and the task of Christians to work with their soul doctors to remedy the injuries they may have suffered and prepare a plan for whole-person soul-care in the future. 

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Safety, Beauty, and the Image of God

 

During the past year, nearly all of us have experienced a simplification of our lives.  Family schedules that were a frenzy of activity between school, recreation, extra-curricular activities, extended family, and various tasks for care of health and household business.  Even for those who did not experience the generous amount of down time others did, because their careers actually intensified, their time became more focused on that task as these other obligations became unavailable or unadvisable. 

 

While I know many have found that simplification beneficial as an opportunity to consider their priorities, and reorganize accordingly, there is also a loss to be mourned in such circumstances, because intense focus on safety has dramatically curtailed a vital aspect of our human existence, or at least forced us to engage it in unconventional ways.  That vital aspect is the cultivation of human ability through such things as the arts and sport, by which we have the opportunity to express our experience of life or appreciate the display of ability found in others. 

 

Cultures and religions throughout time and across continents have recognized this display as a uniquely human activity, as we are able to reflect on our experience, and hone our performance in a way not found in other creatures.  For Christians, our effort to create in a way that builds beyond mere survival is understood to be a facet of the image of God that is uniquely created in humanity. 

 

As we build, design, perform, and compete, we are exercising ability given by our Creator, and cultivating it in appreciation for His goodness.  As we enjoy the expression and performance of others, we are able to appreciate His design for creation and to be reminded of His gracious provision that exceeds merely sustaining basic life and safety.  Even under the most ideal conditions, when we participate in these displays and disciplines, we may face risk of injury, or even death, in the process, because the experience and opportunity is of such value that we accept that risk. 

 

In an eternal perspective, we also recognize that as St. Paul said, “Whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” (Romans 14:8) The one who creates this ability and desire to exercise it within us is the same one who gives His Son into death to rescue us, and while we may need to exercise caution for a time, we recognize that even those things that are not “essential” are a vital part of our nature to engage.  Knowing this, we grieve at the deprivation of something of great value, and we seek to preserve the framework to engage again while we anticipate the day when our experience of this vital facet of our experience of life will be restored.

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Two Kingdoms (Updated COVID Mandate Edition)

 

In the book of Romans, Paul writes to Christians who are facing a scenario where their religion has been outlawed, and their lives are in danger for their confession of faith.  In chapter 13, he reminds them that all authorities are to be obeyed because they rule at His pleasure.  When describing this teaching of the Bible, Martin Luther describes God as ruling two kingdoms with His two hands.  With His right hand, He rules the Church by grace, and with His left hand, He rules the kingdoms of the world, along with the earthly estates of family and employment, by law, calling Christians to obey those in authority as if rendering obedience to Him.

 

However, one instance when this is not the case is if an earthly authority would command or coerce a Christian to renounce Christ or to sin against God, it is their duty to disobey that command and obey God instead.  The apostle Peter clearly expresses this in Acts 5:29 when he disobeys a sinful command saying, “We must obey God rather than men.”  

 

In the present day, Christians still live in a situation where there may be tension between the commands of God and the laws of the land.  When the secular law allows actions and behaviors which Scripture clearly forbids, Christians can still live according to their own conscience within that law.  In cases where regulations and judicial rulings attempt to restrict the rights of Christians to practice their faith in the public square or demand that they participate in actions their Scripturally-formed conscience cannot permit, they may need to disobey the secular authorities in order to obey God. 

 

Recent mandates and orders have also brought to light another tension for Christians—whether to obey or disobey orders that they believe are not legally legitimate.  Since the United States is not a monarchy, the executive branch (presidents and governors) are not the highest authority, but rather the fourth layer, after the people themselves, delegated through the Constitution, to legislative bodies, whose statutes are enforced by the executive branch.  Christians, even within the same congregation, may disagree about the legitimacy of an order, and that raises the question over how the congregation as a whole will respond. 

 

When this becomes the case, the Church is called to recognize her role as the administrator of the Lord’s gracious gifts, and not the arbiter of its members civic conclusions or the enforcer of mandates whose legitimacy is under question.  Christians who are in agreement regarding their confession of Christ seek a path to ensure the entire congregation, regardless of their level of risk, the degree of their anxiety, or the conclusions regarding civic affairs, are given the opportunity to receive the Lord’s gifts in Word and Sacrament from God’s right hand, while the individual members follow their conscience in addressing those in the sphere governed by His left. 

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Why Gather?

