The Shack
By William P. Young
(Newberry Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2007)
A novel that has recently captured the attention readers allover is The Shack (Newberry Park, CA. Windblown Media, 2007) by William Paul Young. USA Today has reported the book entered the top 100 best-sellers list on January 24, 2008 and by April 25, 2008 reached a peak position of 11.1 In spite the growing popularity, Young never intended the novel to be published for national distribution,2 and states, “I wanted my kids to enjoy a story and through the story to understand their own father better and the God that their faith is so in love withâ€3 He also points out that the fictional characters and plots in this story are built around his own personal struggles, experiences, and relationships.4
According to Young, underneath the emotional drama of The Shack storyline is his own theodicy.5 In other words, the narrative serves as a medium to communicate an apologetic about the goodness of God, and the problem of evil. This book, however, is not to be identified as a “Christian†fiction, as this will become evident later on, though the story does offer Young’s reasons for why he believes what he believes. An examination of the story’s underlying theology presents some concerns.
Mackenzie Allen Philips is the main character in The Shack. He is a man with a life immersed in tears; he is haunted by the pain of having grown up with a substance-abusing father, and The Great Sadness over the recent murder of his daughter Missy by a serial killer. The location of the shack, according to Young, is “a metaphor for that place where we get stuck or damaged, or where we’ve made really bad choices, or where we’ve piled up a lot of stuff in our lives that we don’t want to go back to and deal with.â€6 Mackenzie’s weekend at the shack allows him to converse face to face with God, find reconciliation with his father, form closure to the loss of his daughter, and forge an understanding of the goodness of God the Father in spite of all pain and suffering in a sinful and fallen world.
The following will provide a brief description of the complex theological architecture woven into The Shack theodicy, and then evaluate some of its salient features, particularly Young’s view of the God, the Trinity, the incarnation, and salvation.
According to The Shack mythology, God, the first person of the Trinity, decides to be manifested as a “large beaming African-American woman†(p. 82), named Elousia. God, however, allows Mack to call her “Papa,†which is the way Nan (Mack’s wife) address Her (p. 86). The name “Elousia†comes from two words, “El†or “Creator,†and “ousia†or “Being,†and together they mean “Creator God†(pp.110-111). She is the “housekeeper and cook, and enjoys listening to a musical group that plays funk and blues (p. 90). God’s reason for being manifested as an African-American woman is to correct Mack’s erroneous stereotype about the first person of the Trinity being a White Anglo-Saxon old man with a beard like Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings (p. 93). God is later manifested as an elderly male with “silver white hair pulled back into a ponytail, matched by a gray splashed mustache and goatee,†but this is only after Mack comes to grips with his anger of growing up with an alcoholic biological father, and needs a strong father-like figure to empower him for dealing with the pain and guilt over his daughter’s murder (pp. 218-230).
The idea of the first person of the Trinity choosing to be revealed as a woman is unusual but not unorthodox. God, who is Spirit, has no gender; however, for our benefit, He has designated “maleness†to Himself. These descriptions are called anthropomorphisms, which means that they portray God in human terms that we can relate to and better understand. There are also a few examples of feminine imagery used for God. Moses depicts Yahweh giving birth to Israel (Deut. 32:18), Isaiah depicts the Lord comforting Jerusalem as a mother nursing her child (Isa. 66:12-13), and Jesus depicts God as a woman searching, finding, and rejoicing over a lost coin, as a way of demonstrating the joy that comes when sinners repent (Luke 15:8-10); however, the male imagery dominates the Scriptures. The designation of “father†describes an aspect of God’s character, so that all that the good imbued in the term “father†is reflected in the quality of the actions of the first person of the Trinity towards humanity (cf. Matt. 7:9-11; Luke 15:11-32). Moreover, Scripture does not refer to God as “she†or “her,†and the use of these feminine pronouns would be an inappropriate reference.
The Shack also illustrates the three persons of the Trinity. As mentioned, the first person of the Trinity is depicted as a “large beaming African-American woman.†Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is depicted as a Middle Eastern man with muscular arms dressed like a laborer with tool belt and gloves (p. 84) and is specifically portrayed as a Jew with a large nose (p. 111). Lastly, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is imaged as a mysterious Asian female gardener who appears to be either “northern Chinese or Nepalese or even Mongolian ethnicity (p. 85),7 and goes by the named Sarayu (p. 87), which means, “wind†(p. 110). The garden she labors in is symbolic for Mackenzie’s heart (pp. 128-138).
As story develops, the three persons of the Trinity are described as both distinct and indistinguishable. In one of the theological discussions between Mackenzie and God, Papa says, “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one†(p. 101). Elsewhere, the main character observes Jesus, Sarayu, helping Papa in cleaning a mess in the kitchen (p. 105), and when all three are conversing about helping an estranged family with deep respect for one another (p. 121-122). At other points, however, the distinctions of persons are blurred. When Mackenzie sees the same crucifixion scars upon the wrists of Papa that are supposed to be on Jesus, Papa responds, “Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark,†and concludes, “we were there together†(p. 95-96). Papa also says, “When we three spoke our self into human existences as the Son of God, we became fully human†(p. 99). In both of these instances the three persons of God are indistinguishable.
