From the very first moment that I was exposed to God in "The Shack", it struck me odd that the thought of God was fashionably human. Even from the pages of a novel, is more than merely theologically refutable. Being brought up throughout passages by both the Old and New Testaments, not the least of which is the Second Commandment (Exodus 20: 4-5). The Apostle Paul exclaims, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man..." (Romans 1:21-23a) Throughout the whole …show more content…
novel I found many instances of doctrine that started out good, started out sounding real good, but then took a complete 180 turn from where I thought it was heading and turned that idea into something very un-biblical.
Trinitarian Heresy vs. Biblical Doctrine
The accusal of modalism is basically rooted in Papa’s nail-pierced scars.
The Father, in Young’s fable, has stigmata, the wounds of the crucifixion, on his theophanic body. He contains the scars of the cross. “Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his” (p. 95). This follows, supposedly, evidence of Patripassianism, that is, that the Father endured on the cross as though the Father and Son embodied the same individual instead of distinct persons. Patripassianism is a form of modalism.
It is vital that we look to the Bible to truthfully specify the functions accomplished by each member of the Trinity. When we acknowledge this, we witness that although the members of the Trinity function collectively in perfect harmony, each possesses unique roles. During the account of creation we see that each member of the Trinity was active, God the Father speaking the universe into existence, the Son carrying out the work of creation and the Holy Spirit supporting it or manifesting God's presence over the creation. The Trinity moves also in redemption, the Father projecting redemption and sending Jesus his Son as the savior of men; the Son being dutiful to the Father and carrying out the redemptive work of Christ; the Holy Spirit being sent by the Son to live among God's children that are in his redemptive …show more content…
grace.
One matter sticks out. In every instance we interpret that the Father is the one who assumes the authority. Much like a father ought relate to a son, the heavenly Father relates to His Son. The Father leads and guides and exerts some level of authority over the Son. The Son is obedient to the will of the Father and submits to Him and his authority. Just as the citizens of a nation are under the authority of the President, and just as the difference is not in their existence or value but in their role, in the like way, the Son is subject to the Father. This is the way it always has been and, agreeing to 1 Corinthians 15:28, the way it forever will be.
Such a thought is not solely nonexistent in The Shack, but is simply opposed. Although the writer confirms the equivalence of each of the members of the Trinity, he denies that submission can be represented in such a relationship. "Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us" (122).
Problem of Sin
Young extends so removed as to indicate that compliance is inherently evil — that it is potentially only where there is sin. "You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not" (124). Scripture tells differently and it tells so clearly. "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). In John 6:38 Jesus says "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me" and in 8:28 he makes the incredible claim that "I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." This is a Savior who lives equal to the Father fundamentally but under in role. The Father does not obey the Son but the Son obeys the Father. Young puzzles these relationships totally incorrect.
“At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. ‘I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it’” (119). As gravitating as this message is, it is flat out a misunderstanding of God completely. Yes, God is love, he is gracious and kind, but ultimately God is holy and just. Sin is not just some poison that as Sarayu showed Mack in the garden, explaining his heart as a garden that can hold poisonous but also healing ointments.
In short, The Shack portrays skewed thoughts of God as love but not justice.
This view of a God who will not penalize sin counteracts the central message of Christianity—that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1f.) and rose from the dead. As Mack and Jesus were talking Jesus gave Mack an ultimatum that he did not really want Mack to become like him, instead that he was supposed to himself. The bible teaches that to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Meaning that in ourselves, the human bodies that we posses, full of sin and discustingness that would one day leading us down the broad road would bring us to punishment and an everlasting hell. However dying to ourselves, living in Christ, becoming more like Christ as he taught us to do, is to gain life, everlasting life. Mack asks Jesus if every road leads to him, and Jesus tells him that they do not, that most roads don’t lead anywhere, but “I will travel any road to find you.” This is absolutely unsafe to say and wrong in reference to most roads not leading anywhere. John 14:6 says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus is the only way to the father and narrow is the road, all other roads lead to
destruction.
Conclusion
Several things can be gathered from an individual reading and interpreting this book. For those who read this book, and take it as what they would later learn to be called doctrine, are in a very serious, dangerous position. This book comes short on numerous important Christian doctrines. It assures to transform people’s existence, but it misses the transforming ability of the Word of God. It bugs me that several people whom I have discussed the content of “The Shack” with have urged and encouraged me to not read the book at all, wondering why any Christian professor would have us read such a book. I will pray for them. However, it is very evident that the heresy within this “gospel” are very entertaining to the untrained eye and with that taken very literal, so yes I would not suggest this book to a new believer. But to have several people whom have claimed to be Christians for decades begin to hold this book as truth is absolutely absurd and they very clearly need a faith check. Over all I noticed many good intentions from the writer, but then again, as a good heresy that sticks around, it is still heresy.