The Shack

Last month, a couple of friends asked me what I thought about The Shack by Paul Young. I had to admit that I’d never even heard of it. Anyway, they assured me that a number of Christians are reading it, so I decided to purchase a copy.

Whenever I get a book, I immediately glance at the recommendations. To be honest, I’m looking for names like Don Carson, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, John Piper, etc. – not because I think these men are infallible, but because I trust their discernment. Well, I didn’t find any recommendations from these men, but I did find one from Kathie Lee Gifford. You may think it’s unfair of me to say this, but I offer it for what it’s worth: a recommendation from Kathie Lee Gifford doesn’t instill confidence – not in me, anyway!

In simple terms, The Shack is a theodicy – an attempt to answer the age-old question: If God is all-powerful and loving, then why is there suffering in this world? In The Shack, Young establishes a very plausible (and terrifying) scenario – a young girl (Missy) is kidnapped and brutally murdered. In the opening chapters, the pain is palpable as her parents (Mack and Nan) pass through this heart-wrenching loss.

To this point, the story is very believable. From here, however, it enters into the realm of the unbelievable – the purely fictional. Mack receives a letter in the mail from “Papa” (God), inviting him to visit the cabin where Missy was murdered. Full of skepticism, Mack makes the trip. Once there, he encounters three individuals (p. 82-84). The first is God the Father: Elousia. He (actually she) is an African-American woman, who enjoys cooking. The second is God the Son: Jesus. He is a Jewish man, who enjoys wood-working, dish-washing, and star-gazing. The third is God the Spirit: Sarayu. He (actually she) is an Asian woman, who enjoys gardening.

The point of the meeting is encapsulated in Papa’s declaration to Mack: “I want to heal the wound that has grown inside of you, and between us” (p. 92). Elsewhere, he (actually she) says, “Isn’t that your just complaint, Mackenzie? That God has failed you, that he failed Missy? That before the Creation, God knew that one day your Missy would be brutalized, and still he created? And then he allowed that twisted soul to snatch her from your loving arms when he had the power to stop him. Isn’t God to blame, Mackenzie?” (p. 161).

Through a series of experiences with Elousia, Jesus, and Sarayu (everything from digging up roots to walking on water), Mack eventually comes to the realization that – no matter what happens – God is good. As Papa declares, “At this point all I have to offer you as an answer is my love and goodness, and my relationship with you. I did not purpose Missy’s death, but that doesn’t mean I can’t use it for good” (p. 222). This realization brings a measure of healing to Mack and, by extension, to his family.

That’s the general idea of the book. I want to make five observations.

1. The Shack is fiction

It tells a compelling story. It deals with a family that has experienced a terrible loss. It deals with a tragedy that touches our innermost feelings. It deals with a situation that’s our worst nightmare. As we might expect, it’s very moving. However, the same is true of all good works of fiction. And here’s where we must be careful. We must not confuse a deeply moving experience, arising from a work of fiction, with truth or reality. My fear is that many Christians will do just that. They will read The Shack, and seek to derive comfort and solace from a fictitious story, when – all the while – they should be turning to the only true source of comfort: God as He reveals Himself in His Word.

2. The Shack is irreverent in its description of God

Young is unrelenting in his attempt to humanize God. In so doing, he crosses a line. Where is the awe and reverence? Where is the appeal to think great thoughts of God? Where is God’s glory and majesty? Where is God’s holiness? All of these things are trivialized by Young’s depiction of God triune as Elousia, Jesus, and Sarayu. He has entered dangerous waters in his portrayal of God triune as nothing more than three glorified human beings. There are token references to God’s eternality and power and knowledge. However, these things don’t make the greatest impact upon the reader. On the contrary, after reading the book, the reader is left with the impression that God is more like man than he thought. Here’s the question: Does The Shack faithfully glorify God as He is glorified in Scripture? The answer is no. That alone should sound alarm bells.

