Well here we are again, talking about The Shack. (Original Review. Follow Up. Driscoll. Witherington.) I’m going to start and finish this post with the same encouragement: TELL YOUR STORY. WRITE YOUR STORIES. TELL THEM YOUR WAY. IN YOUR WORDS. Don’t be afraid or intimidated. The story matters. Some will NEVER see it, but it’s no less true. Keep putting your journey into a story. Keep writing. Be an artist. Be a creator. Mess up some lines. Mix up some colors. Offend some know it alls. Don’t stop until your story is out there.
I just finished doing another interview about my writing on The Shack. My posts on The Shack have attracted a lot of readers, which is good, because if nothing else, The Shack is a phenomenon that needs to be discussed and better understood.
It seems that a willingness to denounce The Shack has become the latest indicator of orthodoxy among those evangelicals who are keeping an eye on the rest of us. It’s a lot less trouble than checking out someone’s views on limited atonement, that’s for sure.
Hear me loud and clear: it’s every pastor and Christian’s duty to speak up if they feel The Shack is spirtually harmful. I’d only add one point: it’s equally the right of those who find The Shack helpful to say so.
Obviously, The Shack isn’t for everyone. Like a lot of Christian fiction, it has a certain amount of gawky awkwardness. No one will ever call William Young a skilled wordsmith. I wouldn’t teach The Shack in a theology class, even though I find Young’s willingness to explore the Tritnity commendable and personally helpful.
(Oh….I probably would use The Shack to discuss whether the Trinity is a hierarchy, a belief that critics of The Shack seem to hold as essential.)
It’s the presentation of God in The Shack that creates the controversy with the critics and the buzz with the fans, but the longer I’ve talked about this story with other Christians, I have to wonder if all the focus on Young’s “Trinity” isn’t missing the larger point of the book- a point that many theological watchblogs don’t seem to see at all.
The Shack is a pilgrimage. It’s an allegorical account of one person’s history with God; a history deeply affected by the theme of “The Great Sadness.” It’s a journey, and overlooking what’s going on in Mack’s journey is a certain prescription of seeing The Shack as a failed critique of Knowing God.
I’ve come to believe that the most significant reason for The Shack’s early success- certainly the reason I picked it up- is the endorsement from Eugene Peterson on the cover, an endorsement where Peterson refers to Young’s book as another “Pilgrim’s Progress.” That’s not a random compliment.
The Knights of Reformed Orthodoxy like to talk about Pilgrim’s Progress as if it is Calvin’s Institutes made into a movie. In reality, Bunyan’s Book is a personal pilgrimage, one that illustrated his version of Christian experience and retold his own experiences.
Even Spurgeon realized that Bunyan’s theology wasn’t completely dependable. The loss of the “burden” comes after a long search for relief, a storyline that reflected Bunyan’s own struggles with assurance and obsessive subjectivity. Few pastors today would endorse a version of the Gospel that left people wandering in advanced states of conviction, unable to find any way to receive forgiveness. Bunyan’s particular personality has too much influence on his presentation of belief and assurance.
But what Bunyan does illustrate is valuable in a manner much different than a theological outline. He tells the story of a journey from guilt to forgiveness, the confrontation with worldly powers, spiritual conflict, imperfect fellow believers and the inertia and resistence within ourselves. We can measure Bunyan’s book by measurements of correct theology, but I believe most of us know that this isn’t the proper measurement for Pilgrim’s Progress. We should measure it as a presentation of one Christian’s life.
It’ a story of a journey.
The same could be said of many other books. Take C.S. Lewis’s “Grief Observed.” It’s the journey of grieving the death of a spouse. Along the way, God’s appearances are all over the map because the “pilgrim” is moving in his journey through “the Great Sadness.”
Be clear: I agree with Ben Witherington III that Young’s book could use a theological revision, but I believe his adventurous exploration of God’s character is set against “the Great Sadness,” not “the Great Theological Examination.” When someone analyzes The Shack and finds 13 major heresies, I’d suggest you look very closely at the list. Some are legitimate concerns. Some are brutal victims of context and some are not heresies at all, but the critic’s discomfort with the medium.
Young is talking about a God who draws you out of your hiding place. If I understand Young’s own journey, this is the primary image in the book: A God who invites you and meets in the the very place where “the Great Sadness” entered your experience in a way that you understand the love that comes to you from the Trinity.
This journey is what should capture the reader. In one sense, The Shack is a bit of Rorschach test, and if you put it in front of someone and what they see is “emerging church heresy!” and “God is a black woman,” then you’ve learned what that person was most looking for in the book: a familiar and historically orthodox affirmation of God and a similar affirmation of who are the good guys.
But what about those who look at the book and see Mack’s journey? The Great Sadness? The God who draws you out and meets you in the place of your greatest loss? What if that reader sees the theological awkwardness and occasional imprecision, but sees those problems in balance alongside Mack’s journey to self-forgiveness, resolution and renewed intimacy with God? Maybe that’s why so many people who know good theology STILL like The Shack?
There is enough in The Shack to give all of us plenty to blog about, so don’t expect posts to end anytime soon. But I’m wondering if anyone is understanding that The Shack isn’t selling because there’s such a hunger for theological junk food. No, there’s a hunger for someone to compellingly narrate the central mystery of God, the Trinity. There’s a hunger for a God who is reconciling toward those who have believed and then turned away because they can no longer understand a God who allowed “The Great Sadness.” There is a hunger for a God who comes into our life story and walks with us to the places that are the most hurtful.
In other words, the theological fact checkers are probably missing what is so appealing to readers of The Shack, even as they see some crimes in progress. It is a contemporary Pilgrim’s Progress, but the pilgrim is a not a 17th century puritan, but a 21st century evangelical. The burden isn’t sin, but the hurtful events of the past. The journey is not the way to heaven, but the way back to believing in a God of goodness, kindness and love.
If Paul Young writes a book of theology, it should be better than The Shack. But if he writes his story, it is The Shack. I don’t buy it all, and most people I’ve talked to don’t either. But that’s not the point. It’s Young’s journey that he’s recounting and we’re reading, and that’s how we’re reading it: a story.