 

For centuries, gathering weekly was an automatic assumption among Christians.  Whether the earliest years of the Church in homes and storefronts before dawn, hiding from persecution, or later in Roman public halls, or the Gothic church buildings of the middle ages, Christians would gather—at times even daily. 

 

Even when the plague killed millions, or in bombed out buildings in the midst of wars, the church still gathered.  Later, once we discovered many diseases resulted from bacteria, viruses, fungus, or parasites, rather than any of a variety of superstitions, they took a couple Sundays off, but rarely, because of the overwhelming pattern of weekly gathering that dates back to the Old Testament, and carried on in Christian practice.  I recall that I was in college before I realized some churches cancelled for snow, because in my hometown in the Thumb, this had never crossed anyone’s mind, and whoever was capable of travelling would attend. 

 

What would cause such determination to gather, even in great danger?  Of course, we have some direct commands in Scripture, like the instruction in Hebrews not to “neglect meeting together, as is the habit of some.”  There’s the Third Commandment (some readers might number it as the 4th), which says to “Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it holy.” Beyond these, though, what explains the answer to this question, which also explains why you see differences between how congregations and denominations approach this, is another question, “why do we gather?”

 

If Christians gather to offer something up to God, such as their prayers and praises, then it makes perfect sense if they’re reluctant to gather when a certain degree of risk comes into play, because that can be done just as well alone with one’s family.  If Christians gather to earn something in a sort of transaction with God, then likewise, they might conclude He would certainly understand if they did it a little differently for a while.  If Christians gather to learn facts about Scripture and be inspired and motivated toward better living, then those purposes can certainly be achieved electronically. 

However, if the Church gathers around something physical, where that Word not only educates but causes the very things it says, and where the main thing is that the Holy Spirit descends in the midst of Baptismal water, and the Lord Himself comes down, bringing Heaven itself with Him, as the body and blood of Christ become present to forgive sins and grant eternal salvation, then the question ceases to be whether to gather, but how, so that we can avoid causing earthly harm, but still be present to receive these gifts beyond value in the Lord’s Word and Sacraments. 

 

Friday, March 10, 2017

The Shack - Revisited

The full-length edition of my book review on The Shack:


A Theological Analysis and Lutheran Response to William Paul Young’s The Shack





The Shack, a novel by William Paul Young, has been an almost universal topic of conversation in the United States in recent months.  As of the writing of this response, it is #1 in paperback fiction on the New York Times Best Seller List as well among the top-selling books on Amazon.com.  This book is probably the most popular topic in religion today, among Christians and non-Christians alike.  Whether one endorses or opposes the views expressed in The Shack, it is hardly possible to be part of the cultural conversation without knowing and understanding the book. 

For the sake of space, I will not retell many details of the book here.  If you have read it, you already know them, and if you have not, I don’t want to decrease your enjoyment of the book, if you do read it, by revealing the whole plot.  The necessary details are that a man named Mack, whose daughter was murdered, receives a note from “Papa” requesting to meet him at the shack where the murder occurred, and when Mack arrives at the shack, he encounters god as the Author portrays him.  The time Mack spends with “god” at the shack takes up 12 of the book’s 18 chapters.  The other 6 “frame” this encounter with the background and conclusion to the story. 

Difficulties of Theological Fiction

One difficulty of giving a theological response to a piece of fictional literature is that there is a degree of interpretation involved before one can even evaluate the positions of the book and its author.  For example, some details of fictional books are not meant to be literal, but are just devices to move the plot along.  This does not make these details neutral, because unwise choices on the part of the author can still lead the reader down false paths if they lend themselves easily to misunderstanding.   Additionally, since, by its nature, a fictional work is not able to be an exhaustive treatment of a theological question, sometimes the author will be silent on a particular point, so we may have inadequate evidence to determine where the book stands on that question. 

Even further, we must examine whose mouth a statement comes from.  This occurs, not just in humanly-authored fiction, but even in Biblical literature.  In the book of Job, Job’s friends make statements that are significantly off-base.  If we were to take these out of context, we might attribute them as actually being Scriptural truth, but if we look at them in context, we find out that they are really only the opinion of the one speaking the statement, and actually express the opposite of the book’s intended message.  We see an example of this in The Shack when Mack is talking to his daughter, Missy, about a Native American legend.  She asks, “Is the Great Spirit another name for God—you know, Jesus’ papa?”  Mack responds by saying, “I would suppose so.  It’s a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great.”  (p. 31) We can’t justly conclude this type of statement to be the position of the book or its author, because it could easily be just the opinion of the character.  On the other hand, when the character making the statement is proposed to be God Himself, there is no other reasonable conclusion than to presume that statement to be the position of the book and the belief of its author.  It is this type of statement which will be used as evidence in the sections which follow.

