The Shack, Part the First

[This is the first of a few posts on The Shack. I hope you'll bear with me through some potentially lengthy comments and interact with them by leaving your own comments. It is my intent to approach the book with humility and a firm love for the truth, which has been revealed to us in the Word of God. You should know that I work from the perspective of Reformed theology and believe that the Bible is the highest authority against which all else should be tested. I can do no less or more than point to Scripture as an answer to the issues raised by this book, and make no apology for the firmness with which God commands His children to guard His truth.]

I recently read through the current "Christian" best-seller The Shack by William P. Young. This based-on-a-true-story novel depicts a guy named Mack symbolically and literally revisiting the place of his deepest pain. He visits "the shack" only to find - or rather, to be found by - "Papa", his wife's affectionate nickname for God. Mack spends the weekend soliciting Papa's answers for life's toughest questions from the purpose of pain and suffering to the nature of God and His views on religion.

Prior to reading this book, I had perused several reviews by such as Tim Challies and Mark Driscoll. The general consensus among Bible scholars and discerning believers seems to be that the book flirts with heresy, whereas others like Michael W. Smith regard it as "the most absorbing work of fiction I've read in many years....The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God."

Perhaps, but not in the way Smith intended. Little but fluff, this work leaves the discerning Christian cold and hungry for the meat of the true gospel.

It may be emotionally powerful and spiritually gripping, but largely unbalanced in its presentation of "truth" and its answering of Mack's questions.

In my posts discussing the book, I will attempt to distill my own opinions of the book (of which there are many) into several overarching themes. In this initial post, I'd like to address a few general arguments I have encountered regarding fiction-as-theology (particularly The Shack). I encourage you to read my responses and interact with them via your comments below. I realize these arguments are born of a genuine desire to be open-minded and I appreciate their intent, but I don't believe that they hold up against the standard of Scripture. I do not highlight these arguments in order to rebuke, but rather to exhort fellow believers to the high calling of God's Word.

1. It's only a work of fiction - it's not trying to teach doctrinal truths about God.

No human creation is devoid of a worldview, or basic presuppositions about the nature of reality. To create is to leave a mark that tells something of the creator's character and values (isn't this, after all, what Christians believe about the general revelation of nature?). So let us first discard the notion that a novel could be free from certain kinds of views and values. And when we understand that the book explicitly depicts the Triune God as physically present with a human being, answering questions and explaining His own nature, red flags and alarms ought to be going off in every direction! How could such a book not present truth claims in some form or fashion? We ought, then, to read carefully.

And indeed, this novel purports to be more than fiction: "The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You'll want everyone you know to read this book!" This from the back cover of the book. The author's apparent intent, from what I can gather, is to share the answers he's found to life's tough questions and his own God-image transformation. He hopes the book will be transformational and encourages its readers to expand its circle of influence. The author himself has stated in a number of interviews that he intended his work to be more than fiction.

2. You shouldn't form an opinion about the book without reading it for yourself.

A fair enough protestation on the surface, but what if we were to carry it through to its logical conclusion? One could not claim to have an opinion about anything he had not tested, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or seen. I would have to read the entire Quran, or the complete works of David Koresh, in order to deem them false. In Scripture we are exhorted to "test everything" in terms of teachings so that we can "hold fast to what is true" (1 Thes 5:21). But does this mean that I, personally, must try everything? I should weigh every teaching that I encounter, in terms of discerning truth from falsehood. But let us not discount the value of relying on trusted believers' evaluations. In the case of The Shack, I've read reviews and perused information from a variety of sources including those comments mentioned above. I would venture to say that when it comes to book and other kinds of reviews, the purpose of discernment shifts to the weighing of the source. One should not, for instance, give undue credit to someone who writes outside his area of expertise, nor take seriously the critique of a man whom you know to hold untrue beliefs. A book review written by Brett Favre or Rob Bell (not to place these two on the same level of esteem...) wouldn't persuade me to form an opinion on anything.

