Monday, 28 July 2008

• THE SHACK - REVIEW

  Before any discussion of “The Shack” we need to make one thing clear:  it is a work of theological fiction.  It is not a straightforward novel.  That means that William Young’s purpose is to create a work of fiction to promote specific theological positions.  So, to move beyond the plot and get to the theological propositions, Mackenzie’s daughter Missy is abducted and murdered leaving Mackenzie feeling distant and angry with God.  After a few years of wallowing in “the great sadness,” Mack receives a letter from Papa (his wife’s affectionate name for God) inviting him to spend a few days at the shack where Missy died.  There, Mack meets the Trinity:  God the Father is a large black woman, Jesus is a Jewish carpenter, and the Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman.  There Mack and God work things out.

   

  Honestly, the novel is compelling, and despite the fact that most of it is dialogue, it is a quick and interesting read.  The picture of God and his interaction (or lack thereof) with the world is attractive to some extent, but unfortunately, it is also deceptive and incorrect.  Young works through a myriad of theological error in 240 pages. 

   

  Let me give you a few examples of theological error in the book.  At one point, Papa says, “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie.  I don’t need to punish people for sin.  Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside.  It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”  Though it is clear that God takes great joy in forgiving people of their sin, all of Psalm 7 speaks about God being a righteous judge who judges sin.  In addition, “The Shack” is completely silent to any sense of sin being judged or even a hell.

   

  Young also has a great problem with hierarchy, however his Papa is a big fan of submission.  So much so, he presents God as submitting to humans.  Papa says at one point, “Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect.  In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”  Young’s explanation as to why God submits to humans:  “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship.”  At first read, that sounds pretty nice, but God does not submit to humans so that they will believe in Him.  Yes, Jesus Christ submitted to human courts and was crucified by the hands of men, but that is not what Young is speaking to here.  He is speaking of God submitting His holy and perfect will to humans so as to entice them into relationship.  I don’t find that compelling; I find that slimy.  Honestly, is it attractive for God to deny all of who He is to beg us to love Him?  I don’t think so.   God does not give His glory away in order to woo us.  Instead, Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.”

  Now, notice that in each of these examples, I’m countering scripture with what Young presents.  Mackenzie, in his interaction with God, does finally getting around to quoting scripture, though not very often.  In one of the few times he does, this is what we get. 

  “In seminary (Mackenzie) had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects… Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” 

  It would seem that Young mocks anyone that would look to scripture to understand God or to find peace.  Reading the scriptures is not looking for God in a box or merely in a book.  Psalm 119:92 says, “If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.  I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have preserved my life.”  The scriptures show us God and show us our own hearts.  The scriptures don’t restrict God; they wonderfully express His character and will to us.

  Honestly folks, we can do this all day long.  Young has fashioned a god that is quite attractive, but is not at all concerned with being the God of scripture.  In addition to the things that I’ve mentioned above, Young dispatches with Jesus’ submission to the Father, God’s willingness to orchestrate any human circumstance, the sufficiency of scripture, and even the organized church.   Read “The Shack” out of curiosity, but do so with a mind that takes Young’s argument to their logical conclusions because at first read, they are not always apparent.  I don’t think Young is purposefully trying to misinform his readers.  I think he is trying to show them that there is comfort from God in tragedy.   However, there is no comfort if we follow a god different than the one presented in scripture. 

   

  • 5:15 AM
  • 62 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment