;)
My Theological Problems with "The Shack"
Posted by Dave Miller in Bible & Theology, IMPACT Features
In my previous article, published here on Thursday, I promised a complete delineation of what I see as the theological problems with William Young’s novel “The Shack” to be published on my personal site. Geoff Baggett asked me to post that here instead of there.
NOTE: I will be traveling for a speaking engagement, so I will not be able to interact a lot over the weekend. I will get to a wireless cafe when I can. You are free to have “Roast Dave” (a favorite dish of some who hear my sermons) while I am away.
These are my impressions and I admit that I could have misread the book at points. Certainly, people will have different opinions. I tried to give fair reading to the book and make my criticisms valid. You, of course, are free to disagree.
First, I would like to spell out several things I like about the books.
1) It is a well-written story that deals with real human tragedy in a direct and powerful way. Too many Christian novels deal with life issues in a shallow, unrealistic way. Not so, William Young. Mack (his lead character) responds just as many would in similar tragic circumstances.
People who have suffered hurt are moved by this book because it deals with that pain in an authentic way.
2) I appreciate that Young challenges our cultural conceptions about God. The biggest problem some have with the book (and a concern I share to some degree) is the presentation of God and the Holy Spirit as women. Young lets us know that he is challenging our conceptions of God as a Caucasian male.
We must be careful that our view of God is derived from scripture, not from culture. Young is right to challenge cultural conceptions. The problem is that instead of replacing those conceptions with a biblical view of God, he replaces it with a concept drawn from a more modern, egalitarian, cultural conception. He replaces one cultural conception with another instead of rooting his concept in Scripture. But the effort is noble.
3) “The Shack” is thought-provoking. A small group of pastors and I have been talking about reading a book together and discussing it, just as a theological exercise. I am going to suggest to them we consider this book as a possibility. It is that well-written and evocative.
That is not to say it is good theology. The thesis of this paper is that it is not based on biblical truth. But you cannot read this book without being moved to thought. Whether you agree or disagree, you will think as you read these pages.
Theological Concerns about “The Shack”
In spite of my appreciation for the book, I have some serious problems with the theological framework of the book. I present here my view of its theological problems inviting dialogue. Perhaps I have misread the book, though I tried to be fair and careful in my analysis.
1) The Shack view of God diverges from the Bible’s.
God forbid us from making any graven images. In other words, we are not allowed to create God as we would like him to be. The ancients created gods of wood and stone, but moderns (or post-moderns) tend to deal in a very different medium. We create gods with our words who are very different from the biblical God. We have to deal with the God of the Bible, the God of revelation, not the God that fits our life’s desires or cultural impressions. We do not get to create the God we want.
I believe that Young has done exactly that. He has created an egalitarian, non-authoritative, non-judgmental, welcoming and affirming god for a post-Christian, post-modern era.
In Isaiah 6, Heaven trembled before the mighty throne of God, an image picked up in Revelation 4 and 5. Ezekiel is constantly falling down on his face before the glory of the God of heaven. Gideon meets the Angel of the Lord and despairs that he must die for seeing God. Scripture consistently views God as awesome in holiness and glory.
The godhead of the Shack is decidedly not awe-inspiring. They laugh and joke and tease each other. They never demand anything. It is, to me, a decidedly unbiblical, even anti-biblical presentation of God. I will expand on this criticism in subsequent points.
And, while God is spirit and not a human male, the Bible consistently presents God in male terms. Why? I do not completely understand. But a presentation that makes God female has less chance of encapsulating the biblical God. We must be guided by the Bible, and it does not allow for the presentation of God as a woman. I know there is scripture about God caring for young, but that hardly balances the dominant biblical presentation of God in Scripture.
The specifics of this criticism will also be spelled out in section 3.
2) The Shack presents an inadequate hope from an imaginary God.
The truth is that many have found comfort in the teachings of the book. People who have suffered great loss have empathized with Mack’s loss and found help in his healing. And that is wonderful.
The problem is, bad theology cannot long give true healing. I have been studying and preaching the book of Job, and the parallels here are so strong that I wonder if Young meant this book to be a modern presentation of that story.
There is a huge difference, though. Job and Mack both went through overwhelming loss. Both got mad at God and worked through their grief, pain and anger in a great dialogue. But Job found healing when the real God appeared to him and asserted his authority and sovereignty. “I am in control, Job. Trust me even when you don’t understand me” is the Miller paraphrase of the message of Job. “When you can create a world and rule over it in sovereign glory, then you can question me.” Job came to trust a God he could not understand. He repented and trusted the sovereign plan of the God he did not understand.
Mack is not called to repent or submit as Job did (in fact, he is told that neither is necessary). He is not called to trust in a sovereign plan of God. He is given false hope from false theology.
Once again, I feel mean saying this, because so many have found so much hope from the book. I do not regret anyone finding healing wherever it comes. But I would caution people from pointing to false hope in an imaginary God.
3) The Shack presents an inadequate view of God’s Glory and Holiness.
This is my fundamental problem with the book, as I mentioned under my first complaint above. Our God is holy, awesome and glorious, not like “Papa” in this book. I will give some specifics here. I hope this doesn’t seem too picky, but I am trying to explain why I feel as I do about the book, so specifics are necessary.