[Note to writers: When it comes to fiction, don’t listen to the critics who want to take you down for your theology. Tell the story that’s in you, whether it passes the orthodoxy test or not. This isn’t Puritan Massachusetts yet. WRITE THE STORY. The people who read stories as theology lectures are NEVER going to approve.]
The Internet Monk Archives 
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I read it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard
LikeLike
Hey James F, I think you’re referring to the Introduction. In this case, the “Willie” of the Introduction is also a **fictional character**. Therefore, the fictional character of Willie is relating that the fictional character of Mac actually had this experience happen to him. It’s a literary device.
Chuck Waterman
LikeLike
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I reaad it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard
LikeLike
Thanks for the post Michael. I have to admit that I read the book about 3/4’s of the way through and haven’t finished it yet…I simply got kind of bored. I had heard there was a major twist and surprise, which I am assuming was the portrayal of the trinity. I don’t have any problem with the literary way he chose to do this…I just immediately found it very cliche and hollywood…shock everybody by taking a preconceived notion of God the Father as a bearded Santa Clause like elderly man of wisdom and make him into Queen Latifah. Pardon me if I have seen this plotline in so many movies it seemed like a lack of imagination to me.
The book is clearly story, not systematic theology, for me the imagination was lacking and trying to explain the mystery of the trinity…well, perhaps it is best left a mystery…maybe it is meant to be that way for us.
The part of the story that is very interesting and I think relates to everybody is the simple question that all of our “great sadnesses” bring us to…How can God love me if He lets this happen to me? The only real answer is that our search to answer it can only drive us to the cross in my opinion which, at least for me, has been my pilgrimmage.
LikeLike
If you didn’t get STORY out of this work, you read the book with the wrong attitude. For my money, any book, script, or speech which can move me to treat my fellow man with love, nonjudgment and respect AND bring me closer to God simply by the way GOD is explained, is a treasure. I have given the book to my dear friends and siblings and hope that they will take from it those kernels of truth which they find therein. Who is to say that this man’s experience and explanation of God/Trinity is wrong? Afterall, man developed theology. As a lifelong Catholic, I value my religion, but the constant dogma and inaccessibility are not only defeating, but off-putting. Aren’t we simply here to love, live as the best humans we are capable of being and then go home to our God?
LikeLike
Hmm– creating God in your own image. Let’s at least admit that we all do it in one way or another. EG God as a male deity. The problem is with the English 3d person singular, not with the Hebrew and Greek text. Also interesting that “El Shaddai,” the “More than sufficient Breast,” never gets translated that way….
I am one of those who expected to be bothered by the “Christian mediocrity” issue, because I do get frustrated by it. However, God used the Shack to get me to reexamine my subconscious, visceral attitudes toward God, and I found a lot of things that were holding me back.
I grew up in a church with a solid theological emphasis, and I value my heritage. However, repeated emphasis can cause things to become “old hat.” Moreover, it’s not an issue so much of what is in the Bible as how we’ve taken the wine and turned it back into water because we are threatened by the mysterium tremendum, or the extravagance of grace and love. We all see things in the Bible differently. It is unfortunate that we polarize and question each other’s orthodoxy rather than being relaxed enough to engage in stimulating dialogue and begin to see God in a new way. God is big enough that no one can see all of divinity. What are we really so afraid of, that we have to keep “biting and devouring ” each other? God doesn’t need me to defend Godself.
The Shack helped me see how, in spite of the best theology, certain things get distorted by quoting texts and Bible beatings. It helped me see my own distrust of God and my own judgement of God.
My own “Great Sadness” has to do with spiritual abuse suffered at the hands of the “righteous”– the way some Christian subcultures seek to fit everyone into a particular, “scriptural” mold, with the result that people are dehumanized, not allowed to be genuine, and feel they have to defend their holiness by judging others, or being so absorbed in their praise and worship that there is no real communication, much less communion. I bear scars from those who claim to hear from God issuing their divine judgements about me because I do not fit their molds. I told God, “no thanks. if those who are so close to you are like that, I don’t want any. Why do your people become so mean and nasty and downright weird?”
I think it is the spirit, and not the letter, of the book that got to me, reminding me of God’s patience, compassion, kindness, lack of disappointment, pathos, creativity, playfulness, humor, delightfulness, desire to be with the kids, and affection, all of which tends to get overlooked in theological discourse. It also gave me hope for my own journey, and melted something on the visceral level that released my barriers toward God. I am grateful for that.
LikeLike
In interviews, Young says the book is an allegorical account of his years in counseling and subsequent healing from his own great sadness. That’s what he means about “really happening.”
LikeLike
Why hasn’t anyone commented on Young’s foreword where he claims that the things that take place in the book actually happened. This is my major qualm with the book and the wrench in the argument that it is “only a story.” Please someone respond to this.
LikeLike
I know no one but you may read my comment, Spence, at this point. But a thought just occurred to me about “The Shack.” Yes, controversy has stirred over the portrayal of God as a woman. But in many Christians’ actual experience, God is represented and has been represented most of the time by women during their spiritual formation. In real life. Not in art. Christian men around them are too busy or noncommittal (or simply unqualified) to disciple and mentor young Christians around them.
Second, to comment on Aslan, what if he had been portrayed as a lamb instead of a lion? Would Narnia have been as popular? Consider:
“And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth” (Revelation 5:5-6 KJV).
The elder spoke to John about Jesus as the Lion, but when Jesus revealed Himself in the next moment to John, He revealed Himself as the Lamb.
LikeLike
Paul Pederson,
You write that if I can’t get past the “minor issue” of the book that I have seemingly anchored myself on, then I “will miss the peace, joy, and freedom that Christ intended me to have.” Brother, in all sincerity and love, I must ask– isn’t that hanging a *lot* of my relationship with God on a fictional book? Is getting what so many other people have gotten out of the “The Shack” (positively, that is) crucial to my Christian life?
One doesn’t have to love “The Shack” in order to deeply experience the mysteries of the Christian life. The Bible contains more mystery than I can ever penetrate with my puny, finite mind. Before anyone goes there, again, I’m *not* anti-art. I love art– all forms of it! Great art has enriched my Christian life, from the music of J.S. Bach to the films of Ingmar Bergman to the novels of Dostoevsky. Art made by thoughtful non-Christians (such as Bergman) has even enriched my life more than most contemporary “art” (I use the term loosely) made by Christians.
