The Shack and Its Critics: A Review

I finally got around to reading The Shack. OK, I actually listened to this book on MP3, and then got the book afterward to look more closely at the ideas that most struck me. There's a lot I could say about this book and the many reviews it for quite a long time. So, let me get to the point.

First Impressions: The book is quite slow at the beginning with an added dose of cheesiness. In the first couple chapters, the writing is awkward, and sometimes so detailed the reader feels like he is reading a to-do list. To add to that, the book runs back and forth between theology and fiction, which not only makes it hard to pin down what the author wants you to believe theologically, but makes for too much dialogue and not enough story. In other words, if one wants to hear a provocative sermon, read this book; if one wants a really good novel, look elsewhere.

The Shack is littered with theological topics, far more than I can cover here. Young covers a lot of ground in these few pages. One could probably do hours of reflection on some of the chapters in this book.

Of course, it is regarding many of these topics Young has received extensive criticism. To a degree, I think Young can write some of his critics off simply because it is, indeed, a work of fiction (would these same critics read a book, like, C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce and believe every statement in that work represents Lewis's own views?); on the other hand, the majority of the theological statements made in the book come out of God's anthropomorphic mouth, an inherent “Thus saith the Lord” if there ever was one.

Some of the criticisms are just way over the top. Critics say Young rejects sola scriptura, because Mack (the main character) gets his theology from extrabiblical sources. But this is like saying the 12 disciples rejected sola scriptura because they spent time with Jesus in the upper room instead of reading their Hebrew scrolls (calling God an “extrabiblical source is a little wrongheaded). The word (logos)--the Bible--is intended to point one's attention to the Word, Jesus (called Logos in John 1:1ff).

Others say he has broken the first commandment by making a graven image out of God and that the three members of the Trinity have never appeared in the flesh, that only Jesus comes in the flesh. But to say that The Shack creates a graven image is to miss the entire point Young is making, that God is not who we think he is, that he does not fit into the stereotypes and graven images we have made of him in our minds (doesn’t the Passion of the Christ or any Easter Passion play create a graven image too?). And thinkers as far back as first century Jewish philosopher, Philo, believed the appearance of Abraham's three visitors was a tri-fold appearance of God (cf. Gen 18). And there are a number of other Divine appearances in the Old Testament (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) that are difficult to explain on this point. Others say that the appearance of God in three physical figures promotes modalism, the view that God is revealed through different modes throughout time. Uh, hello? It can't be modalism if the three persons of the Godhead are all revealed differently at the SAME time.

Closely related, critics say the book promotes goddess worship because the Father is portrayed as a black woman named, Papa (God appears as a man later on), citing that the Bible does not speak of the God in feminine terms. But this again, is simply inaccurate. First of all, Papa states emphatically that God is "neither male nor female" (if God were predominately male, how could God have created both male and female in his image!?). Besides, God doesn’t have body parts (and personally, an omnipresent penis weirds me out), so any physical appearance of God in the flesh should not be taken as corroborative of God's essence. And second, the Bible uses feminine terminology to describe God and his characteristics on a number of occasions (Prv. 1:20; 3:13ff; Matt. 23:37; Luke 15:8-10). That the Spirit is called a "comforter" connotes, generally understood, a feminine characteristic. In fact, one of the most used names for God in the Old Testament, El Shaddai, is a female name. "Shad" comes from the Hebrew word for "breast," and sometimes "womb," and thus symbolizes God's characteristics of fertility/blessing (cf. Gen. 17:2, 28:3; 35:11, 49:25), comfort, nurture, satisfaction, care, etc. Unfortunately the term is mistranslated as "Almighty" (El means "might" and the translators of the Septuagint thought Shaddai came from a different root which meant "to overpower"). So, for those committed to a literal, word-for-word translation of Scripture, more accurately, Psalm 91:1 should say, "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Mighty Boobs."

