As many of you undoubtedly know, The Shack is getting a lot of attention. It’s sort of an underdog story: an unpublished salesmen writes a book for his children that was never supposed to be published. When it is published, it is done so on a $300 budget by a small, independent press. Through word of mouth, the book has grown into a best seller.
One of the reasons, I think, the book has been such a huge seller is because of the basic story line: a man endures a tremendous loss, goes into depression, finds “God” personally (and literally), and is restored to a life of joy. This resinates with a lot of people because loss and pain are parts of all of our lives.
Although this book has touched many people and, perhaps, even brought them closer to “God,” there are many people that I would strongly caution before reading this book. Others I would greatly encourage them to read it. I’ll explain my reasoning below.
Before I start, I’d like to point you to some well done (and more in depth) reviews of the book:
—Tim Challies has a free .pdf review that is very in depth and well done.
—Ben Witherington does a nice job balancing the positive and negative.
—Amy encourages people to read The Shack in order to engage critically with the theology presented.
—Steve Bishop calls us to remember the genre of the book before passing judgement.
Literary Comments
As a piece of literature, The Shack is pretty much deplorable. The writing is awkward and the entire story line is completely contrived. It seems, at least to me, that Young had an idea of what he wanted to say about “God,” but decided to put it into story form instead of simply writing what he wanted to say. As a result, we are left with a cumbersome narrative that carries (or fails to carry) along the dialogue, which seems to be what Young really wanted to say. I was less than impressed with Young’s literary talents. And, come on, “Mack” as the main characters name? I was half shocked that no 18 wheelers showed up in the book.
Theology or Fictional Novel?
Some people have gotten up in arms because this book is being critiqued on a theological level when it is self-described as a novel. I understand and empathize with these concerns. However, no one in their right mind can read The Shack and come to the conclusion that Young was not attempting to describe “God” and his (her? theirs?) relationship to humanity, creation, providence, etc. When people make theological statements, whether in the context of non-fiction, fiction, poetry, songs, Morse code, or smoke signals, they can, and should, be critiqued on a theological level.
Heresy in The Shack
As has been pointed out by others, there is, in fact, heresy present in The Shack.
The first is Modalism. Concisely, Modalism is the belief that God has been revealed in different forms (or “modes”) throughout history: God the Father in the OT, Jesus the Son in the NT, and the Spirit in both. This is seen throughout the book as the narration points out the scars on the wrists of God, which, apparently, come from when Jesus was crucified. While some might say that this is splitting hairs, I do not believe that it is. I agree with Dr. Carl Trueman who said, in a lecture in his Ancient Church course, that all heresies start with a misunderstanding of the Trinity. I fully agree. Our understanding of the Trinity is that important.
A proper understanding of the Trinity can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” To put it simply, the Trinity is comprised of three distinct persons and one substance. Not one substance and three modes. Not three substances and three modes. Not three different gods who are friends. Three persons, one substance. The Shack, unfortunately, confuses this orthodox and biblical picture beyond comprehension.
Second: another Trinitarian mistake is in terms of The Shack’s presentation of hierarchy (or lack thereof) within the Trinity. Through the characters, Young presents the readers with a Trinity in which there is no hierarchy and even presents hierarchy as a completely negative entity invented by a fallen humanity. There is truth and lies in this presentation. The truth is that ontically there is no hierarchy within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all eternally and completely God. However, functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. In other words, in and of themselves (ontically), all three members of the Trinity are equally and eternally divine. But functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. For instance, the Son does the will of the the Father, the Spirit is sent by the Father, only the Father knows when Christ will return. That is a hierarchy…and it is not negative. Hierarchies can lead to injustice and abuse; but they can also lead to freedom and peace. There are good, God ordained hierarchies in Creation, marriage, the Church, and the Trinity. This fact is left out by Young, seemingly because of his distaste for the concept of hierarchies.
Third: there are aspects of open theism present in the book. “God” is presented as someone who does not ordain all things (contra to Scripture), but, somehow, works everything out to his (or her, or their?) purpose. This undercuts the idea of a God who we can trust not only because he is in control of all things, but also because he knows and has ordained the beginning from the end. It might lighten the emotional or psychological tension to believe in a God that is taken by surprise by evil or who isn’t in control of evil, but, at the end of the day, it actually compounds that tension because the God you now believe in is not the God of the Bible, but a God of your own creation.