Having said that, when a Christian author writes a fictional book intending to convey some sort of message about the Christian life, and that book contains serious theological errors, *and* it is getting a wide audience which is being deeply affected by it, that concerns me. Are we so sure of the soundness of our faith that we think we cannot be negatively affected by the bad theology in a Christian novel? The very fact that so many people say that book has drawn them closer to the the true God, when the true God and His ways are seriously misrepresented at different points in the book, illustrates my concern.
I love art. I love symbol. I love metaphor. I know very well how these things work. I majored in English in college, and I love quality novels, poems, and films. Again, a novel doesn’t have to pass a theology test in order to be valuable.
However, C.S. Lewis himself said that one could “smuggle in” a a good bit of theology in the form of novels, poems, etc. Aslan is a Christ figure. Lewis said that he didn’t intend for Aslan to be taken even as an artistic depiction of Christ Himself, but as a Christ figure of sorts. Conversely, “The Shack,” in the *artistic form of fantasy,* purports to tell us truths about the true God. It doesn’t say that God *is* a black woman. It does strongly imply, though, that God is willing to reveal Himself to us in ways that *conflict* with how He reveals Himself in the Bible, and that He is willing to do so because of our issues and weaknesses. This is a pop psychology God. By contrast, in Flannery O’Connor’s works, to my knowledge, God is never shown as working in ways that are opposed to His revelation of Himself in the Bible.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m sick and laying low right now, but I want to leave at least one more comment here, to respond to what you and others have written.
About the “Biblical standard” question in art, the standard that I use (similarly to Flannery O’Connor, I think) is “Does this book/film/painting generally hold up what is right and true, Biblically, as *being* right and true– or does it represent what is wrong as somehow being right? Does it teach serious error, directly or indirectly? Does it represent the true God accurately or inaccurately?”
If you push the “whose Biblical standard” question for art far enough, don’t we end up in complete subjectivity? That is a problem for me, in terms of art and Biblical truth.
To clarify, I don’t think that *all* novels, collections of poems, films, paintings, etc. *must* meet a rigorous standard of Biblical truth in order to be valuable. For example, I love independent and foreign films, and most of them (that I have seen) contain various kinds of error, in terms of a Biblical worldview. However, these films are far more thought-provoking and enriching than what I find at the local multiplex, so I continue to enjoy them and be challenged by them (while being cautious and careful about some of the content).
With “The Shack” though, we have a novel, written by a Christian, which, while fictional, purports to tell us *truthful* things (in the artistic form of fantasy) about the *true* God and how He works with believers. In other words, part of the seeming intent of the book is not to *lie* about God but rather, to show us true things about how He really is, how He really thinks, feels, and acts.
Many Christians seem to be responding to the book in just this way. I have heard stories of this book helping people (especially struggling, weary Christians) to “connect” with God in ways that they either never have, or haven’t in many years. When I hear this sort of praise for “The Shack,” I can’t help but wonder, where was the Bible in their lives all of this time? Why did God’s Word not help them to “connect” with God as deeply this novel has? Please understand– I’m *not* saying here that fiction can’t help us to have a real experience of God. However, should a fictional novel help us to “connect” with God more deeply and profoundly than His own revealed Word though? This seems to be the case with at least some of the testimonials that I have heard about “The Shack.”
The Father God of the Bible does care about our weaknesses and preferences– even the sinful ones. He wants to transform not just our behavior, but our hearts, thoughts, and emotions. He cares for us and deals with us as *whole people.* However, this same Father God does not reveal Himself to us in His Word as *we* might prefer Him to (according to our life circumstances and subjective preferences), but rather, as He Himself is, in ways of His own choosing. This Father God, in His own Word, does not reveal Himself to anyone in the human bodily form of a woman. Neither does the Holy Spirit.
The Father God of “The Shack” is very different. He reveals Himself to Mack in a way that Mack can “deal with,” according to his life circumstances and preferences. Mack knows that the first Person is the Trinity is revealed as a Father, but because of his own father issues, Mack “struggles with” thinking of God in this way– and the Father acquiesces, until near the end of the book. (There are similar problems with the Holy Spirit in the book.) This is the “Father God” of secular pop psychology, *not* the Father God of the Bible. Yet many Christians say that this book has helped them to feel closer to the *true* God.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with this book. A fantasy God, who acts in ways that are *opposed* to the Biblical revelation of God, is supposedly helping people connect more closely with the true God of the Bible. This is quite disconcerting when we’re speaking of long-time Christians, but it is even more concerning when the readers of the book are non-Christians.
LikeLike
I don’t see this book as dangerous. I think it’s a window into a somewhat more authentic, Biblically-based version of Christianity for people who would never touch the titles on sale in a Christian bookstore. If a book dealing with Christian themes is going to make it to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, I would prefer it to be this book than a host of other possibilities.
Millions of people who are reading this are getting a glimpse of Christian belief that is *closer* to orthodox than anything Oprah might recommend, Rush Limbaugh’s conservative audience might profess, or even Joel Osteen might present on television. I can see people several months from now sharing their stories of coming into the kingdom beginning with a reading of this book.
I don’t see inconsistencies, just some broad brush strokes being criticized by people who would have preferred a high resolution photograph, which of course you can purchase a few aisles over in the Bible section.
LikeLike
Michael,
I just want to say that if you criticized Piper for being over the top on God’s sovereignty in the face of certain tragedies, you’re not alone. My old PCA Pastor who was Executive VP of RTS/Jackson for a time would agree with you 100% about Piper’s… mannerisms.
Just saying, is all.
LikeLike
Christopher,
As far as God the Spirit being “like” rather than “as” a dove, I would say the important point is that God manifesting/revealing himself as something non-male and non-human.
I’ll give you the one about the tongues of fire being a sign rather than a manifestation.
LikeLike
Greetings, beloved of the Lord!
I am SO encouraged by all I’ve read here! It has given me a “heads up!” with regard to my own writing.