Bright Moments in The Shack

For those not already familiar with it, The Shack’s picture of God begins with Papa (God the Father) as a large, African-American woman.  (Many readers have compared her to Aunt Jemima.) Jesus is a Middle-eastern man in His mid-thirties. (Sounds pretty accurate)  Sarayu (The Holy Spirit) is portrayed as a small, light-hearted Asian woman.  (I imagine the character to resemble a young, Asian Hippie.) In spite of this bizarre picture of God, I had some moments of hope early on that all the criticism might be just Fundamentalism run amok.  Many dismiss the book immediately upon reading or hearing about this description, but I was prepared to suspend judgment over the non-traditional physical portrayal of God until after I had read what that god actually said, because the author has stated in interviews that this is not meant to be a literal depiction of God.  If what was said was otherwise orthodox, I might have been able to look past the book’s visual description of the persons of the Trinity as a mere metaphor or device of fiction. 

Early on, The Shack seemed to be good reading, and I even encountered several seemingly orthodox statements in the early part of Mack’s conversation with Papa [my reaction in brackets]:

“Mackenzie, the Truth shall set you free and the Truth has a name; he’s over in the wood-shop right now covered in sawdust.  Everything is about him.”  (Papa, p. 95)

[Sounds like a great confession of Jesus.  Even more, in an age where Christian literature seems to properly belong in the self-help section, how often do we see it said that everything is about Jesus?]

“But 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.“ (Papa, p. 99)

[This too sounds like a welcome and all-too-uncommon reference to the Incarnation.]

“We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker.  I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is completely and entirely the one.” (Papa, p. 101)

[Most of this sounds like an orthodox, almost Athanasian, definition of the Trinity.  The last clause was a little unclear to me, but seemed harmless enough at the time.]

“I am fully God, but I am human to the core.  Like I said, it’s Papa’s miracle.” (Jesus, p. 112)

[Wow!  Is it even necessary to comment?]

“You mean,” Mack interjected sarcastically, “that I can’t just ask, ‘What Would Jesus Do’?”  Jesus chuckled, “Good intentions, bad idea.  Let me know how it works for you, if that’s the way you choose to go…my life was not meant to be an example to copy.  Being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus…’” (p. 149)

[This is probably the highlight of the book for me.  What Christian author would have the guts to challenge “WWJD”?  That’s not something you see every day.]


“The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules.  It is a picture of Jesus.” (Papa, p. 197)

[This comes late in the book, but even after having largely seen the book show its hand about God’s identity, this gem still stood out.]

If these statements were the only excerpts one read, and were separated from the remaining material in the book, one might conclude the book to be orthodox, even to a Lutheran.  There are also bright spots in the broader themes of The Shack.  First, it is about God, which is a far cry from much of what is currently being published under the label of Christian literature.  Additionally, the book has a commendable purpose in encouraging people to examine their understanding for misconceptions about God and His nature.  Its central theme seems to be to confront the “problem of evil,” that is, it attempts to help people who experience emotional pain understand God’s purpose in their circumstances and to propose a solution concerning how suffering and tragedies can be reconciled with a God who loves humanity and cares about people.  Addressing this question is certainly a commendable cause, but does the book remain faithful to Biblical Christianity in its attempts to answer this question?

Overstepping the Boundaries

We cannot deny that people, even Christians, hold to many false understandings of God.  One example specifically mentioned by the author of The Shack is a sort of Gandalf-god, where God the Father is a large old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne.  Another false impression of God which is rightly challenged by The Shack is the view that God is an angry dictator in heaven uttering commands and waiting to smite people.  Unfortunately, the principle of questioning one’s conceptions of God is taken far beyond these in the book, even encouraging the reader to question Biblical descriptions of God in favor of what one can be perceived through one’s own emotion and understanding, independent of any scripture or body of believers. 

Likewise, the author goes too far in his attempt at reconciling a loving God with suffering and tragedy by speaking where Scripture has not.  St. John warns in the last verses of Revelation about adding to or taking away from the words of Scripture, and the author of the Shack is culpable of both by attempting to explain the unexplainable concerning the Trinity and by taking away such things as the Law, God’s wrath, punishment for sin, and the authority of Scripture.  In a work of fiction, one can abide with a small amount of license for the sake of advancing the plot or developing a character, but obvious contradiction of Scripture, especially in an alleged work of Christian literature where three of the four main characters are presented as a revelation of God, is well beyond the limits of this license by any standard. 