3. The Shack is flawed in its formulation of theodicy

It places sin and suffering outside the purposes (and decrees) of God. According to Young, God seeks to bring good out of sin and suffering, but they aren’t part of His plan. What are the implications of such a theodicy for our doctrine of God? How do we reconcile such a theodicy with what we read about Joseph, Job, and Naomi? How are we to interpret Scripture? “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4). “I am the LORD, and there is no other. The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these” (Is. 45:6–7).

These are but a couple of examples. The Bible makes it clear that God is sovereign over all things. David declares, “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all” (1 Chron. 29:11). A. W. Pink articulates the importance of God's sovereingty as follows. Perhaps you'll find it useful.

“The doctrine of God’s sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology, and in importance is perhaps second only to the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures. It is the center of gravity in the system of Christian truth; the sun around which all the lesser orbs are grouped; the cord upon which all other doctrines are strung like so many pearls, holding them in place and giving them unity. It is the plumb line by which every creed needs to be tested; the balance in which every human dogma must be weighed. It is designed as the anchor for our souls amid the storms of life. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart, and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces gratitude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords comfort for the present and a sense of security respecting the unknown future. It is, and it does, all and much more than we have just said, because it ascribes to God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – the glory which is His due, and places the creature in his proper place before Him – in the dust.”

4. The Shack is cynical in its depiction of the church

I won’t belabor this point. Suffice it to say that Young takes passing shots at seminaries (p. 65), churches (p. 178-179), commandments (p. 197-198), etc. It leaves me asking how much of this is merely a reflection of his dislike for authority?

5. The Shack is ambiguous in its articulation of theology

Having read The Shack, I can only guess at what Young really believes. Here are ten examples. (1) He seems to deny the fatherhood of God (p. 93-94). (2) He seems to imply that God the Father suffered with God the Son at Calvary’s cross (p. 95-96). (3) He seems to suggest that all three persons of God triune became man (p. 99). (4) He seems to indicate that God limits Himself (p. 107). (5) He seems to minimize the wrath of God (p. 120). (6) He seems to deny the sovereignty of God (p. 125,165,185). (7) He seems to confuse gender roles and distinctions (p. 145-148). (8) He seems to subscribe to some sort of universalism (p. 182). (9) He seems to believe that God is reconciled to man (p. 192). (10) He seems to affirm that God has forgiven everyone (p. 225).

These “ambiguities” worry me, because ambiguity is rarely a sign of orthodoxy. Young really needs to state what he believes – in no uncertain terms – on these matters. My worry is that many Christians will read The Shack, assuming it articulates sound theology. It doesn’t.

Summary

One final comment: on the front cover of The Shack, there’s a quote from Eugene Peterson: “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

I strongly disagree. (1) Pilgrim’s Progress is a spiritual allegory. The Shack is pure fiction. They are different literary genres. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. (2) Pilgrim’s Progress is biblically based. It’s saturated with hundreds of Bible references and allusions. The Shack isn’t. (3) Pilgrim’s Progress is theologically sound. It reflects the major tenets of English Reformed theology, as Bunyan traces the sojourn of Pilgrim through the golden chain of salvation. The Shack doesn’t do anything like that. (4) Pilgrim’s Progress has been used of God for close to 350 years for the edification of His people. The Shack will be forgotten in but two or three.

.

.

Quotable: "In a culture saturated with the esteem of the 'self' and marred by the decline of Deity, we stand in need of beholding God for who He is. We need desperately to be humbled and amazed at the infinite splendor of His unrivaled greatness and the unspeakable wealth of His lavish goodness. We must marvel at His blinding glory and fall astonished at His benevolent grace. If we are to escape the cult of 'self' and find, instead, the true meaning of life and the path of true satisfaction, if we are to give God the glory rightly and exclusively owed to Him - that is, if we are to know what truly promotes both our good and His glory - we must behold God for who He is" (Bruce Ware).