This is the third in my series of blog critiques of William P. Young's The Shack. I previously discussed general arguments about theological fiction and Young's portrayal of God the Father in human form. We now arrive at a discussion of God's character, as described in the Bible and in the novel. Again, to be fair, Young's purpose is to convey what he knows of God, in reaction against an overly harsh or punitive view of Yahweh. But he emphasizes God's love at the expense of His holiness.
Problems with Papa (II)
2. The character of God
I'd like to present you with a juxtaposition of quotes from The Shack and from the Bible. You decide for yourself how Young's portrayal of God the Father holds up to comparison with the holy Scripture. I realize the weaknesses of this method, pulling quotes out of context and all that. But I've tried to select passages that are as unambiguous as possible, and in keeping with what I know of the author's intent behind the book. No tricks here. The general theme upon which I'd like to focus is God's holiness and attitude toward sin. There are many others I could mention, but these are perhaps the aspects of God's character which are most overlooked and have the most implication for the rest of the book's (and the reader's) theology.
Is God tolerant of sin, or does His holy nature require justice for disobedience?
Shack: "'Honestly, don't you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?' At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. '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.'" (p.120)
Shack: "For now I just want you to be with me and discover that our relationship is not about performance or you having to please me. I'm not a bully, not some self-centered demanding little deity insisting on my own way. I am good, and I desire only what is best for you. You cannot find that through guilt or condemnation or coercion, only through a relationship of love. And I do love you." (Papa, p. 126)
Scripture: "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil....for all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." [Romans 2:6-12]
Scripture: "For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man." [Psalm 5:4-6]
Do you pick up on a slightly different flavor of God's view toward sin in these passages? Young's Papa is grieved by sin, but doesn't abhor it. Papa rejoices in "curing" sin (though exactly what this means we're not told), but her purpose isn't to punish it. But in Scripture we see a God before whom no evil can dwell, who hates all evildoers. It sounds to me as though God's purpose is indeed to punish sin; in fact, He is holy, holy, holy. This is the only attribute of God which is elevated to the third degree in Scripture - He is never described as love, love, love, or as mercy, mercy, mercy. But He is holy, holy, holy (Isaiah 6:3, Rev. 4:8). As such, all of His actions and other attributes are defined by holiness - His love is holy love, His justice is holy justice, etc. His holiness and righteousness must be satisfied because they are absolutely integral to His existence.
God is good, but this is not defined by His wanting what is best for us. God is good because He is good, and His commands flow from His goodness for our benefit and for His glory. Young presents a very man-centric view of God and spirituality, and this is revealed in his low view of sin and almost nonexistent view of God's holiness. It is all about relationship, joining the divine circle of being and allowing God to be present with us. Young presents no discernible gospel message, at least not one that orthodox Christianity would endorse. But that's for another post.
In reading back over this post, I realize how very limited I am in my ability to develop this critique. A more worthy scholar would have provided more appropriate quotes, better examples and would have put my argument to shame. But I hope you can see at least that Young's portrayal of God the Father is at best a pale shadow of one side of our true God's countenance. There is nothing wrong with emphasizing God's love and desire for reconciliation with fallen man; however, one cannot present God accurately without simultaneously highlighting His hatred of sin and the impossibility of reconciling while our sin separates us from Him.
Up next: Problems with the Spirit: Certainty vs. Uncertainty
The Spiritual Gift Inventory I Believe In
5 hours ago
3 comments:
"It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it."
Didn't God "cure" sin by "punishing" Jesus on the cross? There is no remedy for sin without a bloody savior, a substitute, an atonement. How does Young define this "cure" while he has explicitly rejected the substitutionary atonement and other related things? More on that in a later post, I'm sure ;-)
I don't know if there is enough space in the blogosphere (or enough intelligence in my brain) to adequately address all of the theological problems with the book AND its author. This is intended to say more about my limitations than about the scope of error. But in any case, I may limit myself to just the book...though I'm sure there will be a post on salvation and redemption. Hoo boy.
Liz, I'm really proud of all that you're doing (or not doing in the case of the way cool knitting project). You're taking on some critical issues, but one thing I have found lacking in your handling of the book to date: What does the cover look like?
Seriously, though--have you had a chance to discuss your findings with the friends with whom you were going to Shack up?
Post a Comment