Fourth: sin is magnificently under stated in the book. While all the evils of the world are pinned on sin and original sin is talked about, there is no talk of how much sin angers God, how much God’s wrath is kindled because of sin. Rather, “God” is presented as someone who is just trying to salvage “his” (or her, or theirs) creation. “God” seems hurt by sin, but not furious. He seems completely pacified by the death of Christ to the point where there is no more anger or wrath. But one reading of Revelation will tell you just how far The Shack’s idea of God is from the Biblical picture of God. God is a God of justice and will vindicate himself and his people. That doesn’t mean hugs and apple pie. It means punishment…and rightly so. If God did not punish sin, he would not be just. If God isn’t just, then what in the world are we doing with our lives? People don’t go to hell because they have been forgiven. They are there because God is glorified in justice and without punishment of sins, injustice reigns.
Conclusion
Some may think that I have been too harsh on this book. Maybe I have, but I have attempted to be fair. I would encourage any one with an interest and knowledge of Scripture and theology to read this book. I would caution those who do not have as much knowledge of Scripture and theology before reading this book. I hope that this book sparks interest in studying the Trinity and that it, ironically, leads people away from its presentation of “God” towards a Biblical and orthodox understanding of God.
One final word: some will attempt to justify the theological errors by claiming that this book has touched many people, healed many people, and, perhaps, brought people to a deeper understanding of God.
Those are the same reasons that this book should be condemned. The “God” that this book speaks of is not the God of the Bible. In a somewhat ironical twist, Young chides against some Christian’s understanding of God and their preconceived notions of a God of their own creation. His answer, strangely enough, was to present a God of his own creation.
Any comfort that comes from a false presentation of God is, in the end, false comfort. The God of the Bible is the God of comfort. There’s no need to reinvent him. We only need to present him.
**UPDATE** Here’s Mark Driscoll’s take on it:
28 July 2008 at 1.01 pm
Hey there, very nice post about the shack. I have read many reviews on it, but not actually had the chance to read it myself. I have talked with many people who have read the book and enjoyed it. In fact some have even said thats it has changed their thinking! I do not however agree with the theological claims in the book and I agree with you totally. Thanks so much. You can check my blog out at confirmedinchrist.wordpress.com
28 July 2008 at 4.20 pm
Your biggest problem is just like Challies … you fail to recognize the metaphorical and allegorical nature of the book. In doing so, over 80% of your arguments are moot.
You claim modalism, and border on tritheism in doing so.
The rest of your arguments are from your particular theological persuasion. Which is ok. If you hold to a Reformed perspective (which seems likely considering the things you quote), then you are automatically going to have problems with certain parts of the book.
But to suggest it is anti-Biblical misses the point. It is anti-Reformed, and I’m sorry but Reformed theology is just that … theology. It isn’t the Bible, no matter how some staunch Reformed believers try to convince people that Jesus was teaching Calvin’s Institutes.
I don’t condemn you for your beliefs. You don’t like the book, fine. You want to ignore its allegory, fine.
Why don’t you just concentrate on promoting truth instead of being obsessed with error.
28 July 2008 at 4.31 pm
Athan: First off, thanks for stopping by.
Secondly, you chide me for not recognizing the metaphorical or allegorical nature of the book. Please explain to me these metaphors and allegories. It seems to be a pretty straightforward book: a man goes through a horrible catastrophe, meets God, talks to God, is healed, and is restored. When the author puts words into the character who is playing God’s mouth, how is that metaphorical or allegorical?
Thirdly, how does stating that God is three persons with one essence “tritheism”? That formulation of the Trinity has been the orthodox position for over 1700 years. Perhaps you can better explain yourself.
Fourthly, stating that there are elements of open theism and a lack of the concepts of God’s justice and wrath have nothing to do with Reformed Theology. They are statements of fact.
Fifthly, my critiques were not in relationship to Reformed theology, but to the Bible. The book contradicts Scripture in many points. You can write me off as some Reformed guy if you want, but you cannot write off my arguments because they are based on Scripture’s teachings.
Sixthly, I do promote truth. Read my blog. But when I see someone calling an apple an orange, I have to say something, especially when so many people are buying into it.