In the sections which follow, I will first address a few miscellaneous inconsistencies between the worldviews of Scripture and of The Shack, followed by doctrinal difficulties on which all orthodox[1] Christians could agree.  The emphasis will then shift to some particularly Lutheran observations about The Shack’s problems. 

A Strong Foundation? – Biblical Inconsistencies

There is a recurring pattern in The Shack where Mack confronts one of the God characters with a Scriptural teaching or quotation, only to have the God character respond by dismissing the Biblical teaching as a misunderstanding, as if to say, “That’s not what I really meant.”  Not only does this serve to devalue the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God, it also seeks to inspire doubt about important Biblical teachings.  The most obvious example of this technique is when Papa and Mack discuss the crucifixion.

Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly.  Love always leaves a significant mark,” [Papa] stated softly and gently.  “We were there together.
Mack was surprised.  “At the cross?  Now wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’”…
…”You misunderstand the mystery there.  Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.”

There are huge implications to this difference.  Jesus was forsaken by the Father as the condemnation for our sin.  If the Father did not actually forsake Jesus at the cross, then our sins have not been paid for and Jesus has not been made our substitute.  Additionally, we actually lose an important source of comfort.  One of the book’s primary themes is that God does not forsake us, regardless of the circumstances, but the primary Scriptural reason we can say this is because Jesus was actually forsaken.  He was forsaken by the Father so that we would not have to be.  In addition, if Jesus exclamation about being forsaken at the cross is not factual, how can we know any of His other statements are factual rather than merely His flawed perception of the event? 

Additionally, although they are not the type of foundational doctrines addressed in the next section (the definition of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ), the book contradicts clear statements of Scripture on several topics, for example:
·         Government – Papa says “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will.”  On the other hand, Romans 13 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  This statement by Papa also has implications for the Church, Marriage, and Family. 
·         Creation – The Jesus of The Shack says, “From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him.”  Genesis reveals that God took a rib (not a woman) from the man and formed it into a woman. 
·         The Law – Sarayu correctly identifies the law, Specifically the Ten Commandments, as the mirror which shows us our sin as opposed to a set of rules which tell us how to please God and earn His favor.  Unfortunately, this leads, in the book, to the conclusion that “In Jesus you are not under any law.  All things are lawful.”  (p. 203) And further, “because of Jesus, there is now no law.”  (p, 224) This is in clear opposition to Jesus teaching, which says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.  “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18)  The moral law itself is not negated in Christ, only its power to condemn.  God does not cease to demand that the moral law be kept.  He does not ignore the law’s demands, but instead, He has forgiven the believer’s trespass against it because of Jesus’ Sacrifice.  The God of the Bible forgives sins because of Christ.  The god of The Shack knows no sins because he knows no law.
·         Divine Revelation – “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours, Mackenzie.”  (Sarayu, p. 195) A few pages later, she goes on to direct Mack to look for God’s revelation in art, music, silence, people, Creation, joy, sorrow, and the Bible [not as the definitive source, but as one among many].  (p. 198)  In Romans 1, among other places, the Bible makes a distinction between natural revelation (the ability to discern God’s existence, although not His precise identity or His grace); as distinct from God’s revelation in the Bible, which tells us who He is and reveals to us His grace.  The God revealed in nature can only be assumed to be great, mighty, and holy, and we should be rightly afraid.  It is only through Scripture that we can know Him in His grace, revealed in Jesus.



Removing the Cornerstone? – Christological Difficulties

The Shack does acknowledge Jesus as both God and man and even as the central focus of everything.  Disappointingly, further reading reveals details which undermine these definitions.  What the book affirms in principle regarding the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, it eventually denies in fact by its later statements.  Early in Mack’s time at the shack, Papa goes into a lengthy description of Jesus and His saving work. 
           
When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human…
Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such.  While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded.  That is why his name is Immanuel, God with us, or God with you, to be more precise…
Although he is also fully God, he 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 e very human being.  He is just the first to do it to the uttermost…
He [performed miracles] as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him.  Jesus as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone. 

From this excerpt, it is evident that the Jesus of The Shack is not actually God in human flesh.  Although the author acknowledges this in principle, his further explanation results in a denial of the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation.  First, Scripture never teaches that Jesus relied only on the Father’s divine authority, never His own.  He lived as a man and “became obedient unto death,” (Philippians 2:8) but when He exercised divine authority, such as in miracles, it was His own.  The Biblical Jesus’ humanity never diminishes His divine identity as God the Son.  The Jesus of The Shack, although voluntarily, is somehow diminished in his divinity, by reason of his becoming man. 

