| Analytical Theological Critique of the title The Shack, written by WM. Paul Young.
I have heard both positive and negative reviews of the book The Shack. Some mentioned this book as an eye-opener against the stale religious clichés, while others accused the book as another “universalism” themed. In this report, I will evaluate the contents of this title and address its theological accuracy to the Scripture truth, or the lack thereof.
Premise/Preface:
The preface of the book gave mild background to the story. Since I know the premise beforehand: A supposed good person of a religious background had a conversation with God in the shack where his daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered—therefore I must address a couple of issues with the premise. The foremost problem is my concern over this book being a “fictional” book. Fictional depicts the fact that the content of the book is purely hypothetical, and not actual. The reason being that there is a personal bias that cannot be ignored. The bias is, again, reflected in humanity’s personal ego to justify the victim as innocent. The premise suggests a “good righteous man” suffered unjustly, however every man who suffers is depicted as righteous to begin with. Ever watch the news? Every “victim” of some tragedy is always depicted as a hero, a good Samaritan, and a good person. However, that is not necessarily true. Does death make one great?
The real victim to be addressed is the daughter, of course, but since she is not the main character of the book, not the one who has the conversation with God, not the one who struggles with understanding God, therefore is irrelevant to the evaluation. The “sufferer” in this story is the father, but whether he is just or righteous is only by the fictional creativity of the author. In short, if the story is “true,” the premise would weigh more. Since the story is not true, then can we honestly say there is such an incident where a good righteous man suffers in such a manner? That God allowed him to suffer like this? Hypothetically we can argue that yes God definitely allows tragedy, but again, this specific tragedy is a work of fiction. Therefore unless we ourselves have witnessed such a tragedy either personally or witnessed it happen to a real person, can we accuse God of it? Point being, this premise does seem somewhat incorrect in debunking God’s divine protection over His beloved, since this premise is fictional.
Even so, the main character is still by far not exactly a good person. The book revealed that he probably murdered his own father, and even laughed at it when he mentioned it to others. (pp. 40) And again, it is hypothetical that such a person could still become a good father, husband, and family man. But on the flip side, traumatic beginnings usually steers a man into a life of destructiveness, as the sin of the father carries on to the son. It is far more likely such a man would turn out just as abusive as his own father if not worse. Therefore the whole premise of this main character himself is hypothetical and not necessarily possible.
In essence, though everyone suffers, but is it true that God would allow such evil to come upon the righteous? This question cannot be answered by this hypothetical premise from the book. 1) Judging from the preface, he doesn’t appear as a good man despite how messed up his childhood was. 2) Even if he is depicted as a good person later on in his life, he is still fictionally formulated. 3) Even if he is a real person, but every man who is a victim of such circumstances would be proclaimed righteous, either by others or by themselves. This is the essence of sin to begin with, a sense of ethical fallacy of self-righteousness, the very first step in accusing God of unfairness. He who accuses is greater than the one being accused.
"Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
Job 40:8
This issue, however, may not actually be a problem or weakness to the book. The author’s premise is not to correct a theological fallacy as addressing a more applicable situation. Because in times of suffering and hardship, we can safely say because of sin and the pride of personal ego, majority of even the most purpose driven believers often found themselves in the shoe of judgment, accusing God of what they believe is unfair. As such, the reason the father had the conversation with God in the shack is because this is what most of us will do, even if it is wrong to accuse God to being with. Personally I wouldn’t address the issue from where the author did, because he is creating a fallacy in agreeing with anyone’s disgruntle attitude towards unfairness of God as justifiable—then taking it from there to address why God was not unfair. The problem should really be addressed in the attitude of man and correct the misunderstanding of God’s role with us. Remember the story of Job: when God finally spoke, He rebuked Job rather than comfort him or explained Himself to him. He didn’t need to, He is God. Job, being a man of God, only needed the presence of God to come to his senses. Why? Because light reveals darkness, the divine presence of God itself is enough to clear all the deceptions in Job’s mind and heart at the time. Job understood… He is God.
