The Shack, a novel by William P. Young A Critique by Ryan Whipple1 The Shack is a book that seeks to answer the age old problem: How a good God could co-exist with a world full of evil and suffering. The context of the story centers around a man named Mack, whose daughter was kidnapped and murdered four years earlier during a family vacation (though her body was never found, bloody clothing found in an abandoned shack led to this conclusion, which is later confirmed towards the end of the book). The book describes an encounter Mack has with God at The Shack, the place his daughter’s bloodstained clothing was found years earlier. In this encounter, Mack learns and discovers things about God, himself, and his family, that aid him in the process of healing after the tragic and brutal loss of his daughter. Through this experience with God, Mack finds answers, but the answers he finds are not at all what he expected, as his beliefs in God, who He is and how He works, are completely shattered. Finding out the “truth” about God, himself, and what happened to his daughter help Mack find the healing, comfort, and peace that he had so much been longing for, but thought he would never find. In the back of the book, under “The Missy Project,” this statement is made: “It [The Shack] offers one of the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity that has been written in our time.” A statement like that demands that we look to Scripture to see if what is taught in The Shack agrees with what is taught in the Word of God. It is not a matter of one’s opinion on what God is like (either of Young’s or myself), but of Scripture. Therefore, this critique seeks to examine The Shack’s theology in the light of Biblical truth. “God in a Box” As I get started, it must be noted that very little Scripture is mentioned in this book and it appears that Young knew that what he was writing about God may not square up with Scripture. Early on he hints as to why he writes what he does, as he seeks to lead his readers on a journey to think outside of the “box” in regards to God. He writes: “In seminary he [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice has been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while the educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just a book” (65-66). In other words, Young asserts, those who hold the Bible as the supreme and definitive source of knowledge about God, how He works, and primarily communicates today, are guilty of putting “God in a box,” or a “book.” People who do such things are limiting God, so the argument goes. However, this argument also allows people, such as Young, to justify beliefs about God that may be contrary to Scripture by appealing to the failed logic that the opposition is putting “God in a box.” So let us grant the argument for a moment that God is not in a box. Could we then conclude that God can be anything that someone wants Him to be? That would be the logical conclusion of such a statement. If putting “God in a box” is telling someone that their view or belief of God may be wrong or in error because it is not grounded and in line with Scripture, then not putting “God in a box” would mean that all views and opinions of God are correct! Of course such thinking is foolishness, and so is telling someone that they put “God in a box” when they look to Scripture as the definitive source about the nature and work of God. God Himself, though, has put Himself in a box, the Scriptural box. By saying this, I am affirming the Protestant doctrine of Scripture alone, which views Scripture as the final authority regarding what beliefs are true and not true regarding God. God is in no way completely explained or described in Scripture, that is for sure. Still, every true belief one has about the nature and work of God must line up with Scripture. There are certain “limitations” we know about God. We know that He cannot sin or do evil, as He is Holy. We know God cannot become finite and mortal, as He is eternal. We know God cannot bow down and worship another, as He would then cease to be God. We know God cannot be educated or grow in His knowledge, as He is omniscient (all-knowing). God has chosen to reveal Himself in a Scriptural box, if you will. To deny this is to have no objective basis on which to determine what really is, or is not, of God. Cults, by the way, begin when God is taken out of this so-called Scriptural box. I can appreciate the author trying to challenge people’s presuppositions and biases regarding God. Picturing God as a “white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf,” is probably how most people do view Him, but probably not how He really is! However, the author presents no Scriptural ground on which to stand in challenging others’ views of God. In other words, he seeks to condemn or correct the biases of others by simply asserting his biases! Young seeks to correct those who are biased in seeing God as an old white man, but Young himself is biased in picturing God the Father as a black lady. Where is that mentioned or described, or even hinted at, in Scripture? Everything we promote and teach about God must be drawn from Scripture and nowhere else. If that is putting God in a box, then so be it. Which leads me to the major problem, that of the nature of God. The Nature of God The first issue that I believe to be flawed and unbiblical in The Shack centers on the nature of God. This is most evident in regards to the great doctrine of the Trinity. In The Shack Young gives his readers a visual picture of the Trinity when Mack, the main character meets God. Mack, much to his surprise, finds upon meeting God the Father that he/she is an African American woman who goes by the name “Papa.” Papa we read is frequently in the kitchen cooking and baking such things as pies and scones. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman whose name is Sarayu, who is a keeper of the gardens. To much less surprise, Jesus is a Middle-Eastern man. Jesus, as portrayed by Young, comes off as somewhat effeminate as he likes to hold hands, hug, kiss, smile, giggle, act goofy, and wink. He is also clumsy! In one scene in the kitchen, all three persons of the Godhead are laughing at Jesus because he dropped some sauce that got everywhere, including Papa’s skirt and feet. Papa later said at the dinner table, “We were going to have this incredible Japanese sauce, but greasy fingers over there (reference to Jesus) decided to see if it would bounce.” “C’mon now,” Jesus responded in mock defense. “My hands were slippery. What can I say?” “Papa winked at Mack as she passed him the rice. “You can’t get good help around here.” “Everyone laughed” (105). It makes me wonder, among other things, that if Jesus cannot handle a bowl of sauce without dropping it and making a mess, how can He handle our lives and the workings of the world? But I move on. When one reads The Shack’s description of God, it is okay if you feel somewhat uncomfortable with it; you should! Mack at one point asks the three which one is God, to which they all answer in unison, “I am” (87). I assume this is Young’s way of assuring people that he is not being heretical when it comes to the doctrine of God who is clearly stated in Scripture as being One (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” Duet. 6:4). However, throughout the book the theological waters get muddied. For instance, young writes, “…and then God, all three, simultaneously said…” (233, emphasis added). Does the book promote three gods? I conclude that Young misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. He seeks to humanize the Godhead, or bring it down to our level. I am not sure whether Young is simply trying to make the Godhead more understandable (and therefore commits a theological error), or if he himself is confused on the nature of the Godhead, or both. To make God out to be three different characters, two women and one man, is to promote the idea of tri-theism, that there is three gods. God is Spirit, which means He does not have human flesh; He is immaterial. Therefore one must trend ever so cautiously when seeking to describe God, and ascribe to Him a human form. We must guard against creating God in our image. We know from Scripture that the Father is God (Ex. 20:2), the Son is God (Jn. 8:58, 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3,4). We also know that there is only one God (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” Duet. 6:4). This Biblical mystery that has been defined through church history as the Trinity. Taking such Biblical truth about the Godhead, definitions of the Trinity have arisen, such as this one from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Hence, there is one living and true God who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The problem arises for Young over the understanding of the word “persons” in relation to the Trinity. He seeks to make each person of the Godhead a literal, human person, and thus, his flaw. The meaning of person in relation to the Godhead is not the same as a human person, who is an individual. Louis Berkhouf writes, “Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions, within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one.” In other words, there is no individualism in the Godhead, and thus using “person” may be a misleading word to use in relation to the Godhead if not understood properly. Again, “person” in relation to the Godhead does not mean individual, as God is not divided into three parts, but each person of the Godhead is completely and fully God, with each possessing all of the attributes of God. For example, to say that God is eternal, means that the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Each person of the Godhead is distinct, but not separate, as they are not individuals, nor are they independent from each other. As John Calvin writes, “[the] Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality.” This is the problem in representing the Godhead as two women and one man as it is misrepresenting the Biblical view of God, for it promotes the idea of three individuals who are each God and therefore producing three gods. The doctrine of the Trinity is a very complex statement about God that is taught in Scripture, and it is best to stay within the Scriptural bounds on the issue of the Godhead and be ever so careful not to walk outside those bounds and say something about the nature of God that Scripture never intended to say. Trinitarians often are said to believe in tri-theism, but that is not true with what has been explained. However, to have three individuals or persons (as in The Shack) who when asked who is God, all proclaim “I am,” it appears to me that one has just distorted the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead and promoted tri-theism. (Let me make a quick note in regard to the gender issue. The Bible is consistent in referring to God in the masculine gender. This does not mean that God is a male, as we know that He is neither male nor female. To state such would again bring God down to our level and humanize Him, which we must not do. In saying that however, we must be true once again to Scripture as being the definitive source as to the nature of God. God is predominantly referred to in the masculine gender, specifically as Father, and Jesus as the Son of God. I understand Young’s concern to want to break people out of their preconceived notions of God, but it must be done within a Biblical framework and worldview.) Man in the Presence of God It is surprising to see how Mack reacts with being in the presence of God. When he meets God, whom he addresses as “Papa,” he is shocked and surprised, but mostly angry at God. Mack in an early encounter with Papa throws an accusation her/his way, “If you couldn’t take care of Missy, how can I trust you to take care of me?” (92). In saying this Mack’s face became “flush angry red” and “his hands were knotted into fists.” How does Papa respond? By apologizing! “Mack, I’m so sorry….” Let’s think about Job for a minute. If anyone has ever had a right to be angry with God, Job is the man. Job lost all his possessions, his children, his health, and was left with