Almost 20 years ago I said “yes” to the Lord’s invitation to life. Since then I’ve been fascinated by the Word and plunge into every story I read. It’s the stuff I write about, building my fictions on the reality that daily infuses my life with love. Almost every year since 1993 I’ve written some sort of story based upon a specific aspect of the Christmas story. One year I also wrote an Easter story, filling the pages of Mary Magdalene’s diary beginning the day Jesus died and closing her book the day of His ascension. The story of my conversion is a fairy tale and, even though I’m female, the protagonist works better as a male character. Now I’m working on an unusual love story, where “the regulars” learn to trust and then to say “yes” to the owner’s offer of life and healing. They’re all fictions but I could no more leave the Lord of all love out of these stories than I could stop breathing and continue to live.
So, you see, this blog exchange is preparing me for the day I am published. I’m glad there are pastors who care enough to try to protect their flock: very important if you’re called to a position of leadership. I’m equally glad to see that there can be differences of opinion yet we treat each other with respect, even while we disagree. Thank you for those lessons.
Knowing He’s called me to write, knowing the stories He gives me are fiction, knowing that every year with Him my heart becomes increasingly more tender, I will still pray for a thick skin, because write I must.
all of Heaven’s best to you and yours,
Margret
LikeLike
I suppose I ought to admit that the fact that many of these same people who are denouncing Young have also denounced me in the past does affect me 🙂
I went through a lengthy period of time when one truly reformed blogger made me a project and a crew of them were all over me for not using the word inerrancy and not believing in limited atonement. When I criticized Piper for his over the top statements of God’s sovereignty in the face of various tragedies, I got it again. Ken Silva has called me the Spirit of the Anti-Christ and James White pulled me apart for three days in 2006 as the essence of the evils of post-modernism.
No, I didn’t present the Trinity as a black woman, etc, but I sure got the “you’re not Biblical, therefore you are dangerous” beatdown.
But it was all- ALL- from the standpoint of Calvinists in a few corners of the Reformed Baptist world.
And when I wrote that “my story” made me different than most of my critics, I got it double. The “story didn’t matter” according to these guys. What matters was my orthodoxy according to their narrow creed.
So, not at all throwing Christopher into that group- he’s been gracious all the way- I do have some serious problems with theological critiques of art. I can’t get how the writer doesn’t have the freedom to be adventurous. He’s not making an “official” church statement. Pastors can critique the theology- as they have. But the artist isn’t engaging in theological debate. If someone took Young’s story- a la Frank Peretti- and made it into theology, I’d go to the front of the line to say that’s a bit of a mess. But I’d say the same about C.S. Lewis!
peace
MS
LikeLike
Christopher,
Way back in the day I spent a lot of time arguing with atheists in internet forums and groups. Actually, they would come into our Christian groups and forums and pick a fight, which I was always glad to take them up on. In the end, both sides always left feeling they had won the debate. What I eventually realized, however, was that both of our sides totally missed the point.
You can get so caught up looking through a microscope that you miss the big picture. Rather than debating apologetics, I should have been sharing what Christ has done in me. I spent a lot of time debating what was very minor and missed the big picture.
For some reason you have anchored yourself on something that is not even a minor theme of the book and are ready to write it off. This is unfortunate because the book describes many mysteries that lead to the “abundant life” that Jesus promised. If you can’t get past this minor issue, you will miss the peace, joy, and adventure that Christ intended for you to have.
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure how anything I write is “Biblical.” How Biblical does it have to be do not be condemned as dangerous?
I mean, by the standard that fiction and stories and art must be Biblical, we’re thrown completely out of the realm of anything subjective and back into some attempt at representing only Bible characters and stories.
The “Biblical” standard is subjective, isn’t it? Whose Biblical standard? Whose Biblical approval? Whose nihil obstat?
This is the bind we always get into on the interaction of “Biblical” approval of art.
I can’t solve it, so I chose to let art be art and let artists be artists. The critics and readers can have their say and anyone who reads/looks/watches can make up their own mind.
LikeLike
At the age of 35, I have had many significant losses in my life. When I was nine, my mother committed suicide. When I was twenty-two, a friend a year younger than me dropped dead of a heart attack. When I was twenty-five, a dear mentor died of a mysterious illness. I myself struggle with a physical disability every day of my life. “The Shack” does not comfort me, concerning any of those things, because it represents God in ways that conflict with how He reveals Himself in the Bible. The God of the Bible, His attributes, and His ways are my comfort.
Again, I ask– does the fact that this book (written by a Christian) is fictional excuse its unBiblical representation of the Trinity, or its unBiblical implication that God will reveal Himself to us in ways that fit with *our* preferences (i.e. the Father appearing to Mack as “Papa,” a woman, because Mack has father issues), rather than in the ways of which the Bible speaks?
Again, I’m not *against* Christians writing fiction, or creating art in general. Flannery O’Connor is my favorite short-story writer. I also like Dostoevsky. I seriously think that both of them would be maddened over the terrible theology in “The Shack” though.
LikeLike
My family and I have had two significant deaths occur this year, one in April and again in June. It rocked us all down to our toes.
I am a Christian woman who believes in strong theology, loves to study scripture and loves the God of the Bible. I say all of this as a friend gave us The Shack, saying it would help us in our grief. In a word, it did. As each of us read this book, it brought us to grieve as we should, knowing that God is a God who comes to us where we are, in a way that is comforting,healing. He knows what we can handle better than we do. This book reminded us of that.
C.S. Lewis, and other writers who have penned fiction books have always been criticized by the Christian community. Even John Bunyan and Pilgrim’s Progress. These books are fiction. They are not meant to be theologically correct books, but I’m sure I’m not the only person who these books have connected to. Lighten up. Read these books for what they are. Relax. God uses them in ways that you won’t know. Sometimes being so bent on being theologically correct at the exclusion of a personal relationship with God the Father, Christ, is wrong and you miss out on the greater blessing of being a born again Christian.
LikeLike
As far as I can see, God’s love is described by theologies, not mediated to us by them; they don’t focus God’s love on us, or drive us into His arms.