• Papa, the jolly, almost stereotyped black woman, makes some statements hard to square with the Bible. She tells Mack, “Don’t stand there gawking with your mouth open like your pants are full.” Funny? I thought so. But would the God of heaven speak like that?
• She is later referred to as a “big, black woman with a questionable sense of humor.” I don’t know about God’s sense of humor, but whatever He has is perfect!
• She is seen working in the kitchen swaying to the music coming through her earphones. She tells Mack about the kind of music she likes and Mack responds, “God listens to funk?”
• Later, she warns Mack because he is eating so many greens. “Whoa, take it easy with those greens, young man. Those things can give you the trots.” Is the Father in heaven that focused on bodily functions?
• Jesus gets the same kind of treatment. As they are all working in the kitchen, Jesus drops a bowl of batter. Sarayu (the Spirit) observes, “humans are so clumsy.” Jesus is clumsy? Later, a joking reference is made about Jesus’ greasy fingers, then Papa complains, “You can’t get good help.”
• At one point, Mack gives Jesus a playful shove. Would someone who has been redeemed and is in the presence of the Crucified and Risen Savior give him a shove, playful or not?
• Later, Jesus is strolling across a lake with Mack (both walking on top). He gives chase to a fish he says he has been trying to catch, but can’t. I remember the old song, “Jesus Never Fails.” Well, evidently, he does as a fisherman.
Yes, folks, God is my Abba, Father. Jesus is my Savior and friend. But I think the way this book presents the Godhead borders on the profane. It offends me and I am afraid it might do the same to our Holy and Awesome God.
4) The Shack rejects biblical teachings on authority.
I suspect that the anti-authoritarian nature of “The Shack” is the root reason for its approval among some who oppose the SBC’s stance on male authority in the home and at church. Papa teaches Mack that there are no lines of authority among the Godhead at all. A current debate amongst bloggers is whether the submission of Christ to the Father was eternal or just during his earthly sojourn. Young goes a step further and denies there ever was any submission or obedience within the Godhead.
He promotes a “circle of unity as opposed to the chain of authority we often hear about. He claims that anyone who seeks, demands or claims authority over another is doing so contrary to God’s plan and is motivated by control and dominance. True relationship replaces authority and the chain of command destroys relationship, we learn from Papa.
Papa says, “Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience. It is all about a relationship of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” God is submitted to us in the same way we submit to God?
This is a very modern and trendy view of God. But it is not biblical. For Young, hierarchy and authority is all about dominance and control. He seems not to understand the concept of servant leadership promoted in scripture – that a man can have genuine authority and use it for the blessing of those he leads – a view based on the servant leadership of Christ.
5) The Shack twists the biblical teaching of the Lordship of Christ
The fundamental assertion of Scripture is “Jesus is Lord.” Salvation requires that we repent of sin and yield fully to the authority of Christ. Not so for William Young. In his book, God says, “I’m not some bully, not some self-centered, demanding, little deity insisting on my own way.” Papa tells Mack, “I do not want slaves to my will. I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.”
Young’s Jesus says, “Even though you call me Lord and King, I have never acted in that capacity or forced you to do anything.” That is not the view of Christ one would get from Revelation 19 when he rides down from glory trailing the hosts of heaven and strikes down the nations to set up his Kingdom.
Obedience is the key element in our relationship with God from Genesis to Revelation. But not at Mack’s Shack. There, God only wants you to do what you want and never forces his will on anyone.
6) The Shack gives little regard to the Bible
I believe that our highest task is to understand the Bible and obey it. William Young only references the Bible once (as one of the ways God can talk to us, after works of art and Creation’s beauty). He makes no attempt to ground his teachings in it, and asserts many things as facts that are directly contrary to it.
7) The Shack rejects the Biblical teaching on God’s sovereignty.
If William Young has not officially embraced Open Theism, he is certainly close. God refuses to impinge on man’s choice in any way. We make our choices, then God works to accomplish his good in response to what we have chosen.
Papa was not responsible for the death of Mack’s daughter. He (she?) gave absolute freedom to Mack and to the man who chose to kill the little girl. At one point, Mack in anger lashes out and tells Papa that nothing can justify letting his daughter die. Papa says, “I am not here to justify it, I am here to redeem it.”
Job, when dealing with the horror and pain of his suffering, never shifts responsibility from God’s sovereign decree to man’s choices, or even to Satan’s evil. God is working his sovereign plan in this world. We don’t understand it, but we must trust God’s plan.
(Pardon me, my Calvinist showed a little there.)
The Shack has a flawed view of the atonement.
As I understand it, Young has made no secret of rejection the concept of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. There nothing in the book that I could find that described mankind as sinful or in rebellion against God.
For Young, humans have been broken by their independence from God. We were meant to be in this living relationship with God (remember, one that did not involve authority or obedience). By choosing independence, our lives have been broken. If we are sinners, in rebellion against God and under His wrath, we need a Redeemer. But to Young, we are just broken people who need to return to relationship with God so that our broken hearts and minds can be healed. If the problem is sin, the solution is atonement. If the problem is independence from God, the solution is relationship.
