The first thing that surprised me is how much I enjoyed the book. Yes, the writing is a bit clunky at times- Young is candid in calling himself an "accidental" author. He wrote this never thinking it would move beyond his small circle of family and friends (The first printing was 15 copies at Kinkos. As of today, it's been 10 weeks straight at the #1 spot on the NYTimes bestseller list and has sold around 2.5 million copies).
But in spite of the often stilted prose, there's a compelling story underneath of a healing dialogue with God that pulls you along- relentlessly. It was easy to read and enjoy this book in a day and a half, and more than just enjoy it- I was moved by it.
While I often found myself thinking that someone who had gone through what "Mack" goes through would probably be living a life that was a bit more messy and be considerably more angry and generally more dysfunctional than what's described, the story of Mack's healing and transformation is... healing and transformational. It's difficult to imagine reading this and not finding that it worked on some of those dark places in your heart and soul where some anger and bitterness, against others and against God, was hiding out.
The second thing I'm surprised at is all the controversy. It saddens me to think that what is essentially a very orthodox book with a couple of at best sloppy formulations and at worst just plain wrong assertions is being labeled heretical... mostly, I suspect, because of its portrayal of an unexpected
theophany- God showing Himself as a large, black woman called "Papa." My bet is this: had Young used a less-jarring (to many) image of God, the controversy would have ended before it began. Of course, so might the word-of-mouth...
The last thing I'm surprised by is the assertion of the Shack's many defenders that the book isn't theology- it's a fictional narrative and should (they believe) therefore get a pass on being judged theologically.
Well... The funny thing is, Young himself doesn't believe that. The Shack may be a lot of things, but if it's anything- it's theology. Young set out to draw a picture for his children not only of the healing process he had gone through over 11 long years (compressed to one weekend for protagonist "Mack") but also to draw a picture of the God who had healed him.
In the book Young makes a connection between knowledge and relationship- you can't have relationship with someone unless you have knowledge of them. And since knowledge of God is, by definition, "theology," you can't have a relationship with God without some measure of... theology. Yes- it's possible to have theology without relationship- but not the other way around.
So what the Shack is about, at its heart, is a man struggling to believe that God is good. That's a theological question. A theological question with huge implications.
So, is it proper to question the theology of the Shack? Absolutely. But that should be done in a certain context- one which recognizes that this deeply theological book is nonetheless not a systematic treatment of the knowledge of God. It's a narrative that touches on an amazing number of theological questions, some with astounding insight and depth, but none in depth. There are theological statements made that can and should be appreciated, praised and even critiqued.
And with that in mind, some of the issues.
The biggest critique (as
here by Mark Driscoll, just about breaking a couple of blood vessels, but still without actually reading the book) is that the Shack breaks the command not to make a graven image, is goddess worship, is modalism and is at odds with the supposed hierarchy within the Trinity .
(insert patronizing sigh here)...
No. This book does not break the command to refrain from making graven images. It creates no idol and asks no one to bow down to it. It portrays a theophany, a physical manifestation of the invisible God who is spirit. In the Bible we see God appearing as a number of people and things. He appears as three men walking down a road to Abram. He appears as a burning bush to Moses. He appears as a quiet whisper to Elijah.
The idea that (as Driscoll put it) we shouldn't portray God at all and (as one Amazon reviewer put it) that we shouldn't portray Him as other than the holy, holy, holy One who is high and lifted up on the throne of heaven is simply not borne out by the example of Scripture. We see God appearing as many things- some terrifying, some comforting. Some enormous and overwhelming, some curious and intriguing, some ordinary and otherwise un-noteworthy.
And let's not forget the most significant appearance of God- as a Jewish baby in a dirty stable.
No, the Shack makes no graven images. and it's not goddess worship.
Specifically, God (the Father) appears in the book as both a large black woman and as an older man with white hair and a beard, both called "Papa." Why?
"She picked up the wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort of batter. 'Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. 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 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, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes."
Later, after Mack has experienced some significant healing, specifically as regards his father, God appears to him as a man.
"The man standing next to him looked a bit like Papa; dignified, older, and wiry and taller than Mack. He had silver-white hair pulled back into a ponytail, matched by a gray-splashed mustache and goatee...
Mack shook his head. 'You're still messing with me, aren't you?'
'Always,' he said with a warm smile and then answered Mack's question before it was asked. 'This morning you're going to need a father...'"
Should we ever portray God as other than the transcendent, holy, terrible and awe-inspiring God of Mount Sinai who comes with thunder and lightening in His wake? Well, only if we're serious about keeping the transcendence and the immanence of God both at the forefront of our thinking.
