A RESPONSE TO THE SHACK

 

By Michael K. Farrar, O.D.

© God’s Breath Publications

 

Over the last few months I’ve heard a lot of comments regarding the book, “The Shack.” Some people love it and some people hate it. Finally I decided I should investigate it myself so that I could form an opinion. I don’t have the space to comment on every aspect of the book so I am focusing on what concerns me most.

 

My concerns about “The Shack” are both about what is said in the book, but also what is not said. While the book is an entertaining read, it mixes orthodox Christianity with false assumptions and creative propositions. This can make for imaginative writing; it can also mislead people into thinking wrongly about God and the truth contained in His Word. Some people do not evaluate such creative writing against Scripture and therefore are misled into believing false concepts concerning the nature of God, the ministry of Jesus and numerous other critical aspects of the Christian faith. If you haven’t read “The Shack” I would recommend you don’t. There are other books that are written much better and contain ideas that do not undermine the Christian faith.

 

Briefly, “The Shack” is about a father whose daughter is kidnapped and killed. In the pain of this loss he returns, years later, to the cabin where some of her clothes were found. Here he meets God in the flesh, literally, in the form of an African American woman named Papa, Jesus a Middle Eastern man and the Holy Spirit in the form of an Asian woman named Sarayu. It’s interesting that the name Sarayu is also the name of a river mentioned in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic hymns dedicated to the gods of Hinduism.

 

This presents the first problem with the book. According to the Bible, God the Father cannot be seen (John 6:46, 1 Timothy 6:16). The Holy Spirit has never appeared in human form, but as a dove (Matthew 3:15), wind (John 3:5) and fire (Acts 2:3). While the book presents the triune God of the Bible, it alters some truth we know about God’s nature and distorts our perception of Him.

 

Of some concern is the presentation in “The Shack” of God the Father and Holy Spirit being feminine. The Bible portrays God in a masculine fashion though we know He is spirit and not made of flesh and blood. While this is symbolic, it is of importance to the Christian faith. There is the symbol of God being the husband of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-32) and the Christian Church being the Bride of Christ (Matthew 25:1-13, Ephesians 5:32, Revelation 18,19,21,22) To present God as feminine undermines this symbolism. The agenda of New Age proponents and feminists is to replace the masculine representation of God with that of a feminine one. This distorts the symbolism of scripture and destroys the Biblical truths behind it. Very likely William P. Young has been influenced by feminists’ viewpoints. In an interview with Christian apologist Matt Slick, Mr. Slick confronts Mr. Young with his feminist interpretation of God. Mr. Young replies, “Well, why is he called El Shaddai, which is ‘the breasted one?” This comment by Mr. Young comes from the book “Delighting in the Feminine Divine” by Bridget Mary Meehan. The problem is this meaning of El Shaddai is inaccurate and totally false. Shaddai is a singular masculine noun in Hebrew. No accepted and respected lexical authority translates El Shaddai as “breasted one.”

 

The masculine symbolism of God in scripture does not imply that men are better than women. That would be a distortion of what God desires to communicate to His servants. It must also be mentioned that In the Old Testament numerous false religions worshipped goddesses and to imply God is feminine begins the association of God with these false religions. Another concern about portraying the God of the Bible as a female called Papa is that it could be associated with the Polynesian belief in their deity called “Goddess Papa.” Goddess Papa represents the wise woman and keeper of the sacred mysteries of divine magnetism of the ancient pantheon of the goddess culture. To those who believe in Goddess Papa she is the guardian of the spirit realm where their Celestial Mother breathes souls of future humans into existence. Are you concerned? I would be.

 

Another problem is that “The Shack” presents the Father and Holy Spirit as participating in the crucifixion. In the book, God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus all have scars from the crucifixion on their wrists. This changes the facts as presented in scripture and alters perceptions of the nature of the triune God. While the Father, Son and Spirit are all equally God, they each manifest themselves in different ways and function differently in relating to mankind. Only Jesus was crucified on the cross for a specific reason. Papa God in “The Shack” states, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human…Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood.” (p. 99) This implies that God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Christ all manifested in the flesh in the Incarnation. This is false doctrine and heresy.

 

This brings up another point. “The Shack” tells readers that there is no hierarchy within the triune God we know as Christians. In the book Papa God states, “You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.” (p. 124) Scripture describes the hierarchy that exists in the triune God of the Bible. The Father sent the Son to minister on the earth and die for the sins of the world. Jesus did not send God the Father. (John 6:44; 8:18; 10:26; 1 John 4:14) Jesus repeatedly stated while on the earth He was doing the will of the Father, not His own will. (John 6:38) God the Father is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28)

 

“The Shack” also implies that God wishes to submit to humans. It states, “Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?” asks Mack, “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” replies Papa God (p. 145,146) As Christians, scripture talks about our need to submit to God and His righteousness (Romans 10:3; Hebrews 12: 9,10) not for Him to submit to us. We can have a deep and loving relationship with God as His children, but we submit to His guidance, direction and will. We are not on equal ground with God our Heavenly Father in our spiritual relationship with Him.

