More thoughts on the Shack...

I think from what I have seen the overwhelming praise for the book has been the author's ability to write on dealing with hurt. I was pretty captivated for the first few chapters of the book when the story of his daughter is taking place. I've read an interview transcript from him, and Young has been through some unbelievable pain.

I could honestly say that I didn't have a problem with about 80% of the book. I wouldn't label myself with some sort of conservative label that would say that I would be out to get anyone with new ideas, or something like that. I actually read the book expecting to really be taught some great stuff, I hadn't heard anything bad about it from anyone, only praise.

I had problems with several things. I don't necessarily think that the author is trying to be deceptive, but at the very least I think that his portrait of God falls terribly short of what the Bible points to. To name a few:

1. The conversations that Mack has with Papa, specifically the headphone conversation in the kitchen over "West Coast Juice" scream the idea that God is somehow pleased in the overall efforts and emotions of people despite anything else. I can't find support for that. Everything that I see in the nature of God in the Bible is a complete opposite screaming of "the only thing I care about, and the only chance you have is to know me." I never see God delighting in the wrongdoings of people saying "they're just letting off some steam, and with good reason too."

2. Young espouses theology, even though he might not claim to do so, and much of it is wrong. His modalist portrait of all three persons of the Trinity having scars from the crucifixion is not Biblical. Yes, the mystery of the Trinity is not something that is easily explainable, but the Bible along with any creed of the church you want to look at shows clearly that while being one substance, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one person.

During a conversation with "Jesus" Mack is told by Jesus a series of things that reaches towards his humanity, and Young doesn't portray an emptying of glory and divine nature only, but "Jesus" talks about himself as only being used of the Father and having no power of his own. I don't think that is consistent with the Bible either. If Jesus was fully God and fully man, if a woman who grabs his cloak leaves him saying "I felt power go out of me", if he forgives sins face to face without any sort of asking permission of the Father, but by his own authority, how can he only be a human vessel?

During one of Mack's conversations with Papa, on page 120, Papa says "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment...it's not my purpose to punish it, it's my joy to cure it." That is complete heresy, there's no excuse for that. It's not mistakable for something else, but that statement is so dangerous and anti-Scriptural it's not even funny. No doubt sin has consequences which are punishing, but you can not read anything in the Bible, anything, and support that, and to teach that sort of statement is to cheapen the gospel.

3. I can't help but see Young's portrait of God as well as just overwhelmingly demeaning, even though I know it is in an attempt to help his readers to understand the compassion of God and the personality of God. There are certain segments of the book that I think Young comes close to presenting a good picture, but he tries so hard to make God into what he thinks he must be like, that he leaves the true God somewhere far back on the road. We live in a culture that constantly tries to help people know God more simply, or create a sense of "Wow, I never thought that about God before!", that we don't try to be consistent with what the Scripture teaches, because it is far more rewarding to have people say nice things about us. We try not to, but Bruce Almighty shapes what we think about God, the Sistine Chapel shapes what we think about God, our Sunday School felt boards, shape what we think about God. I'm convinced anew after reading this book that we can't keep trying to draw God out based on what our own understanding of what he must be like because of our own experiences and thoughts on ethics, morality, and spirituality. I'm reminded of the Israelites at the foot of the mountain begging Aaron to create an image of gold for them because worshiping an invisible God wasn't working for them anymore.

This book is far too problematic for me to support, and I have to say that I think it is dangerous.

I've read Pilgrim's Progress several times. Eugene Peterson is crazy and I hope desperately mistaken to say that this book is the Pilgrim's Progress of our generation. If that is true, we are in trouble. Virtually everything in Pilgrim's Progress points me to an understanding of what Scripture teaches, not the author's own experience. Those two works are not even in the same universe with each other, and neither are Bunyan and Young.