Pastor
Kene
General Overview
By now, you have probably heard of or read the book, The Shack, written by William P. Young. It is really quite a gripping story that deals with a Father's pain over the murder of his six year old daughter as well as his negative perceptions about his dad, the church, and in particular, God the Father. It is also a book about the Trinity and Young seeks to illustrate how each person in the Godhead is distinct and unique as they work together to accomplish good in the lives of others.
Throughout the book, it is Young's desire to bring the Godhead down to a tangible level. Instead of God the Father being holy and awe-inspiring, He takes on the form of a large African American woman named Papa, who is loving, has a sense of humor, and oh yeah, loves to throw down in the kitchen (i.e. cook). Jesus is cast as his typical mid-eastern Jewish self, who Mack has a natural liking too, and the Holy Spirit takes on the form of a thin Asian woman named Sarayu, who is the highly esoteric and creative one of the bunch. Ultimately, it is these "forms" that allow the Godhead to be approachable to Mack, the main character in the story.
The Shack as Metaphor
If you do any research on Young, you will discover that the Shack is meant to be a metaphor for the place in our lives where the wounds are deepest, whether emotionally, physically, or relationally. His theme is that we must go back to the source of our pain to deal with our "stuff" that prevents us from moving forward in life. Mack's whole interactions cover a three day period in a secluded cabin in Eastern Oregon, the very place where his daughter was murdered. The whole experience begins with a note from God to come meet him at "The Shack" some three and a half years after his daughter was murdered.
A Fiction Novel or Theological Treatise
The book is described by Young as a Fiction Novel and is not meant to be taken literally. While the portrayal of the Godhead may be troubling to many, I want to put that issue aside because I recognize that Young was trying to use imagery to make the Godhead approachable (Whether this is right or wrong is another debate). He has gone on record stating he used creative license to make God more tangible to his readers, particularly God the Father. He does not believe in goddess worship or that God the Father is male or female. Young emphatically proclaims God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24). So I will give him grace and the benefit of the doubt.
Having said that, it is pretty apparent, though the genre is fiction, this is a book about theology. Throughout the novel Young deals with heavy topics such as the Trinity, the atonement of Christ, the nature of sin, the question of evil, gender roles in the church, and hierarchy within the Trinity just to name a few of the heavyweight contenders. Young states in his interviews (go to YouTube), that Mack is really a story about himself and how he dealt with his own personal issues, such as sexual abuse as a child, the deaths of key people in his life, using religion as a coping mechanism, and the healing that was necessary to sort through his three month affair on his wife. Ultimately, it took the latter event to bring him to the point where he was ready to share his story, some eleven years later.
I think it is also important to mention that Young does not attend a local church because of his dissatisfaction with the corporate body and its theology as a whole. So as you can see, this book is more than just a fictional novel, it is a personal account in allegory of his own healing journey. With that being said, there are some problems with his theology in some key areas. Now I recognize this book is not a text on systematic theology, but since he does not hold back his views on some important issues, namely God the Father, I think it is important to wade through them using Scripture as the ultimate grid.
Theology and God the Father
Like I mentioned, Young is not advocating goddess worship and he would be the first to tell you God is neither male nor female. However, lost in his description of the Father is a sense of awe that occurs whenever the Father is present in a vision or an encounter (Isaiah 6:1-8). Lost is that recognition of mankind's utter sin in the presence of a omnipotent, omniscient, and utterly holy God (Isaiah 6:5). In Scripture it is made clear that no one can see God and live (Exodus 33:20). Even victims who lost everything, including children, like Job, had this sense of absolute awe when confronted with the Father's presence (Job 42:5-6). I realize Young was trying to depict God as approachable and deeply concerned for His children, but he strips the Father of His majesty in the process.
The second area worth noting is the idea that God has no expectations for his children because of His desire for a free flowing relationship. In his interview (Check it out on YouTube), it became apparent his definition differs from what one normally understands this word to mean. Young was referring to expectation in the sense that his children cannot be responsible for standards (or expectations) they are not aware of (which is still debatable). However, even that questionable definition is not explained adequately in the book. Any reader would conclude Young is talking about expectations in the sense of standards God has for His creation. As a result, the reader is left to assume that relational love must be divorced from expectations and standards according to God the Father. Anyone who knows the Bible realizes God commands us to be holy (Leviticus 11:44) and to be imitators of Him (Ephesians 5:1). Those constitute expectations as far as I am concerned.
