Thoughts on "The Shack"

 “The Shack” centers on a protagonist named Mack, and his face-to-face encounter with God.  All three members of the Trinity are present, and God the Father is symbolized by an African-American woman, Jesus as a middle-eastern carpenter, and the Holy Spirit as a small Asian woman named Sarayu.  He spends the weekend in fellowship with God, talking about things such as God’s nature, and all the painful details of Mack’s recent past. 

     Theologian Norman Geisler and pastor Mark Driscoll are among the book’s most prominent critics, while those who praise it include Eugene Peterson.  Some say the book contains many dangerous heresies, and that it is only “Biblically illiterate” Christians who give it a foothold in Christian culture.  Others say that “The Shack” is the best book since the Bible.  Will it really, “do for our generation what John Bunyan’s ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’ did for his,” as Peterson suggests?

 

Objections 

 

-To portray the Father in the form of any created thing is making a graven image, in violation of passages like Exodus 20:4, 22.  Critics who claim this seem to forget that Jesus himself used symbolic language, representing the Father as human!  Consider the parable of the prodigal son, in which God is represented as a human father, or the parable of the talents, in which he is represented as a human master.  The issue lies not in portraying God in human terms, but in then worshipping that image instead of the real God, who is greater than any image man can conceive of. 

 -The fact that all three members of the Trinity wear scars through their wrists is another manifestation of a heresy called modalism: the idea that all three members of the Trinity died with Christ on the cross.  But again Young makes his intentions clear: the scars are once again a literary device, designed to make the point that all three members experienced Christ’s pain as he died, not that they died with him.  It is surprising that critics who are steeped in a Bible that frequently uses parables, symbols, and poetry would criticize Young for doing the same thing!

-Young takes focus away from Scripture, and even commits blasphemy by emphasizing other ways of experiencing God.  Young writes, “no one wanted God in a box, just in a book.”  Young’s assertion is that the church has limited God to a single revelation (the Bible) and forgotten about others such as revelation through nature (Romans 1), or the favoured emergent realm of “experience.”   “The Shack” should be only a starting point, a look at God’s other revelations, not at the expense of the Bible, but perhaps one that precedes and flows into a love of Scripture.  Young never claims to have written a comprehensive account of the Christian experience in all its stages!

-”The Shack” presents a view of salvation that does not specify Jesus as the only way to Heaven. 

     1) Those who make this claim misread Young.  It appears that the passages in question are meant to be interpreted differently.  This is difficult to expand on without taking up a lot of space, but read them for yourself, and be willing to consider more than one interpretation.

     2) Even if Young were an inclusivist, that would not be grounds to throw away his work.  C.S. Lewis, one of the most respected Christians of the last century, embraced a brand of inclusivism, and very few, even of those who are not inclusivists, would advocate that we throw away his works.

 

Dangers

 

-Young does not have much experience with writing or theology, so some of his ideas are poorly communicated, and may be taken the wrong way.   On issues like inclusivism, it would be easy to become confused: some passages give such impressions, and readers have to look pretty hard to discern the author’s intent.

 

-Young’s picture of God does not seem to account for His holiness or justice.  Geisler may have a point in saying that “The Shack” presents a “lop-sided view of God as love but not justice.”   Young’s picture of God is helpful in many ways, and is a good starting point, but there does seem to be something left lacking.

     “The Shack” does indeed have the power to do great things for our generation, as Peterson hopes.  In a culture that has trouble with the institutional church, Young liberates God from the stereotypes.  He portrays God as a god too big to stay in our boxes for long, and refreshes the soul struggling with the idea of an austere, judgmental, rule-making, white male god who only cares that we are “born again;” who has a certain disregard for the poor and underprivileged, and who wants us to say a “sinner’s prayer” instead of establish a genuine, meaningful relationship.   Alan Jacobs says that Christians should, “read with intelligent charity.”  People like Geisler, Roach, and Driscoll read with an excess of attentiveness, and neglect to be charitable, realizing that Young is using imagery and metaphor.  Those who are quick to hail ”The Shack” as the best book since the Bible, on the other hand, exercise charity, but perhaps fail to be discerning and discover those places where Young’s ideas are expressed less accurately than we might hope.  A correct reaction to “The Shack,” I would suggest, is one that tries to balance the two extremes: we must be charitable towards Young, and thankful for the many places his books is helpful, but not forget to identify the dangers a radical acceptance of all his ideas might entail.  In short, there’s no need to “stay out of ‘The Shack,’” but we should take care not to be so enamored with the wealth of new ideas and rich imagery that we forget to be discerning!