“The world is broken because in Eden you abandoned relationship with us to assert your own independence.” That is Papa’s view of the problem. But scripture has a much different view. “All have sinned.” “The wages of sin is death.” “God demonstrated his love in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Brokenness is certainly one of the symptoms of sin. When humanity rebelled against the Lordship of Christ and fell into sin, we not only came under God’s wrath but our lives were broken by that sin. But we cannot be healed from our brokenness until the sin that separates us from God is dealt with.
Young just sort of skips that step.
9) The Shack promotes (or apparently promotes) universalism.
Perhaps it would be best to say that this book promotes a universalistic view. I don’t know what Young believes and whether he is actually a universalist, but some of his statements can certainly be read that way.
In one place, Mack asks, “Is that what it means to be a Christian?” The response comes, “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrat or Republican, and many who don’t vote or are a part of any Sunday morning religious institution.” Sure sounds suspiciously universalist to me.
I have to admit that it hurts a little (as a Baptist) to be cast in the same boat as Buddhists, Mormons, and Muslims (and, well, Democrats, I guess).
In the comment stream for my previous essay, this quote was argued. I read it as a universalistic statement, but others have argued that it does not mean that.
One thing I think is certain. The book does not clearly argue that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” It, at the least, leaves the door open to the charge of universalism.
10) The Shack dismisses the church as an institution.
Wow, does he reserve some harsh words in the latter chapters of this book for the institutional church. Some of them may well be deserved, but I think he goes too far in completely dismissing the church as a God-ordained institution. He says that the organized church seems only interested in power, dominance and control. Again, that may well be true at times, but Jesus does love his body, flawed as it might be, and he is working to present us as a spotless Bride.
Criticize the church? Fair enough. Dismiss and invalidate it? I have a problem with that. And I believe this book tends to do the latter.
There are several other problems I could mention, but I will stop here. Again, these are my impressions. I tried to be careful and fair, but I made a mistake once years ago and it is possible I have made another here. I would invite reasoned, passionate and courteous argument on these things.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Dave,
I think you have been fair here and not mean spirited in your analysis. Fiction (a story of invention) is a difficult thing to analyze because it is applied differently than truth, especially in light of how the church is to obey the truth.
Any author must be careful when he or she puts a new face on God…. since it is God that has clearly mandated that it not be done. If we truly worship God, there should not be anything to distract us from His attributes or we can quickly caste God in our own image, as is done in “The Shack”. It does appear that the symbols of the furniture and ritual of the tabernacle along with the altar, etc. may not be creative enough for some authors as a marking of the spiritual acts of worship. Yet the invisible presence of God should never and has never been imaged…. which yields for us the meaning of God’s initial command.
The book does fit into our culture very well though, since a great deal of Christian’s in America continue to be led to a shallow pool to quench their thirst, when God is worthy and prepares our hearts for much deeper and refreshing water.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave,
Excellent analysis of this book. You have clearly spelled out my concerns with this flawed book. I believe that there’s even more to it than what you’ve pointed out, but what you have so clearly pointed out should be enough for the child of God to turn away from not only this book, but from it’s teachings for sure.
Thanks.
David
The Shack is fiction. It’s not a textbook and does not have “teachings” The author clearly states that the personalities of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are based on what the protagonist is able to understand. It is also clear that the book is a thinking exercise. Nothing about this book is intended to be theology.
It is precisely the kind of read that deserves a session or two with a good theologian for a Bible study class. While I agree with the first comment, your analysis has a fair and even-handed tone to it, you overlay your theological training on the author’s story and judge if as if he were re-writing the Bible itself.
I’m confused by this paragraph:
“The world is broken because in Eden you abandoned relationship with us to assert your own independence.” That is Papa’s view of the problem. But scripture has a much different view. “All have sinned.” “The wages of sin is death.” “God demonstrated his love in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
The world is broken, and we are a part of the world, because of original sin. That is not a direct challenge to the latter statement. It’s a statement of fact. The author did not substitute anything else (as I remember it) for our guilt – although I do recognize that his appreciation and understanding of Baptist-style Christian theology is lacking.
The book is a good read, with a good, dramatic twist in the end. It borders on mysticism in the method the author uses to locate the child’s body. It has other flaws, but the author of Gone with the Wind felt it was a terribly flawed piece. It’s not The Davinci Code that seeks to sully the church – it’s a piece of fiction that has enjoyed success for one simple reason: people enjoy reading it. There is no sub-rosa attempt to twist theology. It had no huge advertising budget, publishing house promotion program, etc.
As for:
” In Isaiah 6, Heaven trembled before the mighty throne of God, an image picked up in Revelation 4 and 5. Ezekiel is constantly falling down on his face before the glory of the God of heaven. Gideon meets the Angel of the Lord and despairs that he must die for seeing God. Scripture consistently views God as awesome in holiness and glory.”
In Genesis, God was in the garden in the cool of the evening, available to talk and spend time with Adam and Eve – similar to how it is portrayed in The Shack. The rest of the Genesis story goes really bad for the couple. However, I believe that one day, we will regain that ability to share God’s presence, or the Disciple’s closeness with Jesus. It’s not a slap at God’s omniscience, or his title as almighty, or his ability to vanquish his foes, for us to claim the promise of that relationship.