The third area that bothers me theologically is this insinuation that God the Father was somehow crucified on the cross with Jesus. In the story, Papa, has scars on her hands, which symbolically suggests that God was on the cross with Jesus. In the early church this was known as Patripassianism, which was designated as heresy because it taught that God the Father, like Jesus, was incarnate, and died on the cross. Young uses 2 Corinthians 5:19 in his defense which states God was "in" Jesus reconciling the world to Himself" as his proof text for his position in his interviews (Did I mention You Tube). However, after numerous explanations of the implications of God the Father being incarnate, Young finally admitted that he did not think God the Father was incarnate. However, the depiction of Papa having scars on her wrists suggests that God was indeed on the cross, even if he calls it "imagery." A better way of expressing this idea would have been to merely have Papa explain to Mack that when Jesus hung on the cross, a crucified bloodied man, it cost her something emotionally (Did I just say her).
The fourth area of theological concern was the notion that God the Father submitted to the decisions and will of humans. This idea was proposed because Young presents Papa as loving and one who wants her children to come to Him freely with no compulsion. While God may grant us freedom to make decisions it does not mean that He submits to us. God doesn't submit to anyone! Instead God allows our decisions, whether good or bad to accomplish His purposes (Genesis 50:19-20). Ultimately, in the end, we will reap the positive benefits of our decisions or in the worst scenario, the negative ones (Matthew 25:46).
The fifth area worth mentioning is the idea that there is no hierarchy when it comes to God the Father and the Trinity. Young goes on to say that all hierarchal structures are associated with sin. According to Him, the relationship that is working properly will automatically submit to each other. Unfortunately for Young, biblically, the Scripture is filled with hierarchical structure. Among other things, it teaches that God the Father ordains things from the foundation of the world, according to His purposes (Ephesians 1:4), that Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish His will (John 20:21), and that the Spirit was sent and proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). Furthermore, not only does Scripture teach there is a hierarchy between the Father and the Son, it also trickles down to angelic beings (1 Thessalonians 4:16), to leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-13), to our personal relationships between husbands, wives, children, and even those in the workplace (1st Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23-6:9). In short hierarchical structures do not imply sin or that one person is better than another, it merely allows for roles to be fulfilled and for leaders to step up and lead.
Lastly (I'm getting tired here), Young has Papa teach him that there is no need to punish sin because sin is its own punishment (page 122). The idea being proposed is that God the Father is finished punishing people for rebelling against Him because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. In his interview, Young tries to skirt this issue by suggesting he did not mean God doesn't judge; only that He no longer punishes. But is this true? Does Scripture not teach that God punishes those He loves? Does it not say that such discipline is a sign that we are legitimate children to Him? (Deuteronomy 8:5; Hebrews 12:6). Young's theory is a nice sentiment, but it is not biblical.
Final Thoughts
In a nutshell, there are some serious problems in this book when it comes to Young's theology. I could mention others like the hint of universalism pertaining to the atonement, the minimization of sin, discouraging believers from becoming like Jesus, and not having a very high regard for God's revelation in Scripture just to name a few. But my chief concern was focusing on Young's portrayal of Papa as God the Father. What Young did was present God the Father as being incarnate, not concerned with standards, not a punisher of sin, not the leader within the Trinity, not concerned with gender roles in marriage, and one who is submissive to human agents. This is not God the Father as presented in Scripture, instead it is the God that humans want to make in their own image. It is the God they always wanted because it allows them to be free of standards and appears to be more, shall we say, politically correct.
You don't have to change God the Father into a large African American woman to learn that He is love (1 John 4:8), that He wants us to confront our "shacks" and forgive others (Matthew 18:21-35), that He deeply cares about His children (John 3:16), and that He is righteous, gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in love (Jonah 4:2). Everything on His character, His nature, His attributes is clearly portrayed in the Scriptures. If there is a lesson to be learned here it is that we must be sure to present God the Father for who He is according to the Bible so there are no faulty perceptions, both among Christians and non-Christians.
Now many reading this blog may come to the conclusion that such a critique is nit-picky and that it should not take away from the message of the book. But when God the Father is presented in such a shallow way, we must examine this in light of the Scriptures because it is our ultimate gauge of truth. How far will one go to ignore theology just for the sake of a good story? How far is one willing to dilute biblical teachings to recommend a book they liked to others? For example, the Mormons have similar books of inspiration that speak of God's great love and compassion; yet they teach that man has the ability to become his own god and govern the universe. So again, how much will we compromise when it comes to theology for the sake of selling or recommending a book? In the end, we must be careful that we don't excuse the truth about God for the sake of grace. In the end, He is both truth and grace.