a nagging wife! After some time of questioning what was going on in his life and questioning God, Job gets a response, but certainly not one that he anticipated! God unleashes a series of questions upon Job that demonstrate His creative power, sovereignty, and wisdom, and God questions whether Job himself also has these attributes, and if not, then the proper response from Job is to be quiet and to trust Him. To which Job properly responds by saying, “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to you? I lay my hand on my mouth.” God does not even mention the suffering of Job, let alone give a reason for it. When Job comes into the presence of God, he does not accuse. He is humbled, He does not find fault with God. He repents. If all one took from the book of Job is that we dare not throw accusations at God, it will be a lesson worth learning. However, this is not a lesson taught in The Shack. Or think of Isaiah having a vision and seeing the “Lord sitting upon His throne, high and lifted up…” Isaiah goes on to describe the scene where seraphim were calling out in the presence of God: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” What did Isaiah do in response to being in the presence of God? He was astonished and fearful and declared that he was unclean! I am sorry, but Isaiah did not have a vision of God is all His glory and see a woman baking scones and listening to funk music! Now don’t misunderstand, this is not to put down women who bake or people who listen to modern music. The point is that God in His Holiness is completely unlike us, He is wholly different than humans, He is wholly other. Or as the book rightly states, God is “holy, and wholly other than you” (98). To seek to humanize God is to take away from His glory and holiness. I am sorry, but I have an issue with God being portrayed as a scone and pie baker who listens to funk music! What point is the author trying to convey about God? It just seems to smack of irreverence to me. In the book of Revelation, in the picture that John paints for his readers of the heavenly realm, it is often seen that people bow and fall down before God (4:10, 5:8, 14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4). In the presence of God, people are humbled, and they worship God. Yet, Mack never falls on his face before the presence of the Holy God. Salvation by Faith Like other issues I have discussed, Young draws fuzzy distinctions and blurs the lines on key theological and doctrinal issues. There are undertones of distortions of justification by faith alone. Jesus says to Mack at one point: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans… 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 brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.” “Does that mean,” asked Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?” “Not at all,” smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (182). What does this mean? Jesus does not desire people to become Christians? A Christian is a Christ-follower, who is becoming increasingly Christ-like. A Christian is simply one who understands their sinfulness, seeks Christ for forgiveness, believes that He died on the cross on their behalf, and submits their life unto Him. “I want to join them in their transformation…” Is that regeneration or justification? Where does repentance of sin and obedience to Christ come in here? This is never mentioned in the book. A Christian can read this section and see no problems because Young is not clear what he means. But here is the problem, a Universalist can read this statement and not have a problem either! According to the author, people do not come to believe in God because, having not experienced his love, they cannot trust Him. No, I think it is because of our sinful nature and evil hearts that separate us from God (see Romans 3). It is God’s love that draws us to Him, but it is our sin that keeps us from Him. Hell In the author’s view, God has no enemies and He does not punish people for sin. Quite contrary to Scripture when it mentions people groups that God had Israel demolish and destroy. Mack asks Papa if there are any people she is not fond of, to which she responds, “Nope, I haven’t been able to find any. Guess that’s jes’ the way I is” (119). Which brings the discussion of Mack asking Papa if he/she is the one who is throwing people into the lake of fire. To which Papa responds by saying, “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” This seems to be a response that skirted around the issue. Who created hell? God did. How does that fact fit into this thinking? Who sends people there? God does. Jesus declares, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Conclusion Unfortunately, the image The Shack portrays of God is a weak one (a baker?). When Jesus came to earth, He did not reveal Himself through baking pies and scones but by performing miraculous healings, raising people from the dead, and by authoritatively teaching about heavy doctrinal issues. In conclusion, The Shack in many aspects does not line up with Scripture. Therefore, many of its conclusions about God end up being contrary to Scripture at best, and at worst, may be blasphemous. Therefore, The Shack would not be on my recommending reading list as it creates more problems than it does solutions by painting an unbiblical picture of God. God does work in different ways in different people, however, it then does not follow that every individual’s idea, experiences, and thoughts about God are correct. Scripture exhorts us to examine and test everything by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1). This would include such material as The Shack. Therefore, if one does decides to read this book, it is crucial that they use discernment and judge it by the truth of Scripture. It is sad that for Mack, in finding his peace and comfort, he does not find it through the Word of God, nor even prayer, but in an experience. And an experience that does not appear to built upon the solid rock of God’s Word. 1 My thanks to Doug Allan who edited this paper for me and added some good insight.