Theologies are man-made, and unfortunately in the hands of regular folks, theology can amount to just some Scripture-based arguments to be won. They sometimes shout each other down and call one another “heretic”, as they try to advance competing visions of God’s love. Lots of other people find theology distasteful for that reason. But being loved by God doesn’t feel like like winning an argument or knowing that you are right, no matter what. For my part, I’ve always thought of God’s love as a little like regular love, only better.
Theology can fail to attract people to God in the same way that reading Plutarch fails to make people fall in love; the exploration of the topic, however sound, is so unlike the experience, you know?
Sometimes, you do have to choose between devoting yourself to somebody’s careful theology lecture or going out and falling in love with God.
I think that means I’m with Don.
LikeLike
Wow, Ripplegirl. That comment so misses the point. Have you read the book? Have you actually even read Michael’s post?
I heard Youssef interviewed by Janet Parshall on the radio. This reminded me why I rarely listen to Christian radio anymore. He made his thirteen assertions of heresy with such confidence that it bordered on arrogance. According to him anyone who liked the book was not “in the Word” or “reading the Bible” and lacked a “spirit of discernment.” Excuse me?
What frustrates me about this is that loads of Christians will hear something like this and just immediately and unthoughtful (sort of like Ripplegirl here) just write the book off without any thoughtful interaction.
Was the book perfect? No. How many times can this be said by Michael or others without becoming pedantic? It is not perfect as literature or theology. We all get it. But the book is important because of the message it relates. Not about whether God is a woman or a man (the book clearly states that God is neither), but about the trustworthiness, goodness, and love of God even in the face of terrible tragedy. Many of have missed this because they can’t see the forest through the trees.
This book ministered to me deeply. Can’t art do that? I hope so. If not, we are the poorer for it.
LikeLike
God is not whatever we make Him to be or whatever we see Him as or whatever we would like Him to be. He is God, not a black woman no matter how good that might make you feel in your journey of sadness. Let us not forget- He is God.
LikeLike
About the above comment– I’m not saying that this was the case with you, Don C. Obviously, I don’t know and have no right to try to say. Often though, a desire to experience God’s love, with little concern for correct theology, takes people away from the love of the true God toward a “love” that better fits with their understanding or preferences.
LikeLike
Brian,
About the tongues of fire in Acts, are you saying that they are an actual physical embodiment of God the Holy Spirit (i.e. God *is* the tongues)? I could obviously be wrong, but I don’t understand the verse to be saying the tongues are God the Holy Spirit Himself. They are a sign that the Spirit has come to dwell in the apostles and that He has given them the ability to speak in other languages. This is very different from the bodily appearings of the Father and and the Spirit in “The Shack.”
Also, Don C., the second poster, wrote that when it came to his own Great Sadness, “It wasn’t correct theology that brought me back. It was God’s love.” Isn’t this a false dichotomy?
Understanding and experiencing God’s love, as the Bible describes it to us, *is* a matter of correct theology. Non-Christians have all kinds of ideas of “God’s love” that are wildly wrong, because they don’t know and understand the true God, which involves having right theology *about* God.
Theology tells us about God and His attributes, including His love. Theology isn’t some sterile field of study that is disconnected from truly *knowing* and *experiencing* God. It tells us about the God who loves us and the many facets of His love. People who try to experience God’s love by “getting away from theology” often end up “experiencing” a love that is *very different* from the true love of the God of the Bible.
LikeLike
I know that the book has gotten many people in fits over it’s “theology”, but often I find that these are the same people who want to just throw a fit over anything that doesn’t fit their own individual interpretation of things.
The writing was shabby, but it wasn’t as bad as the usual Christian fiction “prairie romances” that I had to stock when I worked in Christian retail.
In regard to the gender issues, I think it is important that we remember God is asexual. For “Papa” to be in the form that was taken in the book really has no bearing. It has been a few months sin I have read the book, but I recall there being a conversation about Mack thinking God would look like Gandalf, and papa taking on the form in order to help Mack understand that he can’t force his own views of who God is upon things. Heck, when I was a kid I thought God looked like my great-grandmother.
What I did think was wonderful, and very needed, is the portrayal of the actions of the Trinity. Most evangelicals are functional Unitarians now, in regard to the lack of specifc regard to the Triune God in their worship, devotion and even preaching. We have been talking about the book alot at Asbury, and most people seem to think that it did a great job putting trinitarian thought back in the minds of the average church-goer-but then again we are Arminian.
When Driscoll and Chailles get frustrated and start throwing out the word “heretic” I stop listening. I don’t think American Christianity is involved enough in orthodoxy to start decrying people and movements. To be a Heretic had deep social and institutional meanings as well as religious. To be condemned as a heretic meant that you pretty much were outside of the protection of the civil society as well as the Church. This was a threat that was serious in the medieval and reformation era, but has no bearing in our society any more.
I think “The Shack” is a great read and I have told many people to read it. I think BW3 hit it on the head in his reviews, and I agree that the people that enjoy it need to talk about it.
LikeLike
I completely agree that the book needed an editor.
LikeLike
i had mixed feelings when i read “the shack”. i was definitely moved and touched by the story of mack finding God and coming to terms with “the great sadness”. i guess my biggest qualm with the book wasn’t so much that i disagreed with the theology, but i felt like Young went out of his way to make certain theological soapbox points that were unrelated to the death of mack’s daughter. at times it felt like a book about “God’s best kept secrets” as each person of the Trinity shared things about themselves to mack. the book could have easily told its story of mack’s journey towards healing while not losing anything without several of the chapters in the book.
LikeLike
Paul,
Quickly, I am not the Bride of Christ. We, as the church, are *collectively* the Bride of Christ. It’s a metaphor (that signifies a reality) about the nature of His *commitment* to us as the church. I am not “married” to Christ in some way that implies that I am a man married to another man– even a perfect, sinless one.
LikeLike
Brian,
As far as the “dove” reference, the Biblical text says “like a dove,” not “as a dove.” In “The Shack,” God the Father doesn’t appear in some way that can be poetically described as “like a woman” (per the description of the dove in the Bible); the Father appears to Mack *as* a woman. That is a huge difference.
