William Young’s The Shack
I recently read William Young’s The Shack. For a book with an initial marketing budget of only $300, its success has been nothing short of remarkable. It’s currently number one on the New York Times best seller’s list, and has gained a wide readership in the evangelical community. It’s endorsed by Michael W. Smith, and Eugene Peterson, among others.
The story opens with the abduction and brutal murder of “Mac’s” seven year old daughter. Four years later, Mac is invited by God to join him at the shack where his daughter’s murder was discovered. Mac accepts the invitation, and the remainder of the book is Mac’s experience with God at the shack. The book is essentially Young’s theodicy wrapped in a narrative. Young (consciously or not) follows Dostoevsky in tackling perhaps one of the greatest questions in theodicy—the suffering of children.
Young’s book has not been without controversy. Perhaps most immediately jarring is Young’s portrayal of God the Father as a large African American woman, and the Holy Spirit as an ethereal and diminutive Asian woman. (Jesus, mercifully, remains a Jewish handyman.) I’ve already made comments elsewhere about gender and the nature of God, so I wont belabor that point here. There are a number of troubling aspects to Young’s book (a tendency toward soteriological universalism, a sort of Trinitarian modalism, etc.), but I want to focus in on one particular issue, connected in part to Young’s decision to feminize God.
Young’s decision to portray God in mostly feminine categories has relevance to a wider “anti-power” motif woven throughout the book. Young, in casting God in female terms, attempts to distance God from a sense of tyranny and dominance—a sense more often associated with males than females. Young’s agenda is not unique. Those toward the theological left (and our postmodern milieu in general) tend to be suspicious of power, viewing it as oppressive and brutalizing. The emergence of egalitarianism within the church and home, and the movement toward decentralized church leadership structures are symptomatic of this shift. Hierarchy, we are often told, leads to oppression. At one point in the book, Mac asks God which of the three members of the Trinity is in charge of the others. The three are aghast at the thought. “What you are seeing here,” the Holy Spirit informs him, “is a relationship without any overlay of power…Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong uses to make others conform to what they want.” Power, Young argues at various points, is inherently corrupting and oppressive.
The net result is a God who rejects—indeed is repulsed by—the use of power. (In one scene God picks up a gun between two fingers, holding it at arms lengths as though it were a dead mouse). Young’s God never coerces, never forces; He believes the best in everyone, is enduringly patient, and invincibly good-natured. For Young, love cannot be love if it is not freely offered and freely received. Power equals dominance, and if God dominates us he cannot love us, nor can we freely love him.
There are two fundamental difficulties I have with Young’s “anti-power” motif. First, Young’s portrayal of God is out of step with much of the way God is portrayed in Scripture. It’s difficult to square Young’s pacifistic Trinitarian portrayal with the God of Genesis 6, the Christ of Revelation 19, and the Holy Spirit of Acts 5. And it’s at this point that Young’s theodicy falls short. The Scripture doesn’t allow us to distance God from violence and coercion. The deeper question of theodicy is not simply how a good God can allow death and destruction, but how a good God can cause death and destruction. Young’s book assumes the happiness of humanity is the highest good. The Bible does not affirm this. Simply put, God is not “for” everyone to the same degree, or in the same way. (Aquinas called this the “principle of predilection—the idea that “no created being would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.”) Those committed to the biblical narrative must wrestle with the (unsettling) reality of a God who does not love everyone equally, and who has personally brought about the death of women and children. On this question, Young’s book is silent.
Secondly, Young’s conflation of power and abuse is not accurate. The former does not automatically equate to the latter. The answer to the abuse of power is not the elimination of power, but rather the proper use of power. God is unquestionably a God of power. Young would agree with this, I’m sure, but Young seems to chafe against any idea that God would actually use his power to bring about his ends. But God does, and often. Further, the love of God is only as meaningful as the power that animates it. A God neutered of power is a God who lacks the capacity to love. Or again, the warmth of God’s imminence is only as meaningful as the height of his transcendence. Young’s portrayal of God, unlike the Bibilical God of the whirlwind, lacks any sense of transcendence.
Young comes closest to a biblical theodicy toward the end of the book. In a scene reminiscent of Job, Mac is offered the chance to sit as judge over both God and the world. With appropriate terror, Mac realizes just how little qualified he is to take God’s place as sovereign judge. This is perhaps the strongest part of Young’s book, but unfortunately, it remains largely out of step with much that is written elsewhere. The difference between the theodicy of Job and the theodicy found in Young is typical of the Calvinist/Arminian divide. Job comes to peace in the midst of his pain when he finally submits to God’s sovereign right to act as God in whatever way he deems, even if that means the destruction of Job’s livelihood and family. Conversely, Mac comes to peace when he realizes that God really is a nice guy after all, and that all that stuff about him being angry and wrathful was a gross mischaracterization. The latter is perhaps the quickest and most palatable pathway to peace; but in the end, it sugarcoats the harder issues and lacks a true biblical foundation.