 

Regarding our relationship with God “The Shack” suggests that God has no expectations of us nor asks any responsibility of us. Papa God states in the book, “My words are alive and dynamic-full of life and possibility, yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment. That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures.” (p. 205) Just because the word “responsibility” is never used in scripture does not mean the concept is absent or not implied by God in His Word. The word “Trinity” is never mentioned in the Bible, but the doctrine of the triune God is an accepted and well-established truth of the Christian faith. On the next page “The Shack” continues with Papa God stating, “Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else.” (p. 206) The problem with these statements is that God does expect something from us as His servants and does give us responsibilities. In 1 Peter 1:16 scripture tells us that God expects us to be holy as He is holy. We are expected to pick up whatever crosses we have in our lives and carry them for Christ’s sake. (Matthew 10:38) We are given the responsibility as Christians to live by faith. (Romans 1:17) We are expected to live by faith not by sight. (2 Corinthians 5:7) We are expected to please God for we will be judged how we behave and act in this life.

 

(2 Corinthians 5:9,10) We are expected to live by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:16) “The Shack” would have us believe that nothing is required of those who have a relationship with God. God does expect us to love Him and rely upon Him for the strength and power to live out the responsibilities that He gives us as His children.

 

Another concern I have with “The Shack” is the following statement that hints at “universalism,” that all men can be saved through the death of Christ. Papa God says, “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship…When Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross they were no longer in his debt, nor mine.” (p. 225) In “The Shack” Papa God also says to Mack, ” Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” Jesus did die for the sins of mankind, but that payment for sin is not appropriated until a person accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior. We are not redeemed and forgiven of our sins until we make that commitment to Christ as Lord of our life. (John 3:16-18) People are only reconciled to God when they repent of their sins and commit their life to Christ.

 

A related issue is that of “pluralism.” Pluralism is the belief that all paths lead to God or to put it another way, no matter what religion you believe in it is just another way of experiencing and worshiping God. “The Shack” has Jesus say, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions…I have no desire to make them Christian,…” (p. 182) One thing can for sure be said about the Christ of the Bible, He claimed to be the only path to God. (John 14:6)

 

Another concern of mine about “The Shack” is a reference to what we call “pantheism.” Pantheism is the belief that God is not transcendent over all creation, but is actually a part of or in creation itself. “The Shack” has Jesus tell Mack, “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things – ultimately emerging as the real…”(p. 112) This statement is not scriptural. God has always existed. He existed before creation came into being. He is totally independent of any physical matter and is transcendent over all creation. God’s creativity and glory can be seen in creation but this does not mean he resides within created matter itself.

 

There also appears to be some contempt in the book for Christian instruction and doctrinal teaching. In reference to the appearance of God in the book in the form of an African American woman Papa God says, “For me to appear to you 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.” (p. 93) Is “religious conditioning” how Mr. Young views good Bible teaching within the Christian faith?

 

In “The Shack” Mack asks how to become part of the church that Jesus is building. Jesus answers, “It’s simple, Mack. It’s all about relationships and simply sharing life…being open and available to others around us. My church is all about people, and life is all about relationships.” (p. 178) I would agree that Christ’s church is all about relationships, with God and others, but it’s deeper than that. God’s church is about submitting to God and others. It’s about growing spiritually and being filled with the Holy Spirit. It’s about manifesting spiritual gifts that are given by the Holy Spirit. It’s about knowing who you are in Christ and living each day dedicated to His expectations. Church is about denying yourself and putting others first and it’s about ministering to others in need and leading others to Christ through repentance of their sin. Relationships in God’s Church are about honoring God’s Word and what it has to say.

 

I am also concerned about “The Shack” for what it does not address. In all the discussions Mack has with Papa God, Jesus or Sarayu there is little if any mention about personal sin and its consequences. In all the references to the importance of relationships there is almost no reference to the need for repentance of sin as it relates to having a relationship with God. This appeals to both Christian and non-Christian readers, for there are no personal sins that they are held accountable for before the Holy God of the Bible. Sin is the major obstacle that bars us from having a close and intimate relationship with God. Concerning this Berit Kjos of Kjos Ministries states, “Unhindered by Biblical guidelines, “The Shack” offers no standards for right or wrong, so there’s no real need for Biblical repentance. It fits right into the popular vision of a unifying, non-judgmental church.”

 

I’ll end with some quotes of concerned Christian Leaders.

 

“…virtually every theological heresy begins with a misconception of the nature of God and “The Shack” is no exception. After chiding those he believes to have misconceptions about the Trinity, Young proceeds to compromise, confuse and outright contradict biblical orthodoxy.” Hank Hanegraaff, Christian Research Institute

 

“We Christians should regard the word of God as the final authority on all things and any supposed accounts of actual occurrences should be compared to scripture, not our feelings, wants, and desires. In the case of “The Shack,” the book falls woefully short of scriptural truth in many important areas and has the strong ability to mislead people regarding God’s nature, work, and plan for us.” Matt Slick, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

“Like other virtual experiences, reading “The Shack” stirs the imaginations of the gullible. It plants perceptions that shape new beliefs in “open” minds. What few realize is that the end of this process will be a bit like Pinocchio’s experience. The cruel tempter had promised Pinocchio all kinds of fun and food on “Pleasure Island.” But when he arrived, he changed into a donkey and became a slave.” Berit Kjos, Kjos Ministries