"The Shack" A book review by Don Reigstad
The Shack, by William P. Young, 2007
A book review by Don Reigstad
A good book, set up for mild disappointment by an over-exuberant marketing quote on the front cover, "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" -Eugene Peterson
It is quite good, but not that good.
As a short novel it reads very quickly through the first five chapters after which the pace slows to a crawl as the author wrestles with psychological and theological issues. These are a few of the issues I will address briefly.
1.The Trinitarian God. Young gives a fresh, through speculative, presentation of the triune God the Father that some may find disturbing. (Jesus as a Middle Eastern man and the Holy Spirit as an Eastern woman probably cause little to no problem with most.) God the Father, "Papa," however, appears as a black woman, very motherly. The presentation of God as woman has been done for a long time in less evangelical circles (I once heard the Lord's Prayer sung at a seminary in St. Paul as "Our Mother, who art in heaven...").
No evangelical theologian would deny that God is in some sense neither, or both, male and female (Gen. 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Also, Isaiah 66:13, "As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.") But Young suggests that the notion of God as Father is "religious conditioning" or "religious stereotype." (p.93) My problem with this is that if it is conditioning or stereotype, then it is God himself who has originated and perpetrated the conditioning and stereotype. God Himself, not man, has chosen to present Himself to us in a Father role, not in a mother role. He certainly could have presented the other or both, given the numerous different writers over many years. Certainly God could have convinced one of His servants to "take the heat" for a contrarian view. It's not like His Scriptures are conformist. So why is the biblical presentation a Father vs. a Mother? Young addresses this, through "Papa's" words, "Our emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence."(p.93) This may well be true. This is also poignantly the case for Mack. His earthly father failed and hurt him dearly. My disconnect comes between Young's own words that God is presented in the Bible as Father because that is the image humanity most needs, including Mack, and yet Young still presents God as Mother and doesn't reveal God as Father until the end of the book when Mack has already been reconciled to "Papa" and forgiven his earthly father. (p.221)
Again, if God Himself, through the Scriptures, has chosen to reveal Himself to us all in a certain way, I am inclined to think that we should follow this pattern instead of changing it.
2.Other theological issues.
a.In a few places the impression is given that all are presented as "God's children." (p. 91, 119, etc.) This also has been common among non-evangelicals, especially since the late 1800s. Certainly this is true in the most general sense of creation yet we are not speaking of the "Creator God" but of the "Father God." The overwhelming picture in the O.T. and the N.T, for Jews and for Christians, has been that "our Father" is a phrase that only believers may use of God. "It is Jesus' disciples that He taught to pray, "Our Father..." Further, Jesus spoke of those opposing Him/God as "belonging to your father, the devil." (John 8:44) It is only by God's Spirit within us that we cry, "Abba, Father!" (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) Someone might cite Ephesians 4:6, "...one God and Father of us all." I would only ask that you apply the most basic of all interpretive rules for any literature and ask, "Who is the audience?" The answer then becomes clear. The audience is the church. This text, then, is proved consistent with all similar texts such as Ephesians 1, "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...in love he predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ..."
Certainly we should present God as their Creator and that He desires to be everyone's Father. Biblically, however, He becomes our "Father" through new birth and/or adoption. This is the overwhelming picture in the Scriptures. To speak of God as everyone's Father (You are simply estranged from Him.) may seem more palatable for evangelistic purposes but it is not the biblical picture, and it may well lead to the wrong impression. This wrong impression is where many, including universalists, have taken it. We must speak in love but we must speak the truth - in love.
b.Young touches on another theological point which could have even more significant ramifications but I am not sure. In reference to Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Young puts this into the mouth of Papa, "Regardless of what he (Jesus) felt...I never left him." (p.96) This statement runs two risks: (1) Suggesting that Jesus was mistaken, and (2) Suggesting that Jesus' death was not a "substitutionary atonement" which has been held by orthodox Christianity for centuries but abandoned by liberal theologians who have suggested various alternatives from Christ "setting a perfect example" to sacrificial but not substitutionary death (i.e. something less than Jesus dying "in my place.") I was later relieved that I don't think Young wishes to depart from this historic doctrine of substitution. (See page 163)
c.Two lesser concerns:
i.God is not active, but passive, in punishment. Again, both sides are present in Scripture. God's activity in punishment is even more evident than passivity. (Rom. 1:18) We just don't like it. But this is not justification for omitting/ignoring it.
ii.Hierarchy and authority are only concessions to the fall. It's not the way it's supposed to be. (p. 122ff.) In fact, Young has Jesus saying, "I don't create institutions...that's an occupation for those who want to play God." (p.179) There certainly is some truth to this, however, Paul says that God, not man, is the one who established human governments (Rom. 13:1) and certainly God established marriage. Are these only "concessions?" Will there not be government, albeit redeemed and godly government, in the millennium? Of course there will be and Jesus will rule with "an iron scepter" (Rev. 19:15) Does relational harmony, even in idyllic settings, require no structures/hierarchy/authority? I don't think we can be sure one way or the other and the evidence would suggest to me that some structure will be necessary, even in Heaven.
d.Several reassuring issues:
i.The author apparently believes in an historical Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden. (p. 99)
ii.He speaks of Jesus as "fully God and fully human." (p. 99)
iii.Young does not totally back away from "repentance." ("Is there something you wish to repent of, Mackenzie?" - p.?)
iv.Young speaks of "eternity in hell." - (p.162)
e.A final, overarching concern is "authorial arrogance." Young speaks (He has Papa, Jesus and Sarayu speak.) with divine authority. The crowds were amazed at Jesus' teaching because he "taught as one who had authority" (Mt. 7:29). But Young is not Jesus. Nor does Young bother to stay close to the words of Jesus/Scripture. He regularly delves in to interpretive speculation. This would be acceptable, and is regularly done, but not when one puts his own speculation onto the lips of a fictional character portraying God. Young could not get away with this if he were writing non-fiction. Putting words in the mouth of God is a far more serious issue than writing scripts for human players. We all know that fiction has the power to shape understanding as well and often better than, non-fiction. Christian authors are well aware of this and most do not allow their liberty in fiction to run as rampant as Young does. Mr. Young does not, however, have to answer to me, but to - "Papa."
Thanks for listening,
Don Reigstad