God the Father has no bodily form, and it goes directly against Biblical teaching to imply, even in a *fictional book,* that He might appear to someone in a bodily form.
Why do so many Christians think that a fictional book is harmless, no matter how off its theology is, as far as implying things about the *true* God? Do so few Christians really care about those who will be led to misunderstand the *true* God by such books?
For a fictional book, written by a Christian, is how it makes us “feel” about God, as Christians, the measure of its worth? Where does accurately portraying the nature of the Trinity fit into the equation? Christians have greatly suffered over the centuries defending the doctrine of the Trinity. Why do we not care when it is portrayed inaccurately now, even if it is in a fictional book? What about those who will read it and believe false things, based on it, about the true God (such as the Father or the Spirit appearing in bodily form)?
About the Acts reference concerning the tongues of fire, Brian, I’ll have to get back to you on that one. I’m going out for a bit. Lord willing, I’ll answer later tonight.
LikeLike
Michael,
Minor quibble. It’s “I would have gathered your children under my wings”, not “I would have gathered you under my wings”. Not to take this to a Calvinism debate. 🙂
LikeLike
Christopher,
You got me to thinking. (and if Michael allows this posting) to share a thought experiment. (First of all, I believe in the traditional formulation of the Trinity.)
What if, the second person of the Trinity chose to be incarnated as a woman. That is the only change made. Would there have been the same kind of results, or could only a Man have achieved what Jesus did.
A woman, by the very nature of the culture and the fact that generally women tend to be more nurturing, and sacrificing than men, may not have been successful in the necessary world changing.
LikeLike
Interesting conversation.
I just reviewed this book myself.
LikeLike
I’ll never understand why some folks have to take a fictional story and tear it apart for theology sake. The two are so far apart as it is!
What “The Shack” did for me was to make me want to keep reaching for my relationship with God. I already have one, and have for years, but this book reminded me of just how precious that relationship is. So that is a bad thing?
There are as many different beliefs and opinions about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as there are people who believe and I am not about to tell any of those people they are wrong. Here’s the real fact…none of us are going to know all the answers this side of heaven.
LikeLike
Ed:
As a piece of writing, I agree with you completely. It has most of the faults of the mediocre Christian fiction that sells today, and it has some of those faults- talkiness, for instance, in large doses.
I can create really interesting characters as a writer, but I have a weakness for talkiness in plots. Telling rather than showing. I see this same fault in Young…..but then Young wasn’t a writer. He’d beena minister, not a fiction writer. This story was for himself and his family. And given his personal history, it is one of the few ways he could tell that journey.
But if judged on its merits as literature, it’s a C- in my opinion.
It’s appeal and success is on another level, a level that reflects what isn’t going on in evangelicalism more than what is going on with Young.
And yes on the “we published it and it’s a God thing.” Careful guys. So is Osteen then.
peace
MS
LikeLike
I personally found the book to be tiresome at times, particularly some of the conversations between the character Mack and the representations of the Trinity which seemed more like pop psychology than theology (no doubt Young tapping into his own personal experience for material).
Paul Young has every right to write what he wants, and the God Journey guys have every right to go on, and on, ad nauseam calling the success of the book a “God Thing” (I love how we attach that phrase to anything that seems to go well). However, the subject matter of a book should not automatically shield it from serious literary critique. Maybe all those other publishers refused to print the book because it isn’t very good.
Criticizing popular Christian-themed media on the merits of its artistic quality is tantamount to clubbing baby seals; you automatically face a chorus of FANatics that misconstrues your criticism of the vehicle as hatred of the subject. Still, I’d enjoy a deeper discussion on the merits of “The Shack” as literature, particularly in light of its best best-seller status.
LikeLike
One seldom noticed (but not rare) effect of this book has been the times someone has condemned it, or spoken ill of it (without reading it usually of course) and then after hearing of the release of the pain (Great Sadness) or healing in another has reconsidered, read the book, exercised the judgment of charity, repented and acknowledged that they were wrong. Young’s own mother’s reading and experience is a great story in this category! I wish these stories were more available because they model something the visible church needs desparately.
Michael, once again you have spoken well!
LikeLike
“Nowhere in the Bible does God actually *reveal* Himself to anyone in the *form of* a human mother or a bird.”
Do these count?
Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Act 2:3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.
LikeLike
Christopher:
Certainly you accept yourself as the “Bride of Christ” without homophobic thoughts even though you are a man, do you not? You are a man, Christ is a man, where does that leave you? That leaves you as the male bride to a male Christ.
You could say, “But I will be a spirit.”, as if that makes you neither male nor female. But if that makes you neither male nor female, doesn’t that also make God neither male nor female?
Yes, God is referred to as him/he throughout the bible. However, imagine he is neither male nor female, which I am not saying he is. But if he is neither, should we use “it” to describe God?
| The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden,
| and there IT put the man whom IT had formed
| Gen 2:8 (NKJV)
That doesn’t sound right does it?
I think it is safe to say, God is beyond what we can comprehend. Yes we are made in his image, but what aspects of his image he does not say. Perhaps what he gives us is the best we are able to comprehend. If God presented himself as a burning bush to Moses, I think we can allow a work of fiction to use a little imagery.
The point of the book is not to claim God is a woman and not a man. It uses the imagery necessary to convey deeper truths about God: He does not cause evil but evil is caused by a broken world, he loves you and wants a relationship with you, etc.
The book is not saying, “All roads go to heaven. Live you life however you want and God will accept you when you die.†If it is, then condemn if for that. It’s just using a little imagery to convey some hard to understand truths of God.
Paul
LikeLike
Monk.
Thanks for another excellent post. I love this book and I have shared it with as many people as I can. I always included the disclaimer that went something like ‘don’t get too caught up in the metaphors and images or you will miss the point of the book’ which I took to be that God is not willing that anyone be lost, and especially not be lost because of suffering or pain and that he goes out of his way to rescue them in their hurt and pain. It’s a story. It is not Scripture. Thanks again.
jerry
PS–I took the point about the nail marks on ‘Papa’ to be simply Young’s way of saying that it was God who was crucified. I didn’t think he was trying to say that ‘God the Father’ was on the cross and not ‘in heaven’ when ‘God the Son’ was on the cross and not ‘in heaven.’