Yes- if the only picture you have of God is of a never-angry, always happy big black woman who embraces you, you are probably about as out of whack as the person who has only a picture of a great King on a throne as their image of God.
It's both, people. The King, high and lifted up who is angry about sin and what we've done to His world and to each other. Our Abba, our daddy who waits for us to come home and embraces us without a mention of what we've cost Him in our wandering... I'm grateful for the portrayal of God in the Shack and only hope that those who read it take its portrayal in balance, as one aspect of God, not the totality of God in all that He is. Just a snapshot- a true one, but as incomplete as any picture of anyone is in explaining who they really are.
So does the Shack promote goddess worship?
The idea that this is goddess worship is a bit laughable when you actually read the book. Not only is there a dual portrayal of God appearing as both a man and a woman, but He not only specifically states that He is neither and simply appearing as both. Also in the book is a wonderful and, I think, extremely compelling reason given for why we refer to God in masculine terms and titles (though there are occasionally feminine metaphors given). Aside from there being no neuter prepositions and terms that aren't also impersonal (God is not an "it"), the Shack posits this:
"'But then,' he paused, still focused on staying rational, 'why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father?'
'Well,' responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the kitchen, 'there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don't misunderstand me, both are needed- but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.'"
Brilliant. And I mean, brilliant. There are moments when the Shack absolutely shines with pithy, compact statements and insights that set you back on your heals and in the process of encapsulating deep theological concepts within the space of mere sentences, hits you so hard with insights about both God and yourself that it takes your breath away. On the issues of the freedom/bondage of the human will, on the relationship between men and women, on why God allows suffering and even natural disasters... on all of these, The Shack just shines.
Well, here again, actually reading the book would serve a critic well. Perhaps if God had disappeared and come back wearing one of three different outfits each time... It's difficult to make the charge of modalism stick when Young portrays all three members of the Trinity sitting around a table together.
On page 101, Mack says, "'But what difference does it make that there are three of you, and all of you are one God. Did I say that right?'
'Right enough.' She grinned. 'Mackenzie, it makes all the difference in the world!' She seemed to be enjoying this. '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 entirely the one.'"
Modalism? Hardly. This is straight from the Athanasian Creed:
"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord"
I will say this, in defense of the critics. If there's any area of the Shack where there's some confusion and some theological sloppiness it's in this area. Again, I don't believe that in light of the strong orthodox Trinitarian statements made throughout the book, these areas of theological sloppiness somehow render the book heretical on the whole, but I wouldn't want to recommend it without these caveats.
"His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a dep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes...
'Don't ever think that what my son chose to do didn't cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark,' she 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 the moment, I never left him."
'How can you say that? You abandoned him just like you abandoned me!'
'Mackenzie, I never left him, and I have never left you.'"
Okay- I know what Young is trying to do here. He's trying to explain the character of a God who can say "I will never leave you nor forsake you" and mean it.
But... no.
In the same way at the baptism of Jesus we see Christ in the water, the Spirit descending like a dove and the Father speaking from heaven, not all three in the water, at the Cross we see the mystery of the differentiation between the Three-in-One. Though it was God Himself taking on our punishment, our sin, it was the Son and not the Father/Son/Spirit on the cross. And no, Jesus was not mistaken in asserting that God the Father had momentarily turned His back on Him.
Again, I think this is more theological sloppiness than heresy. And in light of the statements I cited earlier, it's not in any way modalism. Sorry, Mark.
But it's not unimportant either. The idea that on the Cross God was judging the sin of the world, and while not abandoning Jesus, momentarily turned away from Him is theologically important. He turned His back on Jesus so that He'd never have to turn His back on me.
This is a pretty important area/concept- one which I wish Young had given a bit more time/thought to...
But lastly, does the book contradict a biblical idea of hierarchy within the Trinity?
Depends on who you ask.
This is an area of theology in which there are two very legitimate schools of thought. It's clear that the Son was subordinate to the Father while He was here on earth, stating "I do nothing but what the Father tells me." The question is- is this subordination an eternal characteristic of the Trinity or a temporary state of affairs during the kenosis? I won't answer that (I can't), but I will say this- both answers are perfectly orthodox, and for people to ding Young for answering this particular question differently than they shows either a theological naivete on this issue or an agenda.
What agenda?
Well, suffice it to say that while there's not a perfect correlation, those who often push for the idea of eternal subordination of the Son seem generally to come from the "complementarian" and "hierarchical" camps, and those who push for a functional, limited subordination from the more egalitarian camps.
