"The Shack"

The surprise success of the self-published novel, "The Shack," and the controversy surrounding it demanded that I read it. Furthermore, the endorsements of the book encouraged me to read it. How can so many godly people be so wrong, I asked.

For example the book includes:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good! -Eugene Peterson

Wow! This book is the next Pilgrim's Progress? I must pick up and read! Other blurbs included persons like Michael W. Smith and other prominent Christians.

As for the controversy surrounding the book, I was tired of hearing various opinions and reviews of the book, and so I decided to read it for myself. As for it being entertaining, I certainly concur, but as for it's theology, let the reader be warned.

THE STORY

First, let's begin with the story. Basically what happens is that the main character's, Mack, daughter gets kidnapped by a well known serial kidnapper and eventually kills her. They never find the body, only the blood stained dress of the little girl.

As you can imagine, the Christian family begins to question their faith. The husband, the main character, struggles for the next 3 years to make sense of the tragedy. His wife, on the other hand, seems to be dealing with everything a little better. Overall, the entire family is struggling to deal with the death of their loved one.

One day, the main character gets a note on his car from "Papa," the name his wife uses for God. Papa, that is God, tells him to come to the shack where his little girl's dress had been found. He finds this disturbing and the result of someones crude joke. Eventually, however, he decides to go back to the shack.

And there he meets God and the Trinity.

During his stay, he asks each member of the Trinity various questions about his life, theology, etc. For chapters, the Trinity and Mack spend the weekend in an improved "shack," living and discussing various topics.

THE THEOLOGY

I only wish the theology of the story was as good as the story itself. Sadly, though the author is accurate in many areas, he is horrendously wrong on many others. First, I want to look at the good theology of the story.

THE GOOD

First, the author manages to reveal the relationship within the Trinity. One of the best places for us as Christians can turn to for a godly understanding of relationships is the Trinity itself. The author does this well. In this story, we see each member of the Trinity interacting together in a loving relationship leaning on it other in mutual love.

Secondly, the distinction between each person of the Trinity and the unity. The author made it clear that each member were distinct, in fact he had 3 characters. At the same time, the author managed to emphasize that they were 1 God in 3 persons. This is obviously very difficult to explain and understand. In fact, the author makes this very clear throughout the story oftentimes by having Mack simply throw up his hands and say something like, "it's one of those Trinity things isn't it?" One of the best instances of this was when Mack meets God. Seeing 3 persons, Mack asks, "Which one of you is God?" And in unison, the 3 respond, "I am."

Thirdly, the author revealed the love of God (that is, all 3 persons). Though, as we will see, this is also one of it's problems, the author writes in a way that makes us desire to possess God's love and to live out God's love.

Finally, the author manages to call us to balance the Trinity. He points out that many of us see the Father as the mean one, Jesus as the nice one, and the Spirit as something that we're not really for sure. Rather, each member, being fully God, is full of wrath (though the author lacks this aspect of God), justice, righteousness, mercy, love, and truth. And the author calls us to balance our understanding of God.

THE BAD

Though there is some good, there is a lot of good that seems to outweigh have a more accurate understanding of God. It needs to be point out that much of what is found in this book would be embraced by the Emerging Church. Perhaps this is why discussing this book is so important. To see the theology in this book will open up a window for understanding the theology of the Emerging Church.

First, God the Father is a woman. This is perhaps the biggest shocker of the whole book. The author, obviously, anticipates this. He has Mack point out the oddity of calling God, portrayed as a woman, Papa. But why a woman?

The author answers this through Papa herself/himself. Papa points out that God is neither male or female. Ok. I follow with him there. But one cannot deny that the Bible refers to God in masculine terms. I agree that God is neither male nor female, but at the same time, the Bible uses masculine terms to describe God. Mack points this out to Papa and this seems to be about as deep as it gets. But I want to think about this issue a little deeper.

Why would the author make God a woman? I continued to ask myself this question as I continued to read this novel. And I think I know why. Throughout the book, Papa is seen as nice, loving, nonjudgmental, wise, and merciful. When I think of these characteristics, I think of women, especially persons like my wife. If you want to emphasize the love and mercy of God, what better way than to portray God as a woman?

This is why the female Papa can tell Mack that he/she doesn't judge sin for sin is a judgment in of itself (we'll look at this later). By thinking of God the Father, we usually think of a judgmental God that sends us to hell, by portraying Him as a woman, the author is able to escape this stereotype. I appreciate, as I mentioned above, his desire to emphasize the love of the Trinity, but he does so in a dangerous way.