When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, I was senseless and ignorant; I was a brute beast before you.
Psalm 73:21-22
This is the same revelation Asaph went through in Psalms 73. He was standing on a slippery slope of faith because he was deceived with envy of the prosperity of the world. But like most people, we expected that God will correct his view, comfort him, and then when he will be fine and return back into His presence. What happened to Asaph is the same as Job, when Asaph enters the presence of God… all the lies vanished and he was humbled before the truth. The divine presence of God itself is sufficient. Hence, this completely debunks the premise of the book where this character was in a shack and speaking with God. If this being in the shack with him was indeed God, His mere presence would’ve set him straight, He didn’t need to explain Himself.
Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Exodus 3:6
Up to Chapter 5
There’s not much to remark upon at this point since these chapters so far have been just details to the story. It does address some issues concerning how hard it is for someone to conceive the idea that this note really is from God. But there is also another message that I think many readers may have missed. Up to this point I would guess most readers’ view of Mack is a believer struggling in faith. Not only so, Mack was a seminary graduate and a servant of God. It was because of this great sadness, which led him astray and causing his faith to stumble. However, this is a misconception.
The real picture here is, Mack was never a believer to being with. Just because he went to seminary it doesn’t necessarily mean he is a man of God per say. In fact in the premise, it described Mack’s view of God as brooding, distant, and aloof (pp. 12). This suggests a person who does not really have much of a relationship with God. However, what really helps us understand where he is in this walk with God is his constant doubting of God’s existence. In general, there are 3 levels of unbelief. The first level is the most general, the question of whether God exist. When a believer reached a certain spiritual maturity, this unbelief is no longer an issue, the person’s abundant experience with God would’ve eliminated any doubts. This leads to the 2nd unbelief, questioning God’s love. This is where “most” believers are at, and where I personally consider the stage of spiritual maturity one must be at before being called a believer. Why? Because a believer is one who believes in God, if one doubts His existence, then how can we claim one believes? The third stage of unbelief is one that plague many believers, but they don’t know it. It is the question, “Is God’s grace sufficient for my weakness?” Apostle Paul affirmed this in the Scriptures, yet many believers today still wonder whether their mistakes and imperfection would catch up to them and ultimately ruin God’s great plan and blessing for them. This is the 3 levels of unbelief. Mack, is at level 1, he is not even sure God exists.
Whether this is the author’s intent or not, I don’t know. However this story is not about a believer rediscovering his faith. The more correct picture is this is a story about a man who had been lost in the religion all his life, but never really believed, never knew God… and now knowing God for the very first time.
Trinity: God being an African American woman… just a bit too Matrix for me. The meeting with the woman is just a bit too much on the Evangelical cliché of the “felt need provider God.” As discussed earlier in the premise, if this is God… meeting would not be like this, His mere presence would’ve overwhelmed Mack as it did Job, Moses, Asaph, Abram, etc… God would not need to explain Himself or comfort him, His very divine presence itself comforts.
I believe this is where many are having a hard time, and honestly I can see why. It is not that hard to figure out the 3 figures is an allusion to the trinity, with the mid-eastern man claiming to be Jesus himself. The author’s intent, as depicted in the end of this chapter, is to break the common cliché of European influence that God must be white and Jesus is a male model. However, it is also inappropriate to simply arbitrary throw in 3 unexpected counter clichés. Why? Because the trinity is not simply the concept of 3 arbitrary figures working as one, but their specific relation to one another is important. The actual trinity is a theological terminology used to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their relationship has a metaphorical property that is erased when we arbitrary put in other metaphors. First and foremost is the understanding of sonship, but also that Father being male is extremely significant. This is not a sexist comment. Remember that gender roles exist only because of the creation of Eve. The point of gender roles is also a metaphor of the roles we have with God: humanity taking role of Israel (God’s wife) and church (Christ’s bride). The trinity is about function/roles, submission, humbleness…
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Philippians 2:5-7
I cannot tell you whether this was the intent of the author, to universalize the trinity. But I would probably lean more towards suggesting perhaps the author himself does not really understand the nature of God very well. Changing the Father to some African American woman eliminates a lot of the important factors between the relationship of the Father and Son and also in the character of the Father. Turning the Holy Spirit in to the Asian woman is just strange.