The Shack, a novel by William P. Young

A Critique by Ryan Whipple1

The Shack is a book that seeks to answer the age old problem: How a good God could co-exist with a world full of evil and suffering. The context of the story centers around a man named Mack, whose daughter was kidnapped and murdered four years earlier during a family vacation (though her body was never found, bloody clothing found in an abandoned shack led to this conclusion, which is later confirmed towards the end of the book). The book describes an encounter Mack has with God at The Shack, the place his daughter’s bloodstained clothing was found years earlier. In this encounter, Mack learns and discovers things about God, himself, and his family, that aid him in the process of healing after the tragic and brutal loss of his daughter. Through this experience with God, Mack finds answers, but the answers he finds are not at all what he expected, as his beliefs in God, who He is and how He works, are completely shattered. Finding out the “truth” about God, himself, and what happened to his daughter help Mack find the healing, comfort, and peace that he had so much been longing for, but thought he would never find.

In the back of the book, under “The Missy Project,” this statement is made: “It [The Shack] offers one of the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity that has been written in our time.” A statement like that demands that we look to Scripture to see if what is taught in The Shack agrees with what is taught in the Word of God. It is not a matter of one’s opinion on what God is like (either of Young’s or myself), but of Scripture. Therefore, this critique seeks to examine The Shack’s theology in the light of Biblical truth.

“God in a Box”

As I get started, it must be noted that very little Scripture is mentioned in this book and it appears that Young knew that what he was writing about God may not square up with Scripture. Early on he hints as to why he writes what he does, as he seeks to lead his readers on a journey to think outside of the “box” in regards to God. He writes:

“In seminary he [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice has been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while the educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just a book” (65-66).