I am tired of this excuse: “It is just fiction” – it seems it is trotted out as a deceit to justify all sorts of things. Like “it’s just a movie” or “it’s just entertainment” is merely a figment of one’s imagination or creativity that can be compartmentalized from the real world – a never never land where we can do anything or draw anything or say anything on a whim without harm or foul from man or God. The world of “dreams” where we can murder anybody, sleep with anybody, say anything, and believe anything because it is just “fiction” – it is not real. I guess Jesus had it all wrong when He said that committing adultery in one’s thoughts was the same as committing adultery physically. If that is the case, then we should all start looking up porno – it is not real, but fictional, and merely used for “entertainment” value! But the Bible does not read like that. If we can look at another with lust in our hearts and it be sin, could not the same be said ABOUT writing down our thoughts in “fiction” that diametrically alter the way the God of the Bible is portrayed outside of its pages? What is an idol anyway? Answer: a “fictional” belief of the appearance or character of deity.
“Vain imaginations” become neutral nothings when they are merely used for entertainment or fiction we reason. That is kind of like telling a lie with your fingers crossed behind your back believing whatever consequences are coming your way will be neutralized because we are crossing ourselves. I do not believe that the God of the Second Commandment will give a rip about if the false image portrayed about Him is found in fiction or not. He will take care of His business. God be merciful.
Rob
As I said in the previous essay, I do not buy the “this is fiction” argument.
I could use the very same argument when someone says, “I don’t like the Left Behind books.”
They are both clearly books designed to proclaim truth (whether they are true or not is not the point).
The shack can’t have it both ways. It cannot be both a book whose truth helps people in need and a book that is solely fiction and does not proclaim truth.
Woody,
You asked about the paragraph pertaining to brokenness. My point is that broken IS a result of sin, as you said.
Young seemed to skip that whole thing. For him, broken IS the problem by itself.
Dave,
Thanks for posting your qualms with this book. I have to disagree with #1 on your “likes” list. I didn’t really think the book was written that well
.
1. Aren’t all of our depictions of God how we would like him to be or how we see him as? The whole graven images problem is pretty bogus. If this is what it means to make a graven images, then every time we talk about God, wonder about God, write theology about God; we are making a “graven image”. I don’t think Young is making a graven image, he is writing a story about God as he sees him through Jesus. He might be wrong, but we could be too.
By the way, I wonder if it is offensive to say that depicting God has a female “has less chance of encapsulating the biblical God.” By the way, Jesus depicted himself as a hen (female chicken) – Luke 13:34
2. “bad theology cannot long give true healing” and neither can good theology. Only Jesus can give true healing. Regarding Job vs. Mack… I think it is absurd to say that God treats every individual the same way. Perhaps in The Shack God treated Mack the way he did because of the revelation of Jesus… perhaps God treated Mack this way because of who Mack is vs. who Job was. Or maybe Young is just writing about God the way that he understands him.
By the way, if I were lost and read this book, believed that Jesus could give me the same hope as he gave Mack and decided to follow him. Do you think I would be a false follower of Jesus? Do you think that Jesus would be powerless to fix any of the “bad theology” in this book?
I guess my question is, if a lost person comes out of this book believing in God and Jesus as his savior, when do we say that they are not true followers because this book has some unusual theology?
3. This one made me chuckle. In your next blog post, I would like it if you would post an “adequate” view of God’s Glory and Holiness. I have a feeling you’ll come up short. But perhaps Young just didn’t meet your standard.
It’s funny to me because Jesus was an inadequate view of God’s Glory and Holiness to the Pharisees.
* Would the savior hang out with sinners?
* Would the savior work on the sabbath?
* Would the savior look like an average Jewish man?
* Would the savior work for a living as a carpenter?
4. Where do you see the term servant-leadership in scripture? I believe (and could be wrong) that Young presents a more Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a leader. It may be modern to us, but I have a feeling it’s very historical to Jesus
.
5. Doesn’t Jesus reject his Lordship? I mean he was willing to hang on a cross with nails sticking through his hands/wrists in order to die for us. He was willing to become a human to save us all.
I agree the Jesus of The Shack is not like the Jesus of Revelation… but the Jesus of Revelation is not like the Jesus of Matthew. We don’t see any instance of Jesus battling the world anywhere but Revelation.
6. I really don’t have a response to this. I guess I agree, but I also don’t see it as a necessary problem. I think what Young is doing is saying, “Hey God is alive and speaking to us daily, not just through the words of the Bible.” I can’t say this is bad… or good.
7. Yes, I can see that the Shack is not very Calvinistic. Whether that’s right or wrong, I’m not going to make a judgment because I cannot say that Calvinists are right or wrong. I don’t think that either rejects God’s sovereignty though, they just have different views of how God’s sovereignty work – and frankly both systems are a little flawed in my opinion.
But again, I have to ask, at what point does a reader of The Shack embrace Young’s view of sovereignty, become a follower of Jesus and we say, “I’m sorry, Young’s theology of sovereignty doesn’t agree with mine, therefor you are not a true Christian”?
8. I read a book about the “Conservative Resurgence” when I was at SEBTS. I don’t think it described mankind as sinful or rebellious against God either. I think it’s kind of silly to say that a novel written for a certain point has to touch every aspect of theology before we accept it. I don’t think Young talked about the end times either. I don’t think Young skipped anything, he may not have been as specific as your tastes desire, but to me he just summarized the problem and went on with his story.
