Still Considering The Shack

Yes, I still have not read The Shack (see Tim Keller was not the last person on earth to read it, I might be).  I personally know a few people who have.  I’ve tried not to engage them about it too much- things tend to get tense fast where this book is concerned.

For some reason there have been a spate of blogs posts & reviews of late.  They interact with the book in a variety of ways.  And the comments show the typical polarization taking place.

Tim Keller has a typically good number of impressions about the book.  He mentions some positives about the book (including the use of narrative to convey theology), and some concerns he has (including the theology conveyed in this narrative).  Those concerns center on ideas present in the book that undermine biblical, historic, orthodox Christianity.  One pertinent concern is that it really does not prepare anyone to meet the God of the Bible.  The god portrayed is a more post-modern, neutered deity who fails to recognize the relational nature of sin, and how the Law reveals love.  If we are expecting people to become Christians after reading this, the bait & switch tactic is unloving and unfair.  It is unloving to our neighbor, and to God (whose character is misrepresented, which sounds like bearing false witness to me).

Al Mohler laments the lack of evangelical discernment in this whole affair.  He addresses one of the defenses of the book- that it is a work of fiction, not a theological treatise- quite well.

The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects.

Or, to put it another way: if there was no theology to convey, there would be no story to tell.  The whole point of the book is to teach his children theology, which he has now shared with the rest of the world.  It is not merely a story about a guy in which God is incidental- the whole point of the story is for Mack to have his theology corrected (and heart healed) via an encounter with God.  The theology that Young dumps on us through this work of fiction is rooted in a number of liberal notions evangelicals have contested.  Yet many evangelicals are defending this book.  A sign, perhaps, that evangelicalism has lost its way.  To be fair, I should say yet another sign that evangelicalism has taking a wrong turn.  Like Bilbo’s band, who didn’t listen to Gandalf, we have left the road and ended up in a really bad place.

Among other things, Fred Sanders notes that you won’t find any Finding God in the Shack-books written by any Reformed people (though Steve Brown might be tempted).  Though Young’s theology is not compatible with the Reformed heritage (“parts of it seemed designed to make Calvinists go nuts”), even “John Wesley could school him in the doctrine of providence.”  Where are the non-Reformed people who find serious problems with this book?  See the section on Al Mohler’s review.

Katherine Jeffery calls it “a post-modern, post-biblical theodicy” that just might be post-Christian too.  Sadly, some celebrity Christians have claimed the book has changed their view of god, and will change yours too.  More sad, Eugene Peterson compared it to Pilgrim’s Progress.  Positively compared, that is.

She examines the book literarily, focusing on how he tells the story.  Young utilizes, among other things, theophany.  But his theophany has more in common with modern film (she cites Oh, God!, Bruce Almighty and Dogma), than biblical theophanies.   She also spends plenty of time explaining the significant differences between in method (and theology) between Pilgrim’s Progress and The Shack.  Like much post-modern thought, he redefines theophany, and theology.

MacDonald: Famous or Infamous?

James B. DeYoung is a friend of William Young’s who sees this as his apologetic for “Christian univeralism”.  It differs from “general universalism” which is summed up as “all roads lead to God.”  In Christian universalism all will be reconciled to God, either before or after death.  This view was put forth by another ‘Christian fiction author’ George MacDonald.   So he’s sort of a post-modern George MacDonald.  In this view love trumps all.  DeYoung says that Christian universalism is what ties all the other heterodox views together.  It is not just one more error, but the one upon all the others rest.  As a result, Young is being deliberately theological.  The theology of the book is not merely incidental, but central, to the book.  This is what makes the errors so significant.

So why are so many people eating this book up?  Why is it so popular?  How come people are being so undiscerning?  I don’t think I have all the answers.  But I think his emotional honesty is what pulls people in.  Sentimentality and supposed authenticity.  William Young is/was a very broken man.  Many bad things happened to him, and this is how Young tried to sort out those things with his relationship with God.

We all want our broken places to make sense.  We want a faith that can encompass them and heal them.  Many Christians are uncomfortable with the skeletons in our closets, forget their own.  We fail to bring them into the light- into our relationship with God and His people.  This is sad, and seems very much out of step with Scripture (the Psalms, Romans 8 etc.).

But Young does not bring them out into the light.  Well, real light.  I once did an experiment (one of my many failed science experiments) to note how plants grew differently in sunshine and in florescent light.  Both are light, one natural and another artificial.  Young brings our pain and shame into the artificial light of Christian universalism instead of the natural light of biblical Christianity.  He taps into a real need, but sells people a false religion.  This is one of the easiest ways for false teaching to spread.  We are touched by this painful story, and think that somehow this means we are responding to truth.  Our tears blind our vision.  Rather than finding healing, we will end up finding even more pain and shame.

(HT: Justin Taylor)