LikeLike
Coming from someone who went from an attitude of anger, resentment, and possibly hatred toward God to a relationship almost identical to the relationship Mack experienced with God, I have no problem with its theology. Sure there were a few things that were questionable, but when you picked apart the verbiage I had to wonder if some if those things were meant like I initially took them.
For example, at one point Papa said something to the effect that people from many religions love Him (Baptist, Muslim, Mormon, etc). That raised the hairs on the back of my neck. However, just because many people of various religions “love” God, doesn’t me they know him or are on the path to God. Immediately after that statement Papa clearly said, “not all roads lead to heaven.” Almost everything else was right in line with my experiences.
When I mentally became “crucified with Christ” and allowed Him to live in me (in total surrender to him and absence of self) I found myself in the middle of many things described in this book:
[1] Living without judgment of others – I began to feel deep compassion and love for those the church despised and lashed out on. The church saw these people as evil to be destroyed. I saw them as damaged and lost and in need of love and a savior. I also began to have deep love for those I avoided with a vengeance: The dirty, the smelly, the awkward. This love was not my own but a supernatural love that flowed through me as I emptied myself of myself and allowed God to fill that spot. I easily forgave every sin ever committed against me. I felt embarrassed that I had ever been angry about any of it. If I die to self and God truly lives in me, than every sin “against me†is not against me at all, but against the God who lives in me and is quick to forgive. I judged no offense against me. That was not between me and the offender. That was between them and God.
[2] Living by relationship with God vs. religion – I didn’t have to “do†anymore. I wanted to do, but not to get points with God …and without the burnout. It was out of the love that God poured through me onto others. I didn’t do as much, by the churches standards, but I did the right things with results that were more effective, more powerful, & lasting. But I didn’t have to do as much, I did as the Spirit directed. I constantly found myself in what I, as a strong “The Bible is our only communication from God†Baptist, would have considered coincidences. But they weren’t coincidences at all. It was the Holy Spirit guiding me, and others to me, though a series of bizarre events. I didn’t have to scientifically discover what my spiritual gifts were and then apply them to this or that (usually inward facing) church ministry. I just obeyed, and God worked.
[3] Praying to God sometimes, Jesus other times, and the Holy Spirit at times, depending on their role – Among other things God is the Father, Jesus is our intercessor, the Holy Spirit is the convictor. Why not pray to the Holy Spirit to convict someone? Why not pray to Jesus to intercede with God on an issue you seem to be getting where with the direct approach. Why not pray to the one whose role it is? All three are one God. It is ridiculous to say you can pray to only one when all three ARE One. When I began to speak with God this way, my petitions became much more effective.
I could go on and on, but I won’t. My judgment of this book is not a theology complaint from an “intellectual†who has never given himself completely to God. My judgment is based on my own relationship with God, my own experiences, and deep study of the Word (not just spoon fed words from my pastor). Anyone who has lived by their rational theology alone, as I once did, and not by the spirit, is in no position to judge the theology of this book.
We are so quick to judge areas where we have no experience.
Paul
LikeLike
I have just finished reading The Shack.
The other day I was watching The Matrix and found it interesting that the Oracle was depicted as an older African-American female. A recent magazine article about The Shack used the image of Aunt Jemima and of course there is OPRAH. Do you think that any of these had something to do with his choice of the Papa persona?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m813I-fOcXM
LikeLike
*an* artistic depiction, that is, not “a”… as I wrote, English major here! 🙂
LikeLike
Michael,
Aslan is a Christ figure. It’s an artistic device meant to depict attributes of Christ to us, not a artistic depiction of a “revealing” of God Himself in the Trinity. Papa and the Asian woman in “The Shack”(can’t remember her name) are depictions of “revealings” of the Persons of the Trinity to a troubled man. There is an important difference. I majored in English in college, and I love poetry, quality fiction, films, paintings, sculpture, etc., so I do have an understanding of symbol and metaphor in art.
LikeLike
Michael,
I agree with you that Young almost certainly doesn’t mean to say that God *is* an African-American woman, an Asian woman, or a white man. However, the implication in the book still stands– if we have trouble accepting and loving God, in the ways in which He reveals Himself to us in the Bible, then He will change how He reveals Himself to us, experientially, in order to fit our fallen psychological preferences. This strong implication in the book is simply at odds with God’s revelation of Himself to us in the Bible.
I have a father with whom I have had an often difficult and painful relationship. I have endured various painful and traumatic events in my life. These realities do not give me the freedom to think of God in ways that conflict with how He shows Himself in the Bible. Such “freedom” would be a license from God Himself for idolatry.
LikeLike
Christopher:
You simply can’t declare that Young is saying God is identical to his fantasy representation. He’s said quite the opposite.
Is Lewis not satisfied with Biblical imagery? Why is he saying God is a talking lion?
Peace
MS
LikeLike
Also, the metaphors in the Bible are stating that God is *like* a human mother who takes cares of her children and *like* a bird who gathers its young under its wings. Nowhere in the Bible does God actually *reveal* Himself to anyone in the *form of* a human mother or a bird. This is a significant difference between the metaphors for God in the Bible and the depictions of the Persons of the Trinity in “The Shack.”
LikeLike
Christopher:
The Shack is clearly intended to be fantasy. There is even a plot device that raises the possibility that the entire event is the result of a head injury.
This is a book that has wisdom as a literal woman. I simply can’t buy the contention that Young- whom I’ve heard interviewed on this subject many times- meant anything other than a fantastic representation. He was most certainly not saying that God is the persons he described.
This was Mack’s invitation to meet God, and the entire event was designed for him.
>Why can we not be satisfied and comforted with the ways in which God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible?
It’s not a matter of being satisfied. That’s a false dilemma. It’s a matter of letting a writer be a writer, letting a poet be a poet, and letting an artist be an artist. If you have a literal view that the second commandment forbids all art representing God, then I see your point. But I disagree with that view of the second commandment. God’s own word is a rich mine of imagery regarding God. He is “like” many things that he “is” not.
peace
MS
LikeLike
Michael, these descriptions of God in the Bible are very clearly metaphors intended to communicate certain aspects of His attributes. God does not describe Himself to us in ways that would cause us to think of Him as an actual bird (the wings) or as an actual woman (the “female” representation of Wisdom). The “Rock” metaphor is similar. It is clearly a metaphor, and it leaves no impression that God wants us to think of Him as an actual rock. Moreover, these metaphors are sprinkled throughout different points in the Bible. They are not the *primary* ways that God tells us to think of Him.