In other words, Young asserts, those who hold the Bible as the supreme and definitive source of knowledge about God, how He works, and primarily communicates today, are guilty of putting “God in a box,” or a “book.” People who do such things are limiting God, so the argument goes. However, this argument also allows people, such as Young, to justify beliefs about God that may be contrary to Scripture by appealing to the failed logic that the opposition is putting “God in a box.” So let us grant the argument for a moment that God is not in a box. Could we then conclude that God can be anything that someone wants Him to be? That would be the logical conclusion of such a statement. If putting “God in a box” is telling someone that their view or belief of God may be wrong or in error because it is not grounded and in line with Scripture, then not putting “God in a box” would mean that all views and opinions of God are correct! Of course such thinking is foolishness, and so is telling someone that they put “God in a box” when they look to Scripture as the definitive source about the nature and work of God.

God Himself, though, has put Himself in a box, the Scriptural box. By saying this, I am affirming the Protestant doctrine of Scripture alone, which views Scripture as the final authority regarding what beliefs are true and not true regarding God. God is in no way completely explained or described in Scripture, that is for sure. Still, every true belief one has about the nature and work of God must line up with Scripture. There are certain “limitations” we know about God. We know that He cannot sin or do evil, as He is Holy. We know God cannot become finite and mortal, as He is eternal. We know God cannot bow down and worship another, as He would then cease to be God. We know God cannot be educated or grow in His knowledge, as He is omniscient (all-knowing). God has chosen to reveal Himself in a Scriptural box, if you will. To deny this is to have no objective basis on which to determine what really is, or is not, of God. Cults, by the way, begin when God is taken out of this so-called Scriptural box.

I can appreciate the author trying to challenge people’s presuppositions and biases regarding God. Picturing God as a “white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf,” is probably how most people do view Him, but probably not how He really is! However, the author presents no Scriptural ground on which to stand in challenging others’ views of God. In other words, he seeks to condemn or correct the biases of others by simply asserting his biases! Young seeks to correct those who are biased in seeing God as an old white man, but Young himself is biased in picturing God the Father as a black lady. Where is that mentioned or described, or even hinted at, in Scripture? Everything we promote and teach about God must be drawn from Scripture and nowhere else. If that is putting God in a box, then so be it. Which leads me to the major problem, that of the nature of God.

The Nature of God

The first issue that I believe to be flawed and unbiblical in The Shack centers on the nature of God. This is most evident in regards to the great doctrine of the Trinity. In The Shack Young gives his readers a visual picture of the Trinity when Mack, the main character meets God. Mack, much to his surprise, finds upon meeting God the Father that he/she is an African American woman who goes by the name “Papa.” Papa we read is frequently in the kitchen cooking and baking such things as pies and scones. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman whose name is Sarayu, who is a keeper of the gardens.

To much less surprise, Jesus is a Middle-Eastern man. Jesus, as portrayed by Young, comes off as somewhat effeminate as he likes to hold hands, hug, kiss, smile, giggle, act goofy, and wink. He is also clumsy!

In one scene in the kitchen, all three persons of the Godhead are laughing at Jesus because he dropped some sauce that got everywhere, including Papa’s skirt and feet. Papa later said at the dinner table, “We were going to have this incredible Japanese sauce, but greasy fingers over there (reference to Jesus) decided to see if it would bounce.”

“C’mon now,” Jesus responded in mock defense. “My hands were slippery. What can I say?”

“Papa winked at Mack as she passed him the rice. “You can’t get good help around here.”

“Everyone laughed” (105).

It makes me wonder, among other things, that if Jesus cannot handle a bowl of sauce without dropping it and making a mess, how can He handle our lives and the workings of the world? But I move on.

When one reads The Shack’s description of God, it is okay if you feel somewhat uncomfortable with it; you should! Mack at one point asks the three which one is God, to which they all answer in unison, “I am” (87). I assume this is Young’s way of assuring people that he is not being heretical when it comes to the doctrine of God who is clearly stated in Scripture as being One (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” Duet. 6:4). However, throughout the book the theological waters get muddied. For instance, young writes, “…and then God, all three, simultaneously said…” (233, emphasis added). Does the book promote three gods?

I conclude that Young misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. He seeks to humanize the Godhead, or bring it down to our level. I am not sure whether Young is simply trying to make the Godhead more understandable (and therefore commits a theological error), or if he himself is confused on the nature of the Godhead, or both. To make God out to be three different characters, two women and one man, is to promote the idea of tri-theism, that there is three gods. God is Spirit, which means He does not have human flesh; He is immaterial. Therefore one must trend ever so cautiously when seeking to describe God, and ascribe to Him a human form. We must guard against creating God in our image.

We know from Scripture that the Father is God (Ex. 20:2), the Son is God (Jn. 8:58, 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3,4). We also know that there is only one God (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” Duet. 6:4). This Biblical mystery that has been defined through church history as the Trinity. Taking such Biblical truth about the Godhead, definitions of the Trinity have arisen, such as this one from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Hence, there is one living and true God who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The problem arises for Young over the understanding of the word “persons” in relation to the Trinity. He seeks to make each person of the Godhead a literal, human person, and thus, his flaw. The meaning of person in relation to the Godhead is not the same as a human person, who is an individual. Louis Berkhouf writes, “Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions, within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one.” In other words, there is no individualism in the Godhead, and thus using “person” may be a misleading word to use in relation to the Godhead if not understood properly. Again, “person” in relation to the Godhead does not mean individual, as God is not divided into three parts, but each person of the Godhead is completely and fully God, with each possessing all of the attributes of God. For example, to say that God is eternal, means that the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Each person of the Godhead is distinct, but not separate, as they are not individuals, nor are they independent from each other. As John Calvin writes, “[the] Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality.” This is the problem in representing the Godhead as two women and one man as it is misrepresenting the Biblical view of God, for it promotes the idea of three individuals who are each God and therefore producing three gods.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a very complex statement about God that is taught in Scripture, and it is best to stay within the Scriptural bounds on the issue of the Godhead and be ever so careful not to walk outside those bounds and say something about the nature of God that Scripture never intended to say. Trinitarians often are said to believe in tri-theism, but that is not true with what has been explained. However, to have three individuals or persons (as in The Shack) who when asked who is God, all proclaim “I am,” it appears to me that one has just distorted the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead and promoted tri-theism.

(Let me make a quick note in regard to the gender issue. The Bible is consistent in referring to God in the masculine gender. This does not mean that God is a male, as we know that He is neither male nor female. To state such would again bring God down to our level and humanize Him, which we must not do. In saying that however, we must be true once again to Scripture as being the definitive source as to the nature of God. God is predominantly referred to in the masculine gender, specifically as Father, and Jesus as the Son of God. I understand Young’s concern to want to break people out of their preconceived notions of God, but it must be done within a Biblical framework and worldview.)

Man in the Presence of God

It is surprising to see how Mack reacts with being in the presence of God. When he meets God, whom he addresses as “Papa,” he is shocked and surprised, but mostly angry at God. Mack in an early encounter with Papa throws an accusation her/his way, “If you couldn’t take care of Missy, how can I trust you to take care of me?” (92). In saying this Mack’s face became “flush angry red” and “his hands were knotted into fists.” How does Papa respond? By apologizing! “Mack, I’m so sorry….”

Let’s think about Job for a minute. If anyone has ever had a right to be angry with God, Job is the man. Job lost all his possessions, his children, his health, and was left with a nagging wife! After some time of questioning what was going on in his life and questioning God, Job gets a response, but certainly not one that he anticipated! God unleashes a series of questions upon Job that demonstrate His creative power, sovereignty, and wisdom, and God questions whether Job himself also has these attributes, and if not, then the proper response from Job is to be quiet and to trust Him. To which Job properly responds by saying, “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to you? I lay my hand on my mouth.” God does not even mention the suffering of Job, let alone give a reason for it. When Job comes into the presence of God, he does not accuse. He is humbled, He does not find fault with God. He repents. If all one took from the book of Job is that we dare not throw accusations at God, it will be a lesson worth learning. However, this is not a lesson taught in The Shack.

Or think of Isaiah having a vision and seeing the “Lord sitting upon His throne, high and lifted up…” Isaiah goes on to describe the scene where seraphim were calling out in the presence of God: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” What did Isaiah do in response to being in the presence of God? He was astonished and fearful and declared that he was unclean! I am sorry, but Isaiah did not have a vision of God is all His glory and see a woman baking scones and listening to funk music! Now don’t misunderstand, this is not to put down women who bake or people who listen to modern music. The point is that God in His Holiness is completely unlike us, He is wholly different than humans, He is wholly other. Or as the book rightly states, God is “holy, and wholly other than you” (98). To seek to humanize God is to take away from His glory and holiness. I am sorry, but I have an issue with God being portrayed as a scone and pie baker who listens to funk music! What point is the author trying to convey about God? It just seems to smack of irreverence to me.

In the book of Revelation, in the picture that John paints for his readers of the heavenly realm, it is often seen that people bow and fall down before God (4:10, 5:8, 14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4). In the presence of God, people are humbled, and they worship God. Yet, Mack never falls on his face before the presence of the Holy God.

Salvation by Faith

Like other issues I have discussed, Young draws fuzzy distinctions and blurs the lines on key theological and doctrinal issues. There are undertones of distortions of justification by faith alone. Jesus says to Mack at one point:

“Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans… 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 brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.”

“Does that mean,” asked Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?”

“Not at all,” smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (182).

What does this mean? Jesus does not desire people to become Christians? A Christian is a Christ-follower, who is becoming increasingly Christ-like. A Christian is simply one who understands their sinfulness, seeks Christ for forgiveness, believes that He died on the cross on their behalf, and submits their life unto Him. “I want to join them in their transformation…” Is that regeneration or justification? Where does repentance of sin and obedience to Christ come in here? This is never mentioned in the book. A Christian can read this section and see no problems because Young is not clear what he means. But here is the problem, a Universalist can read this statement and not have a problem either!

According to the author, people do not come to believe in God because, having not experienced his love, they cannot trust Him. No, I think it is because of our sinful nature and evil hearts that separate us from God (see Romans 3). It is God’s love that draws us to Him, but it is our sin that keeps us from Him.

Hell

In the author’s view, God has no enemies and He does not punish people for sin. Quite contrary to Scripture when it mentions people groups that God had Israel demolish and destroy. Mack asks Papa if there are any people she is not fond of, to which she responds, “Nope, I haven’t been able to find any. Guess that’s jes’ the way I is” (119). Which brings the discussion of Mack asking Papa if he/she is the one who is throwing people into the lake of fire. To which Papa responds by saying, “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” This seems to be a response that skirted around the issue. Who created hell? God did. How does that fact fit into this thinking? Who sends people there? God does. Jesus declares, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the image The Shack portrays of God is a weak one (a baker?). When Jesus came to earth, He did not reveal Himself through baking pies and scones but by performing miraculous healings, raising people from the dead, and by authoritatively teaching about heavy doctrinal issues. In conclusion, The Shack in many aspects does not line up with Scripture. Therefore, many of its conclusions about God end up being contrary to Scripture at best, and at worst, may be blasphemous. Therefore, The Shack would not be on my recommending reading list as it creates more problems than it does solutions by painting an unbiblical picture of God.

God does work in different ways in different people, however, it then does not follow that every individual’s idea, experiences, and thoughts about God are correct. Scripture exhorts us to examine and test everything by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1). This would include such material as The Shack. Therefore, if one does decides to read this book, it is crucial that they use discernment and judge it by the truth of Scripture.

It is sad that for Mack, in finding his peace and comfort, he does not find it through the Word of God, nor even prayer, but in an experience. And an experience that does not appear to built upon the solid rock of God’s Word.

1 My thanks to Doug Allan who edited this paper for me and added some good insight.