The Shack, A Book Review

There are two types of falsity: the absurd and the dangerous.

The absurd claims something that is not primarily impossible, but rather something that is first and foremost irrelevant. Whether it is true or not matters not for it does not and will not affect the way we think or live. The claim that Mary, the mother of Christ, ascended to Heaven is an example of an absurd falsity. It is something that likely did not happen, but believing that it did happen does one no harm for either way it does not affect the way one thinks or acts.

A dangerous falsity is one that, when believed, significantly impacts one’s life in a negative way. The belief that man’s sin is against Mary, the mother of God, and that only she can forgive him is an example of a dangerous falsity. For this falsity, when believed, perverts and misdirects one’s faith.

The Shack, a recent best seller by William Young, is a book full of much good. Young does a superb job of portraying the intense love that God has for man. He also deals with the problem of pain in a compelling manner. Most of all, in my opinion, he does a brilliant job of portraying the merriment and mirth that God has simply in being God.

In writing this book Young took a few controversial artistic licenses, most notably in portraying God as a woman. I do not believe this is the most significant problem of the book. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God has not a physical body and God contains within Him both sexes. He is portrayed primarily as a male in the Bible (and indeed incarnated as a man), but God is God and there seems nothing wrong in Him representing himself to a man as a woman. If this is a falsity, it is at worst an absurd falsity.

However, this book does contain a couple of dangerous falsities. These falsities are even more dangerous because they are subtle and embedded and in agreement with the false spirit of our age. In other words, since they are hard to recognize and they are so prevalent in our culture they push us further into an error that we desperately need to be pulled out of. These errors are primarily a belief in classic anarchic theory, a doubt in objective morality and its inherent goodness, and a depreciation of the unique revelation of God in the Christian religion.

On page 66 Young tips his hat to views on Christianity and ethics that he will develop further. I apologize for the lengthy quotes and paraphrased sections, but I want to deal with this as fairly as possible and that can only be done by allowing Young his say.

On page 66 the narrator Mack, or Mackenzie, states to the reader: “It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” He goes on to say that religion, hymns, and the social club have not cut it, needs something more is needed to bring change in his life.

-Indeed, one cannot read the Bible without coming to the conclusion that God wants to have interaction with people. And this relationship with man does indeed change men. But Young seems to find the revelation of God primarily outside of the Bible, while Christian tradition insists that God is revealed most fully and truly within the Bible.

Young sees the transformation that comes from being with God to be something mystical, even magical. He discounts prayer, fasting, sacrifice, confession, and all other classic spiritual disciplines that were viewed by Christians as the most effective means of bringing change to one’s life. He seems to be saying, through the narrator, that all attempts to practice virtue have failed and that relationship with God, as traditionally conceived, is no relationship at all.

On pages 122-124 Young lays out his theory of anarchy. Mack asks about authority within the trinity. He receives the following response and conversation ensues.

“Chain of command? That sounds ghastly!” Jesus said.

“At least binding,” Papa [God the Father] added as they both started laughing, and then Papa turned to Mack and sang, “Though chains be of gold, they are chains all the same.”

God explains that the three persons of the trinity live in unity, with no need for power for they always do for one another what is best. But men are so lost it is almost incomprehensible for them to live or work without someone being in charge.

-First, the declaration that no power is needed because they all do what is best for the other is false. Power can serve a purpose even when people are good natured and giving to one another and in fact power is often given for the primary purpose of service. A husband can love his wife and want her best, but that does not mean he is not the authority of the family.

Second, he fails to deal with the fallen nature of man. All men have sinned and therefore the will of every man is bent, perverted, not what it should be. Is it not for this reason that God instituted authority among men? Yes, if man had not fallen maybe something would be different. But we cannot play the ‘what if’ game and treat a fallen race as if it is unfallen, that is only to invite chaos.

The conversation continues. Mack replies: what about government, business, marriage, etc, every institution has authority.

“Such a waste!” said Papa.

“It’s one reason why experiencing true relationship is so difficult for you,” Jesus added. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and your end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”

-This is straight out of an anarchic text book. All authority is seen as an evil that corrupts the soul of man. It is seen as unnatural and an impediment to life as it should be. Anarchy is the least defensible of all conceived governmental institutions; it does not become less indefensible when one adds the word Christian to it. And to put this nonsense in God’s mouth, nonsense that is nowhere to be grounded in God’s Word, is quite dishonest.

God continues to explain that though man has adapted to hierarchy, it was never the intent. Then Sarayu [the Holy Spirit] explains, “When you choose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.”