Chapter 6
Here the author reveals the purpose for choosing the Father as an African American woman, to debunk the religious stereotypes. (pp 95). I’m mix feeling on this part, I agree that it is true today’s view of God is a Gandalf like old white man. God is the Spirit, and of course can appear as anything He likes. However, this reminds me of South Park where God appeared as a giant rat. The question remains, sure God can appears as anything, but is it convincing to suggest He would arbitrarily appear as anything? Yes, God is the Spirit and neither male or female, but the metaphor flows from us first, we are the “metaphor” for the relation with God. Another word, God is not gender neutral, but instead we were divided into male and female to understand the role of God and us.
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 4:24
The discussion on the nature of freedom seemed extremely brief, I have to admit it feels like the author is avoiding it. This then begs the question, why bother starting it? I am a bit disappointed because I thought we’re finally going to go deep and then it seems as more of just a transition to the cliché “Truth will set you free” without really even discussing how does truth set us free. But I think the next part is far more disturbing, the part talking about the Father crucified with the Son. This is completely theologically incorrect, not only so but… honestly it defeats the whole purpose of Christ’s sacrifice and reduced it to nothing but an emotional appeal. What I understand is the author is trying to enforce the “love” of God once again, that God never forsakes or leaves us. But as many of us already know, the sacrifice of Christ at the cross and the suffering He endured was not merely the “physical” hurt, emotional hurt, but the most devastating torture… to be separated from the Father for a brief time, because of sin. This is because God foremost is “holy,” and sin, which sets us apart from Him, was taken upon Christ Himself. The theology of the cross was more than about Christ overcoming “physical death” but also overcoming this separation, and return to the Father… thus completing the cycle, cleansed all our sins.
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Luke 23:46
There are a few bright spots in this chapter. The author hits well on the nature of our creation, to be loved. He also hit a key point, that most people project their own image unto what they want to call God. But more so, God surpasses all that we think we know and even into what we don’t know. He surpasses all that we consider the greatest. There’s also a pretty solid reminder of the theology of Christ, of course being most people are taught in the church all their life about the non-negotiables. However, there is one error… pp 101 said Jesus had never drawn upon His nature as God to do anything, this is false. He drew upon His nature as God… to forgive sins. Remember, the Pharisees were angered when Christ forgave others, stating only God can forgive sins. However, it hits very clearly on the nature of Christ’ humanity, that the power to heal is the Father’s power working through Him. This is the very reason why everything Christ did can be done by us, state by Christ “you will do greater work.” Some claims that when the bleeding woman touched Him and was healed, this is an example of the power residing in Him. However, Christ proclaims that it was because of “her” faith, that is why she was healed.
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Mark 2:7
The explanation on God is love is pretty good. Except it does take a stretch to say that all the relationships we have with one another exist because they exist already within God. Because there’s just so little Scriptural reference to support that. Furthermore, it also kind of defeats the reasoning behind our own creation. The more appropriate way is to say that all relationships that exist between each of us is foremost a reflection of the relationship we have with God. Example: Friend to Friend (God as our friend, Moses), Parent to Child (God the Father), Husband and wife (God and Israel, church), Siblings (Christ and us), Authority (Master/Servant, Teacher/Student), etc… The statement that “because God already has all these relationships within Himself is the reason He is love” is very flawed however. This states the necessity for God to exist in multiplicity in order to have love. That is flawed, the definition is not that God generates love, God gives love, God provides love… but God IS love. He IS the very nature of love, love IS God. He is the source where all we think we know of love comes from, and even more so that which we don’t know. He is the everlasting fountain that flows, which we would never go thirsty.
