When the prophet Isaiah and the apostle John caught glimpses of God, they were overcome with despair at their own unworthiness in the light of His glory. The same could be said of Daniel or Paul, or any number of figures from Scripture.
But when the protagonist of a new book called The Shack is introduced to the Father of heaven, he is greeted by a “large, beaming, African-American woman” who goes by the name of Papa.
If you have not heard about The Shack, there is a good chance you will soon. A novel self-published about a year ago by William P. Young, the book has gained quite a following in Christian circles. It is still among the top 10 sellers at Amazon.com. And when it receives a glowing endorsement from a scholar whom I respect, like Eugene Peterson, it is not a phenomenon that discerning Christians can ignore.
The story is about a man named Mack, who is struggling in the aftermath of the brutal murder of his young daughter. One day he finds a note in his mailbox—apparently from God. God wants Mack to meet Him at “the shack,” the place where his daughter was killed.
When he arrives, the shack and the winter scene around it transform, Narnia-like, into a mystical mountain paradise, perhaps meant to be heaven itself. Now dwelling in the shack are three mysterious figures—the African-American woman, a Middle Eastern workman, and an Asian girl—who reveal themselves as God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The rest of the book is basically a discussion between Mack and the three persons of the Trinity. While the discussion is mostly on the deep topics of creation, the fall, freedom, and forgiveness, too often the author slips in silly lines that, frankly, seem ridiculous in the mouth of the Godhead. Jesus, looking at Papa, says, “Isn’t she great?” At one point, Papa warns Mack that eating too many of the greens in front of him will “give him the trots.” And when Jesus spills batter on the floor and on Papa, Jesus then washes Her—or is it His?—feet. Papa coos, “Oh, that feels sooooo good.” Ugh.
Okay, it is only an allegory. But like Pilgrim’s Progress, allegories contain deep truths. That is my problem. It is the author’s low view of Scripture. For example, Mack is tied to a tree by his drunken, abusive father, who “beats Mack with a belt and Bible verses.” The author reflects derisively in another spot that “nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that ‘guilt’ edges.”
The Bible, it seems, is just one among many equally valid ways in which God reveals Himself. And, we are told, the Bible is not about rules and principles; it is about relationship. Sadly, the author fails to show that the relationship with God must be built on the truth of who He really is, not on our reaction to a sunset or a painting.
That is not to say The Shack is without merit. The centrality of Christ and God’s breathtaking, costly love come through loud and clear. But these truths are available everywhere in Scripture, everywhere in Christian literature. You do not have to visit The Shack to find them.
As Papa warns Mack, God is not who Mack expects He is. But He is also not what our creative imaginations make Him to be, either.
He Is, after all, Who He Is.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, May 6, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Hello all. I have read the book, and, I have read The Book. Any time that Jesus Himself told a story, it seems that many religious people would miss the point, particularly those in 'authority.' The point, as I see it, was the basic theological ground of theodicy, that God is good, no matter what happens in our everyday lives. God is good, loves us with an everlasting love, and wants to live with and within us... an indwelling apart from which we cannot attain or maintain righteousness. Sure, theology has been stretched somewhat... but any attempt to describe the Trinity is going to be heretical at some point, as it just cannot be done completely and accurately with human words (Remember, it took the Church over 300 years of meetings and councils to hammer it out in a form that most could agree upon). But back to the point of Young's story... God is good, loves you more than you'll ever know, and has a wonderful plan for your life (even though it does not look like it sometimes), and particularly for the life to come! Enter the rest.
Dear Canuckster,
It is really a privilege to explore this with some one with your credentials.
Is the book a metaphorical parable, as I suggested earlier?
Aside from the literary questions, and my lack of background in that area, I still have some theological questions. I am going to try to nail them down a bit more, and post later with those. Thanks!
I'm not associated with this site in any way.
The Shack isn't the Bible. The purpose of The Shack is not to replace the Bible nor is it to provide a complete systematics course.
It's a metaphorical work of fiction meant to depict a journey of healing that took place in one man's life over many years. Much of that journey involved relearning things that were out of balance and at the root of many of the problems that man was experiencing. In that context, it's perhaps understandable how some could make an accusation of imbalance. However, I think it just as likely that those criticisms are reflective of that state of imbalance in the another direction on the part of the critic.
In any event, my original comments were tied to this article.