9. The Bible says, “There is no God.” – Psalm 14:1
I guess context is important when quoting authors.
10. Well, the church is not an institution, if you’re talking about a Scriptural definition of the Church. I’m surprised you have a problem with this considering your other complaints about Young straying from Scripture. I tend to dismiss and invalidate the institution myself… good or bad, I think the institution causes and creates more problems than it helps solve.
Well, that’s that. Thanks again for the post
.
God Speed,
Lew
Mart De Haan of Radio Bible class wrote this about the Shack:
Without a doubt the hot selling fiction takes a lot of risks in telling the story of a numbed and embittered Mackenzie Phillips as he tries to survive The Great Sadness of the terrible murder of his little girl.
But I’ll tell you up front. Even though this book is being called everything from “liberating” to “blasphemous,” I found The Shack to be a surprising shelter–not only from the controversy swirling around it–but also as a place to confront some of our most inexpressible doubts and fears.
Can’t imagine how many of us are living with memories of loss, and secret doubts about God–thoughts and questions that are quietly driving us mad inside– even as we try to maintain an exterior of normalcy.
Yes, any number of passages in this book can be cited as theologically speculative, provocative, or suspect– especially if they are taken out of context. But, in retrospect, I found so many fresh perspectives that I believe are radically biblical, and Christ-centered.
Without question, I came away with a renewed appetite for the Bible and with a deepened thirst for a healthier and warmer relationship with Father, Son, and Spirit. Although some have concluded that this book reveals a God who is too small to be taken seriously, I found here a Father who is big enough to show us that he can be as tender as the most gentle, endearing, and heart-warming mother. At the same time this same Father lets us know that there is infinitely and eternally more of him than we are now able to bear or absorb. Most importantly, he is a Father who is, in heart and personality, just like the Son through whom he has revealed himself to us.
Some have called the book inherently subversive. I tend to agree. But I’m inclined to think that it was written to subvert shallow views of the Fatherhood of God, the Bible, the Church, authority-based relationships, and the problem of evil.
I agree.
Also Lew, in truth God is Spirit, so by your reasoning, the Bible depicting him as a man would be suspect. The bible has some feminine descriptions of God many places.
Sister Debbie,
What shallow view of the Fatherhood do you think Mart is speaking to? The bible doesn’t show a shallow view of the Father. Isn’t the bible’s view of the Father different than the Shack’s view?
I’ll be the first to admit, as I took a couple of hours to read the book, that it does keep your attention and does pull you into the story. It is an emotional read. But, is it really… I mean really… anything close to the attributes of God as depicted in scripture. Of what I know of scripture, the book doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. The book may be a compelling reading for some,…but oh my, the bible is foreign to many of the concepts raised by The Shack.
I think we are forced to judge this work from the light of what we know in scripture aren’t we? Rob has surfaced the main issue as to how scripture says to test this book….and the book fails to meet the sniff test. That is not to discount that it is a book, written by a Christian man, that is captivating and may tug on the heart strings of someone that has had similar circumstances. But, that is not what we are called to judge and test. We are called to test all things in the light of truth….and that is the real question.
Again, when I speak to someone about the book. I do not bash it,…I try to explain its appeal and why the flesh is hooked by the appeal. Then I explain to them how we can have great joy by running past the feelings conjured up by the book to gain greater understanding and maturity into the truth of a loving God and Father.
So, I don’t necessarily treat it as a springboard to higher understanding. I may use it as simply a comparison of what is true and what is not. Mart may have overstated the effectiveness of the book somewhat IMHO.
Blessings,
Chris
The book itself promotes itself as a book that will change your view of God forever. It calls itself the modern day Pilgrim’s Progress. If that’s not calling itself a “teaching” book, then there are no books that teach. It’s fiction with the intent on teaching Biblical truth…theology.
And, in that regard, this book not only smells…it stinks…bad.
David
Lew,
Some of your responses just show different perspectives and we may have to agree to disagree. But, I would make the folowing comments in response to your comments and questions. The numbers below correspond to numbers in your comment.
2) From the way your comment is worded, is there any value in theology at all? Theology is the study of God. So, theology is not somethin separate from God, it is the way I understand God.
If I understand God falsely, I will present him falsely, thus providing false hope for those who are listening.
I am glad for everyone William Young’s book has truly helped, but I am afraid the false theology of the book may well cause as much damage as it does give help.
3) The logic of this comment is flawed. No, I cannot give a COMPLETE view of God’s glory, but that does not excuse me from trying to give an ADEQUATE view. I can try my best to present him as scripture does.
just because we can’t understand everything about God, should we give up the attempt?
4) Of course servant-leadership is not a biblical term (neither is Trinity). But it is a biblical concept.
Matthew 20:25-28 “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This was a constant theme.
5) Jesus humbled himself and became obedient unto death. “But God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”
Jesus has embraced his Lordship. Read Revelation 19 when he strikes down all those who oppose him with the Sword coming from his mouth.
7) Where, anywhere, in what I wrote did I question anyone’s salvation?