Secondly, while the shack portrays a Jesus whose relationship with Papa is no different than that attainable by any other human, the relationship between God the Father and the Biblical Jesus is dramatically different from that of God with other humans.  As God, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus is one with the Father.  We are not.  Whatever closeness we enjoy with the Father, whether in heaven or on earth, we can never live out the relationship with the Father which Jesus has, because He relates to the father within the Trinity, while we are only able do so from the outside.  Third, The Shack states later that Jesus does not exercise Divine Authority, even now, after the resurrection.  In Contrast, the Gospels and Acts demonstrates that the resurrected Jesus gives evidence of His divine nature by doing things such as entering locked rooms in His post-resurrection appearances.  Because of his divinity, the resurrected Jesus is not limited by time and space as the rest of humanity is.

In addition, the Shack’s view of Christ is flawed in that it misunderstands sin, the cross, and salvation.  Papa says, “I don’t need to punish people for sin.  Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside.  It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”  (p. 120) The third sentence of this statement is certainly true, although only through Jesus.  On the other hand, both testaments of Scripture clearly attribute punishment of sin to God.  Old Testament examples are plentiful, and in the New Testament, this includes the death of Ananias and Sapphira as well as the visions of Revelation. 
Beyond misunderstanding sin, the author seems to have a serious misunderstanding of salvation.  In fact, He never mentions it.  Attaining a relationship with God is a prominent theme, but that relationship does not seem to include faith in the Christian sense or even Christ as the exclusive means to attain that relationship.  The Jesus of The Shack talks about “Buddhists, Mormons, Baptists, and Muslims” who “love him,” While he then acknowledges there are “some roads that lead to nowhere,”  He then follows immediately by saying, “I will travel any road to find you.” (p. 182) I find it hard to conclude anything from this paragraph of the book, other than that the author proposes that somehow Jesus saves people even outside of their being Christians.  It eerily resembles Brian McLaren’s statement about making Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu, “followers of Christ” who do not become Christians, but remain in their original religion.  In fact, in the same discussion about salvation, The Shack’s Jesus even says, “Who said anything about being a Christian?  I’m not a Christian.”  (of course not.  He’s Christ. He can’t follow Himself.)  A few pages later, Papa says, “I am now fully reconciled to the world.”  Mack replies, “The whole world?  You mean those who believe in you, right?”  To which Papa replies, “…Reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part.”  The broad conclusion given in the book is that God is actually reconciled to the whole world, which is then experienced in an act of free will by humans to live in relationship with Him.  On the other hand, the Christian teaching is that while Jesus died for the whole world, it is only through faith in Him that salvation is actually applied to the individual by God’s grace. 

A house built upon the Rock? – Trinitarian Difficulties

The broadest area of difficulty by far in The Shack is a misunderstanding of the Trinity.  The author recognizes that the Trinity is a mystery.  Through Papa’s words within the book, as well as in his own responses during interviews, Young indicates that he describes the persons of the Trinity in pictures which challenge traditional expectations in order to force people to reexamine their concrete perceptions of God.  He acknowledges that these descriptions are not meant to be literal, but have his choices of imagery been wise?  In a culture where goddess worship is growing in popularity, does it benefit the reader to have God the Father and the Holy Spirit portrayed as women?  Is there another way that the author could have disrupted the reader’s false perceptions of god without leaving an opening for the reader to see his work as an affirmation of goddess worship?  Some might argue that God the Father does not have gender-specific anatomy, thus to portray Him as a woman is an acceptable choice, but God never reveals Himself as “Mother.”  Similarly, it has been argued that God describes himself in terms such as a mother nursing an infant (Isaiah 66) and Jesus describes Himself like a “hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” (Matt. 23:37) However, these descriptions are of a far different nature than God’s revelation as Father.  God is the Father of Jesus.  He is the one who created the world and gave us life.  He does continue to provide for and protect us.  When God describes Himself as Father, He describes His nature and identity.  In the examples above from Matthew and Isaiah, God is not describing His identity.  Instead He is describing His actions.  Additionally, He does so by way of simile, using “like.”  He does not say, “I am a mother,” or “I am a hen.”  He says, “like a mother,” or “like a hen.”  On one hand, we cannot accuse the author of The Shack of promoting goddess worship or promoting a “God the Mother” theology, since he has acknowledged in interviews that this is not a literal depiction.  On the other hand, it seems that if God has given us a certain revelation, we ought to honor that revelation and not depict him in a way which is entirely opposite, even for the sake of catching the reader’s attention or challenging their preconceived ideas. 

Earlier Papa’s description of the Trinity was cited, which said, “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker.  I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is completely and entirely the one.” (Papa, p. 101) At the point in the book where this sentence occurs, the words, “…and each of the three is completely and entirely the one,” seemed unclear, and perhaps awkward, but as the book progresses, the meaning behind them becomes clearer.  As Mack interacts with the characters, we realize that all three persons bear the Stigmata from the crucifixion.  Nowhere does the Bible teach that the Father or the Spirit were crucified or died.  In fact, this teaching, called Patripassionism, is a form of Modalism and was expressly condemned by the ancient church as early as the third century A.D.  In addition, The Bible speaks of the Father raising Jesus from the dead (Galatians 1:1 and Romans 6:4, among others).  If the Father were also crucified, then how did He raise Jesus from the dead?  It is proper to say that “God died on the cross,” because Jesus is fully God, but it is not appropriate to take this so far as to assert that the Father or the Spirit died on the cross.  This is an example of the danger of attempting to offer answers which are beyond the scope of Biblical revelation.  Because Young seeks to say more about the Trinity than God has revealed in Scripture, the god of The Shack is ultimately not the Holy Trinity. 

Young’s error regarding the Trinity is not limited to the distinctiveness of the three persons, but even extends to reveal Papa in multiple forms—first as the African-American woman already mentioned, but later in the book, as an older long-haired man in hiking gear.  Papa tells Mack,

“If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you.  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…To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes.”  (Papa, p. 93)

Papa goes on to explain that (s)he appears as (s)he does because Mack had a poor relationship with his father and so an image of an African-American woman is easier for Mack to relate to than one similar to an earthly father.  The god of The Shack does not eternally exist as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is a god which temporarily manifests itself in whatever way is most effective at the time.  For Young, Scripture’s revelations of God appear to be only revelations for that time, and God may choose other revelations at other times. 

In addition, The Shack repeatedly asserts that the Trinity—all three persons—became human.  Papa says, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.” (p. 99) and “He [Jesus] is the very center of our purpose and in him we are now fully human.” (p. 192)  In contrast, the Bible unmistakably teaches that only God the Son became man.  The Trinity does not become human, nor do the Father or the Spirit, but only Jesus.

Another area of discrepancy between the book’s Trinity and Scripture’s is in their relation to one another.  The Shack presents the Trinity as “a circle of relationship” (Sarayu, p. 122) and a relationship where all three members of the Trinity are mutually submitted to one another. (Jesus, p. 145)  To the contrary, Scripture talks about Jesus submitting to the will of the Father (John 6:38, John 8:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, etc.), but never speaks of the Father submitting to Jesus.  Likewise, Scripture never speaks of the Father or Son submitting to the Spirit.  Biblical teaching indicates that the Spirit always points us back to the person and teachings of Jesus and is sent to believers by the Father and the Son. (John 14-16)

Young extends this idea of submission to the point where it is said that God actually submits to humans in the same way that he proposes the persons of the Trinity submit to one another (Jesus, p. 145) and that even parents and children and all other relationships in society should be lived in an identical state of submission.  Certainly we are to submit to God, but, even though God does serve us in Jesus, He is never spoken of as submitting to us.  Both testaments of the Bible speak of children obeying their parents and servants obeying their masters, but never the reverse.  There are Biblical instructions that parents not provoke their children and that masters treat their servants well, but hierarchy remains intact and the distinctions are not abolished.  The god characters in the book even go so far as to insist that responsibility is not a Biblical concept (p. 203ff), while the Bible frequently speaks of the responsibilities of parents, rulers, masters, servants, children, and many others.  The Shack views hierarchy as foreign to God and a result of sin.  Scripture presents hierarchy as a God-ordained structure which is to be respected.



A Mighty Fortress? – Lutheran Responses

The previous sections have already covered difficulties with The Shack which Christians can broadly agree exist.  These include:  the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, natural and revealed knowledge of God, sin, salvation, the Law, and earthly authority.  In addition to these, there are numerous other ideas expressed in the book, which although they would not be universally problematic for Christians, are of special concern for Lutherans. 

·         Knowledge of God—This teaching is foundational for several of the others.  The difference between natural and revealed knowledge of God was discussed above, as well as the book’s failure to properly distinguish between them.  Additionally, the book seems to denigrate any concrete knowledge of God.  The previously mentioned cases where the god characters contradict Mack when he confronts them with Scriptural teachings are one example of this.  In addition, Young seeks to use the events of the book to knock down not only the reader’s false conceptions about God, but all understandings of God which exist in the mind of the reader.  The god of The Shack seems to be completely unknowable, and it seems that, according to the god characters in The Shack, all claims to knowledge about God, even Biblical ones, are inaccurate.  The book ultimately proposes that knowledge of God is irrelevant, but that what matters is relationship with him (her, it?).  It seems to suggest that God must be experienced rather than known, but how can one have a relationship with or an experience of someone or something which he does not know?  An knowledge of God’s character and identity must be possessed before relationship can exist.  Lutheran theology, in agreement with the majority of Christianity, teaches that God is, in fact, knowable as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.  While we do not have license to propose to know more than revealed there, we can be certain of those things which have been revealed.  Rather than seeking God through Jesus and through Scripture, The Shack encourages readers to seek God nearly everywhere, such as through their own contemplation and introspection as well as natural revelation, other people, and the arts.

·         Means of Grace—Many Lutherans would also object to the methods which God uses to reveal Himself in The Shack.  Specifically, by leaving a note in Mack’s mailbox and by taking on visible form to speak directly to him.  If the author is proposing that direct revelation of God exists apart from the Word and the Sacraments, then they are right to object to this as Lutherans.  Lutheran theology teaches that humans are not to seek God in any other way than the Bible, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, because He has never promised to reveal Himself in any other way.  While I agree with this objection, I am not convinced that the author is proposing that individuals seek experiences like that described at the shack.  From a literary standpoint, I would conclude that the direct revelation experienced by Mack is not intended to be normative for humans, but is, instead, a fictional tool to provide opportunity for God to interact with Mack.  On the other hand, as discussed in the previous section, Lutherans can rightly object to the numerous additional sources of revelation proposed in the book, such as the arts, silence, and emotions as contrary to the doctrine of the Means of Grace.  The Shack also seems to imply that the revelation of God to the world can evolve over time, such as the frequent instances where the god characters re-explain clear Biblical teachings.  Lutheran theology holds that all statements about God are to be tested against Scripture, and that no new proposition can add to or alter what Scripture has already taught.
·         Sin—The faulty understanding of Sin evident in the book has already been explained, and this has further implications in light of Lutheran theology.  If sin is to be understood in the way it is in The Shack, then humans would not actually be sinful creatures.  There is no indication given in the book that people are separated by God by anything but their own ignorance.  Furthermore, the ability assumed by the book for humans to understand God apart from Scripture and seek Him by their own free will would necessitate that they are neither sinful nor naturally separated from Him.  Additionally, if God does not punish sin and has no expectations of humans in a legal sense, there would be no need for a savior, a cross, or even the incarnation of Jesus.  Lutheran theology holds that the central doctrine of the Christian faith is Justification—particularly, that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone.  Because sin does not separate us from God or condemn us to His punishment in The Shack, Jesus does not become our substitute on the cross to suffer God’s wrath.  In fact, the Jesus of The Shack does not suffer God’s wrath at all.  If there is no punishment for sin, and Jesus does not suffer God’s wrath, then the only purpose of the cross is to be a demonstration of God’s love or an example of submission and humility for us.  The Shack talks a lot about “grace,” but it is a meaningless grace, because its god knows no wrath or punishment, nor does he actually redeem anyone.

·         Law and Gospel—Lutherans teach that there are two doctrines in Scripture:  Law and Gospel.  The Law tells us what God expects us to do, and ultimately reveals our failure to live up to its requirements.  The Gospel reveals what God has done for us in Christ and is the solution to our failure to live up to the Law’s demands.  The Shack undermines both of these.  As explained in an earlier section, the god characters in the book explain the law not as fulfilled by Jesus, but as abolished by Him.  The god of The Shack has no law by which His creatures are expected to live.  As a result, any talk of grace in The Shack is not truly Gospel, because in the view of the book, there is apparently nothing to be forgiven and thus no need for grace.  Gospel and grace in The Shack are not that God has forgiven our sins because of Jesus, but, instead, that He has repealed the law and instead seeks to live in us so that we respond in love to every situation.  (p. 204-205)

·         The Church/Ministry—Throughout The Shack, all earthly “institutions,” including the Church are looked down upon.  For The Shack, God does not seem to have a use for The Church or pastors in revealing Himself to humans.  In contrast, Cyprian of Carthage summarized the Bible’s teaching by saying in the 3rd century, “He cannot have God as his Father who has not the Church as his mother,” and “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”  Hebrews 10 admonishes “Let us not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing.”  In harmony with this, Lutherans have always taught that Christians are intended by God to meet together regularly with other fellow believers in Christ to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments.  In light of The Shack’s view of organized churches, it follows that it would also have no use for an ordained ministry or other professional clergy.  In contrast, Jesus called 12 disciples and sent them out to be the first pastors.  In keeping with this, Lutherans believe that the office of pastor is instituted by Christ Himself and the Church is instructed to call pastors who will publicly preach the Word and administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the Church.  It seems that, in The Shack, God is to be sought nearly everywhere, with the exception of the places where He has specifically promised that we will find Him—namely, the Bible, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

·         Vocation—The Shack frowns on all forms of hierarchy in the world and views them as a result of sin.  It also sees all relationships as intended by God to be built upon mutual submission.  Lutheran theology, on the other hand, sees a Doctrine of Vocation in the Bible.  The various positions that we each hold, such as ruler, parent, child, employee, manager, pastor, teacher, or student, are actually blessed and instituted by God for our good.  These distinctions do not arise out of our sinful desire to dominate each other (although they are sometimes misused for that purpose).  Instead, they are given by God as a means by which He provides for our instruction and protection.

A Shack built upon the Sand

While I am not normally a reader of fiction, I did find reading The Shack to be an interesting and enjoyable experience.  There were even a few moments of the book which I found amusing, such as the criticism of WWJD (mentioned above), the awkward scenario of saying grace at a meal god is your host and dining companion, and the very subtle communion reference during the characters’ final meal together (p. 236).  While The Shack might be an enjoyable read and have admirable motives, and it is certainly a thought-provoking piece of literature, it ultimately falls short of contributing anything to the understanding of God.  On the Lutheran talk radio show Issues Etc. it was recently said that “The Shack is a book about God that gets God wrong.”  This is a description that I can wholeheartedly agree with, and one which points us to precisely the reason why the book fails.  To attempt to explain how to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the facts suffering and tragedy in the world is not a successful endeavor if the author misrepresents the identity of God in the process.  Likewise, an attempt to correct people’s false understandings about God does not achieve its goal if it undermines all concrete knowledge about God in the process. 

A book that seeks to answer deep questions about God, but gets God wrong, is like a bicycle wheel without a hub.  Even with all its spokes, it will not take the bike anywhere, and will just end up harming someone with a lot of sharp edges as it spins.  The Shack is Trinitarian enough to turn off a non-Christian, but it falls so far short of orthodox that it cannot offer any real insight to an orthodox Christian.  Ultimately, a mature Christian already has an understanding of the themes the book addresses.   On the other hand, a new or weak Christian who needs to understand some of the ideas the book wants to express would suffer more harm than good from reading it because of the abundant false teaching saturating the book. 

Many who are reading over reviews of this book are really looking for the answer to one question:  Should I read this book?  (or should I have read it?)  For the mature Christian who is strongly rooted in the Bible’s teachings, reading this book will not do any harm, providing it is read with the careful understanding that it is not a true and accurate portrayal of God.  In fact, since so many of people are reading it already, it is beneficial for mature Christians to be knowledgeable enough about its contents that they can help guide others around its pitfalls.   On the other hand, for children, most teenagers, new Christians, or those who do not have a precise understanding of the Bible’s teachings, this book should most certainly not be on their reading list.  It will only serve to obscure God’s identity for them rather than reveal it, and has the potential to do great spiritual harm if its understanding of God is believed.

Young has expressed that The Shack was never intended for mass-distribution, but was originally a private attempt to communicate to his children the understanding of God in which he had found comfort.  In the final analysis, though, I think the author is reacting to a perceived theological imbalance which was evident during his childhood and early adult years.  The present church, however, actually seems to suffer from the opposite imbalance.  While the church of 35-40 years ago may have been too heavy on God’s greatness, holiness, and wrath, and painted a white male picture of a Gandalf-god, the church today is reluctant to paint any picture of God or may even allow every person to paint their own picture (such as Young’s “Trinity”).  Today’s church has largely ignored God’s greatness, holiness, and wrath, and God’s grace is too often understood as permissiveness instead of forgiveness.   Young said in an interview that he believes our picture of God is often worse than our fears, but he would rather paint God as better than we can imagine.  Both options fail to benefit anyone if they are unscriptural.  While Young seems to see himself as unique, cutting-edge, and counter-cultural in portraying God the way he does, in my judgment, he has actually conformed precisely to the pattern of today’s world where all religions are seen as equal and every individual has their own sovereign experience and definition of god which is not subject to comparison against Scripture or any other authority.

Rev. Jason P. Peterson
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church, Rockford, MI








[1] By “orthodox,” I mean all Christians who hold the definitions of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ expressed in the three Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles’ Nicene, Athanasian) as well as the Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture.