Friday, July 18, 2008

Review: The Shack by William Young

The Shack, William Young's tale of Mack, his family tragedy, and his divine encounter, has become the NY Times number one best selling trade paperback fiction. Perhaps not exactly what Young was expecting, but certainly a hopeful sign that average people are still captivated by theology. Even good theology.

The Shack is the spiritual story of Mackenzie Allen Phillips (Mack), written by his friend Willie. On a camping trip with three of his children, Mack's youngest daughter, Missy, is kidnapped. All that is found is her bloody dress in an old shack. Missy is presumed dead and Mack returns home under the weight of what he calls, The Great Sadness. His relationship with God, already strained by his own father's abusive ways, becomes one of bitterness and anger. One day, Mack receives a note, inviting him to the shack--the shack--where his daughter was found, signed by none other than God.

When Mack arrives at the shack, God is not who he would expect. The Father, Papa, is a large African-American woman who loves to cook. Jesus is a Jewish laborer who wears work gloves. The Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman, Sarayu, dressed as a gardener. Not exactly who Mack would expect! As Mack interacts with each of them he hears of their internal relationship, their passions and hobbies, and how his own theological beliefs fall dreadfully short. Mack's weekend at the shack, leads to his experience of the full love of God, forgiveness with his father, and the beginning of forgiveness of the man who killed his daughter.

The Shack is better theology than fiction, which is not necessarily a significant critique as its theology is considered and thoughtful. However, the prose felt a little forced at times, trying very hard to be descriptive and detailed, which bogged the story down. Young's Trinitarian theology is solid. While God appears as two women and one man, Papa assures Mack that the Father and the Spirit are neither male nor female, though both sexes are derived from God's nature. God has created humanity to relate interdepently as sexes, woman originally coming from the rib of man (Eden having been a real place), and every man and woman now coming through women.

I would contend with three of Young's belief, however, (at least) two of which stem from his frustration with the institutional church. First, Young commits the heresy of patripassionism. Papa bears wounds on his wrists, just as Jesus does. Mack comments to Papa that he is sorry that he had to die (103), though it is specifically Jesus who dies. Papa never abandoned Jesus on the cross, though it felt like that. While some will wonder why this matters, it is important to maintain the Trinitarian relations that Young has skillfully described. If the Father has the same experience as the Son, then these two persons are in danger of being collapsed into each other. Further, part of atonement is Jesus entering the situation of estrangement from God and being brought back. If the Father has not abandoned the Son (at least politically), then the Son has not entered the fallen state of humanity.

Second, Young's Old Testament theology lacks a concept of covenant. God comments that the 10 Commandments are about teaching people they cannot live righteously. While the law does this on a national level and Paul affirms that the law was powerless to transform people, one must always consider the law as God's gift, evidence God has set Israel aside. But not only evidence, the gracious means of God's setting aside, intimately connected to the story outsiders enter to become Jews. Young emphasizes the relationship God wants with people that is not marked by rules and expectations, but by expectancy and love. However, the New Testament is full of commands, as well, which Young leaves unaddressed.

Finally, Young lacks a solid political theology. Young's Jesus says, "I don't create institutions--never have, never will." Jesus is not fond of economics, politics (179), preferring relationship. Here Young has failed to take seriously that economics and politics--institutions, markets, cities--are relational. They are fallen relationships, but relationships, nonetheless. To remove Jesus from the creation of institutions also removes Jesus from the powers which emerge from such institutions, which is Manichean and certainly against Paul's words in Colossians that thrones, powers, authorities are created by Jesus. Further, if Jesus is not involved in the creation of institutions, then is he not involved in the creation of orphanages? Hospitals? Universities? Publishing houses?

(One might also point out the personification of God's wisdom Sophia, which indicates a fourth 'person' of God. Better had Young somehow worked this into Jesus and how his story reflects the story of wisdom, but I'll leave that to New Testament scholars. As a theologian, I am uncomfortable with a 'personification' or enfleshment of anything in God except God's Word. All enfleshing is in him.)

In the end, I believe Young's work is worth reading and reflection. It would serve as a good text for church small groups to the extent that it raises a number of important issues in forming church. I appreciated Young's creativity and fearlessness in addressing preconceived notions of God. Even in the above criticisms to a partial extent, Young's work is critical and thoughtful. He has not written this work sloppily and would likely have strong and thoughtful responses to my critiques. In the end, my critiques are disagreements and not necessarily points that Young would see the need to change or sharpen. Finally, Young's book is a significant story that could form the imagination of people in need of reconciliation or forgiveness in their own tragedies. It paints a nice picture of God's involvement in this blue-green ball in black space and God's love for it and all its inhabitants.

Labels: , ,

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very good review, AP. I just finished the book and thought it was creative and well-written. Now I don't have to write a review. I'll just link to yours. :)

7/22/2008 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Dancin' said...

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your review. The two parts that intrigue me most are the patripassionism and covenant theology. I definitely agree that we need to be maintain the distinct persons of the Trinity,where possible. Hence I'm not a fan of the Father bearing the marks of the cross too. Would it be considered a heresy to assert that the Father did suffer in the cross event, just not in the same manner as the son?

With Covenant theology what do you think of the idea that the Law & the Covenant, and "the rules" were intended to enable people to enter into relationship with God. The Law & "Rules" being an outflowing of entering into a covenantal relationship?

7/22/2008 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger Aaron Perry said...

Hi Dave,

I think the Father, and Spirit, suffer in the death of Jesus, but I do not know what divine suffering is or looks like. Some form of free suffering would also have been experienced by God in his broken relationship with humanity. The love of God is displayed by his willingness to enter our side of the brokenness in all its brokenness.

I do not think the law enabled people to enter relationship with because God enters relationship with people before the law is given and the law begins with, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt." Relationship with God, even in the Old Testament, is still by God's grace and gift. That being said, I think I agree with your second statement, that the law is an outflow of entering covenantal relationship with God, hence the love shown to the law over and over again in the Psalms.

7/23/2008 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

So, let me get this straight: The Shack would be perfect if (a) written better and (b) infused with good doses of Barth and O'Donovan.

Seems to me, that's true of pretty well all books (including mine!) ;)

7/23/2008 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Dancin' said...

Perhaps, I should have said: the Law, Covenant, and "rules" are intended to be "A" means of engaging in (more intimate) relationship with God.

7/23/2008 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Tilde said...

Hi AP ~ I'm a late reader to this site. I was glad to read your comments on The Shack. Having also read it, I came away with a sense of Truth in my spirit of the love Father, Son and Spirit must have for each other; however, a small glimmer, I'm sure, in the light of it's actual intensity and depth. I also came away with a greater realization of God's love for me, as reflected/expressed in each part of the Trinity. I was once again convinced that the greatest travesty(?) would be for God never to be experienced.

Regarding Father's nail prints....maybe it was portrayed in that way suggesting the impact Jesus' suffering had on him "emotionally". Being the Father that he is, the perfect Father, isn't i possible that he was with Jesus for the duration? Couldn't the totallity of sin clouded Jesus' perception of his Father's presence with him, as it does us? How do I know that the Father would never abandon me, if he abandoned his own Son? Could I really trust his promises?Whay about there being nothing that "can separate us from the love of God"? Just a few thoughts :)

7/30/2008 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Aaron Perry said...

Hi Tilde,

Thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts. I really appreciated The Shack and believe it could have a similar experience for many people. What a blessing!

Let me think through some of the thoughtful questions you've asked. I think there are three big ones:

1. Could the Father have been with the Son on the cross? Couldn't he have suffered?

2. If God abandoned Jesus, why should I think he'd stay with me?

3. If God abandoned Jesus, then couldn't we be separated from God's love?

To the first question, I think the Father's presence with Jesus on the cross gets to the heart of atonement. The earliest Christian preaching on Jesus death, recorded in the book of Acts, calls the cross of Jesus a tree three times (Acts 5, 10, 13). This is an allusion to Deuteronomy where someone hung from a tree for a capital offense is under God's curse. This is also picked up by Paul in Galatians 3, where he says Jesus became a curse for us, thereby redeeming us from the curse. Now I think the curse is precisely what Jesus laments: God forsaking us. And why has God forsaken us? To reveal the depth and depravity of our sin; to give a taste of, like you mentioned, not experiencing God. Why God does this is because of his holy-love, his holiness that cannot stand polluted relationship and his love that desires a pure and mutual loving relationship. If Jesus has not entered into that state of fallen humanity--not by sinning, but of his own desire--then he cannot 'bring us back' (redeem) us from it.