-Now, there is no doubt that authority has been abused. Every good thing in this world has been abused, that is the nature of evil. But what should we expect? The world is fallen after all. But just because something has been abused it does not follow that the thing is inherently evil. Sex is abused in the form of lust and adultery, does it follow that we are we to swear that off as well?

Mack asks: “Isn’t it [authority] helpful in keeping people from fighting endlessly or getting hurt?”

“Sometimes.” Sarayu replies. “But in a selfish world it is also used to inflict great harm.”

-To say that authority is only sometimes helpful in preventing fighting is, in the very least, completely ignorant. Open any history book and view the state of men when authority breaks down: the Russian time of troubles, the German peasant revolts, the French reign of terror, the emergence of the Klan at the end of the American Civil War—a brief and honest look at any of these ages will inform one at once that when there is no authority the lives of men are ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’

Men, being fallen, need authority to restrain their evil impulses, to restrain them from destroying each other. Think of children that grow up without rules: they become monsters! But anarchist theory believes that authority, and not sin, makes men evil. This is the cause of all that is bad and if all authority is simply removed men will be perfected. But history proves this to be quite foolish thinking.

Papa continues the explanation: “We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them. Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired. In your world the vale of the individual is constantly weighed against the survival of the system, whether political, economic, social, or religious—any system actually. First one person, and then a few, and finally even many are easily sacrificed for the good and ongoing existence of that system. In one form or another this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war; and abuse of relationship . . .”

-This brings us to the biggest problem with Young’s thought: what do we make of the fact that God instituted government for the Hebrews? If authority is the cause of all evil, why did God institute it within His chosen people? And why did He not say in any point of His Word (which is quite long indeed) that He detests authority and wants us to transcend it? Where does Young get the idea that hierarchy is behind all wars? What about greed or plain old evilness and the devil?

This is the weak point of Young’s argument and I think it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that God Himself instituted a government among the ancient Hebrews must be dealt with if one is to claim, putting words in the mouth of God no less, that government is evil and contrary to God’s will. But Young makes no mention of this fact. Are we to assume that things have changed since then, that the laws of ethics are mutable? Are we to assume that the Bible is not inspired and God did not in fact institute that government? What conclusion are we to draw from his silence, from the fact that he never deals with the strongest arguments against his theory? While it is true that God still speaks, He never contradicts that which He has already said. Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth in the Bible and never once tries to reconcile them.

Mack asks, is not authority normal. God responds: “It is the human paradigm. It is like water to fish, so prevalent that it goes unseen and unquestioned. It is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped even while completely unaware of its existence.”

-Again, what are we to make of this? Hierarchy is a diabolical scheme? What are we to make of Kingship in Israel? Of Moses and the law and the creation of a government? Of the Proverbs that tell children to obey their parents? Of Paul’s instruction for wives to submit to their husbands? This theory is not Biblical, yet, apparently in Young’s mind God holds it nonetheless.

Jesus next says: “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.”

-But this is false for authority existed even before the fall. God commanded the first couple to not eat of a certain tree. There is nothing in the Bible from which we may infer that authority would have ended had they obeyed that command.

God further explains that whenever we protect ourselves with power we yield to the matrix and not to God.

-To this I say, poor Paul! If only he had read Young’s book he would have realized his folly! For he used his power, his status as a Roman citizen, to get a fair trial and to keep himself from unjust flogging.

Young further asserts that God does not relate to us through hierarchy.

-Let’s test this belief. How far do we need to read into the Bible before we have a reference to God relating to man by means of a hierarchical or authoritative relationship?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . one, two, three, four words! For the word for God in that verse is Elohim, the Hebrew word for Lord. Lord is precisely a title of authority. How can Young say God does not relate to us within a hierarchy when God calls himself King of King and Lord of Lords? And when God first reveals himself to man in His Word as man’s Lord?

Now the idea that we don’t recognize authority (the hidden matrix) and that it remains unnatural nonetheless is false. Death is unnatural, the curse of our fall. To this we can never reconcile ourselves. We mourn it and a part of us dies with those we love. The same goes with time. Are we not constantly saying how time flies? We will not always live with death and time and for that reason they seem odd to us. But we do not notice the oddness of authority. That is because we will always be under authority. We don’t notice it precisely because it is natural.

There are indeed abuses of authority, but there is also beauty in it that Young ignores. To humbly submit to a leader; to sacrificially serve those who you lead—these are not possible without authority. To patiently teach the lesser; to eagerly learn from the greater—these are not possible without authority.