“The Shack” is far different in its depictions of the Persons of the Trinity. “Papa” (God the Father) in the book appears in an actual *female human form,* and “she” speaks in a stereotypical African-American “down-home” lingo (which could be construed by some as racist *and* sacrilegious).
“She” is also portrayed as such throughout the book until near the end, when the Father reveals Himself in the form of a older man with a ponytail (which is also sacrilegious– the Father still doesn’t *have* a human form). I come away from such “depictions” of the Father with a far different impression than I do after reading and considering the metaphors of the Father in the Bible.
Similar problems are true with the representation of the Holy Spirit as a woman, in *actual human form.* God has warned us about depicting Him in a human likeness. A *very specific* human likeness (whether it be a the character of a white man, a black woman, or an Asian women, with human form, personality, and speech patterns) is all the more problematic.
Why can we not be satisfied and comforted with the ways in which God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible? Has He not given us enough of Himself in the Bible to think about and enough in which to find comfort and sustenance? Why must we come up with new ways to depict God Himself? I’m speaking not of His grace, not the ways in which He works in our hearts, but of *God Himself.* It reminds me of what Calvin writes about our hearts being “idol factories.”
Again, I’m not making a blanket statement here about all Christian fiction. Having read a good bit of Flannery O’Connor though (including “The Habit of Being,” her collected letters, which contain many of her thoughts about writing fiction as a Christian), I do think that if she were alive today, she would be utterly aghast at “The Shack.”
LikeLike
Christopher:
God is portrayed in female terms in the Bible. A lot.
“I would have gathered you under my wings” is a female.
The wisdom of God is a feminine concept.
God is portrayed predominantly in paternal ways, but he is portrayed as all aspects of his creation: animals, rocks. And as human creations: fortresses.
Do you believe C.S. Lewis’s portrayal of Jesus as Aslan should be critiqued in similar terms?
peace
MS
LikeLike
I guess that I’ll be the lone dissenter here (for now, at least)– “The Shack” really concerns me.
Yes, it’s a fictional story, but it’s a fictional story that contains *very* bad theology. Favorable comparisons to “The Pilgrim’s Progress” are beyond lamentable, and comparisons to Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy simply don’t hold up here.
I have read and love both O’Connor’s and Percy’s work. Would *either* of them (much less Bunyan) ever have portrayed God the Father or God the Holy Spirit in human female form, when the Bible consistently speaks of God in masculine terms? When God became incarnate in the person of Jesus, He chose to do so in male form. Isn’t this significant for those who might want to portray God in human female form?
I’m not being a misogynist here. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God– which means that they are equal in objective reality. However, God the Father is an inherently *male* description, and in the Incarnation, Jesus is a man. Shouldn’t these facts tell us that portraying God the Father in female human form is directly contrary to how God tells us to think of Him in the Bible?
Similarly, God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit) doesn’t *have* a body. He is a Spirit. Why even tread on the ground of portraying Him with a human form? That is a violation of the second commandment.
“The Shack” strongly implies that when we have problems seeing God as a Father, due to childhood abuse or for other reasons, the Father will change how He reveals Himself to us in order to fit our preferences. Such an idea is starkly unBiblical. God has revealed Himself to *all* of us in His word (including those without good fathers), and He has revealed Himself in the ways that *He* has chosen to, not in the ways that would accomodate our fallen psychological preferences.
LikeLike
For me, the most salient point in your essay is that the popularity of The Shack (and books like it) reflect a real hunger that people have to see a real manifestation of God’s presence in their lives, a hunger to have a tangible relationship with God.
Certainly that is one of my great struggles in my prayer life, the wish that rather than a one sided conversation, I could speak directly to God and hear Him reply directly to my questions or pleas.
LikeLike
On another note, it’s interesting to me that a book that is supposed to be a “Christian book” to be sold in “Christian bookstores” gets reviewed and criticized differently that just a plain ol’ regular book. I’m pretty sure that, before Christian bookstores even existed, fictional stories written with a Christian worldview – even allegories like C.S. Lewis’s “A Pilgrim’s Regress” – weren’t judged by their exact theological precision.
I’ll have to read “The Shack” now. It sounds like another book that, if nothing else, forces the reader to ask himself questions. The last book that did that to me was Dennis Lehane’s “Gone Baby Gone.” With most of what comes out in Christian bookstores & Borders bookstores these days, books like this are rare.
LikeLike
I can’t agree that Peterson was saying it would have the same effect on culture. That’s really impossible. It’s a book that works a similar territory in a contemporary setting. There are similarities in genre.
It may have been excessive praise, but it’s a big part of how the book got its start.
LikeLike
Many critics hate anything that becomes popular. If the people like it, then it cannot be good.
LikeLike
I think the biggest problem I have with The Shack is the comparison to The Pilgrim’s Progress. I think that is an extreme far reach to say a new book will have similar effects on a culture as another book did. This is especially a reach considering the book they are comparing it to is the second most selling book of all time…right behind the Bible.
To me, it is in the same vein as the Left Behind series. It is a good read, but leave it in the fiction department where it belongs and is meant to be read. I wonder how many people read fictional books looking to attack the theological framework that is supposed to support the work of fiction? I wonder how many of those same people go to the movies with the same disposition? I am guessing that there is a disconnect here somewhere.
LikeLike
“theological Barney Fifes”…excellent.
I’ve had to deal with “the Great Sadness” myself. It wasn’t correct theology that brought me back, it was God’s love. Though I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read the book, I can relate to that theme.
LikeLike
I shudder to think what such folks would do with the works of Flannery O’Connor or Walker Percy. Well, I guess it would be much easier to dismiss them because they were Catholic, or so we’d be told. I’d bet that these folks aren’t much fun to be around in life.
LikeLike