When William Young's book, The Shack, was published in 2007, it quickly unleashed a flood of positive and negative responses. I am a little late in reading this novel, but having recently completed it (at the request of one of my lovely youth), I am going to attempt to put my many thoughts on the book into a concise blog post. It won't be easy, but here goes...First of all, I'm going to start by saying that I didn't like the book. The purpose of this critique is not to offend or disrespect any of my Christian brothers or sisters who are fans of The Shack. I am fully aware that many mature believers like this book and have been ministered to by reading it. I certainly don't think any less of them for it; I simply hold a different opinion. Overall, I feel that there are too many theological problems in this book, and although it is a fiction novel, I feel that it gives people an inadequate and unbiblical picture of God.
Before I jump into the various aspects of the book that I disagree with, I'd like to point out some positive things that can be taken away from it. I have never experienced a horrific tragedy like the main character (or the author for that matter). Therefore, I can't begin to imagine the pain those people must go through. I know that many people who have experienced tragedy like that which has occurred in this book often wrestle with many questions and experience a crisis of faith. Young himself has experienced tragedy and times of crisis, and he attempts to minister to people in situations like this through The Shack. I certainly admire his compassion for these hurting people and his effort to provide answers to that unspeakable pain. I feel that many hurting people could relate to the character of Mack in the story and be encouraged by his journey back to God.
My main problem with The Shack is the way in which God is portrayed. Young paints the picture of a little log cabin inhabiting the 3 members of the Trinity. God is a large African-American woman who loves to cook, the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman who has a knack for gardening, and Jesus is a Jewish man (thankfully, Young didn't take any liberties there!). These 3 members of the Godhead bustle about the cabin doing chores and having long cryptic conversations with Mack that don't make a lot of sense. They sit around the table talking to each other lovingly and kissing each other on the lips. I don't know about you, but this depiction of God makes me cringe. Why? What bothers me is the complete lack of reverence for God. Where is the element of majesty, glory, and awe that we see in Scripture? There is one point in the book during the "Festival of Friends" in which Jesus is worshipped and His glory is displayed. But apart from this, there is a complete lack of God's majesty.
Now I want you to compare this picture Young has painted with the Bible's portrayal of man's encounter with God. When Moses asked God to show him His glory, God replied, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live" (Exodus 33:20). When Moses did experience the glory of God on the mountain, he would come down to the Israelites and his face would be literally glowing from being in God's presence. This scared them so much that they made him put a veil over his face (Exodus 34:29-35). When Isaiah experiences the glory of God, he only gets a glimpse of the hem of his robe, but he is completely undone, crying out, "Woe is me, for I am ruined!" (Isaiah 6:5a). This is the picture of man's encounter with God from Scripture. You can see that it is very different than Young's picture of God as a housewife eating in the kitchen with Mack and the rest of the Trinity.
God has chosen how He wants to be revealed in Scripture. He has given us many names for Himself and gives us many glimpses of His character. As believers we can't just formulate our own pictures of God. We must rely on the Bible to paint the picture for us. God never reveals Himself as a black woman in the Bible. Therefore, to write a story in which God is described in this way is heretical, in my opinion. It gives people a picture in their mind of a God who is not found in Scripture but is thought up by a man. This is a danger.
In addition to this, there were also many faulty theological ideas embedded in the book, and I'm going to attempt to explain a few of them. Young downplays God's wrath in this book, which is just as much a part of His character as His love. "Papa" states, "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring people from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it" (119). To ignore the aspect of God's wrath and punishment on sin is to ignore much of the Bible. The punishment for sin is separation from God in hell. God has to punish sin--it's part of His just and holy nature.
In the book we also see "Papa" (God) dismiss hierarchy, authority, roles, and submission as sinful human creations. However, we see in the Bible that God establishes hierarchy in relationships and gives men, women, and children different roles. Ephesians 5:22-6:4 shows us that husbands are the head of their wives, and that parents are in charge of their children. There is a clear authority in both of those relationships, and it is established by God. Young says, "Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience," which is not true from Scripture which tells children to obey their parents and wives to submit to their husbands (146).
I also believe that Young misinterprets the Fall of man and the curse of Genesis 3. Adam taking the role of the head in his marriage was not a result of the Fall. Adam was established as the head by God before sin entered the world. It is God's will for the man to be the head of the home and the church, though in both of these roles He is under the authority of Christ. In The Shack, Jesus seems to be disappointed in the fact that men rule instead of women, saying "The world, in many ways, would be a much calmer and gentler place if women ruled" (148). Scripture teaches that God gave headship to the man (1 Timothy 2:9-15, Ephesians 5:22ff, 1 Timothy 3, etc).
Young also seems to have a big problem with organized religion. In the story, when Mack says something about being a Christian, Jesus replies, "Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian" (184). "Christian" is not a dirty word, it's a biblical one! Acts 11:26 tells us that, "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." Young definitely shows a bias against seminary, Christianity, and religion in general. There is definitely some bitterness and it seems that he has some issues He needs to work though about his dissatisfaction with the Church. He clearly had some bad experiences with seminary, as he says, "God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. [...] 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?" (63). Yikes! I'm definitely sensing some hostility! Looking to the Scriptures to hear God's voice isn't reducing His voice to paper, it's studying the Words that He inspired Himself! The Bible isn't simply a book...every word of it has been God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). It isn't about bringing guilt, but it does bring conviction. There is nothing wrong with relying on sound hermeneutical principles and the commentary of great believers before us to interpret and decipher the Scriptures. In fact, it would be foolish not to do so!
I could go on, but I'm going to stop right here. Again, I don't mean any disrespect toward you if you liked the book. Rather, I would welcome your feedback! I'm also not saying that God can't use this book to reach people and minister to those in tragedy. I hope that He does. However, I do think that there are some dangerous presumptions made by Young in this book. Writing a book about God and putting words in His mouth is a weighty task and is not one that I would ever venture to tackle! When we do write about God however, we need to make sure that what we are saying is completely supported by Scripture to the best of our understanding. I didn't feel that The Shack was very careful in this area, resulting in some major errors that I personally disagree with. For what it's worth...