On page 126 Young further fleshes out his ethical theories. Sarayu states: “Mackenzie, you cannot produce trust just like you cannot ‘do’ humility. It either is or is not. Trust is the fruit of a relationship in which you know you are loved. Because you do not know that I love you, you cannot trust me.”

-Trust, faith is a choice. We can choose to trust or not based on the character of God as revealed in the Bible. Young’s theory is akin to Socrates’ notion of virtue from knowledge—one cannot be good without knowledge and once one has knowledge one is compelled to virtue (here knowledge being experiential or mystical knowledge of God). If this is true then no one is to be blamed or praised based on their faith or lack of faith for one cannot be blamed or praised for what they have no control over. We cannot know God, so we cannot trust. Only if we know God (and not the traditional way, through the Bible, but by experience) can we have saving faith. But God does commend people for their faith, therefore faith must be, to some degree, an act of our will.

On page 132 Young again discusses his ethics. The Holy Spirit tells Mack in regard to a ‘bad,’ poisonous plant that: “There are times when it is safe to touch, and times when precautions must be taken.”

Mack asks: “If you had not told me this was safe to touch, it would have poisoned me?”

To which he is told by the Holy Spirit: Of course!

–The implications of this are deep and dark. Like Kierkegaard, morality becomes static depending on God. God can suspend the moral and direct us to do something normally wrong, but have it be good all the same. In other words, what would be poison, or sin, without God’s personal direction is safe and good if God tells one to do it.

How many have thought they were to murder because God commanded it! How many fornicate now because they think God has no problem with it? God declares what is sin in His Word and never does He contradict His Word and tell us to sin.

On page 133 and the following few pages Young continues to develop his ethics. God declares that humans have a great capacity for declaring something good or evil, without truly knowing. Young states this by assuming that there is nothing but the subjective to ground ethics.

God asks Mack: how do you determine what is good and evil? Mack responds, in so many words, good is what I like, evil is what I don’t like. To this God says, well then you cannot confidently know good and evil.

-The fact is that most men at most times have grounded morality in the objective. Societies and cultures are nearly uniform in their notions of what is good and evil. Further God reveled to mankind what is good and what is evil in His Word. Why Young makes no mention to the existence of objective morality I have no idea. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to only mention subjective grounding for morality and then show how it fails (for it is indeed a weak grounding) and then go on to argue that since this is the only possible grounding and it fails, all that is left is a direct relationship with God that determines, day to day, what is evil.

Mack responds: “I tend to sound justifiably angry when somebody is threatening my ‘good,’ you know, what I think I deserve.”

-Of course because there is no objective notion of morality or justice one is left with no objective rights. Instead one is only left only with rights one thinks they deserve. Since we only think we have rights and we cannot ground them in the subjective, it follows we have no rights.

Ironically, this theory, when applied to the political, leads to the type of domination that Young is so up in arms about. Respect for individual rights is the only thing that prevents oppression. But by saying there is only subjective morality, it follows there are only subjective rights. Which is to say there is no true morality or rights. If individuals have no rights, then the government is not limited in its domination over them.

Mack continues: “But I’m not really sure I have any logical ground for deciding what is actually good or evil, except how something or someone affects me. All seems quite self-serving and self-centered, I suppose.”

-This brings us to the crux of the argument: it is he, we, that are determining what is good and evil and this determination, this judgment of what is good and evil, is a cause of great misery. But can’t we figure out what is good and evil? There is amazing agreement between cultures as to what constitutes morality. Indeed Paul says so much in the first chapter of the Book of Romans. We all (at least imperfectly) know good and evil and therefore Pagan and Jew alike are justly judged by God. We are incapable of doing good, but we all know what is good and what is evil. Indeed, if we did not, how could God justly judge us? And repentance would have no meaning, for how could one repent from sins if one had no conception of sin? Why Young again refuses to deal with the existence of objective reality is hard to understand.

But Sarayu says that we each determine our own good and each fight with one another over it and our own conceptions change over time, leading to much war.

-This is of course very ironic for men only determine their own good when there is no authority over them to determine it for them. This undermines the whole theory for anarchy: it states, quite rightly, that when there is no objective good instituted over men they determine their own good and fight with one another.

From there Sarayu falls into the inexplicable post-modern conclusion that since men disagree over the meaning of good and evil these words lose all meaning.

