I decided to read "The Shack" by William P. Young, because of its great popularity and its enthusiastic endorsement by many Bible believers even though what I had heard about it indicated that it espoused a non-biblical spirituality.
Young deals with many important issues, including free will, the problem of evil, the love of God, forgiveness, passing judgment on others, abusive authority, etc. He does so through the fictional account (made to sound as if true - a key literary device used in "The Shack") of the main character, "Mack". Having suffered great personal tragedy, Mack receives a mysterious invitation to return to the place where the tragedy occurred.
At the shack, Mack encounters Young's depiction of the Trinity, namely "Papa" also called "Elousia" in the form of an Afro-American woman (though in one chapter "Papa" takes the form of a man, because in the experience that soon follows, as Papa says to him, "This morning you're going to need a father" [p. 210]). Papa as a woman is consistently called, "Papa," but using the pronoun "she." Jesus is called "Jesus" throughout and looks Jewish (he has a big nose). The Holy Spirit is an ethereal woman-like person with Asian features, named "Sarayu."
The bulk of the book is Mack's conversations and experiences with one or more of these three characters, plus a special appearance by a personification of Wisdom, aptly named "Sophia." The characters teach Mack what's what about himself, God, and life.
The style of the book evokes thought and emotion. The reader interacts with the other characters in the story through Mack. Mack is a sort of everyperson with questions about life that many of us have. He struggles through his strange experience with "God" in a way that I expect most of us would. As his heart softens to his experience, I suspect most readers would as well. I cannot say that the author intentionally manipulates the reader, but I have no doubt that if Young would have simply stated his theology, it woud be a lot more difficult to accept.
That Young uses story to communicate supposed theological truths should not in itself be an issue. We could mention many wonderful books that have done just that. The problem with "The Shack," however is that besides Young's questionable theology and ideology, he puts his ideas into the mouth of God. Some may not see a difference between C.S. Lewis's Aslan of Narnia or Bunyan's characters in Pilgrim's Progress and the characters of "The Shack," but both Lewis and Bunyan create fictional worlds through which they seek to communicate their version of truth. The reader in those cases knows that he is entering the writer's world and is invited to engage their ideas. Young creates a dream-like reality, where the reader's judgment is suspended and may easily confuse Young's fiction with truth. While "Papa" and "Sarayu" are extremely unusual depictions of the Father and the Spirit, the "Jesus" character is depicted as simply "Jesus". To write "And Jesus said" in any genre of writing, is best avoided unless we are quoting Scripture.
To make matter worse, Young's ideas themselves are far from biblical. As I mentioned, God the Father is depicted as "Papa" and most of the time is in the form of an Afro-American woman. This is reason enough to reject "The Shack" as legitimate. While God in his essence is not male or female, he has revealed himself in masculine terms, as "Father" in particular. While it has become increasingly popular to emphasize God's "feminine side," he chose to reveal himself in masculine terms. Jesus told us to pray "Our Father in heaven" (Mathew 6:9). Whatever value there may be in exploring the so-called feminine side of God, the Scriptures never encourage us to image God in feminine terms. Mack is told that the reason why Papa is depicted the way "she" is, is because she loves him and doesn't want him to fall back into religious stereotypes. Religious stereotypes may indeed be a problem, but not God-chosen biblical imagery. If we have misunderstood what God intends in the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves will correct us, not new forms of spirituality.
We are given the impression that God's revelation of himself in the past was due to our need at the time. Since our current need is different, so God now reveals himself (herself?) to us differently. Even if that were true (which it is not), who is to decide how God is revealing himself? Young's depiction of God is one of his own making. It is not derived from the Scriptures. By using terms such as Elousia and Sarayu, we may suspect unbiblical spiritual sources. The gender-confused "Papa" may fit in with our post-modern society, but has no resemblance to the God of the Bible. And since when does God reveal himself according to our need? Our need is to accept God's revelation of himself. While God has accommodated himself to our understanding, he has done so in such a way to reveal to us who he really is. To change biblical images based on our needs or anything else is to risk changing the essence of God's Truth. There is more that can be said about the details of Young's version of God, but let's move on.
I mentioned that Young deals with some important questions, but his answers are unbiblical and extreme. For example, he attempts to resolve the issue of God's sovereignty and our free will by claiming that while God prefers us to do his will, we are always free to make our own decisions. Tell that to Pharaoh and Saul/Paul of Tarsus. According to Young, human institutions (namely religious, political, and economic) are the cause of all the evil in the world. The only things that matter to Young are love and relationships. This is Hippie talk, not Bible talk. Yes there are major wrongs that have been done through human institutions, but the problem is sin, not institutions. Governments, for example, according to Romans 13, have been instituted by God, not man, and they exist for a good purpose. Young "solves" the problem of evil and suffering, by calling us to understand the role that evildoers have in God's purposes. This is not the "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" of the story of Joseph (Genesis 50:20), but it is far more of a Hindu, "everything that happens is from God," so learn to accept life as it is without question. Yet Jesus taught us to pray "Your kingdom come, your will be done," not to sing "All you need is love."