Chapter 7
Chapter 7 began with a good reflection on limitation, why God chose to limit Himself to have this relationship with us. This is the fabric of creation, why God would choose to be in creation to begin with. However, this whole interactions between the triune godheads is still somewhat fictional and I highly doubt is a clear reflection of God. The main issue with that is around the portrayal of love as yet reflection of meaningless emotionalism. This carries on to the strange portrayal of devotions done by the 3 figures, yet again feeding off meaningless emotionalism. It appears that “love” is what is being limited in this example, being reduced to nothing but emotional appeal. This also carried on into the usage of the word “holy,” describing the interactions in the kitchen and also Jesus looking at the stars. Again, the author equates “holy” with how “Mack feels.” Holiness is not a feeling, it is a word describing “separation.” God is holy because He is perfection, separated from everything else which is not Him.
Giving the Holy Spirit a name is also very incorrect. The only reason Jesus has a name is because He came down as a flesh. We know from the beginning that God is nameless, He is “I AM.” Why? Because the only reason name exist is to separate each of us apart. Since there is only 1 God, this is the reason God has no name. Names such as Yahweh, Jehovah, etc… are names given to God by man, after the corruption of false gods we’ve created into this world. Though the author tries hard to make the metaphor of the triune Godhead work, but it is still too separated and dangerously falling on the line of polytheism. The mentioning of Jesus be inside us is completely unscriptural, the Spirit of God which dwells in us is better described as the Holy Spirit, not Christ. Christ, means Messiah or Savior. The trinity is about functions and roles, all of which is then summed up back as the work of God.
Chapter 8
This chapter beings with yet another “if you are God” conversation which should not really happen, because if this character is God, Mack would know. You just know. One would argue that when Christ walked the earth thousands of years ago, many did not recognize Him as God, or accept Him. But the difference is that Christ then was also fully human. Unless the premise of this book is going to change that God here is now fully human, which would create much more problems for the plot. In the OT, there were times when the Spirit of God descended upon man, taking physical forms but still vastly different than taking on flesh like Christ did.
Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.
Genesis 18:2-3
However, there is a good conversation in this beginning concerning the misconception of this “angry God” picture we’ve painted ourselves. This also furthers into the misunderstanding about punishment and God’s wrath. Though I agree with the phrase that sin is its own punishment, but we still cannot nullify that God does punish. God is Holy, separated from sin. As we were called to “abhor” evil, God purifies humanity as a whole when evil cannot be overcome. We have to remember God has individual relationships with each of us, but also a unified relationship with humanity as a single entity. But the compassion of God is still visible in His decisions to punish as it demonstrated His patience and mercy, especially in waiting upon a nation’s sin to reach its peak. How many of us today has the same patience with our own children?
In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."
Genesis 15:16
The topic of chain of command is dangerously wrong. The trinity is foremost a metaphor, as most things God reveals to us to explain the greater lesson in life. Again, there can be no chain of command because there is only ONE God. Remember the trinity is a theological term, not a biblical term. The author continues to make the mistake of referencing the triune Godhead as “3 people” rather than “3 persons.” However, as a metaphorical lesson, the trinity does indeed have a chain of command – the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, and in the final analysis… the Holy Spirit sends us into the world as His witnesses. The lesson taught here is about humbleness, order, and that submission has nothing to do with superiority, but about function and roles. Remember, Christ who IS God, but considers equality with the Father something not to be grasped! If He who is God submits to the Father, how much more must we submit to the Father? Circular relationship thing is a universalism philosophy.
"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.