As to whether the Father suffered, I would say, "Yes," but in a way that I cannot know because I am not God. In this way, I think the suffering of God could have been deeper because his love is purer and stronger than mine. The Father experiences the loss of the Son--a loss that God has already experienced in his rebelling creation.

To the second question, I think the comfort that God will stay with you is precisely that he has sent his Son, brought him back (resurrection) and shown his pleasure with him (bringing him to his right hand). Remember that it was not the anger of God that sent his Son, but his love. And it was the Son's loving desire to bring us back, as well. The lengths to which Father and Son go to bring you back is sign of their faithfulness to you!

The third question, I think, is answered in the first. We cannot be separated from God's love because even in our sin, God sent his Son. If sin can't separate us, nothing can. But here's the challenge: if sin doesn't separate us, then why is being forsaken the curse? I suppose this is the meaning of relationship. God's love overcomes the barrier of sin in his mission to us, but there remains a barrier between us and God between we have not yet come into loving relationship with him.

What do you think?

7/31/2008 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger Tilde said...

Thanks for sharing so soon. A lot of what you said has sparked more thought. The whole purpose, right?

So if the Father wasn't WITH the Son, and the Spirit hadn't been "sent" yet......how far back was the Father standing?:) What was his degree of "at-the-time- awareness"? Maybe he "turned his back", but was still "with" him(?; i.e., like looking through tainted glass, maybe the Father still had his eye on his Son and could even have heard him cry out, but the Father couldn't "relate" to him, leaving Jesus with no sense of connection for the first time ever... "separation anxiety", for sure..for Jesus and maybe the Father, too. Maybe, for the first time ever, Father wasn't going to help him out, experiencing total isolation (like having an extremely contagious disease).

Was Jesus still divine at that moment, being able to "call 10,000 angels", but not able to communicate with his Father? The Father surely didn't withdraw his love from Jesus. Just his presence?

I tend to ramble and jump around and have come to wonder if Jesus understood the whole plan when asking "Why have you forsaken me?". Could the Father have thought the whole knowledge of it would have made it harder?Maybe the Father held that part of it back from Jesus, who may have had to remind himself there was no other way, kind of leaning not on his own understanding(?) I know Jesus went through with it, too, for the Glory to come after it.

So here's some thought stuff for ya..,and thanks.

7/31/2008 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Aaron Perry said...

Hi Tilde,

I am not sure how to answer the question because I don't know if there are any biblical references or theological resources upon which to draw to guide our thinking. Historically, the political movement Jesus had started--the Kingdom of God--appears to end as a failure: its King crucified. I am comfortable affirming the theological significance of this event as God forsaking his Son, but do not know how to come at this from God's point of view, which is what I think you're asking.

However, I can confidently affirm that Jesus never stops being divine in that moment. Indeed, I think his divinity is most revealing in such a moment of pure self-giving love. Likewise, I would affirm that the Father is full of love for the Son, just as the Father is full of love for the rebellious creatures in whose place the Son has placed himself.

As to Jesus' own theology of the event, we have such passages as the last supper--Jesus establishing a new covenant between God and humanity in his own blood and body; as his overlooking Jerusalem and wanting to protect it like a hen protects her chicks; as his prediction that he would be killed and rise again; as his confrontation with the temple... Whether Jesus would have talked about being the curse as Paul has, I don't know....

7/31/2008 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tilde said...

Thanks for all your thoughts and insights. I know in my heart the Truth about Father's and Jesus' love for me and the security I have in their love. It seems I'm always trying to get a better hold on different aspects of what happened. Again...much thanks ~ Tilde

7/31/2008 09:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home