It’s obvious Young’s book has struck a chord with the culture at large, and the evangelical culture not least. It’s clear the people in our churches crave an immanent God—one who understands our needs, our weaknesses, and who is able to identify with us in our fragile human existence. And indeed the Word Incarnate is the Father’s way of whispering tenderly in our ear. In Christ, the transcendent God draws near to us in flesh and bone. He walks our paths and feels our pain. Young’s desire for a God of compassion and tenderness is legitimate, and we do well to ask why such a deficit might exist in our churches. Have we failed to communicate properly the deep love that God has for his children? Perhaps. But if we have, Young’s book is not the best corrective. Young, in an attempt to wipe the blood off of God’s hands, ends up diminishing the transcendence and power of God. The best way to correct an unbalanced view of God is not by introducing an opposing unbalanced view of God.
I have no doubt that The Shack is Young’s sincere attempt to sort out some rather troubling issues. The question of how a good God can allow suffering and evil is difficult, no matter how you slice it. But this is not a book I can recommend. For those who need a theodicy wrapped in a narrative, a work such as Lewis’ Till We Have Faces is the better, even if more difficult, way forward.
Categorized as: Books, From Gerald, Theodicy, Theology
October 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I could not agree with you more on everything that you said. Also, I have been leading a group through the workbook “Lord Change My Attitude” and it had really been impacting me to change some of my wilderness, rebellious attitudes. Also, we just finished the one where you tested the law of gravity by jumping off that cliff…we were a little scared for you!! LOL!
You will have no idea what your teaching has meant to me over the last 8 years since I have been listening to you on Moody. Even this morning listening to you speak about the Word of God being a hammer, fire, and etc…just made me want to love God more and be more obedient. I really want to live in my promised land. I couldn’t believe what you dug out of Numbers 16. It put the fear of the Lord in me.
Thank you!
Praying for you.
-Jenny Williams, Pelham AL
October 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
[...] Wednesday; October 15, 2008 — Gerald Hiestand shares a worthwhile review of The Shack at the new Straight Up blog. Young, in an attempt to wipe the blood off of God’s [...]
October 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Excellent review.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Thanks for your insight on how young protrays God and His power or lack of it. Also putting a femine twist to the nature of God our Father is non-Biblical…..Thanks..J-Titus.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
I don’t think Young’s book is directed at those who need a ‘theodicy wrapped’ in really anything. Sometimes it is just fun to read a book that casts the loving side of God and how we might relate to it. For mature Christians who read the bible and know who God is, what God can and often does, who Christ is and what He has done and will do, this was a fun read. I picked this book up on a recommendation from a Godly mature woman in Christ and our whole women’s bible study is reading it and we are smiling as we picture ourselves sitting with God, Spirit and Son and having a talk with them. This book has helped us get a picture in our minds of how God DOES listen to us when we talk to Him and we have ALL found our prayers have been more profound. Some of us have had tragedy strike in our home and I have to tell you that Young’s book made us more tender to God and more secure in His sovereignty. We weren’t looking for theology and Calvin was far far from our thoughts. We got a little bit of understanding, if that’s even possible, of the Trinity. I saw that Young was just simply taking a tragedy and showing us that forgiveness is an absolute requirement for all wrongs done, God is in absolute control but most importantly He sees all that is happening to us and if we allow, He’s closer than we think. Nothing replaces God’s Word for moving forward and studying through various books like you recommended is great (if you can get through it) but there is an ok’ness about staying still and just savoring the love God has for us and this book did exactly that. I absolutely recommend it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
The author, when he first submitted the manuscript, included elements of universal reconciliation, which states that ALL will go to heaven, Christians and non-Christians alike. This article deals with this. http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1065&c=1
God bless you!
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Good morning,
I have read the shack , and I love Walk in the Word. My husband and I are always listening to your services over the internet and buy many of your Audios as well as video. I must say, that I am rather sorrowful as to why you would not recommend this book. It is indeed a book of fiction and perhaps it is a good way to lead some to Father who would otherwise be afraid to.A softer Father to come to as a baby Christian and to learn slowly as you grow into a learned Christian the whole of our Mighty God. I do not feel saying to a baby Christian or someone whom is considering becoming one…. all about Fathers wrath and the like. We want to save souls . Perhaps the best way is like, with an infant, to start with the sugary milk and then give solid food. I thought the book was wonderful for a piece of fiction and quite frankly deeped my relationship with Father which I thought was doing well, albeit , not as friendly as this book shows. I was glad to come to Father as a child and speak to him the way ” mac ” did. Again , I am sorry that you cannot recommend the book….. But I must admit I do! Thank you so much.