It's one thing to not like the book. It's another thing to bring one's influence to a public forum and advocate that no-one should read the book. Given that the article itself makes the error of assuming the book is an allegory, it lacks credibility.
I'm disappointed to see a man whom I respect otherwise taking a stand of this nature and by it denigrating a great deal of good things that I believe are coming from the book, and that is my point.
I have been pondering the (apparent) conflict of God’s mercy, and His justice. Earlier, when I noted that I had some concerns that Gods attributes had been quartered off in the Shack, these were the two that were primary, though others were also in jeopardy.
I am not commenting on intent here, just some theological concerns.
In God’s multitudinous attributes, if I might digress for a moment, I do think there is one foundational point that must be made before we proceed with just these two polar aspects.
In His being, are attributes isolated or they integrated? Are all the persons of the Godhead endowed with all? The understanding of integration, as revealed in His Creation, and revealed in His word, is key here. Are we to see God as this or that at this time or that time, or eternally complete, intact?
Loving-kindness and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.Ps. 85:10
In this scripture, together is the word pagash in the original. It clearly is a word that implies joining, integration as does the word nashaq (kissed).
Our complete healing is based not on any one of God’s attributes. He, in all his completeness, has honored us with himself through Jesus Christ. Aside with our guarding His name by not limiting any attribute, we are truncating his fullness experientially, not appropriating His compete provision.
I am considering the forsaken Christ in this light, and will get back with you…
God bless!
PS Canuckster: no offense intended, and I do defer to your credentials. I am a sometimes nursing home housekeeper and aide.
Dear Canuckster,
Are you an employee of the christianpost? I had to resubmitt my post after the post deleted it, and then you replied.
Thank you for your reply though.
Lisa
Thanks for your response Lisa.
Your response illustrates some of my points as well.
I am an ordained pastor with a degree in Biblical Literature and while I'm certainly not the final word on any of these things, I like to believe that I've got a reasonably good handle on literary devices both in the Bible and in literature in General.
In the article above, Chuck Colson refers to The Shack as an allegory, something that the author specifically denies and qualifies many time. By casting it in that light the book and the author is done a disservice and Chuck, no doubt without malice, misrepresents the nature of the book and then goes on to build a case incorporating that misrepresentation or misunderstanding in the foundation of the argument.
If you or Chuck or anyone else (even Tim Challies or Al Mohr) want to try and demonstrate where The Shack crosses lines or misrepresents Biblical Truth in terms of the imagery and truths represented, which after all are representative of about 11 years of a personal journey in healing and restoration of the Author, then I'd be delighted to interact on that level.
You asked me a question however, and I answered it. I spoke rhetorically in part of my answer toward readers in general and you chose to take it personally accusing me of an ad Hominemn attack when I was simply drawing a parallel to elements of Jesus use of parables to illustrate the absurdity of some of the claims in general made about the book.
I don't see selection of some attributes over others that those criticizing the book see. I see a restorative balance back toward the Love and Grace of God that in some traditions is sadly missing.
Sadly, many who seek to reject the book (and it's certainly not above criticism or perfect) don't realize that with the strident terms and unfair characterizations that are made, not only is The Book invalidated, but those who are being reached and ministered to by the book are invalidated along with it, and I think that is very sad, and very unnecessary.
Dear Canuckster, I will try to cover your concerns…
Literary devices: I heard the author state he used parable to tell his story. He said that when Jesus told parables, the stories were not real, but they were true. That makes sense, and I think that it was a neat way to tell his story.
Here is part of one of Christ parables:.
John 15
5I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
So, obviously, Christ is not a grape vine, and we are not branches with fruit hanging off of us. But, Christ carefully illustrates what our relationship is like and how His life expresses itself through us. He is using this device to reveal truth.
I understand that the book is a metaphoric parable, but I am not certain that it reveals biblical truth. I disagree with you that those who object to this message don’t understand metaphors, similes, or parables. The subject here is what is true, not literary devices. (Truth is important when we are dealing with the nature of God.)
Conuckster, here is a quote from your post: ///Don't like God portrayed as a woman? Take a look at Luke 15 and the parable of the missing coin and who God is represented by? Don't like the idea of God represented by a racial minority, then by all means feel free to take Jesus to task for daring to shock his listeners by invoking the image of a "Good" Samaritan.///Ouch. ad hominem argument (aka:personal attack.) You actually just hurt my feeling here. First, I am a women. Second, the large African American lady was very attractive to me because I have several large African American ladies that I hug daily, that enrich my life. An odd thing about the author and myself is that we have an enormous amount in common.