Perhaps the reason why so many Christians love "The Shack" is because for the past several years we have played with and accepted all sorts of unbiblical concepts in the guise of legitimate spirituality. What Young has done is taken our current image of God and truth and rolled it into an appealing emotional package.
In the book of Acts with regard to the Bereans’ response to Paul's teaching, we read "they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed the Corinthian believers, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (1 Corinthians 14:29). That "The Shack" might challenge our thinking or touch our hearts is one thing. But is Young's depiction of God scriptural? Are his answers to some of life's questions truly correct? God expects us to do more than accept something based on its appeal, its popularity, endorsements by famous people, or its emotional impact. We need to weigh whatever we are told and judge its validity based on God's Truth in the Bible. Based on this standard, "The Shack" falls flat.
25 comments:
My cousin read the book and loved it. She was sexually abused by her step father from an extremely young age for many years. She loved how this book described the Holy Spirit and could understand why God appeared as a woman, because Mack wasn't ready for Him. Not that we should make God more palatable but I believe God meets us where we are at. This book brought her healing and for that I will not discount it.
L Alexander
God does indeed meet us where we are at, but he does so on his own terms, not ours. To mold God based on our needs is idolatrous. God through his Son desires to heal your cousin of that terrible wrong, but true healing requires a true revelation of God.
I so agree with your non-recommendation of this book. For me, the first instance of "Papa" would cause me to chuck the book. God is my Father, my Lord, my Master...but He is never "Papa".
I'm currently reading the Shack & although I agree that Young's representation of the Trinity is "interesting", I don't believe that it's wrong. C.S. Lewis used allegory that totally stretched truth, but his writings have been the source of many a seeker having a revelation with God.
To discredit a book, just because it doesn't line up with your personal Judeo worldview, is limiting God's ability & desire to speak in ways that are relevant to individuals. I believe that the example that the first "anonymous" post gave is a good example of that. God met her cousin on His terms in her pain.
Many years ago God used a regular donkey to speak to a wayward prophet & He's still using asses like you, me & Young today.
Commenting on "forever green 2000":
Intimate words for "Father" are culturally informed. The New Testament has believers using the Aramaic "Abba," (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6) which most closely resembles the English, "Dad" (probably not "Daddy"). Abba is a term of family intimacy. So depending on what is being expressed by "Papa", it may be an accurate term.
Commenting on "Anonymous said...I'm currently reading the Shack & although...":
C.S. Lewis used all sorts of genres to express his understanding of biblical truth, not to develop a personal spirtiuality based on his own woundedness. If we believe the Bible (as many who endorse "The Shack" do), then it is essential that we compare it to the Bible. If Young "stretches" truth, he takes it beyond its breaking point (his undertanding of the nature of God and how he envisions the Trinity). Other things he espouses are not even closely related to the Truth.
That people might find "The Shack" helpful in some way is one thing, but let's not confuse Young's spirituality with the Bible.
Here is a comment from "Claire" followed by my response. She had difficulty logging on in order to post her comment herself.
++++++++++++++
I know one of the authors through housechurch lists - Wayne Jacobsen. He has written with allegory and story before, but nothing like this. I know he is the sort of person who is very open to communication.
I have seen some positives and negatives in the homechurch movement, and I like the idea of home meetings vs. institutional organizations - which I believe are unbiblical and are more Greek than Hebraic. However, it is not the institutions that are the source of evil, but the sinful people within them, and the system encourages sin, but does not create it.
One of the negatives is to put "love" above truth, when we are called to both.
There is real healing and ministry within the truth of scripture; we just have to seek it.
++++++++++++++
Alan Gilman's response to Claire:
It is interesting that you refer to the homechurch movement, because that isn't explicitly mentioned in the book.
I agree that our neglect of biblical structures have made our problems worse. I believe that God has directed that we have plurality of leadership (elders, who must be qualified based on the guidelines in Scripture). I don't think that meeting in a home or a community hall or whatever makes the difference. The church is the people not the facility. Congregational life should be fundamentally relational. We are called to be a family, but God-ordained family structure is as important as the relationships therein. Also messing with gender symbology is destructive as is any way we seek to resolve human and spiritual issues with man-made philosophical inventions rather than Scripture.
Thank you for posting this. I bought it after my 40 year old uncle (I am 38) died earlier this year. I was hoping more that it had answers for my husband who took my uncle's death harder than I did.
I had to throw the book away without even finishing it. Everything in me just "screamed" this that wasn't right.
I have tried warning a few people about it but get met with "well it helped so and so." or "It is a Christian book."