Terri
October 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Thank you so much for standing against this book. So many pastors/churches have fallen under its spell. May God bless you!
October 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I think The Shack is an excellent book to get non-believers into the Word. Sure, there are several pieces we can nit-pick at, and not everything falls within scripture (that would take years to make it “perfect”), but to say this is a corrupt book is a little much I think. This is a great way to introduce people into spirituality and the compassion/love of God. Since it is #1 on the bestseller, it gets into the hands of many non-believers I’m sure.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I totally disagree with the idea of using “The Shack” as a way of ‘introducing’ non-Christians to the concept of God. When one waters down the theology of the Bible (which is what happens in this book) then the reader develops a watered down view of our God of the Bible. Too many churches (ie. Christians) today prefer the watered down theology because it hurts less, it emotionalizes more, and basically devalues who God truly is. We as Christians must guard our minds. So thank you for taking this stand. Wolves can be very deceptive.
At His feet,
October 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I have recommended “The Shack” to my friends, and some have read it. It is a moving book, a quick read. Any mature Christian longs for the day they will meet The Father and what a treat to read Young’s depiction. I am praying for the salvation of some family members, and I know if they read this, they would be moved also. Our pastor has said on more than one occasion, you can read devotionals,books,listen to the radio. There’s only one way to know the word of God, and that’s studying the Bible. I think this book is a good read, but I’ll study my Bible for the facts.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Eugene Peterson, author of the translation weak paraphrase “The Message” claimed it was equal to the classic book, “Pilgrim’s Progress”. I’m sorry, this book comes no where near the theological beauty of “Pilgrim’s Progress”. In fact, it’s at the complete other end of the spectrum with its heretical views of the Trinity.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I must admit that I wept through the chapter where Mack meets “God” for the first time, “Is it really possible that He loves ME that much?” I kept asking myself, the idea that He might actually want that kind of fellowship with me just struck me over and over despite the fact that I have been a Christian for almost 10 years and would intellectually tell you that I believed that God loved me and desired fellowship with me. The “realness” of it in the Shack though just floored me.
So I guess the question I have to ask myself it why did it take a theologically sketchy work of fiction to make God’s love for me so real and so tangible…is that my issue or is that a reflection of the teaching I have received? I don’t have an answer. I also have to agree that the “judgement” scene really helped me understand God’s sovereignty
I am however stuck on another point related to your review and not the Shack
“Those committed to the biblical narrative must wrestle with the (unsettling) reality of a God who does not love everyone equally”
I am wrestling in a serious way with this comment on God not loving everyone equally. That’s the first time I have ever heard that and certainly I have heard the exact opposite preached MANY times. Don’t want to go on a tangent but could you direct me to a sermon you have preached on this, some more resources something (anything) that would help me understand this. Since my experience is that you are 100% committed to solid biblical teaching I know you don’t make this type of statement lightly.
Thanks James
November 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Thank you for the review. While I enjoyed the book – it triggered more emotion in me than any book I have read in the past ten years – I felt that it was not Biblically honest and took inappropriate liberties with God’s Word. I agree with Maggie’s comments about how this book provided an understanding of the depth of God’s love that a lifetime of churching has not accomplished for me. Perhaps we expect too little from our churches. As my pastor in Northern Nevada notes, we are not afraid of studying God’s laws, we are afraid of living by His laws (e.g. we like our perceived self-control).
I, too, would appreciate more resources about your comment regarding God not loving everyone equally. I understand God not treating everyone the same but I always undersood that within the context of God’s master plan; not deliberate inequalities of love.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Hey everyone,
I encourage you to check out Dave Nannery’s review of The Shack. He interacts with what I’ve written here in a helpful way.
Also, a number of you have asked specifically about my comment “God does not love everyone equally.” I’ll tackle that in a subsequent post.
blessings
December 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
[...] Dr. James McDonald reviews The Shack Posted in Bill. [...]
December 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
[...] review by Dr. James McDonald here. [...]
December 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
If you’re looking for really good fiction that deals with tragedy, our perception of Heaven and meeting God from a Biblical standpoint, I can highly recommend Deadline by Randy Alcorn.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Pastor Hiestand
Still looking for your promised post on “God not loving everyone equally”
with eager anticipation
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Maggie,
I haven’t forgotten. It’s coming…
January 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I recently heard Mr. Young at a local church, unlike his somewhat frenetic followers who had read the book, I simply went to hear him before reading the book.