On the other hand, I can trust Christian scholars like Sproul, Challies, Piper, etc. because I have continuously compared their teachings against Scripture and found them to be discerning and trustworthy. Thankfully we can turn to those more informed and well-read than ourselves to provide reliable information, so that we do not need to read for ourselves every book ever written. My life would be spent frantically trying to keep up with the publishers, with no time left over for lofty blog posts! So I inform myself via the work of trusted others, thus exercising my responsibility to test and discern what is good without wandering right into the lion's den, so to speak. Indeed, according to Challies (2007), just because we are to test everything does not mean that we are to try everything. "We do not necessarily need to touch or experience things to know that they are evil" (p. 84). I believe that The Shack contains heresy because I trust the theology of those who have told me so.

That said, it isn't as though I am against reading things in order to form firsthand opinions of them. It's just that, after learning that the book contains untruths and partial truths (which are really untruths if you think about it), I had no desire to read The Shack. I just didn't feel like it. And to anyone who would desire to read it, I only caution you to read it with discernment and to be aware of the charges brought against it. As believers, are we not called to be responsible and well-informed readers? Is this not part of our duty to "test everything"?

3. It is (rigid/closed-minded/inflexible/etc.) of you to call a work of fiction 'heresy'!

Let's talk about the definition of heresy for a moment. In its broadest sense, heresy refers to any teaching or belief that departs from orthodoxy (the traditional teachings to which Christians through the years have held). More specifically, we can look at different "levels of theological urgency" (Challies, 2007, p. 87). Several teachings have been most central and essential to the Christian faith, including the doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith alone, and the authority of Scripture (Challies). This will be an important list to keep in mind as we compare these first-order theological issues with those tackled in The Shack.

While we are to take all theological issues seriously ("test everything", remember?), those who deny or distort any of the above teachings have departed from biblical Christianity (Challies). So these areas are those in which we can most certainly apply the label of "heresy" to inaccurate teachings. Christians differ significantly on other topics, such as baptism and spiritual gifts, but one can be incorrect here without actually being heretical. I understand that heresy is an emotionally loaded word that sounds extreme and harsh, but an untruth about the nature or character of the God of the universe or of His gospel ought to bring harsh criticism from those who love Him and His truth. For my part, I find it impossible to endorse a book that might contain a few helpful principles about God's love that are largely wrapped in layers of half truths that feel good. Any dilution or distortion of the truth is problematic.

Does this represent a rigid view of Scripture? Judge for yourself: Hebrews 5:11-14 says that the mature are those whose powers of discernment are trained to distinguish good from evil, and tells us that those who are immature require milk and are unskilled in the word of righteousness. (By no means do I claim to have arrived at full spiritual maturity, per Hebrews 5, but by God's grace and Holy Spirit I'm being shaped to that end.) 1 and 2 Timothy exhort believers to guard the deposit of truth; we are to hold fast to the Word of truth (1 Cor. 15:2, Phil. 2:16). The Scripture has a high view of itself, and through it God tells us in countless ways to cling to what is true and hate what is false or evil, particularly when it comes to the truths of the gospel (Gal. 2:5). The Psalmist sings of the Word, of the statutes and ways of the Lord, which bring wisdom and delight when learned and rightly obeyed (Psalm 119). God's Word leaves no room for a casual approach; those who love Him obey His commands (1 John 5:2). According to what Scripture says about itself, those who love the Lord are also to love truth and are to guard it fiercely, especially truths about the very nature of God and His gospel!

These are the very truths that are undermined in The Shack. Even providing some leeway for the book to be viewed as fiction, the answers given by "Papa" in the book are problematic. Allegorical aspects aside, old heresies including modalism and Gnosticism are sprinkled liberally throughout the novel. There is nothing new here, but the discerning reader ought to be concerned nonetheless.

4. Shouldn't you be able to take the good and leave the bad?

This might be possible for the discerning reader. I can acknowledge some helpful aspects of the book - but the danger is that it still contains too many half-truths and untruths to render it truly helpful, or something I could recommend to anyone else. Would you place even one drop of poison in a glass full of water and deem it fit to drink? A book that contains an un-Scriptural view of God ought to be passed over in favor of one that presents Him truthfully, regardless of how moving the underlying story might be.

And indeed, would those who love God's truth even enjoy reading something that requires such sifting of wheat from chaff? I personally found many statements in the book to be jarring to my thoughts and to the storyline as Scripture after Scripture bombarded my mind with truth after countermanding truth.

But more about that soon, when I post my thoughts about the book itself...

References:
Challies, T. (2007). The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.