An interesting side note- While I think there's zero justification to call those who believe that the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father "heretics",
there might be reason to call those who believe in eternal subordination such (*ahem*... Wouldn't it be a hoot if in an effort to critique a book they thought heretical, critics accidentally resorted to heresy? '
We burned down the village to save it!')
No- the picture of God in the Shack may be unorthodox, but it's not unOrthodox, if you follow. In fact, I find (though Young told me he hadn't read him) many echoes of Grenz's thinking/theology in passages like "'What's important is this: if I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am.'
'And we would be without...?' Mack didn't even know how to finish the question.
'Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself... You do understand,' she continued, 'that unless I had an object of love- or more accurately, a someone to love- if I did not have such a relationship within myself, then I would not be capable of love at all? You would have a god who could not love. Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature. That kind of god could possibly act without love, and that would be a disaster. And that, is surely not me.'"
Other than the issue of the person of God, there are two issues behind all the criticism- one spoken , the other less-so.
The two issues are these- a charge of universalism and a charge of watering down the sovereignty of God.
Is the book universalistic? No, but I see how people might make that mistake.
The book points, and consistently points to Jesus. "'Mackenzie, the Truth shall set you free and the Truh has a name... Everything is about him. And freedom is a process that happens inside a relationship with him.'... 'Like I said, everything is about him. Creation and history is all about Jesus.'"
The Shack holds Him up as the Savior. "'But as I'm sure you know there are many,' responded Mack, 'who think they are made righteous by following rules.'
'But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows you how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake. That's why Jesus fulfilled all of it for you- so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands- Thou Shalt Not...- actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you.' She was on a roll now, her countenance billowing and moving. 'But keep in mind that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.'" (emphasis mine)
"'Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death, because you have separated yourself from me: Life.'"
The picture the Shack presents is of a God who has judged sin on the cross and is done bringing it up. While I think that's not a complete picture, it's not an untrue one. The reason why people are lost in the Shack is not that their sins are unpaid for- it's that they reject relationship with the One who paid. No, it's not limited atonement, is it? But it's not universalism either.
Young gets dinged for what is essentially the perspective of someone who sees Christianity through the eyes of one raised on the mission field- he has Jesus saying,
"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats , Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, But I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.'
'Does that mean,' asked Mack, 'that all roads will lead to you?'
'Not at all,' smiled Jesus... 'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.'"
No, the picture of salvation in the Shack is not a universalistic one, but it is one that understands when we say "Christian" we are at the mercy of all the mis-definitions and mis-perceptions our hearers might bring to that word. Jesus isn't interested in making Christians. He is interested in making followers, disciples... His Bride. Not all roads lead to God. He can't be found in systems and religions- but that doesn't mean He can't find YOU there- even in very off the beaten path places. But that's another story...
Not universalistic, but what about the sovereignty of God? I can see how this book would give good, Reformed folks some serious conniptions.
On that, let's just say that the Shack provides what is a very orthodox, but definitely not Calvinistic view of God. The picture of God and how He interacts with our will ("'If you could only see how all of this ends and what we will achieve without the violation of one human will- then you would understand.") would be right at home with any Weslyan. The God of the Shack knows the future. The God of the Shack is sovereign, saying "'There has never been a question that what I wanted from the beginning, I will get." But the God presented here won't violate the free will He's given as a gift.
There's a strong theodicy presented in this book. If you genuinely struggle with the pain and suffering in the world, in your world, and reconciling that with the idea of a loving God, you should read the Shack.
There's hope here for those who struggle with anger towards those in their past or even towards God Himself.
If this book doesn't change your attitude, not towards Truth, but towards those who don't know it, and towards those who don't know Him, you aren't reading it very carefully.
And on that note, I'll conclude this ridiculously long review with this...
As I said, I was interviewed alongside Paul Young recently on public radio. At one point a woman whose hobby was apparently sniffing out the unorthodoxy in others and confronting it, called in and began taking Young to task for various things in the book, most notably her (mis)understanding that true orthodoxy must posit an eternal subordination within the Trinity.
When the call was done and we went to a break, I shook my head and said (somewhat dismissively), "Wow, you got a heresy hunter!"
Paul just looked at me and said quietly, quoting a line from the book, "That's okay... Papa is especially fond of her too."
Abashed and not a little ashamed at how I had looked at this woman, I later realized:
That moment probably spoke more loudly about the Jesus present in The Shack and in Paul Young than the critics could possibly imagine.