I was truly starting to feel alone in my feelings on this book.
Now if you can do something on why Christian "magic" is wrong I may think there is hope. :) :)
God bless you.
It's fiction... settle down.
Just because "The Shack" is fiction, doesn't mean that its concepts should not be taken seriously. In June the author was at Regent College in Vancouver. The author was very clear at that time that the book was an explanation of his theological views. His chose to express his views through fiction, but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily take what he is saying lightly. The author is purposely trying to correct what he thinks are wrong notions of biblical spirituality. Many readers have been taken up with his concepts. Some of these readers think that that author's views are in keeping with the Bible, which they are not.
If "The Shack"'s enthusiastic readership were reading its concepts just for fun, maybe it would be less of a big deal. But that is not what is happening.
If readers are going to take Young's writing seriously, then so will I.
This is the first review I've read for "The Shack" and, although I am one to research a topic further before making a final decision, I do want to say thanks for your opinion on the work, Alan. I am a Messianic Jew and work in a library so I often find myself torn when it comes to discussing my opinions of fictional works. After reading your review I find my emotional reaction of "something isn't right here" validated. I thought perhaps I should read it so I would know what all the hype is about, but on the other hand there is no way I can read all the books that have such hype pushing their popularity, and was therefore hoping to learn a bit more about the topics covered by Young in his novel. And although it is unlikely those who left previous comments will revisit this page to see my reply: One of the comments above mine was "it's fiction, settle down" and yes, that is true. It is fiction and should be taken in that context but readers rarely do. "The Da Vinci Code" is a novel - a work of fiction - but many, many people have taken that as fact and used it twist the truths of G-d to fit their own perception of Him. As Alan said there is a difference in how G-d meets us where our need is and how we feel that need should be met. He has already revealed Himself to us through the scriptures that are living and breathing and sharper than a double edged sword; "living and breathing" does not mean "changing"; He is unchanging and does not alter His truths by so much as "a jot or a tittle" to make us feel warm and fuzzy or to meet the current "popular opinion" of who G-d is, male or female. His word is alive and active and continually reveals the Truth that was - and Is - embodied in Yeshua (Jesus Christ) the Messiah who came to take our place as the final and perfect sacrafice so we wouldn't die in our sins. There is an element of truth in every work of fiction but that does not mean that every work of fiction is truth - the perceptive reader will be able to "eat the meat and spit out the bones" as it were and should also, therefore, remember that in reading a book one is reading the opinion of the author and, as Paul wrote in Colossians: "Watch out, so that no one will take you captive by means of philosophy and empty deceit, following human tradition which accords with the elemental spirits of the world but does not accord with the Messiah. For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that G-d is." (2:8-9)
As a final note - Alan I've been reading and enjoying TorahBytes for about two years now and just wanted to say thanks for writing them. I truly appreciate your faithfulness in writing your commentaries to the weekly Torah portions and the insight with which you write. Shalom.
it is good that you all are thinking critically, but we need to be very careful as christians. no one's view is perfect, including yours. we need not be "witch hunters." there is alot of mystery in scripture and having a relationship with God - a relationship that can be expressed differently.
You make three comments that are true: (1)it is good that you all are thinking critically; (2) no one's view is perfect, including yours; and (3) we need not be "witch hunters."
How does what you say affect the discussion at hand? In my attempt to think critically, I am neither claiming perfection nor suggesting we arrest The Shack's author for anything.
Publishing a book in a free society should allow for discussion, including disagreement. If my assessment is incorrect and unhelpful, so be it. My hope is that what I have put forward will help people see The Shack from a biblical perspective.
Not quite finished with "The Shack" yet, but here are a few comments:
Like: Provides a platform for discussion with non-believers and believers; Wrapped in a novel and a new story, is appealing to many; Generally (some exceptions) doesn't give a complicated perspective; Relatively short.
Dislike: Called by Eugene Peterson today's Pilgrim's Progress which it isn't even a glimpse of that wonderful book; The forward was part of the novel and deceives with it's content; God-lite with only love and coaching which fails to display His holiness and fails to really identify our sin.
Neutral: Finding it discussed in church and circles of believers even though it portrays God incorrectly; Personifying the Trinity in very human ways, which is done in a fashion by Biblical authors; The story itself is not compelling, but tolerable.
I appreciate Alan's views and believe it has little value as a teacher, but maybe some as a starting point from which correction will surely need to be made.
Mark L (Kansas City)
I haven't read all of your comments,but you stated that you were not accepting of the depiction of God as an African American woman becase God has always chosen to appear male? IN the book the character told why he selected that form...not playing into any theology sterotypes. When God appears to Moses it was a an eternal fire. I think the point is..God is not limited by what we think. To make a concrete image of how God should appear goes against the second Commandment..
IMHO.
