...actually it's just a pun (for those who weren't born then, Shakatak were an 80's band).
Lots of people have been asking what I think about The Shack by Wm Paul Young.
Lots of people have been asking what I think about The Shack by Wm Paul Young.
Firstly I should say that I'm not interested in rushing out and attacking someone else or their theology. Sadly, you can find some pretty graceless attacks by christians on christians on the internet and I don't want to join in with that! I think it was John Wimber who said "My brother is never my enemy" and I think that's a pretty good sentiment to go with.
I'm going to assume that anyone who's reading this has read the book. If not you can get a synopsis at Amazon.
First let's get some positives in there!
The author, it would seem from the brief bio on the back cover, has been through some tough times and so he maybe has the right to speak on the subject of suffering to a degree that I don't. The book also seeks to portray a non-legalistic kind of relationship with God which is at odds with some of the legalism that plagues the lives of many Christians. It also seeks to illuminate the relationship that God has with himself as the Trinity and tries to deal with how people can deal with tragedy.
It's also true to say that people have genuinely found "The Shack" to be helpful. Of course, God can use all sorts of ways to speak to us, encourage us, or open up channels for healing So for instance God can stir compassion in us as we watch "Schindler's List" without us having to check out the film's theology! So I have no doubt that for some the book has been positively helpful and would not want to minimize that.
A major problem that we face is with the type of book that this is. It's a novel with a storyline which seems to be being used as a vehicle for teaching "truth" about God. There are many excellent books that have helped people to understand more of God, but they are usually either teaching books or allegories. Examples of allegories would be Narnia or Pilgrims Progress.
Narnia is a story which can be seen at some levels as an allegory, so it's ok for Aslan, the lion to be used to portray Jesus. We don't take on board everything Aslan says as a definitive statement of truth to be placed at the same level, or above the teaching of the bible, but we can see that it illuminates some aspects of truth for us. The difficulty with The Shack is that the author has not sought to use an obvious allegory, but to portray God as him/(her?)self. Thus the author puts words in the mouth of God, which I guess is a pretty risky thing to do!
By putting words into God's mouth, the author also puts the reader in a difficult position. It can give the words more credibility than if the author was teaching us from bible texts, experience or simply what he believes to be true. We are emotionally caught up with the story and this can leave us vulnerable to an underlying, non-biblical theology.
So what are the main problems with the theology behind "The Shack" from a biblical perspective?
Darren Arndt in his blog has helpfully identified 5 areas of concern.
1. The members of the trinity cannot morph into eachother
2. The claim that the Father didn't forsake Jesus on the cross
3. The claim that Jesus is continually choosing to be human
4. The claim that God will not send people to hell
5. The claim that there is no authority within the Trinity (and so there should not be authority anywhere)
Some of these issues (and others), are hinted at, while others are more clearly stated. This can be frustrating - often in the book "God" says something that seems to be clearly unbiblical but then it seems to be qualified. An example of this is when "God" seems to be saying "all roads lead to God" but then qualifies this by saying he uses all roads to reach people! Nonetheless, it does seem that the author is expounding a theology that goes beyond what the bible teaches.
A major problem that we face is with the type of book that this is. It's a novel with a storyline which seems to be being used as a vehicle for teaching "truth" about God. There are many excellent books that have helped people to understand more of God, but they are usually either teaching books or allegories. Examples of allegories would be Narnia or Pilgrims Progress.
Narnia is a story which can be seen at some levels as an allegory, so it's ok for Aslan, the lion to be used to portray Jesus. We don't take on board everything Aslan says as a definitive statement of truth to be placed at the same level, or above the teaching of the bible, but we can see that it illuminates some aspects of truth for us. The difficulty with The Shack is that the author has not sought to use an obvious allegory, but to portray God as him/(her?)self. Thus the author puts words in the mouth of God, which I guess is a pretty risky thing to do!
By putting words into God's mouth, the author also puts the reader in a difficult position. It can give the words more credibility than if the author was teaching us from bible texts, experience or simply what he believes to be true. We are emotionally caught up with the story and this can leave us vulnerable to an underlying, non-biblical theology.
So what are the main problems with the theology behind "The Shack" from a biblical perspective?
Darren Arndt in his blog has helpfully identified 5 areas of concern.
1. The members of the trinity cannot morph into eachother
2. The claim that the Father didn't forsake Jesus on the cross
3. The claim that Jesus is continually choosing to be human
4. The claim that God will not send people to hell
5. The claim that there is no authority within the Trinity (and so there should not be authority anywhere)
Some of these issues (and others), are hinted at, while others are more clearly stated. This can be frustrating - often in the book "God" says something that seems to be clearly unbiblical but then it seems to be qualified. An example of this is when "God" seems to be saying "all roads lead to God" but then qualifies this by saying he uses all roads to reach people! Nonetheless, it does seem that the author is expounding a theology that goes beyond what the bible teaches.
As well as positively teaching some stuff that appears to be out of step with the bible, there are also some apparent omissions - for instance no mention of satan, no mention of being born again/regenerated, no mention (in a positive light) of the church.
In conclusion the author seems to have a problem with modern evangelical christianity. However, his answer is not to look back at what the bible teaches and get back to radical biblical christianity. Rather, he seems to seek to re-define God and our relationship with him in terms that accommodate a 21st century post-modern spirituality.
In conclusion the author seems to have a problem with modern evangelical christianity. However, his answer is not to look back at what the bible teaches and get back to radical biblical christianity. Rather, he seems to seek to re-define God and our relationship with him in terms that accommodate a 21st century post-modern spirituality.
Oh yes and a final PS! - I was a bit uncomfortable with the bit at the end trying to get people to be "Shack Evangelists" - lets be evangelists for Jesus, rather than evangelists for a book!
PPS - I've also just found this helpful review
No comments:
Post a Comment