Another possible reason for this, perhaps less harmful, is the desire to rid the reader of all stereotypes. I have no problem with this, except whenever it contradicts Scripture. Scripture never depicts the Father as a Mother or in feminine terms. He is always masculine.

Secondly, the author turns God into a teletubby rather than the God of the Bible. By this, I mean that God is not seen as vengeful, but rather as a loving mother holding her child. When Mack calls Papa out on this, Papa says that he/she does not judge sin for sin is a judgment in of itself. By this, it is meant that the consequences of sin is enough judgment for sins. Therefore, there is no need for hell or judgment.

The problem with this is obvious: it's unbiblical. Maybe the author does believe in hell and the rest, but you can't tell it from this story. The idea that God doesn't judge sin is not orthodox. The Bible is clear that God judges sin, even by sending them to eternal damnation. By removing hell and judgment, we are left with a God that welcomes everyone to heaven without precondition. That means even the worse of sinners are destined for heaven. This is universalism and is and always has been considered heresy. It is antithetical to the gospel. If all will be saved, because there is no hell and no vengeful God to worry about, then what was the cross for?

Maybe the author isn't an Universalist. Maybe he isn't even an Inclusivist (which I'm sure he is at least). But the heavy baggage that comes with it call us to question the author's Soteriology. This is dangerous ground to say the least. The author must be called out on this especially whenever Jesus says that He is the "best way," rather than the "the only way" (cf. John 14:6). In fact, the author suggests that many will come to Christ as (the author isn't clear enough) Christians, Buddhist, Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and Iraqis. This clearly suggests an inclusivist theology.

Thirdly, the author's attack on authority and hierarchy goes against the Bible. The author makes it clear that the world should not be set up with leaders and those on top. Rather, like the Trinity, should be made up of relationships. I agree with that, but in a fallen world, we must have hierarchy. Whenever Man fell, the need for government, law, and the rest were imperative for man to not destroy itself. The author seems to live in an Utopian worldview that ignores the reality of life: man is fallen.

This emphasis on relationships can be dangerous and the author walks that line, if not crosses it. When speaking to Jesus, Mack is told that Jesus didn't find religion, but rather established a relationship with us and wants us to live in community. Here is one of the clues that the author is Emergent for Emergents are big on community.

Again, we must be careful not to go too far with one's theology in a novel, but at the same time, the implications of such a narrative is significant. Yes Jesus came to establish a relationship through the cross (and the author does emphasize the cross). And yes, the Church must be a close community made up of believers. But that is the key: believers must make up that community. And what are believers? Those who affirm the gospel. And the author seems ignorant, or at least silent about the gospel. Nowhere does the author lay out the gospel though he has ample opportunities to.

Fourthly, the author has a deluded understanding of freedom. Anytime a person puts heavy emphasis on free will, I shudder. We are so obsessed with free will in this country in makes me want to puke. I do not deny free will, however, most American Christians are flirting (or maybe even worse in many cases) with Pelagianism. Pelagianism was declared to be a heresy during the time of Augustine and it is increasingly becoming the common belief among believers and it is all over this novel. God, the Trinity, and Mack put heavy emphasis on free will and they do so in dangerous terms.

The reason this is a problem is because it robs God of His throne. To emphasize free will is to rob God of His Sovereignty. I have always said, we cannot bind the hands of God and throughout this story God's hands are always bound by the character and by His gift of free will. And it is dangerous to do. Again, I believe in free will, but in an orthodox way.

CONCLUSION

There is more to say here, but this should suffice. This book, though entertaining, is dangerous to the Biblical, Christian worldview. I must warn those who read it to be careful to separate the fiction with the orthodoxy. At times it is hard to tell the difference, but as Christians we must be rooted in Biblical theology.

One more thing. It is telling of our culture if such a book, with it's many dangers, can become so popular with very little controversy. Obviously, people aren't liking it. In fact, outside of working at a Christian book store, I knew about this book by it's controversy. But Christians, as a whole, seem ignorant as to why it is so controversy. And I am willing to bet that the average Christian who reads this book are absolutely clueless as to what is wrong with it.

I am not one to say that we shouldn't read this book. However, I do think that we must read it with a proper understanding of the gospel and Biblical theology. Perhaps that is the problem. American Christians are so ignorant that they can't tell the difference between orthodoxy and the theology of "The Shack."

That is a scary fact that we must all face. The Biblical illiteracy of the Church is dangerous and only invites heterodoxy like this.

__________

For more:

• Ben Witherinton - SHACKING UP WITH GOD—William P. Young’s ‘The Shack’
• Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Radio Show - A Look At 'The Shack' - Mohler makes some points not brought up here.