I should start this post by stating that I haven’t finished the book. Actually, I put it down about half way through and haven’t picked it up in a couple of months. BUT, before you jump to any conclusions, my pause was for no other reason than I wasn’t completely captivated by the story - as so many have been. It shouldn’t be said though that I don’t understand its premise, or that I haven’t read enough to comment on it.
MY ISSUES WITH THE BOOK
I suppose when it comes to the label “heresy”, it is something that could be applied to all of our theology at sometime or another (gasp). I know I can confidently conclude that I have NEVER gotten it right on all points - or even most. However, that is not to say that what we believe about God is not as important as, say, that we believe it.
No, admonitions abound in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus to hold fast to “sound doctrine”. This doctrine that Paul spoke of, was no doubt one that he had emphatically taught his “children in the faith”. A doctrine built on the gospel of Jesus Christ - salvation from sin by:
- The gracious act of God the Father (a Spirit and Creator of all).
- Jesus Christ - His only son - who humbly left Heaven’s throne to cloak himself in humanity and submit His will and actions to His Father, even to the point of Calvary’s cross.
- Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, the invisible, yet personal third member of the triune Godhead that teaches, helps, and enables those who have been redeemed.
This concept of regeneration and adoption in the beloved by a three-in-one God is the single greatest point of criticism I have heard about The Shack. So what’s the big deal? I mean, The Shack does show us three distinct “personalities” which supposedly represent the Trinity: “Papa” (Father), Jesus (as Himself), and Sarayu (Holy Spirit).
Now, it should be stated that I am no seminary-trained theologian (like the author of The Shack), but one thing I do recognize is that nowhere in the scriptures do we ever see God represented as He (she) is in The Shack. Certainly, we do see theophanies and Christophanies, instances where the tangible presence of God the Father and Jesus occur at various times and places. However, we never see an instance where God feels the need to represent Himself to mankind in many of the ways that Young does in his book.
Does that mean I don’t think there is any truth in the characteristics that Young ascribes to God, not at all. I only mean to say that all teaching, however it is presented to us (novel or commentary), must be measured against the final standard of truth, God’s word. Yes, I understand that while God’s word is infallible, it is subject to man’s interpretation. However, through the centuries this has always been the case and yet, given non-essential distinctions between those in the body of Christ, there are still a core group of ‘non-negotiables’ that we all maintain as those distinctive of Christianity. These core distinctives might be best summed up in The Apostles Creed.
Now, you might read this creed and not see where The Shack isn’t in alignment. I would only say that whereas the creed never departs from the truth as outlined in the scriptures (yes, as I understand it), The Shack goes way beyond and for that I am sorely challenged. In J.I. Packer’s recent book Affirming the Apostles’ Creed he states:
“The Creator-creature distinction is basic to the Bible’s view of God’s lordship in providence and grace, and indeed to all true thought about God and man. That is why it is in the Creed.”
He goes on to say:
“…the Creator-creature distinction reminds us that God does not depend on us as we depend on him, nor does he exist by our will and for our pleasure, nor may we think of his personal life as being just like ours. As creatures we are limited; we cannot know everything at once, nor be present everywhere, nor do all we would like to do, nor continue unchanged through the years. But the Creator is not limited in these ways. Therefore we find him incomprehensible - by which I mean, not making no sense, but exceeding our grasp.”
This is where I have problems with The Shack. I know that the author is only telling a story, not seeking to write a systematic theology, but I have heard many say that The Shack has redefined for them how they see God, and in that sense the book has done more to shape peoples’ theology than many an old dusty tome full of -ology’s. At the end of the day (which is going to be an extremely packed event on my calendar as often as I say it), if our knowledge of God’s character and nature are redefined, and that new definition doesn’t, after a thorough and thoughtful study, squarely align itself with the Bible, then there is serious cause for concern.
Young may not be trying to make a statement, he may not be trying to call the church to task, he may not be trying to rewrite some of Christianity’s basic doctrines - but he does.
WHY I GET IT
As someone who has been in the rebuilding process of a “ship-wrecked” faith myself, I can understand why people are drawn to The Shack. The author’s disillusionment with all things “organized religion” and “churchy” are serious connection points for me. Recent books such as unChristian expose much of the underlying distaste of many (even among Christians) for the modern trappings and activities of today’s Western church. If this book can help to drive people who have read it back to a more Biblical understanding of the purpose of the Ekklesia, very cool - very cool indeed.
Finally, here is the reason I believe The Shack has become a monumental bestseller - suffering. The big question, “How can an ‘all-loving’ God allow so much pain, evil and suffering?”. I believe the most accurate label that one could apply to the belief system of many (if not most) of those who call themselves Christian in America today would be “Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deists”. To most, God is a distant and detached old man who judges people on the basis of their “goodness” and has given the world a set of principles (comprised of the 10 commandments, the Proverbs, and the Beatitudes) that can help them to achieve general ‘success’ in this life.
I believe that what Young successfully does in this book is to help break down the notion that God is not intimately involved in the lives of people. Let’s face it, we want to believe that God knows about every hair on our head, a God who knows our pain, our trials, and our temptations from first-hand knowledge. I can understand why, for so many, the notion that God does know all about us and is concerned about what we are concerned about is foreign. However, this is not a notion that is foreign to scripture.
Where Young gets it right I believe is that for too long the top-down leadership model of the church has used pictures of wrath and judgement in order to perpetuate the model as it exists (can you say job security?). Moralism and legalism run crossways to the very essence of the gospel (which means good news by the way). What I believe The Shack tries to accomplish is to emphasize a balance between the divinity of God and the humanity of God.
A couple of years ago, during the whole uproar over Dan Brown’s book The DaVinci Code, Brian McLaren was quoted as saying:
“The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown’s that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.”
I would only build on this thought to say that we should always emphasize BOTH the humanity and the divinity of Christ - the balance is All:all (He is our “all in all” as well). For he never ceases to be one in order to become the other, he is Theanthropos - the God-man. Jesus Christ was before all that is and as such reigns over all, but He is also in all as the light of men. Jesus is literally woven as the Word made flesh into all of creation, but make no mistake, He is not created (that would be us) and as Creator he holds all things together (make sure and click that link - cool video).
In conclusion, is The Shack heresy? Yes - in parts. On the other hand, since they are all written by flawed men, show me a book outside of the Bible that is not. The bigger question is what is the net effect of the heresy (and by extension the truth) in the life of the one reading it? My sense is that only time and experience will answer this question, but a few things that I would suggest to those who have/will read the book:
- Be careful not to use The Shack as an overlay for the scriptures, it should be the other way around.
- Talk with other Bible-believing Christians about The Shack, explore where it gets it right as well as where it gets it wrong.
- Pray and study. Ask God for wisdom in helping you get out of The Shack the real truth that He wants to reveal to you.
As for those freaking out about all of the errors they have highlighted in this simple novel, remember your own propensity to screw things up and then trust in the Sovereignty of God - he truly does work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