28 July 2008 at 4.56 pm
My only major criticism of your review concerns the first point, on the Trinity. I realize you are at Westminster, and thus are loyal to the Westminster Confession, but that doctrine of the Trinity is by no means the only orthodox one, nor is it the best available doctrine.
I suspect you think Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity is modalist, though I hope you don’t. The problem concerns the modern understanding of the word “person.” When Barth jettisons that language in favor of “one acting subject in three modes of being,” he is not endorsing modalism. Modalism specifically means that the Trinity only exists in the economy, and thus is not revelatory of the immanent being of God. Barth, of course, rejects this. (It’s worth remembering that Maximus the Confessor defined the Trinity as “one essence in three modes of existence,” which is virtually identitical to Barth.)
Now, I can understand if you are unhappy about the way each person of the Trinity is represented as a distinct agent. A better critique would have been the implicit social trinitarianism. But you chose to critique modalism, and the basis for that, it seems, is the notion that God the Father also bears the marks of the cross. But this seems perfectly orthodox to me, just as I think theopaschism is perfectly orthodox. The critique of theopaschism as modalist is old hat; there are other ways of affirming theopaschism without endorsing modalism.
For starters, take the Augustinian axiom: “opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa” — the works of the Trinity ad extra are indivisible. What the Son does, the Father and the Spirit do as well. The Trinity is a single acting subject, not three subjects joined by one substance. That would be tritheism, regardless of how much you emphasize the “one substance.”
Barth provides another way of reaching the same conclusion: the history of Jesus Christ determines what it means to be divine and human. God simply is what Jesus does. The history of Jesus is not external but internal to the being of God. The Father and Spirit also suffered because Jesus, the Son of God, suffered. There is no split between Father and Son, because of the divinity shared between Father and Son — a divinity actualized in the life history of Jesus Christ by virtue of the assumption of flesh in the incarnation.
At the end of the day, then, I think your frustration is not with modalism per se but with christology. Your commitment to the doctrine of impassibility requires you to affirm a christology which prevents the application of the experiences of the human nature to the divine nature. If you allow for the divine nature of Christ to experience the sufferings of the human nature, then there is no orthodox way of preventing the Father from having those same experiences. As all the church fathers affirmed, there is one essence and one will shared among the triune persons. There cannot be any split between what the divinity of the Son experiences and what the divinity of Father and Spirit experiences.
I’m not expecting you to agree with me. I am a Barthian, and so my theological commitments are in conflict with yours. But I do think there are substantial reasons to jettison the commitment to divine impassibility. And if that means jettisoning one’s commitment to the WCF, then that simply means the WCF is not Scripture and can thus be wrong — and that is as it should be.
All of that aside, I am surprised that you focused your critique on modalism rather than on social trinitarianism, which I think is the more appropriate criticism.
28 July 2008 at 6.15 pm
I just wrote a brief review of the book myself, and I must say that I missed some of the things you point out. I agree with you that it wasn’t a literary masterpiece by ANY stretch of the imagination. I just totally missed the modalism stuff. I simply thought Young was trying to indicate the divinity of Jesus, and that is how I interpreted it.
I’m not saying I disagree with you. I see where you’re coming from, and in light of that, I agree that it has some elements that can be problematic. I just interpreted the book differently as I read it.
29 July 2008 at 12.01 am
This explanation reveals precisely why the Shack is popular. There is nothing intuitively appealing, compelling, or, indeed, beautiful, about theologists’ intellectualization of God.
There is, however, something that tugs the soul about this book. It made me cry and I don’t cry. It made me think and I’m not good with the thinking. It left me with a quote that I will never forget and that carries a meaning that — intentional or not — crosses boundaries and religions and philosophies:
“If anything matters then everything matters. Because you are important, everything you do is important. Every time you forgive, the universe changes; every time you reach out and touch a heart or a life, the world changes; with every kindness and service, seen or unseen, my purposes are accomplished and nothing will ever be the same again.”
I absolutely love that. The fact that it flows from such a poorly written book — that fact I do agree with you on — I find remarkable.
29 July 2008 at 4.05 am
I like Punk’s view. I’m still reading the book. Check out my blog on it as well at tiaan.wordpress.com.