I was shocked to hear his comments that 98% of the wars in the world were caused by men and a litany of what seemed to me anti-masculine comments. Not as if we don’t have enough people in the culture male bashing at every step, now Christan authors churches are piling on. As C.S. Lewis has aptly pointed out, the world is trying to make Jesus the tabby cat of Judah, not the LION. I for one am sick of seeing pasty faced, feminine images of Jesus, feminized church services and now this. Little wonder guys want to go to church at all!
January 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
[...] was shocked to discover this about this story. Pastors like James Macdonald and Pastor Bob Botsford [Horizon Christian Fellowship] have been very critical of the book, claiming [...]
February 9th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Thank you for this excellent set of comments and for taking a stand.
There are so many areas that could be discussed, but having read some of the comments above, I have two thoughts I want to share.
First, Eugene Peterson absurdly tells us this is our generations Pilgrim’s Progress.
However, the end of the second sentence in Pilgrim’s Progress is footnoted with three passages of Scripture and one can hardly open a page without footnotes thereafter.
Not only does The Shack have zero footnotes, but the authors strongly refuse to provide any Scripture to support the writings in the book, even though they have said to me that they have Scripture to back every exchange in the book. John 3:19-21 comes to mind.
Secondly, I believe the Bible is true and *sufficient*. It seems there are people who want to say it is true, but insufficient. That is people in effect say something like, “God gave us some good material, but if we are going to get people saved, we have to fix the parts He left out or fouled up.” 2 Timothy 3:14-17
Sorry, I don’t believe Scripture needs our support, extension or correction. If I want to grow and benefit those around me, I need to believe Scripture, not try to fix it.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I agree with Cindy Crosby, reviewer at “Christianity Today”, who said, “Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology. Keep that in mind when reading The Shack. Despite its weaknesses, this is a story with the potential to wake readers up, to rekindle or reinvigorate their faith. In an era when so much Christian fiction is about pat answers, conventional themes, and the regurgitation of what we already know and believe, such stories are good news for thoughtful readers.”
February 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
My father has recently gotten into the novel and is singing its praises to everyone. Why is it that something as apparently insidious as “The Shack” gets such a popular following as a “truly life-changing book” while the Bible is tossed aside as a powerless anachronism? I suppose it’s because the road to hell is broad and many are on it.
My father has subsequently come down with serious depression. I have asked him whether he thinks it’s because of “The Shack”. He spoke of dealing with his “Great Sadness” in…very sad terms. This doesn’t sound like a changed man except that an intellectually stimulating spirit-killer like “The Shack” has blindsided him. Only Jesus of Nazareth has the words of life.
Personally, I cannot afford to read “The Shack” because only the Word and its immediate derivatives give me strength. I think I would go off the edge too.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Brother, thank you for this biblical review. Truly my heart is broken for all those who have expressed here and elsewhere that this book is a “good” read. For Scripture states that only God is good; therefore anything absent of God is absent of good. And this book is certainly absent of the true God of the Bible.
Not to belabor the point, but to say that b/c someone has gone through a terrible trial, seeing God as being more “tender” and “warm” helps Christians is an erroneous statement. In short, I was abused (by 2′ x 4’s, head put through walls, you get the picture) for 13 years by my Buddhist parents and older siblings b/c I was the only Christian in my household since I was four and refused to practice any Buddhist traditions. I think if I knew this false god Young describes in his book, I would have no confidence nor any comfort of him being able to save me and protect me.
But b/c I was introduced to the true Jesus, to the true God the Father and God the Holy Spirit who is holy, almighty and just, who practices and delights in kindness, justice and righteousness (Jer. 9:23-24); I was comforted in knowing that my God is truly able to save me, protect me and restore me…and He did and still does.
The God I worship is the one in Scripture, who has no other name or personality than that which He uses to reveal Himself to all humanity. Any other name or names we choose to give our Creator is blasphemous, presumptuous and leads to heretical teaching.
I pray the Lord forgive us for our lack of discernment and faithfulness to study His word. (1 Cor. 1:17)
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
[...] Straight Up – From James MacDonald’s ministry [...]
May 6th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I have not read this book yet but was alarmed to find out the church that I have recently started attending is going to be teaching a series on it from the pulpit! Am I jumping the gun on fearing that maybe this isnt the church for me?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
[...] as Gerald Hiestand said back in October, “Young’s book has struck a chord with the culture at large, and the [...]