It is an interesting and thought provoking book
God chose the masculine gender through which to reveal himself. This is affirmed through Yeshua who said when we pray, we should say "Father". This is not about the form through which God may appear, since it would be wrong to say that God the Father is a man, since he is not.
God did not appear as the fire in the bush, but rather spoke through the fire.
The author of the Shack is purposely undermining our traditional perceptions of the God of the Bible. In his attempt to strip away what he thinks are harmful traditional ways of thinking, he also rejects authentic biblical truth.
I am reading the book and I agree that we should be hesitant about how God is portrayed. On the other hand, I have been able to use this to show students I teach, how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all different but still one. It is important to note I doubt God will ever pose himself this way to me or anybody...but if he wanted to he surely would do just that.
The Shack in no way accurately portrays the complex concept of the Trinity. In attempting to express the reality of God's complex unity, ancient theologians referred to "three persons in one", not "three people in (or as) one" in the way the Shack does.
Like Kahaha this is the first review of the Shack I have read. I'm in the process of reading it - not quite finished.
Alan, I'm not surprised by your assessment. But IMHO, as a pastor and preacher with a reformed view of Scripture, there's almost nothing in the book that disturbs me. In my view, what we're dealing with is an issue of literary genre. The author is using allegory and metaphor, as Scripture itself does in many many places, to convey biblical truth. When a human author uses such devices, they don't intend to say "This is literally how things are. Ignore whatever you've read elsewhere. This is the new truth." What they intend rather is to paint a picture with words to express some specific aspects of a larger truth, which they uphold.
As such it's unfair to assess their work as if it were a more literal kind of writing, such as news or documentary where every detail expresses a part of the writer's belief or argument. This is not that kind of writing.
That brings me to my biggest concern. Alan, you say that the author is "purposely undermining" traditional biblical theology. Can I ask how you know that this is what he is doing? Have you heard / read him express such a conscious purpose? If not, then you may be judging a brother Christian unfairly. Please remember that there's a difference between saying "this is how the book strikes me" and saying "this is the author's purpose."
I pray that these thoughts help us all to read this book as the author intended it to be read.
Response to Lance Lawton:
The author has gone on record as saying that he is purposely correcting what he thinks is common erroneous concepts of God. For example, according to Young, the reason why there are scars on Papa's wrist is to reject the notion that the Father abandoned the Son on the cross. For more of the author's motives and personal theological objectives, you should be able to find various interviews and articles on the Web that will back up what I am saying.
You wrote, "The author is using allegory and metaphor, as Scripture itself does in many many places, to convey biblical truth." I am all in favor of creative means to convey biblical truth, but I think Young, for the most part, misses the mark. When I read C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles, while not necessarily agreeing with everything Lewis conveys, I go away with profound insights into what the Bible truly teaches (e.g. he is not a tame lion, but he is good).
Young, on the other hand, denies biblical truth both in his use of blasphemous symbol (imaging God the Father as a woman, swinging her hips and making cookies in the kitchen is not appropriate). And he also outright undermines truth in many of the dialogue portions. For specific examples, I highly recommend this excellent review (required Adobe Acrobat Reader): http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf.
Thanks for publishing my post and responding to it, Alan. I appreciate your willingness to do both. We could have an ongoing debate on a few points, but this is not the place for that.
But I will admit to being concerned by the example you cite of Young's stated intention to deny that the Father abandoned the Son on the Cross. I'd find it helpful if you could provide a quote, link or reference to some of the author's stated positions and purposes. I don't feel it's helpful to anyone to attribute conscious intention to an author without providing some reference that a reader could check for themselves. That surely is a matter of the common respect which you or I would hope to be accorded, and which this author equally deserves.
Another response to Lance:
My comment about Young's theological understanding on the scars is from the following "debate" with Young at Regent College in Vancouver on June 3, 2008. I write debate in quotes, because it is more like a "celebration" (note it costs $5 to download):
http://www.regentaudio.com/product_details.php?item_id=801
You might find this interview from Faith Today magazine interesting as well (Nov/Dec2008):
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=6242
Feel free to email me directly at info@torahbytes.org.
i think we should all just take the book for what its worth. and from what i'm reading, alan gilman, all your doing is trying to expose its flaws, as a christian, thats the last thing you should be doing. it is an amazing book that has a lot that the heart can take in.
My desire is that people would understand the relationship between "The Shack" and God's Truth as revealed in the Bible. As mentioned in a previous comment, I recommend the following review (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader):
http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf
Tracy,
"The Shack" asks some very important and troubling questions - though these certainly aren't new questions that haven't been asked before -questions that that Bible itself asks (see the Book of Job for example).
Be that as it may, for people who are looking for biblical answers to these questions, they are not going to find them in "The Shack". Biblical answers are found in the Bible.
Post a Comment