29 July 2008 at 10.00 am
I love Driscoll but he obviously didn’t read the book on this one. Is he going to say next regarding The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe – “God is not a Lion! We shouldn’t pray to God the cat!”
While I do have some problems with the book (mediocre writing, no sin, God’s submission to humanity) I think remembering the genre is the key. You can’t read narrative with highlighter in hand looking for an un-nuanced doctrinal perspective. If you were to do that you couldn’t actually read biblical narrative. To use a relevant example there is no single text of Scripture that gives you the orthodox trinity. Some texts sound like tri-theism, others like strict monotheism. The Bible itself doesn’t hesitate to risk being misunderstood. If Carl Truman was right that all heresy comes from misunderstanding the trinity then we’re all heretics because HONESTLY who understands the trinity?
Or take the depiction of God as a woman. Again the Old Testament does the same thing several times. While the OT overwhelmingly depicts God using masculine imagery it also uses feminine. God as pregnant woman in Is. 42:14, a mother Is. 66:13 and mistress Ps. 123:2. Obviously (I hope) God isn’t a man or woman but he will represent himself as such in order to communicate with us. That’s exactly what is taking place in this book.
29 July 2008 at 1.37 pm
Not to diminish Mark Driscoll’s point entirely, but I do think it’s funny to hear him speak against images when right behind him is a fiery three-ring symbol of the Trinity.
29 July 2008 at 1.53 pm
Atomic Punk: If you truly study God and see how he is truly revealed in Scripture (and not The Shack), you will find something more appealing, compelling, or beautiful than you could ever imagine. That is what theologians study.
Meade: I agree. I don’t think Mark read the book and I don’t agree with some of his critiques, such as the goddess worship point or the graven image point. I think the point that Dr. Trueman was making, in the context of his class, was that at the root of heresies is a misunderstanding of the Trinity in the sense that the “misunderstanding” is divergent from the Orthodox view. I’m sure he would fully agree that the comprehensive nature of the Trinity or comprehensive knowledge of such cannot be had. Nevertheless, an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is very important. Lewis makes this point in the chapter entitled “Good Infection” in Mere Christianity (although his view on the Spirit is odd).
Manlius: That stuck out to me too. Driscoll is a nut, which is why I love to listen to him.
29 July 2008 at 2.36 pm
In that case Truman is dead on.
24 August 2008 at 11.33 am
I wrote a lengthy review on “The Shack” addressing the controversies. http://tinyurl.com/56garc
Bottom line- If the focus of your faith is a relationship with God The Shack will be wonderful. If your focus is on legalism, then The Shack will disappoint.
I like the over all theme that takes God out o the box–Don’t worry about yesterday or fret over tomorrow. Enjoy God now. He has it all in control. Surrender and walk in joy.
BLOG CONTEST: I’m giving away 3 copies of The Shack on my blog. Pop over and add your comment to enter.
26 August 2008 at 2.58 pm
David,
I’m not as well versed in Trinitarian thinking as yourself (had to look up theopaschism!), but I’m curious about this notion of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit both experiencing everything Jesus did. That is what you’re saying, right? Or is this idea limited only to the suffering of Christ? Can’t see how that limitation would make sense, so I’ll go on…
If there’s no limitation to the oneness of the experience between the Trinity, then was Jesus in heaven saying, “This is My Son?” Was He (and God) descending like a dove? Did God become an infant? Did He go the bathroom with Jesus?
I’m not trying to be provocative (in a bad way), just airing out my reaction to what I think I heard you say, hoping that you can explain your perspective a little.
Putting aside Barth, WCF, Church Fathers etc for a moment, where do you find justification for this thinking in scripture? Not being rhetorical, I’m genuinely asking “where?” Help me with this.
My own reading of scripture leads me to agree that the Father likely suffered when Jesus suffered, but as the Father, not as the Son. The Father crushed the Son, and this combined with the separation (sorry, Paul Young) _may_ have caused the Father sorrow. However, this was not the same grief that Jesus endured, either physically or spiritually. I think the Trinity can be mind-bending enough without beginning to suggest that God and the Spirit both died on the cross with Jesus… experienced everything that Jesus did. Honestly, I can’t see how the balance of scripture supports such a view.
28 November 2008 at 1.25 am
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I reaad it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard