| Review: The Shack (the ‘ology part [1]) |
the theology in “The Shack” covers a number of areas and ideas related to orthodox Christian belief. in this part of the review, i’ll begin discussing them, using a number of quotations from the book, plus some thoughts of my own; i’ll also make some appeals to Scripture to show where there are differences, plus bring in objections from others i’ve either heard or read.
let’s see if, initially, we can narrow down the primary issues about which the book attempts to clarify or shed light on in a different way. here are a number i see:
- The Trinity, the nature of God, and the nature of the relationships between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
- Judgment of sin
- Eternal judgment of non-Christians
- Forgiveness
- God’s sovereignty and man’s free will
- “Good” and who determines it
- Eternity and the nature of heaven
- Creation and God’s plan for it and humanity
if we can cover all of these with a little detail, i’d say you’ve gotten your money’s worth out of this review…
The Trinity, the Nature of God, and the Nature of the Relationships Between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
the Trinity is a topic of interest throughout much of the book. obviously, the initial characters Mack encounters are meant to challenge the reader’s preconceived notions about it. the appearance of God the Father as a large black woman, and the Holy Spirit’s resemblance to a transparent Asian woman cause a few chuckles when first encountered but, obviously, there are some items on Young’s agenda he’s attempting to address when characterizing the Trinity this way. just as obviously, there are some pretty strong reactions among the crowd that is critical of the book in the liberties Young takes here.
the names are, perhaps, an obvious starting point for discussion. Papa, the Father, reveals that his/her name is properly ‘Elousia.’ a quick Google search on the name pulls up one of the many articles on the heresies contained in the shack; in it, we read that Elousia is a greek word meaning “tenderness”. one immediately thinks of Jesus calling God ‘Abba’ as a way to disarm the Pharisees and how they envisioned God the Father. Jesus describes it in Matthew 11:27:
“The Father has given me all these things to do and say. This is a unique Father-Son operation, coming out of Father and Son intimacies and knowledge. No one knows the Son the way the Father does, nor the Father the way the Son does. But I’m not keeping it to myself; I’m ready to go over it line by line with anyone willing to listen. ”
but there’s a little more at work here. Elousia, it seems, especially when in the form of an icon, is generally a black madonna holding Jesus. and while the name may mean a “universal, lovingkindess,” it seems we should fear more the attempt being made (or so say all the sky-is-falling types) to feminize God. it is especially this feminizing of God that is worrisome because it appeals to post-moderns. the name obviously is connected to Elohim, the initial name for God that we read in Genesis 1:1, and a name that (perhaps incorrectly) has been used to justify the plurality of Gods as expressed in the Trinity. still, it seems to want to force the appearance of the feminine nature of God.
Is this wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Notice this statement of Papa’s, and Mack’s mental analysis of it afterwards:
“Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” (Papa, p. 93)
[Mack] believed, in his head at least, that God was a Spirit, neither male nor female, but in spite of that, he was embarassed to admit to himself that all his visuals for God were very white and very male. (p. 93)
even the NT says that God is a spirit; here is John 4:24:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
i suppose there’s an issue here if we want to make one. i just saw a comment on another guy’s post that says “The Holy Spirit is a he,” to which someone else replied, “Oh yeah? So where are HIS genitals?”. i think it’s the processing in Mack’s head (above) that should speak the most to us – that we come at God – all of us, not just Americans, but perhaps Americans especially so – with mental images of what God “looks” like. and, in all honesty, this cuts both ways. i was told by a pastor friend many years ago that the day he hated preaching above all others was Mother’s Day, simply because not everyone had a perfect mother that they cherish and want to honor that day – some people hate their mothers with every ounce of their being, having lived with “Mommie Dearest” for years and years. i’ve always been convinced that our views of God the Father are colored more by the relationships we’ve had with our own earthly fathers, for better or worse. Papa even notes this with Mack, who had a terrible relationship with his own father:
“Hasn’t it always been a problem for you to embrace me as your father? … You couldn’t very well handle a father right now, could you?” (Papa, p.93)
so, Papa recognizes that appearing to Mack in the image of a domineering male figure would do more to push Mack away than it would help, no matter how “correct” the theology might be.
