This user hasn't shared any biographical information

The Shack: Part 2

Posted in Book Reviews, Fiction, Theology and Doctrine on January 31, 2009

     “The healthy soul, like the healthy blood system, has it’s proper proportion of white and red blood cells. The red corpuscles are like faith: they carry the life giving oxygen to every part of the body. The white cells are like discernment: they pounce upon dead and toxic matter and carry it out to the drain. In the healthy heart there must be provision for keeping dead and poisonous matter out of the life stream.”
~A.W. Tozer~
  
     So, a few more nap times have transpired, and I have finally had a chance to once again sit down and sift through the book that one Editor has claimed is a, “Great book! I totally enjoyed it and found some parts of it needed to be read more than once because the words were so “right on”. (Margie Ulsh, Among Worlds- noted on theshackbook.com).
     As you have probably noted from Part 1 of this review, I find Young’s writing, though compelling and engaging in a literary sense, interwoven with a great deal of unbiblical and questionable theology. I attempted a read-through of the book awhile back, but got distracted by life and knew it would require more than a chapter-per-night right before bed.  I read through the book in a relatively short amount of time on my second attempt, just to digest it and grasp the totality of the story. I noted many quotes and conversations within the text that I wanted to return to, dissect and research. Now I am in the longer, more arduous process of really comparing scripture to Young’s claims. It’s not easy people! What’s worse as I noted in Part 1, is not knowing the author and the author’s history personally. Perhaps someday…
     Part 1 left off with a brief look at Young’s description of the Trinity and hierarchy. Continuing in that vein, I wanted to spend some time discussing the nature of the Trinity as it relates to roles and submission in The Shack… If anything, this book has caused me to do my homework on scripture and doctrine….I will try to stay focused as, again, my time is limited!
     I can’t help but note that the section of The Shack that provides the most detail of the Trinity relationship is in a chapter entitled, “A Piece of Pi”. God in Three-Persons is often likened to this analogy. While the Doctrine of the Trinity truly is difficult for our minds to grasp, I believe that Young is missing the essence of God here. As John Piper notes in an article entitled, “What is the Doctrine of the Trinity?”,
     The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a “pie” cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, “the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God.”[1] The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into “parts.”
  
     Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.”[2]

 

     The Shack definitely blurs these distinctions at times- the dialogue is vague, and then a sentence later, is very matter-of-fact. I have been doing some research into this particular scene from page 107, ” …Jesus reached across the table and took Papa’s hands in his, scars now clearly visible on her wrists…”. This is a scene followed by Papa explaining to Mack that “We were there to together” when referring to the cross… I did some research on this. The idea that God the Father as well as the Holy Spirit died on the cross and were present with Jesus on the cross is called, “Modalism”. In a nutshell, it’s the “piece of pie” problem. 

     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. (Harvie Conn).

     Though the relationship between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is mysterious to us, I find it ironic that Young attempts to breakdown stereotypes here. “…this weekend is NOT about reinforcing religious stereotypes”, says Papa.  Admittedly, people and churches have not handled the topic of the Trinity well over the years, yet, Young seems to overshoot the truth in an effort to dissolve these stereotypes. In essence, he’s creating a new stereotype…unfortunately, it’s not one that is rooted in scripture. 

     The final dialogue I would like to note is taken from a chapter entitled, “Wade in the Water”. Jesus and Mack are discussing the topics of free will and submission. Young’s word choices here are a very subtle blend of truth and error….

“That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” (pg. 145)

     Why would the Creator of our universe be submitted to us? Young would say that God would in fact want to be submitted to us for the sake of us joining this “relational circle”.  Genuine submission, according to Young, must be marked by mutual submission. The Bible does teach that we are to submit to one another, but it also ordains certain hierarchies. All people are to submit to God-ordained authorities and ultimately, to God Himself.  Sin has perverted God’s ordained structures however.  People are threatened by terms such as “submit” and “authority”. The connotation is often a negative one…one of abuse, control or even slavery.

     This is not the hierarchy that God has created. Young’s use of words such as “love and relationship” appeals to us because we long to dwell in God’s love. This picture of God (Papa, Sarayu and Jesus) puts God in anthropomorphic terms. Basically- Young is attributing human qualities to God. We cheer at the idea that God wants this close loving relationship (and He does), but Young is literally putting words in God’s mouth through his characters. 

     Authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead  and have existed from the beginning of time.   Jesus was sent by the Father (John 6:57) and Jesus says that His intention is to obey the Father’s will (Luke 22:42). The Holy Spirit obeys the Father and the Son (John 14:26, John 15:26). This structure is not the result of sin, but the very nature of God in which all three are equal in essence, but exist within a relationship of hierarchy and submission.  

     Whew! My brain is sore ;) There is still so much implied within this dialogue…another day another time perhaps! The next topic- Forgiveness- is a huge focus of The Shack. So many read the book specifically looking for guidance and encouragement in this area. I look forward to more research and study through this very crucial topic, and hope this has generated interest and a true desire to know our God- for who He truly is…

Part 3- Coming Soon 

 

, ,

1 Comment

The Shack: Part 1

Posted in Book Reviews, Fiction, Theology and Doctrine on January 30, 2009

Not Recommended

But Read the Review Below to Find Out Why

Taken from Deidra’s Blog (Used by Permission)

theshackcover-thumb-485x800

“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.”    
         -Charles Spurgeon
     I have finally taken the time to read William P. Young’s novel, “The Shack”, and have been working on re-reading sections of it for further analysis and research. I’m sure I’m “behind the times” when it comes to this book as it was released over a year ago and has slowly but surely risen to acclaim from recordings artists to pastors to people on the street. I have heard about it from many different friends, family members and more recently, several people within church settings discussing it’s transformational qualities and profound implications.  Randy has asked me to put a “review” of sorts together as he is starting a blog for the youth and their families at our church and would like to include a section on books, music and media.  Since I have finished the entire book and can comment in a more educated manner, I agreed…what have I gotten myself into, right?

     First and foremost I’d like to share that I have been working on and praying for a more discerning mind and heart these last several months. While the “debater” in me finds causal bantering and discussion enjoyable and thought-provoking, there is nothing enjoyable about discovering the many fallacies of our age. The more I hunger to study and grow in my relationship and worship of God, the more I am acutely aware of what Paul talks about in II Timothy 4- “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” All this to say- what does this have to do with The Shack? Probably more than one realizes. 

     I’ve read many different reviews on this book, and had several discussions about it’s themes and teachings as well. Instead of spending a lengthy amount of time dissecting each specific sentence and theological viewpoint, I am going to try to stick mainly to broad themes…though even in broad terms- there much to say about this popular and ever-controversial novel. For the sake of time, and to protect my brain from exploding (!), I am going to divide the review into 5 sections: 
  1.  The Trinity
  2.  Submission
  3.  Forgiveness
  4. Potpourri of Problems
  5. Why we want The Shack to be Real and Conclusion
     Eugene Peterson says in his glowing endorsement, “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of “The Shack.” This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good!” When a novel has a statement like this highlighted on the front cover, it definitely peaks one’s interest. The list of endorsers includes such an array of other characters- Michael W. Smith, Wynnona Judd….Kathie Lee Gifford? Can a book really be THIS good? I’m not a decorated theologian, but I have a brain and a heart for God’s truth. Let’s reflect on the Shack and find out if it’s actually worth its weight. 

Some Pre-Review Notes: 

Author’s Biography- A Background Check
     When I finished reading the book, I immediately went to the website noted in the back of the book- theshackbook.com. The website isn’t terribly elaborate, but there was a link to Young’s personal blog and I wanted to get more background on him. The tile post of his blog Windrumors, is “You are Welcome Here”. Knowing that the Shack has been a polarizing book for so many, the title definitely came off to me as a white flag, as if to say, “Critics vent elsewhere”. I’ll elaborate on why this struck me in this way a bit later…

     Based on his bio, it’s clear that Young has had a very full and long journey in life. Starting out as an MK in the mountains of New Guinea, he speaks of his dad being in the ministry and many moves and many jobs. Though he doesn’t elaborate much on his childhood here, it is obvious that these experiences shaped his faith as he states, ”For each of us, where and how we grew up plays a foundational role in our sense of ‘normal’, and only when we begin to experience the ‘bigness and diversity’ of the world are we tempted to evaluate our roots.”  Point taken. If this is the case with Young, it would be good for any reader of the Shack to spend some time analyzing his history and background to get an idea of where he is coming from in this novel. 

     Young shares that his ”time is spent loving the people that are a part of my life. I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere. The truth is that I doubt anyone would want me. From my perspective that is a very positive thing… for both of us.” I have a difficult time wading through some of these statements…and I’ll explain why a bit later. For now, if you don’t already know, Young seems like a fairly normal “Joe Schmoe” that just happened to write a book- a janitor with 6 kids just trying to live a loving life….so why all of the fuss? 

Fictional Facts or Factual Fiction?
     Almost every time I have spoken with people about The Shack, it seems like the phrase, “Let’s not forget, it’s just a fictional novel” seems to surface… in my case, this seems especially true of Shack Defenders over Shack Attackers. I personally have a difficult time understanding how theology and fiction can so easily “cross-fertilize” as Peterson says. Admittedly, I don’t read a great deal of Christian fiction, but not one famous or credible “cross-fertilized” example pops into my head. I have also heard people liken The Shack to allegorical novels- case in point, “Pilgrims’ Progress”, “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe”, and even “Lord of the Rings” once. 

     The tricky part about The Shack, is though it is indeed a “fictional novel”, Young supposedly wrote this book for his kids to explain his theology… that’s just the problem. He is using the story to explain his theology and belief system. An allegory is defined as ”n. a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy. Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. –Webster”  

     The Shack is definitely NOT an allegory, and thus, not exactly comparable to these other books. As Tim Challies noted in his book review, “…because of the limitations of the genre, it is sometimes difficult to really know what an author means by what he says. There is often some questions as to what comes from the author and what comes from the characters.” In my view, the Shack is Young’s personal version of Systematic Theology in story form. The other tricky part of Young’s writing is that he makes deciphering his theology challenging and too vague at times. It doesn’t help that there are hardly any scripture references in any part of the book which makes his points even more unstable and questionable.

     Keeping all that I have already shared in mind, one can imagine that reading a book like the Shack is no easy task. This isn’t beach reading by any means. I would have a difficult time relating to anyone who can read it and not be challenged by the theologically saturated dialogue. Is the theology that Young communicates through his characters really…true? My answer?…Yes…but mostly NO with a capital N. In the following sections, I’ll try attempt to explain why.

Deception Detective
     The Shack contains so many interesting sentences and word choices, it would take days to thoroughly sift through everything to come up with a well-rounded critique. As a mama of 2- I don’t have that kind of time. If my girls weren’t awesome nappers, I wouldn’t be writing this review as I “speak”….and on a side-note, this “review” took SEVERAL naps to complete:) I will touch on the main theological teachings I feel are unbiblical and finish up with a few other related thoughts on the book, author and society. 

1. The Trinity
One cannot read The Shack and not walk away with some interesting thoughts about the author’s portrayal of the Trinity- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While some are quick to drop the novel because of its portrayal of God the Father (Papa) as a woman of African-American descent, Jesus as a Middle-eastern man with a “big nose” and The Holy Spirit, an Asian woman/mist named Sarayu, I tried to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. Some argue that the 2nd Commandment forbids graven images of God, but others would argue that God did indeed choose to identify Himself as a “Father” (male) throughout the Bible and The Shack is only using alternate images due to the main character’s (Mack) “daddy issues”. 
     Lets just say that we can move beyond this, though admittedly, I’m not crazy about the author’s choice here. Young makes many references to the relationship that exists between the Trinity through various conversations between the characters. One conversation in particular completely tears down the idea that there is any kind of order or hierarchy among the trinity. According to “Papa,” 

“…we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.”

     This sentiment easily appeals to our flesh and is great news for anyone dealing with authority issues. Scripture is clear that hierarchy DOES in fact exist among the Trinity. Though fully equal and fully God, God sent His Son (John 3:16) to do His will. Jesus shows his obedience and respect to the Father’s will over and over again (see John 5:30, John 10:15 and the Garden of Gethsemane to name a few), and in John 15, Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit. 

     Papa continues, “We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them”. Young’s portrayal as hierarchy as a man-made adaptation is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. God Himself ordained unique hierarchies in the world as a reflection of Himself–one could even call it a “circle of relationship to use Young’s words…But, like everything else, these hierarchies are infected by sin. Sin is what causes marriages to fall a part, not the God-ordained structure of marriage itself. Rebellion against the beauty and uniqueness of roles within relationship is what drives people a part each and every day.

     The word “hierarchy” contains a negative conation for most people. It obviously carries this weight with Young as the characters in the novel claim it as being, “ghastly” and “such a waste”. Another point Young seems to imply is a seeming separation or disconnect within the idea of hierarchy. “We created you, the human, to be in face-to-face-relationship with us, to join our circle of love.” The idea set forth here is that if one person has authority, or fulfills a different role within the circle, there could be no love or real relationship. Again, the Bible refutes this sentiment over and over again and I submit that this is a theological choice the author makes based upon his own past and experiences. If one has the view that authority equals subsiquent slavery, this picture of “everyone is in the same circle with no distinction” would be extremely appealing. 

     These are the moments when a face to face discussion with Young himself would come in very handy. Based upon Young’s bio and many negative references to Seminary, Sunday School and organized religion in general throughout the novel, it makes one want to delve deeper in Young’s personal story so as to understand what he is communicating in The Shack. Since this is not likely to happen any day soon… I’m left to speculate. 

     One cannot discuss hierarchy without discussing roles and submission, which will lead to Part 2 later this week….hopefully ;) In the meantime, I welcome comments and thoughts on this very hot topic.

Part 2

 

, ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.