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.
Thank you
ReplyDelete