Mack even asks Papa why we are so quick to see God as a male Father figure:
Mack: “Why is there such an emphasis on you being a ‘Father’?”
Papa: “…we knew once creation was broken, true fathering would be more lacking than mothering … an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.” (p. 94)
to be honest, i didn’t really understand this answer. but one need only look at American society today – especially in the African-American community – to see what happens when male parental influence and leadership is missing.
so God the Father, in the form of a large, black woman named Papa has probably less to do with an attempt to disguise Satan sometimes coming as a man of peace (to quote Bobby D).
the name Sarayu is perhaps a little less subtle, and perhaps more revealing of any agenda Young has (if, in fact, he has one). the word is the female form of the Sanskrit word which means “air” and “wind”. again, here’s a name with a piece most can accept without much objection (“wind”, a meaning for the Greek word “pneuma” which is used for the Holy Spirit) and yet also a little twist (the female form) which seems to be there intentionally to irritate people like Al Mohler.
but there are some interesting connections, especially in how all of the figures in Young’s Trinity seem to have corresponding figures in Hindu theology. Sarayu is a river in ancient India, and Sara-Kali is the name of “god in the Spirit.” Kali is also known as the goddess “Shaci” – which could be a play on “Shack”. the author of the article i provide the link to above summarizes these Hindu connections this way:
Is it pure luck that “The Shack” and Shaci sound alike, and that Kali, in the form of Elousia, her daughter Sara-La-Kali (Saryu or Sarayu) and Indra all meet together in the form Shaci like they meet in “The Shack”… Do you remember when Jesus drops a bowl and splashes food all over the black goddess? Lord Indra is the king of the cosmic gods, according to our mythology. On the one hand, according to tradition, he is most powerful. On the other hand, because he makes mistakes, he does not remain fixed in his own transcendental height. The so-called modern world is not guided or shaped by Indra. Although he won’t reply, I believe that Young knows exactly who these characters were meant to be, and I contend for the faith that it was not the God of the Bible! It’s not just a novel, it’s not great Christian literature, it’s just Hinduism mass marketed to blind sheep. (pseudonym WatcherOnTheWall, in the suidoo article, “The Hidden Heresies of ‘The Shack’ Book”)
to say that there aren’t some not-so-subtle connections to things outside orthodox Christianity is to deny the obvious; to determine that they are a thinly-veiled attempt to pull the Christian reader deep into Hinduism is a bit of a reach. of course, if you’re in the mindset where Satan is under every rock, everything should be examined to see whether it is or isn’t of God.
and there ain’t no neutral ground. (Bobby D. again…)
also of interest are the relationships within the Trinity amongst the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. there are good ideas presented, specifically the thought that it’s this ability to relate that is at the very core of God – that if God was a single ‘being’, relationships would not be a basic part of His nature. further, love itself would then be absent in God, since there would be no object of love other than Himself. this goes a long way in showing us the primacy of relationships for man and humanity. Papa and Mack discuss it this way:
Papa: “If I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am.”
Mack: “And we would be without…?”
Papa: “Love and relationship. All love exists within Me, within God myself. I am love.” (p. 101)
another issue that Mack raises is how the different members of the Trinity rate in terms of priority – who has the ‘final say,’ as such. now, from Scipture, i would have to say that the Father seems to be the most authoritarian figure – there are clearly things the He knows that Jesus is not allowed to know, and He clearly had the controlling hand in determining when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon people.
In “The Shack,” the various characters argue that this “heirarchy” is more an invention of man than a reflection of reality:
Mack: “I am talking about who’s in charge. Don’t you have a chain of command?”
Sarayu: “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Heirarchy … is your problem, not ours. Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge.”
Jesus: “It’s one reason why true relationship is so hard for you. Once you have a heirarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of rules … [This] destroys relationship rather than promotes it.”
Sarayu: “You think that God must relate inside a heirarchy like you do. But we do not.” (p. 122, 124)
as we do when we see God through the image of our earthly fathers, perhaps our need to see a 1-2-3 order within the Trinity says more about us than it does about God.
so that’s a look at the Trinity in “The Shack.” more later.
Click here to buy William Young’s TheShack at amazon.com today!
Leave a Reply