Critics also say Young denies the authorial hierarchy laden within the Godhead, citing that his “egalitarian view of God” does not accord with the Scriptural commands of submission and obedience. This criticism cites a statement coming from Jesus in the book: “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command… We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us” (122). First, this criticism involves a false assumption that hierarchy is necessary for submission and obedience. But it isn’t. Young even alludes to Jesus’ submission to the Father when he speaks of his dependence on God while on earth, citing that Jesus’ miracles were performed “as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power” (100). Second, the criticism ignores the fact that Scripture calls for mutual submission between one another (Eph 6:21). Indeed, this mutual submission is exactly what Young is depicting in the Godhead, who are always in humble service to one another, giving themselves over to each other. This picture highlights a powerful theological concept about God, known as perichoresis, which was held by many early Church Fathers (John of Damascus and Gregory of Nazianzus) and has been highlighted in contemporary theology by Jurgen Moltmann and Miroslav Volf. Third, this criticism misses out on the value of what Young has to say about hierarchy and power. One need only study church history to see how damaging the emphasis on hierarchy has been. God establishes hierarchies, and they necessarily exist to instill order and accountability where chaos has been made through sin—and checks and balances have been established to keep those in authority accountable too. But the Scriptural commands of hierarchy/submission have a hint of cultural context that need to be called into question (e.g., Master-Slave). And in a relationship of perfect love, it hardly makes sense that order and accountability needs restoration.

Now, I do find some of his views suspect. That God the Father bears the nail holes from the cross in his hands seems odd if they truly are distinct persons (it was also a view rejected by the early church). But this idea can easily be discarded without distracting us from the wholly provocative notion Young posits that when Jesus cried "My God, why have you forsaken me," he was only speaking from his human, emotional reality and not ontologically. Just as God never left or forsook David (when he cried the same words), and promises to never leave or forsake us, so too did he not turn his back on his only begotten Son in his darkest hour.

And his notion that God does not judge because "sin is its own punishment" also falls short. That sin is its own punishment, I totally agree with—sin automatically separates us from God, which is the worst punishment of all. But Mack need only look at his own life as a Father to recognize that part of the role of a parent is to use correction and punishment as a form of guidance. As a parent, to not judge at all would be an even worse punishment (have you ever seen unruly kids in the grocery store who are the result of totally lax parents?)! But again, think about the context. Mack's ultimate problem, as for many people today, is that he thinks that God is evil, that he is the ultimate perpetrator of all the bad things that have happened in his life. Young opts for a view that God limits himself (cf. Phil. 2 - "he emptied himself”), to make space for human freedom. Some make the charge that this is Open Theism (as if Open Theism were a heresy too...). But this need not mean that God lacks knowledge or is not sovereign (actually, I felt like the book emphasized God's expansive knowledge). It simply stands as an alternative (one can find throughout church history) to the determinism that exists in some forms of Calvinism, particularly those who follow Jonathan Edwards, whose view of God's sovereignty cannot deny God as the author of evil (at the very least, as a secondary cause). Frankly, I'd take Young's theodicy over John Piper's, who feels he has the capacity to determine how God orchestrates tornadoes and bridge collapses to divinely punish people, any day.

Proverbs says that friends sharpen one another as "iron sharpens iron." We only grow, we only decide more concretely what we ourselves believe, when we encounter opposing views. That is the beauty of this book—even if you disagree with it—as it puts a new light on topics that we have glossed over so many times that they have lost their meaning. Furthermore, some of the critics seem to think that any theological position different from theirs is worthy of the title, "heresy" when in fact, the majority of Young’s positions are simply historically Christian positions not held by the person criticizing the book! These critics seem to think that all those who have read The Shack and have said it has changed their lives have been deluded and duped into believing every word Young has said and criticize such readers for not being more careful in their reading. But this assumes that one must agree with every jot and tittle of a book to be provoked and encouraged by it. I have been compelled by many books from authors who hold very different theological viewpoints than myself—Jews, atheists, Catholics, Muslims, humanists, Arminians, Calvinists, Open Theists, charismatics, cessationists, the list could go on and on. One can disagree with a host of details in the book and still walk away challenged in their walk with God.

Now I have refrained from commenting on a whole host of issues. There is so much more that could be said but this post is already way too long for most people to read it. But there is one topic that has probably been at the top of the criticisms that I will address in an entirely separate post, namely Young’s position on salvation and whether The Shack promotes universalism.