Matthew 10:40
The author here makes a critical error in his opinion that “hierarchy destroys relationships rather than promotes it.” This is blatantly wrong, a well-established relationship is one that has defined “function and role.” This is the very reason for the establishment of elders and deacons, which actually runs as far back as the time of Moses. This is also extremely clear in the marriage relationship, each must abide by function and role. Ephesians teaching on marriage is clear in the phrase “submit to one another,” a lesson that submission has nothing to do with superiority, but has to do with function, roles, and love. A hierarchal structure “establishes” relationships because it establishes order just as our relationship with God has an established order. The 10 commandments were never about rules and regulations to live by, but it establishes the role of God with His people. It establishes God as the one who creates and sets rules, and we are the ones who follow rules. This whole “free for all” circular relationship is what leads to chaos. If anything, one who cannot abide to hierarchy/structured order is one who cannot do so because of personal pride and a unsubmissive spirit, the very nature of sin.
The author states that “authority is merely the excuse the strong ones use to make others conform to what they want,” is extremely dangerous thing to say and very blasphemes if I dare to say so. Why? Because we already know all authority is foremost established by God. Yes, true that humanity corrupts authority, as humanity corrupts everything else, but that doesn’t mean authority itself is corrupted. This is just blatant lack of understanding what authority is, what roles/functions are, and what is established order. The author continues to proclaim that hierarchy and establish order is the cause of power struggle, prejudice, and war. This is poor reasoning, because what causes those things are exactly the opposite, but because of humanity’s tie to pride, selfishness, and self-centeredness which is what corrupts authority, corrupts hierarchies, and what causes wars. It is the lack of understanding the natural order of thing which creates the chaos we call life today.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Matthew 28:18
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Romans 13:1
This chapter does, however, end on a sound note, responding to humanities inability to understand God’s purpose is because of our inability to see God is good. We continue to blame God for the evil that we did, and still do, judging everything on what we know in our incomplete picture of reality. And the author hits this point clear, the main reason for this is because of our inability to trust, trust that God is good and thus tries to rationalize the hardships in our lives with our own judgment and justification.
Chapter 9
This chapter begins with yet another over exaggerated detail on counter expectation. Again, the author emphasized his distaste for men’s expectation of God to be of order and structure. However, panning to another extreme of endorsing chaos is not really what God is about either. The example with the garden is an exaggeration that failed to grasped that even in undisturbed nature, there is harmony and order. God is not about chaos, God is about harmonic order, perhaps not the order we know but everything He creates in some way compliments each other. The mess turns out in the end to be Mack’s sole, then is the author implying God loves a shattered soul?
Pp 133 made an error in calling Sarayu “Creator.” Since in this metaphor created by the author, Sarayu is the Holy Spirit, she should be designated as the counselor. The trinity is all about function and roles, it is God in 3 persons, yet each uniquely fulfill their functional roles. Remember Christ is not Jesus’ last name, it is His role as Messiah/Saviour. However, this part did have a good explanation on the destructiveness of humanity, yet blaming God for our own failures. This also follows into a good conversation concerning good/evil, about man’s independency, which lead to his own prideful ego to be the judge of all things. The ultimate solution is to surrender that pride to the acceptance of absolute truth, singular truth that binds all things together. This is what brings harmony, ergo counters the previous “chaos” example. However, the description of the duality of evil is the absence of good is just trivial in my opinion. Such simple philosophical explanation seems lacking. Plus, the duality of good and evil is not really a Christian belief, as it is a neo-platonic idea that was integrated into current Evangelical tradition via the Roman Catholics, who were once absorbed into Greek pagan beliefs. God also never asked us to “give up” our independence. This is completely wrong and lacking in understanding what love is, and what God is. Love is the ultimate reflection of free will, independent choice. God created us for the sole purpose to receive and accept His love, to be in this relationship. The choice of choosing God is not to give up free will, but the opposite, to exercise free will. Just because we have the free will to choose, it doesn’t mean every choice is right. We are given the choice to choose wrong, hence the choice to exercise free will, is to choose wisely, correctly, unselfishly.
Beyond Chapter 9
I honestly just don't have any desire to keep reading this book. If I do one day finish it, I'll finish this critique as well. But right now, just so much better things to do with my time. |
