David M BattleAugust, 2010

Book ReviewThe Shack: When Tragedy Confronts Eternity

By William P. Young in collaboration with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings.Windblown Media: Los Angels, 2007

ISBN 978-0-9647292-8-5, Large Print Edition

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. (Col 2:8-10, NLT)

The Shack is a work of fiction that the author casts as a revelation of God. This spiritualized version of pop-psychology disguises itself in a series of superficial theological dialogues between a post-modern god and a deeply troubled man.

As a work of fiction the book narrates the internal doubts, hurts, and thoughts of a man whose youngest child, Missy, was brutally kidnapped and murdered by a mysterious serial killer. The story brings the reader to tears of both sadness and gladness, especially in the opening and closing chapters. The core of the book is a series of “intellectual” dialogues between the protagonist, Mackenzie, and the antagonist, “Papa” at the very shack where law officers lost the trail of the “Little Ladykiller” and where they had found Missy’s torn and blood stained red dress. In these core chapters Mackinzie interacts with the members of a jovial trinity. The narratives at the beginning of each chapter serve as a backdrop for the dialogue between Mack and the individuals of the trinity. Each dialogue centers around some theological or psychological theme: such as the nature of God, theodicy, authority, freedom, independence, relationship and emotions. The theological issues are viewed more as an obstacle to be overcome before the real psychological issues can be dealt with as “Elousia” or “Papa” says to Mack, “I often find that getting the head issues out of the way first makes the heart stuff easier to work on latter . . .” (139). As strange as it may sound, pastoral experience has taught me that if the sin and “heart stuff” are taken care of first then the head issues take care of themselves.

The core chapters attempt to explain the Christian Trinity and each person’s essence, character, and relationships with each other and people. In these theological speculations, Scripture is not explicitly referenced. Most references are vague and are only general allusions. The more explicit references are alluded to in a way that significantly changes the meaning of the passage. First John states, “God is love” (1 John 4:8) which Papa changes to “I am love.” The following dialogue defines God as being love. A. W. Tozer points out that John is making a “statement of fact” and not a “definition.” When we define Love as God we reduce God to only love. The Almighty Creator is diminished to one attribute at the expense of all His other attributes like “just”, “holy”, “light” and “truth” (The Knowledge of the Holy, 104-105).

The work understands salvation through the nebulous term of “relationship” in which one is “dependent” on God. The Fall is described in terms of “independence” and corruption or

original sin as “hierarchy”. Sin, unrighteousness, and transgressions are passed over as if they are of little soteriological consequence. The soteriology of the book seems to depend more on Sören Kierkegaard than it does on Peter, Paul, James, John or Jesus.

Yet this is not the most disturbing assertion of the book. Those with theological discernment will quickly be shocked by the revelatory claims of the book and it post-modern idolatry.

The book is categorized as fiction but projects itself as personal testimony of Mackenzie Allen Phillips as recorded by his friend “Willie” whom the reader recognizes as William P. Young, the author himself. Willie admits that Mark’s memory maybe slightly faulty at times, but he promises the reader “that the conversations and events are recorded as truthfully as Mark can remember them . . .” (19). The book then continues with Mark’s account of his conversations with the godhead. Mark hears God Himself in stead of the Scriptures which are described as “God voice been reduced to paper” (98). The implication is that this work presents a new, fresh, and dynamic revelation from God. Then with the author’s unabashed pleading for a movie deal, one comes away with the impression that this work was designed to replace Scripture itself for the post-modern westerner.

Finally, the book creates a new idol. On the positive side, the work asserts that the Father is free to reveal Himself as He pleases. It goes on and mocks the western, idolatrous image of the Father as an old man with a long gray beard. These points are legitimate. Yet, the work goes beyond these points and goes out of its way to introduce us to a new, politically correct idol by which to picture the invisible God. This politically correct idol is well crafted to affirm the post-modern understanding of god. A god which presents itself as the human need dictates. In short, the invisible and incorruptible Father is recast into a visible and corrupted human, male or female, in order that the individual may feel better about him or herself. This is the perfect god for this age.

One thing that puzzled me are the kisses. The author implies that the Jesus character would kiss “Papa” on the cheek (127, 132) when it revealed itself as a female. Then when “Papa” took a male form the author clearly states that Jesus kissed it on the lips (327). The subtle change is disturbing.

In conclusion, this book should not be promoted by Christians or the Church. We would do better for ourselves by learning the Scriptures and wrestling with the God of the Bible than the one depicted in this book.