I think what I said is an accurate criticism in light of what he has said about his theology and specifically, his rejection of penal substitutionary atonement (by his own words).
9) In context, universalism is, at the very least, a resonable interpretation of Young’s statement here. Your statement is a clear twisting of that scripture in context. You do not have to twist what he says in that quote to imply universalism. If that is not what he meant, he wrote poorly.
10) the church is primarily the Body of Christ, and there is no doubt the institutional church sometimes loses sight of the purpose of christ’s church.
Perhaps I should restate that my problem is that he seems to dismiss the importance of the local, gathered church. he seems only to care about the universal, invisible people of God.
Lew,
I am not Dave, and he can answer for himself. I would like to take a crack at your responses.
1). They may do so – but they are wrong. It is the God of the Bible who determines how He represents Himself – and that depiction is found in the pages of Scripture. How do we know about Jesus? Through the Word of God. How do we receive faith and goodness from Him? “Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.” God indeed is more infinite than the depiction contained in the Bible. Yet we are specifically warned not to go beyond that depiction:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
- Exodus 20:4-6 ESV
Young does not have the right to make up how He sees God through Jesus. The lens is not an individual perception of Jesus, but the Word’s depiction of Jesus. To do so any other way is to give the right for every human being to depict God “through his own eyes” rather than allowing God to describe Himself for all humanity to serve and trust Him alone. God is the universal “unmoved mover” that transcends all cultures, for all time. He is the same “yesterday, today, and forever.” He does not change His name or character for anyone’s benefit, or attempts to acquiesce Himself to the imaginations of man. Otherwise apologies from heaven are due to the Canaanites, Philistines, and other worthies that were eliminated because one the reasons were that they were “idol” worshipers. What you are implying here is that “man made God” and can continue to do so by our own imaginations distinct from God’s own revelation of Himself. You would not give anyone that benefit if for say that they were describing you in ways that was “not you.” Yet how would you answer in that moment if they said – “well, it’s just the way I see you!”
“Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:29-31 ESV
What is at stake here is “Does what God say is true?” “Does God change His mind?” – it goes all the way back to Eden when the Serpent asked, “Did God really say that? Did He mean it that way?”
Your little hen verse was an analogy by the way. Jesus was describing Himself with the characteristic of “gathering His children together” as a hen would for her brood. The comparison was to the “gathering” not the “chicken.” For pity’s sake, that interpretation would get a bunch of red marks on your paper from anybody worth their salt.
2) “Good theology flows from Jesus who is God.” Indeed Jesus heals, not ideas. Yet Jesus identifies Himself within the boundaries of His Word (doctrine, theology) which is anathema to post-modern palates who desire the freedom to describe God in anyway they choose – existentialism over absolute truth. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Now that does not sound like the lens is an existential Jesus made up by one’s own personal experience. That sounds like a test that derives itself, not by subjective means, but an objective one: “…every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” – i.e. doctrine, theology.
Now what is this about “Does God treat everyone the same way?” “I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” That quote sounds pretty “one and same way” to me!
Job was dealt with by God Himself. The sharing of that moment is found in the Canon, and is described as a real time event, not fantasy. Are you suggesting that “The Shack” is Scripture and should be a part of it? I thought it was merely “fiction”? God did not treat Mack to anything – both were the creation of Young – both the god of the Shack and Mack himself do not exist and have never existed – they are not real except in the mind of Young. Does that then make Mack and God real by their mere existence in the mind of Young?
Indeed Young has gone through many life journeys – by his own admission he was molested as a child. The culmination of his adult life found him in a brief affair with his wife’s best friend. The molestation was not his fault – the affair required submission and forgiveness by both God and his wife – a moment he describes as “brokenness.” I am not discounting the life of the author – we each have journeys that are unique to us, with our own level of dysfunction and sin – sins committed by others against us, and our own. However the God we approach to remedy the hurt is consistent, the same, and forever:
“God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” Numbers 23:19 ESV
Jesus indeed has the power to correct false theology. At the same time we must be wary especially if we know the truth, for as He said: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” – Jesus, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12 quoting Moses from Deuteronomy 6:16.
The danger is when people are drawn to a false image, they will serve that rather than the true God – the god of the imagination is a lot more palatable than the self-described one of the Bible with His “limitations”. Those that follow the deception are then deceived and are held accountable for choosing the false over the true. Or are you saying that Buddha is Jesus, Krishna is Jesus, or the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is the Jesus of the Bible? No wonder God says that anyone who makes a false image of Him will be punished, “…the iniquity of the fathers of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”
3) Your answer here made me chuckle before I almost cried. The “adequate” view of God’s glory has already been written – The Scriptures. It is not that Young failed to meet “my standard” – and certainly “my standard” is not important, and this argument is a non sequitur. The standard is again the Scriptures in which Young abysmally fails to recognize, or has decided to reject in part or in whole.
The example of the Pharisee you bring to fore is inadequate. Like Young, the Pharisee’s had their own view of what Messiah would look like, and Jesus failed their test. If they would have checked the Scriptures, then they would have found Him as He presented Himself to them in all the ways you cite – so whose fault is it that they had an inadequate view?:
“I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” – John 5:43-47 ESV
Again, the test of adequacy is NOT what people want to believe that becomes “true” (existentialism). It is what the SCRIPTURES say is true whether we believe it or not (absolute, universal, a priori truth). Again, that is not very palatable. It was not palatable to the Pharisee and Sadducee, and it seems is not very palatable to Young.
4) The term “servant-leadership” is a description of the type we see reiterated over and over again by Jesus and the apostles:
“And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” – Luke 22:25-27 ESV
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” – Philippians 2:5-11 ESV
“God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” – Acts 5:31 ESV
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” – Hebrews 13:7 ESV
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” – Hebrews 13:17 ESV
5) The answer to this can be found above, but the answer is a distinct thunderous “NO”. He shed temporarily shed parts of His deity, but in no way renounced His Lordship while in human form. A few examples:
“You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” John 13:13-17 ESV
“And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.” – Matthew 15:22-28
The Jesus of Revelation is the same as the Jesus of Matthew. There is no diffusion of Jesus in the Scriptures – He is who He is. He is the one who healed the sick, feed the thousands, gave sight to the blind, gave hope to the hopeless, and extended his life for the world. He is the same one who called the Pharisee a hypocrite/viper/vermin, Herod a Fox, rode out the money changers from the Temple, and who will one day ride a white horse to judge the world in righteous judgment. That friend is called the “whole counsel of God.” And within that counsel, and by your own admission, the creation of Young falls far short of being accurate, and thus is in violation (by your own testimony – I’m glad you agree with this) of the Second Commandment.
6) Since God is immortal and unchanging, then what He says today, is the same as what He says yesterday, and tomorrow. You cannot say Young’s view is bad because your view as stated is that “truth” is what is in the “eye of the beholder.” Truth is that which is spoken by the mouth of God – “Let God speak and every man a liar.”
7) God’s sovereignty is not just a Calvinistic claim – it is permeated throughout the Bible, and is articulated by both Calvinist and Armenian throughout the ages of Christendom:
“Praise the Lord who reigns above, and keeps His court below;
“Praise the holy God of love, And all His greatness show;
“Praise His for His noble deeds, Praise Him for His matchless power;
“Him through all good proceeds Let earth and heav’n adore”
- John Wesley (an Armenian)
The question is with Young’s false image of God, is it easier to be deceived by the false image, or can one embrace the true God through the false image? Again, you seem to confirm that Young’s image is a false one. If that is the case, you are now at the warnings that emanate from God’s Word itself – it tells us not to make such a false image and there are dangers for those that do and/or follow them. God can make lemonade out of lemons – but why does He post the warning for us to turn around and do it “our way” – will He always bail us out if our intentions are good? Or does He desire “obedience” rather than “sacrifice” (See 1 Samuel 15:22-23).
What Dave said in #12
9) What Dave said in #12
10) Here is the crux of the matter. All your responses are rooted in from your ecclisiology – a ecclisiology that as a matter of fact Young embraces – interesting. No answers for hurt found in the “institutional” church (at least none that conform to my liking or “perception” through the lens of my pain) so let’s make it up, give it a few touches of biblical terminology and voila! A god of my making conforming to my hurt without “church” involvement! How convenient!
Rob
Debbie,
You said, “The bible has some feminine descriptions of God many places.” Many places? Where? Could you reference those verses?
I know there are ILLUSTRATIONS to make a point (Like a mother hen caring for her young).
But please show me a verse where God is described as female. Please.
And I disagree with Mr. Dehaan. He says, “Yes, any number of passages in this book can be cited as theologically speculative, provocative, or suspect– especially if they are taken out of context.” It is IN CONTEXT that the problems arise. The ONLY way a theologically sound Christian can appreciate this book is if he ignores the theology and just reads the story, which is moving.
In other words, this book can appeal to Christian emotions, but not to theologically sound minds.
Rob, we posted about the same time. Your answers are much more complete than mine. Good job.
My first reaction to 007 is – so you consider Pilgrim’s Progress to be theologically sound? How to you feel about The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe?
Lew makes a good point about the graven images thing. I just ignored it because I thought the issue of “fiction” took care of that. That this book is fiction, and my comment about it, bears no resemblance at all to Rob’s comment “I am tired of this excuse: “It is just fiction” – it seems it is trotted out as a deceit to justify all sorts of things.” The book is a goodhearted fictional account of one man’s struggle. Likening this work to the deceitful politically correct excuses for public television, pre-porn theatrical releases, or lewd behavior on radio is to miss the mark. The politically correct purveyors of that trash in fact, do not say the works are fiction at all, they say the works reflect “real life” and are therefore culturally relevant. The Shack is goodhearted. Therefore, it’s not an attempt, Davinci Code style, to take people into an imaginary place where anything goes.
Author’s more often expose their own soul searching on their pages rather than attempt to change opinion. When I read The Shack, that is what I read “between the lines.” I find someone – both the author and the protagonist – searching for a connection to God. The protagonist and I have a similar experience – the loss of a child – but I did not identify very well with him at all on that level. I never lost, pushed away or doubted God in my personal experience. My response to the politically correct question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is “What do good things happen to bad people?”
On the other hand, I do identify with the device the author used to allow the protagonist to spend time with God. It would have been a very different book if Mack had spent the whole weekend speaking to God as Moses did in Exodus – looking at his backside.
