BELIEF WATCH
Lisa Miller
A Close Encounter With God
In 'The Shack,' God is an African-American woman who likes to cook. Jesus is a Jewish man with a carpenter's belt.
If it's Tuesday, it must be Knoxville. Or maybe it's Houston or Amarillo. William (Paul) Young has been on the road so long, he can't be sure. Six months ago Young was working three jobs to pay the rent on his small house near Portland, Ore. Now, with 3.8 million copies of his Christian novel "The Shack" in print, Young is being hailed as a theological innovator, his book the "Pilgrim's Progress" of the 21st century. His controversial message is one that, evidently, a lot of people want to hear. "I don't like religion," he says. "I think Jesus is about relationships."
At the request of his wife, Kim, in 2005 Young wrote an account of his own faith crisis, which was 11 years long and triggered by his three-month affair with Kim's best friend. He had no intention of publishing it, he says. He gave it to his children for Christmas and sent it to some friends to see what they thought. Two of those friends—one a Christian author—saw in the book some commercial potential, and together the three men collaborated on a revision. When "The Shack" was finished, no publisher wanted it, so they paid with credit cards to print 10,000 copies themselves. By April, they had sold more than a million books. Unable to keep pace with demand, they signed with a commercial distributor. Then came the news stories and TV appearances. Save for his wedding anniversary, Young, 53, has no plans to be home before Christmas; he's too busy talking to church groups and booksellers.
In "The Shack," a man named Mack, grieving over the murder of his daughter, is called by God to the scene of the crime. There he meets—there is no delicate way of putting this—the Trinity. The Father is an African-American woman named Papa who likes to cook. Jesus is a Jewish man wearing a carpenter's belt. The Holy Spirit is an elusive Asian woman named Sarayu. Together, over a long weekend, these characters force Mack to face his anger and his emptiness. Mack eats delicious feasts; with Jesus, he takes a walk on the water. Finally, God convinces Mack of his deep and everlasting love. "I don't create institutions," says Jesus in "The Shack." "Never have, never will."
Some orthodox Christians are calling "The Shack" heresy. On his radio program in April, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said it was "subversive" and "incoherent." Concerned that "The Shack" might adversely influence readers, LifeWay Christian Stores, the Southern Baptist Convention's bookstore chain, in June pulled "The Shack" off shelves to review its theology. Two weeks later the books were for sale again, this time with a warning label that says READ WITH DISCRETION. A LifeWay spokeswoman says she expects "The Shack" to be high on its best-seller list for August.
The conceit is unorthodox, the writing hokey and the theology infuriating to conservatives—so why is "The Shack" such a phenomenon? The answer is in its emotional message of the transforming power of God's love. Don Zimmermann is pastor of a small evangelical church in Phoenix; he leads a "Shack" discussion group every week in his living room. "Most people live unloved," he says. "They were raised not knowing that anyone loved them or cared about them. This book is changing their relationships with their families, at work, everywhere." The book's message comes out of Young's own early experiences with Christianity. Raised in New Guinea by strict Protestant missionaries in a region called "Cannibal Valley," Young was taught to fear a God who was punishing and perfect. "For those of us who are damaged, there's no hope in that at all," he says. "The Shack," a personal story of redemption, has redeemed Young financially, as well. He has moved from his small rental to a bigger one and can expect even more blessings when he publishes his "Shack" study guide next year.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: raystone @ 09/13/2008 9:37:49 AM
Comment: Young presents a refreshing take on having a relationship with God . Despite some bogged down writing and some severe theological error, it touches the heart of everyone who has been abused, rejected, unloved, suffered loss, abandoned, etc...He is obviously kicking down our sacred cows with this creative work much to the chargrin of religious conservatives who label it heresy. This, I believe, is a bit far fetch for I don;t believe that many will perfer Young's God over the God of Scriptures. The book is FICTION born out of one man's need to express his own personal pain through a fantasy weekend with the Godhead. I believe much of the hoopla is rotted in jealousy among those who wish they would have thought of such a brilliant idea. Of course no matter how scriptural they would have presented it, some Bible totting fanatic will have stones in head ready to label it heresy. For another greeat work check out A Step Into Deliverance by Toni Pugh..
Posted By: RobertSmith @ 09/03/2008 3:12:39 PM
Comment: Not every detail is worth dissecting; a novel is not systematic theology. Yet it???s clearly more than just fiction. Though never citing Scripture directly, the characters make enough allusions to biblical content to imply fidelity to orthodox Christianity. Combined with chapter-heading quotes by thoughtful Christians like C.S. Lewis and Marilynne Robinson, the effect is prophet-like: not quite ???Thus saith the Lord,??? but not far from it.
And therein hides the book???s gravest, and most subtle, problem. Though some parts roughly align with biblical teaching (and many others explicitly contradict it), the book???s overall attitude toward Scripture is persistently dismissive. Mack???s own disdain is conveyed early on: ???God???s voice had been reduced to paper. ??? Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in gilt edges, or was that guilt edges???? (p. 65-67).
More significant, when Mack mentions biblical events or concepts (often in gross caricature), ???God??? promptly brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is. Unlike the biblical Jesus, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and spent many post-resurrection hours ???opening their minds to understand the scriptures,??? The Shack???s Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu turn Mack???s attention away from Scripture, coaxing him to trust instead their simplistic lessons set in idyllic, Thomas Kinkade-like scenes and delivered in the familiar therapeutic language of our age.
In clear opposition to Scripture, they explicitly teach that there is no authority or hierarchy within the Trinity, and that God is never willing to violate human free will. There???s also a paragraph that seems to imply universal salvation, and a chapter about judgment that stubbornly avoids pronouncement about the fate of the wicked. In fact, there???s little reason to believe that The Shack???s God ever judges anyone.
Young???s diagnosis of sin as ???control??? has some merit, but his prescription of an entirely flat, circular relationship between us and God ultimately violates a fundamental truth of biblical anthropology: God is the Creator, and we are His creatures. Even after we have been redeemed by Christ, our relationship to God is rightly characterized by obedience and one-way submission to Him.
The result? To the extent that you trust The Shack, you will distrust your Bible???including huge chunks of the Old Testament and at least half of the red letters. Few errors are more corrosive to vigorous Christian faith. Some will plead that there is enough meat for careful readers to spit out the bones, but sadly, this yeast leavens the whole loaf.
In the end, The Shack is spiritual comfort food loaded with theological trans fat. Though not without some nutritional value, its effect on the body of Christ is more harmful than healthy. Even if you love it, and even if it makes you cry. Junk food and bad movies can do the same. We need the Bible, not The Shack.
Posted By: Jonathan Ferguson @ 09/02/2008 8:35:19 PM
Comment: But here is the question, McCain in '08, have you read the book? A five paragraph article in a magazine that is not Christian and you make the assumption that the entire book is not Christian. What makes them solely human? The description given of them in the article?