The Shack: Continued Thoughts

I'm continuing to work my way through William Young's The Shack, and my hesitation about this book continues to grow. I'm feeling a bit frustrated as a result. I really want to enjoy the book, especially in its presentation of the compassion and intimacy God extends to us. There really are some beautiful sentiments here.

But just when I start to feel intrigued by a perspective or idea, the book trips me up again with theology that ranges from clumsy and incomplete to dangerously erroneous. For example, I found Young's thoughts on authority interesting. Essentially, he suggests that authority within a relationship is a necessary result of the sinfulness of man. Prior to the introduction of sin in Eden, there was no need for authority structures because relationships were expressions of perfect mutual submission and love. Furthermore, Young presents God as existing with no sense of "chain of command" within the Trinity because God is the perfect expression of mutually submissive and loving relationships. (Okay, that a bit of a simplification, but it's the essence of a very long conversation in the book.) I think I understand the idea. And though I can poke some pretty quick holes in the theory, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. The appeal to interdependence, intimacy, and submission is really beautiful. But then Young has Jesus in the story essentially suggest that in a perfect relationship with Christ there would be no sense of authority or chain of command; God is inviting all of us to join him in the kind of mutually submissive relationship already experienced within the Trinity. And as I listen to the story, my soul begins bristling at the idea of stripping God of his expression of dominion and peeling away the idea of Lordship from Christ. The end result is that the God presented in The Shack continues to differ from the reality of God as revealed in history and scripture, and that leaves me deeply concerned.

What's more, I finally figured out the bigger issue that has left me feeling a bit defensive as I listen to this story. I heard one pastor arguing that critics of the book just don't "get it," suggesting that it's a tragedy because The Shack is written precisely for those kinds of guys whose preconceptions of God are leaving them blinded to a greater and deeper reality. (That's kind of an unfair, undebatable approach; it's like telling someone that they're too defensive, and then saying that they're proving it when they disagree with the accusation.) I honestly don't think that's my problem here. I'm truly striving to connect with the message that so many people have found so beautiful.

But my biggest problem with The Shack involves the continuing fictional representation of God. In the story, God chooses to reveal himself to the protagonist in a very unconventional way in order to help him (and the reader) see God from a fresh perspective. It's not a new literary convention. So why is it that I can totally embrace C.S. Lewis' anthropomorphic metaphor for Christ with Aslan but find Young's presentation of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu provoking a defensive posture in me as I read? I think it's because Lewis chooses to embrace a metaphor that God himself has already chosen as a means of expressing himself. In world cultures, lions are already common symbols for sovereign kingship and authority. And in Genesis 49:9, the tiny Hebrew tribe of Judah is characterized by a lion as part of its blessing. So it's not a surprise when God uses the idea of "the Lion of Judah" to reveal a dynamic about Christ's origin and dominion (Revelation 5:5). Lewis takes this imagery and expands upon it in a beautiful way, helping his readers understand the personality of Christ better without actually attributing to Jesus specific actions beyond the fictional setting. (Lewis once explained that the Narnia series are essentially the answer to some simple questions: What if a world like Narnia existed? And what if Christ chose to enter that world as he entered ours? What would that encounter look like? Lewis never attempts to say that Aslan is a theological lecture woven into a fairy tale.)

There are a zillion images that God has chosen to reveal something about himself: king, father, breath/wind/spirit, lion & lamb, bread, water, head of a household, groom, vine, light, judge, dove, etc. The ultimate revelation of God is the logos, the word, the expression of truth, the Christ. But, for some reason, Young has chosen to come up with his own metaphors for God -- a large (rather cliché) African-American woman named Papa, an Israeli named Jesus (complete with jokes about him having a big nose), and a somewhat translucent Asian woman named Sarayu. It's as if God's own expressions of himself are inadequate for the ideas that Young wishes to discuss, so he's created his own. And though I appreciate the idea, I can't help but feel hesitant that the book is dipping into Second Commandment territory in presenting a God of man's own design that differes from the real thing in both subtle and significant ways.