Mack says that he’s spent most of his energy seeking good while avoiding evil. He is told he should lay down his rights (true indeed). But he is also told that giving up his rights means that cancer, loss of income, or even death could be good.

-This is simply not true. Evil is evil. These things are not good in themselves. By God’s redemption He can make good out of evil, but evil is never good itself—there is a clear divide between good and evil.

On page 149 God says that power is always the opposite of relationship.

-This is nothing that has not been said multiple times in the book. But what we must remember, that this idea that authority negates the possibility of relationship, is a thoroughly modern one. No one thought like that before Marx; all other ages lacked our fetish with equality. Instead of trying to correct this error by finding ways to heal relationships within power structures (for power is necessary in a fallen world), Young tries to circumvent power all together, and thereby further propagates the false notion that there can be no relationship unless there is complete equality between the parties.

On page 178 Mack says to Jesus: You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?

Jesus replies: “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will. That’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion and not very fond of politics or economics either. And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”

-What about death? That is a cause of turmoil that originated outside of those systems. Didn’t God institute the government and religion in the Old Testament? Yet Young insists God doesn’t deal with those sorts of things. But the ancient Hebrews had festivals, sacrifices, a priesthood—sure seems like a religion to me! Nonetheless Young has Jesus criticize religion without dealing with the obvious fact that God instituted religion!

To prevent revenge killings, to protect children from rape: is this not good? This is the role of government. To create wealth and plenty—is this not good? This is the role of economics. To give men morals by which to live by and give them hope in another world and to create belonging in this one: is this not good? This is the role of religion. So how are these a trinity of terrors?

Jesus continues: “Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to create some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false!”

-Just because something can be used for bad does not mean it is inherently bad. Indeed in a fallen world all that is good can and is used for evil.

On page 182 Jesus says that none need to become Christian: “for those who love me come from every system that exists. They are 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, but I do want to join them in their transformation.”

-From this it follows that Christians have no unique claim on the truth. Men can reach God in any way. There seems to be no need for the Bible; all we need can be found in direct communion with God. Each can reach God in his own way! This does lots to open the door to a one world religion. For if Christianity is not unique, then there is no means by which men should come to God. They can be baptized and repent, or they can follow Buddha’s path, completive Hindu prayer, or the five pillars of Islam. For Young mystical communion with God is the basis of salvation, rather than any sort of faith, creed, or objective truth found outside of the individual.

On page 197 Mack declares that relationships are messier than following rules. The Holy Spirit asks: what rules? The one’s from the Bible is Mack’s response. To this the Holy Spirit asks: and how is that working for you? The Holy Spirit goes on to explain that the Bible does not teach men to follow rules.

-How is this true? What about the use of the death penalty for breaking rules in the Old Testament times? What about Christ saying if you love me you’ll obey me? What about the letters of Peter and his focus on obedience? What about Paul’s warnings that the lawless are destined for destruction?

On page 203 Jesus says all is lawful and men are under no law. In fact, trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control. That is why men like the law so much.

-Does our culture suffer from an excessive love of the law? Five minutes of television viewing should cure one of that delusion. Gone from Young is the classic notion of the law being the objective roadmap to the good. Sin enslaves. If we obey the law and develop habits of self-control we can become free from it (temporally that is, for only Christ frees us from the eternal consequences of it).

In general there is a subtle changing in the meaning of repentance. Jeremiah 4:14 states: O Jerusalem, wash you heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved. Notice, they are to repent not from their hurt or repent solely by turning to God, but to repent in turning from sin. There is no notion of turning from sin in this book—indeed if one can continue being a Muslim and be bound by no law, it seems to imply one need not turn from sin.

Also, the picture of God holding the gun far away from himself, like it is evil in itself, is very telling. All that is seen is the abuse of any type of power and not how it can be used for good. Guns can be used to murder, but also to fight for freedom and to protect the innocent.

It has been argued by some that this is a work of fiction and we should not attempt to pull theological arguments from it. I think this is false. Young pulls from such thinkers as Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Bonhoeffer. He develops his political and theological theories in a series of dialogues and puts his opinions in the mouth of God no less. Yes it is not in essay format, but neither are Plato’s dialogues.

Does God want to interact with man? Yes, and in this Young’s book is right. But God has given us his revelation in the Bible and if He talks to us today it will always be in agreement with what He has said. Young’s book ultimately fails because Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth as found in the Bible. The Bible is our plum line, our absolute by which we must judge all other claims to the truth. When lined up with God’s Word, Young’s book is found to be wanting in the least and dangerously misleading at the worst.