It is in the depiction of the Trinity that The Shack theodicy fails. The basic definition of the Trinity is “within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.â€8 The Trinity is a concept inferred from the panoply of Scripture (see Deut. 6:4; 1 Thess. 1:2; Rom. 9:5; Acts 5:3-4; and Matt. 28:19).9 It is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A concise and simple way to summarize the biblical data is there is “one What and three Whos.â€10 Modalsim, seeking to preserve the true divinity of Jesus Christ, wrongly asserts “there is one Godhead, which may be variously designated as Father, Son, or Spirit,†but the three are not distinct but “successive revelations of the same person,†which means, God is “one person with three different names, roles, or activities.â€11
Young’s illustration of the Trinity is both orthodox and heretical. It is like oil and water; two things that do not mix.H. The truth aspect of the story tells of one God in three persons, and these three persons relate to each other in love. The error aspect of the story blurs the distinctions between the personsH. The picture of the Father bearing the same scars from the crucifixion of the Son, or the very idea of the Father suffering upon the Cross is a rehashing of an ancient theological error propagated by modalists.12 Likewise the idea of the Father and Holy Spirit being incarnated along with the Son also makes the three persons indistinguishable. The later two illustrations also are precluded by all the passages in Scripture that clearly present a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.13 Like the illustration of water (it exists as liquid, ice, and steam), or an egg (it has a shell, white, and yoke), Young’s later illustrations account for God’s oneness, but fail in communicating the threeness. Young’s portrait of God in the story is a contradiction, offering two disparate illustrations of the Godhead, it is the truth mixed with error.
The Shack theodicy also breaks down because with the images it uses to depict the individual persons of the Trinity. Some find it extremely offensive and abominable to think that God would choose to manifest Himself the way Young describes. The image of the Black female cook and housekeeper alludes to a “mammy†or “Aunt Jemima,†which is a stereotypical caricature of the African American woman. The Asian woman gardener, mysterious and alluring, is similar to a “China doll,†“geisha girl†or “lotus blossom,†a demeaning generalization of Asian women. The Jewish man with a big nose is an anti-Semitic facial exaggeration. Granted that Young’s intention is not to offend, the idea of God manifesting Himself in three ethnic stereotypes is extremely controversial. If the true all-wise God of the Bible did manifest Himself to a fellow like Mack, the Lord would have certainly found a more suitable form, which would eliminate the misconception, without perpetuating false characterizations of three, often marginalized, ethnic groups.
There are also problems with Young’s understanding of the incarnation. As mentioned, the story suggests the Father, and Holy Spirit were incarnated along with the Son (see above). Additionally, in the story Papa says, “Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded,†and later adds, “Although he is fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being†(pp. 99-100). Here God the Son decides to forego the use of certain incommunicable divine attributes (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence) and do all things through the power of the Holy Spirit. The human Jesus, however, qualifies the incarnation by saying, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu. To see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you†(p. 110), so, for whatever reason, the Son decides to keep benevolence, or God’s infinite divine love.
The Scripture does not have Jesus divesting Himself of incommunicable divine attributes in the same way as Young illustrates. In a sense, Jesus always operated in the Holy Spirit’s power, even from eternity past. As sinful people, we are in need of regeneration by God’s Spirit, and must be continually filled in order to perform God’s will. As the second person of the Trinity, Christ always had an eternal and abiding relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him†(John 8:29). Scripture does teach that Christ came to Galilee in the Spirit’s power (e.g., Luke 4:14), but this does not mean that He was not operating in the Spirit’s power prior to this time. This sacred relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can never be severed, and when Christ became man, He still had this relationship, and always submitted Himself to the divine will.
There is no distinction within the Godhead in regards to essence; however, the Bible teaches that there are functional distinctions between the three persons. In other words, a single member of the Trinity carries out certain acts, while in other instances God works in functional unity. For example, it was the Son’s redemptive function to bear the sin of humankind upon the cross. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not die to atone for sin because the act of atonement was Christ’s function as the Son. Yet in other instances, the members of the Trinity act in coinherent unison (see John 14:10-11).
For instance, consider Christ’s resurrection. The Bible reveals that God performed the resurrection feat (Acts 2:24; 13:30; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:15). Implicitly, Christ as God is responsible for His victory over the grave in a Trinitarian sense. Furthermore, Jesus explicitly affirms His role in the resurrection in John 10:17-18 when He states, “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.†Christ clearly ascribes to Himself resurrection authority (see also 1 Cor. 15:21-22). As cited above, the clear biblical teaching is that God raised Jesus from the dead. This implies that not only the Son, but the Godhead as a whole acted in the resurrection event. Such passages as Acts 2:24, 13:30, Romans 1:4, 6:4, 8:11, 10:9, and 1 Peter 3:18, which highlight the work of the Father and Holy Spirit in raising Christ, also confirm this point. Thus we can conclude that the triune God acted in functional unity in bringing about Jesus’ miraculous triumph over death.