Jesus used fiction (I assume most of his analogies were composites from His earthly experience, not actual persons) to illustrate principles for living properly. When He told of three servants, entrusted with money by their masters, He was making a point about being responsible with our assignments until He returned. He used as character’s three men with “masters.” They were slaves. To view The Shack as if it were teaching “truths” is to view Jesus’ story and suggest that He endorsed slavery. The character (Mack) had moved away from God. In his dream or vision, he re-characterized God so he could move closer. The Shack does not suggest that everyone has to accept Mack’s view of the Trinity the same way.
More importantly, it does not seem to occur to any of you that the characters were in Mack’s head – it was not God, it was not Jesus, it was not the Holy Spirit – they were character’s in a dream that occurred in Mack’s head. They were not characterized as the real God, the real Jesus, or the real Holy Spirit, speaking inside a fictional piece. They were fiction, inside fiction. What some of you also seem to miss is that the author explained to Mack (through the character who Mack’s brain chose to depict God) why he appeared as a woman; then as a man. That does not constitute idolatry.
Mack is a creature of his environment. The author and his character cannot help but be influenced by that environment and culture. The author, whether he intended to or not, reveals how those struggling on the periphery of the pagan world who are trying to draw closer to the God are thinking. That should help us choose words to help them to the Biblical truth; help them pull away from the contradictory messages our culture has about God.
The promo on the cover does indeed say it will change your view of God forever. That’s a pretty open promise and is pretty much advertising-speak for whatever you want it to mean. The Shack does not “preach” in a Mein Kampf style that we must accept God as a large black lady in an apron. If that’s what you get out of it, you probably shouldn’t pick up any of C.S. Lewis’ stuff. If your view of God is that he wrote a book that had a lot of rules to be followed upon threat of a heavenly sword – this should be a change of view. The book does not say it will change God forever, just your view. If someone has the first view and The Shack opens their minds and hearts to view God as someone with whom they can have a relationship – that is a good thing. There is still plenty of time for them to continue their journey and find a true, Biblical, picture of God.
Finally, the original three points Dave Miller makes about The Shack are ones that I agree with totally. The Shack is a “think piece” that lends itself to discussion and should, in a good theologians hands, provide teachable moments in seminars, Bible-study classes and groups.
By your own admission, Woody, the view of God from the Shack is not a true view – here are your words:
“If someone has the first view and The Shack opens their minds and hearts to view God as someone with whom they can have a relationship – that is a good thing. There is still plenty of time for them to continue their journey and find a true, Biblical, picture of God.”
In light of the prohibitions contained in the Scriptures concerning the augmenting the “picture” of God (see Exodus 20:4-6) how do you justify your words with the Scriptural prohibition?
Certainly we can look at the work, have a conversation about it and use it for a tool to appeal to the correct “picture” of God from Scripture from the made up “fictional” one. God does work in mysterious ways and can use stones to bring people to Him. But does that excuse those who know the truth from excusing or violating the clear Words of the Scriptures? What you seem to advocate here is that “anything goes” as long as people find out about the God who cares and desires a relationship. Truly – does anything go? What parameters do you draw – where far will you go – where will you not go?
Rob
Woody, you are an intelligent and well-spoken advocate, even if I disagree with your premise.
To me, the book advocates truth statements, couched in fiction. Whether truth-statements are given directly, or embedded in fiction, it is completely acceptable to analyse the truth statements.
The fictional framework of this book does not absolve its responsibility to present truth accurately. I think a book like this MUST be read with discernment.
btw, today was my birthday, so after I commented I ran out for the day to celebrate. I haven’t read all the responses, but will try to read and respond tomorrow, if I can.
God Speed,
Lew
Happy Birthday!!
I’m a pastor of a small church and have been leading a 9 week small group using The Shack as a study guide. We have worked from the premise that The Shack guides our thoughts, and in all things our questions return to Scriptures for answers. While we have found small questions and issues with theology, our overall assesment has been that this book points us to a God that created us and loves us above all else. Isn’t that kind of the point?
I have seen eyes opened and preconceptions challenged in my group, and I’m seeing this as a catalyst for my church to move beyond our stoic conceptions of who God MUST be and what the Church is supposed to be, and has forced us into the Scriptures to learn of our identity as God’s people and His identity as God. Awesome…truly awesome!
I have heard several such testimonies of the therapeutic use of the book, and mentioned that above. And I appreciate that Young challenges our culturally conditioned views of God. I am glad for that.
However, he replaces those with even more flawed views of God. I cannot get past what I consider to be severely flawed theology in the book.
that is why I would not be able to recommend the book.
The greatest therapeutic textbook ever devised is the Bible. Whatever happened to that book? Is it not good enough anymore? And the thing about the Bible is this – I don’t have to worry about it having a false premise of who God is – in that book there are no fictional issues that need to be dealt with!
Rob
Rob,
I couldn’t agree more.
My problem with a lot of modern religious movements is that they try to do therapy by treating the symptoms instead of the disease. That’s one of my chief criticisms of Young. He focuses on “brokenness” and ignores the fact that sin is what produces brokenness.
We cannot heal people with hugs until we take them to the cross for redemption; to be made new in Christ.
Dave and Rob,
Amen and amen and amen!
David