But, now I am falling into the trap of the ad hominem argument.
But, all is forgiven,
OK, now on to legalism.
Legalism is sin. Pure and simple.
2nd chapter of Ephesians: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of Godâ€â€not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what God has made us, created in Chris Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
If I could be circumcised, I wouldn’t be (well , maybe for health reasons).
Are you confusing legalism with the defense of sound doctrine?
Titus 1:99(A)holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in (B)sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Now onto the prison population…..
Ok, being a victim of abuse myself, I have a deeply felt compassion for the writer of this book. But, I disagree that I should reject some of God’s attributes in favor of others, to fit what I feel I need. That is truly putting Him in a box.
He, in all of His fullness, is what I need.
God Bless!
Lisa,
I just happened to see your post and I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. There's no notification so luckily I was checking some old posts and caught this.
I live in the Washington DC area and know several people who work for Prison Fellowship. Chuck Colson dedicated the Church Building I currently attend. He's a respected person and I still respect him personally despite my disappointment at this review.
The Shack is a work of fiction. It is intended as a parable and a metaphor of a path of personal healing and restoration taken by the author. That's actually a good insight as to why the book is so powerful and effective in touching the people who read it. It has the power to move beyond people defenses and especially for those who have been hurt, often times in the context of religious legalism and indifference, the book has a very strong appeal.
Given tha is accepted, would that justify heresy or irresponsible doctrine? No, I'm not arguing that it would. However, most of the criticism that I've observed coming toward The Shack is coming from the direction of those who appear to me to miss the metaphor elements of the book and miss the point that the literary devices are not inconsistent with how Jesus taught and why his teachings seemed to stir a particular element of the religious community of his day.
Don't like God portrayed as a woman? Take a look at Luke 15 and the parable of the missing coin and who God is represented by? Don't like the idea of God represented by a racial minority, then by all means feel free to take Jesus to task for daring to shock his listeners by invoking the image of a "Good" Samaritan.
Think there are some down to earth terms such as those that picque Mr. Colson in this review? Stay away from those passages of the Bible that speak of mutilation being wished on those legalists wanting to maintain circumcision.
I don't mind that Mr. Colson doesn't particularly like the Book. Everyone is entitled to their personal taste and The Shack isn't perfect and infallible.
It is having a strong impact however, particularly among those with grave hurts coming from the area of dysfuctional families, sexual abuse survivors and a great deal of things that statistically are found in the prison population moreso than the general population.
I find it sad that someone whom I respect otherwise is aligning with those whom to my observation have more in common with those who criticized Christ and in the process missing a strong tool to reach the group he has served so ably before.
I am really responding to canuckster, because I am interested what he/she said.
I had, as Mr. Colson, been a bit concerned about the diminished glory of God in this book. I felt deeply for the author, and when I heard his personal story, was heartbroken for him.
The issue here, though, is the content of the book. Mr. Young has stepped away, not from traditional church teachings (though I think that was what he had a reaction too, the misrepresentation of God by some who really do "put him in a box"), that would be justified, but he has really stepped away from the God revealed in the scriptures and as confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
This is a grave concern.
But I want to understand the posters response. There seems to be an almost dedication to this book, and when many have rebutted some of our concerns, it gets a bit personal. Mr. Colson's insensitivity to those in pain comes into question in your post.
What is the source of the fervor for this book? I have seen this anger before, and it confuses me.
I respectfully disagree with this opinion and further it saddens me that the head of one of the largest prison ministries is missing the message and potential for healing for people who have "Shacks" of their own to revisit and need to find God on a deeper and more personal level.
Most Christians who love the story, seem to love it because it shows that God can do anything, and be anything He wants to be, to anyone. My reaction to these ideas is given in the form of a question:, Can God lie? Can God sin? Can God be or do anything that goes against His nature? Chuck Colson is right, we need to go to the Bible to know who God truly is, and if we feel compelled to read the book, "The Shack", we should do so with the understanding that it is a piece of fiction, nothing more. (And, by the way, I have read the book though based on the fact that the book leans toward being theological in nature, I don't think it's necessary to read it in order for theologians to comment on it)