Even though Christ submitted to the humiliation of becoming a man and laid aside His glory (John 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9), He never ceased to be God at any point during His earthly ministry. We are taught that He “emptied Himself,†which means that He laid aside His divine prerogatives—but not deity itself (Phil. 2:6-11)—and only used them at times in accordance with His purpose.
The Shack also confounds the biblical teaching on salvation. When condemning the abuse of power within sinful authoritarian structures within secular institutions and the church and the hateful religious fanaticism held by many professing “Christians†(p. 180-181, cf. also Mackenzie’s conversation with God on pp. 115-127 ), Jesus declares, “I am not a Christian,†and then explains,
Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved (P. 182).
Young’s story does not equate being a follower of Jesus with being a “Christian;†instead, he identifies the “Christian†as a religious fanatic, and part of the sinful world system. In this way, The Shack is not a “Christian†fiction; though the story speaks about having a relationship with God, the story communicates a distinction between having a relationship with God and being “Christian.†This is simply reducing the term to a single negative connation and the word has a wider range of meaning. Even the first followers of Jesus adopted the word “Christian†to identify themselves as followers of Christ in the midst of persecution (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). One wonders why Jesus would not want to affirm Luke and Peter in their affirmation of being “Christians.†It is true that some might profess to be “Christians†but defile the name of Christ by their actions. There is, however, more to the term than simply hypocrisy. Why not just simply define what it means to be a “Christian†as opposed to a “pseudo-Christian� The apostle John did just that in response to situation in his day (1 John 4:2-3).
According to The Shack theodicy anyone can enter into relationship with God. Belief (Buddhists; Muslims; Mormons; Judaism; those not affiliated with any religion, perhaps agnostics and atheists), country (American; Iraqi; Jew; Palestinian), politics (Democrat; Republican; non-voters), occupation (banker; bookie) or vice (murder; self-righteousness) do not become factors that separate one from that relationship. But what does Young intend to communicate? These individuals “come from†one place, but to where? Is Jesus saying these individuals “come from†the one place of their former beliefs to the place of being a “Christian?†Then what does it mean when the Jesus of The Shack says, “I have no desire to make them Christian?†Can a Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, or Jew “come from†their system to be joined with Jesus in a relationship with God without being identified as a “Christian� Is he affirming religious pluralism H (all roads lead to heaven)?14 Can a Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, or Jew “come from†a place of ignorance to having a relationship with God, without knowing they are joined together with God by Jesus or understanding any aspects of the role Jesus had to play in making the relationship possible? Is he saying there can be “anonymous†Christians among the faithful adherents to Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, or Judaism, as in the case of religious inclusivism (one can enter into salvation and a relationship with God without knowing the name of Jesus Christ nor the Gospel message)?15 Young leaves lots of doors open with respect to who can enter into a relationship with God. The biblical teaching is, however, a salvation in Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
How could anyone remain committed to any of the abovementioned beliefs (Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism; Judaism, agnosticism, atheism) and discover the person of Jesus? Granted that the basis for a relationship with Jesus is love, it does not follow, as Young’s story implies, that a Buddhist, Muslim, or Mormon, can enter into a relationship with the Lord. If love really “rejoices with the truth†(1 Cor. 13:6, NASB), it would be impossible for such individuals to enter. The search for God is not a crucial issue for the Buddhist; rather his spiritual quest is to extinguish the desires that cause suffering by living the Eightfold Path. A relationship with God never comes into the picture! A Muslim is committed to a strict monotheism, and it is a great sin for him to believe in a Trinity, or even dare call Allah his Papa. The Mormon quest is not a mere love relationship with Jesus, but to become the god of his own planet. For one to love another something must be true within that relationship. It is impossible to have people enter into a love relationship with Jesus when their affections are for someone else.
The use of story can be an effective way of communicating truth; however, story is a double-edged sword, and can also be a way of propagating error. Sadly, The Shack theodicy drifts to the latterH rather than the former. In spite of its popularity and use of many concepts fromH the Bible, many of the ideas purported are controversial. Many people do suffer from various types of pain (emotional, physical, etc.) that can become an influence upon person’s perception about the goodness of God, and stories like this one can be inspiring; however, a theodicy only works when the biblical concept of God can be harmonized with the existence evil. If the theology of God is deficient, than the theodicy fails. H H.
Since The Shack, along with other popular works of fiction that convey ideas about the Christianity (e.g. A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks, The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkein, etc) often contain storylines infused with their respective author’s own worldview, it is always advisable for Christian readers to use discernment, and weigh out the ideas communicated against the final arbitrator of the Scriptural truth.
For further study, the following related CRI resources may be helpful:
