The Shack: A Book Review

I like to tell people that I read boring books. They’re not actually boring, of course (far from it); they’re just highly specialized. Let’s face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master’s degree in biblical studies, it’s only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read “boring” commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I’m curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest “must read”—The Shack by William P. Young.

After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don’t really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter’s murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young’s portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.

Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young’s work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.

Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young’s portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God’s three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons’ relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity—each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are “above” or “below” others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.

Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection—all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus’ emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn’t pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.

Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young’s lax view of Christian duty—or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus’ statement, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).

Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack’s daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, “Every knee will bow before me,” as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies (“so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God”). While I do not wish to underestimate God’s grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.

In the end, William P. Young’s The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, “Don’t believe everything you read.”

Why the Bible is Still Relevant Today

Theological and Practical Implications of Judges 3:7-11

...When people abandon Yahweh in favor of any other allegiance, they absolve him of any obligation to them. In fact, they render him their enemy and may expect his judgment. On the other hand, when an individual who has been called by God into his service challenges the forces of evil and darkness in his [God's] power, the hosts of heaven and earth are dethroned. Herein lies the hope for the moribund church today. In the words of Yahweh himself, through his prophet Zechariah, victories are won "not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zech 4:6).

NAC: Judges, Ruth by Daniel Block, pp. 155-6.

The Question

I sometimes listen to local pastor Gino Geraci (local pastor and radio talk-show host) on the way home from work. I have to say, when it comes to the Bible and religion, the man knows his stuff. Most of the time I agree with what he says, but two days ago I had to take issue with him, albeit on a minor point. But, being a seminary grad, minor points are my specialty!

He fielded a question from a caller on the ending of Mark. If you turn to Mark 16, you will find that, after verse 8, the NIV states, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The caller was curious about Gino's thoughts on what is the true ending of Mark. Gino did a good job explaining the issue, citing evidence from all sides of the debate along the way. But then he asked the caller, "What happens if Mark ends with 16:8?", to which the caller responded, "It just doesn't make sense." Gino agreed. I disagree.

Mark 16:8 reads, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." The women had just seen a young man in a white robe (an angel) who had told them of Jesus' resurrection and had given them explicit instructions to go and tell this incredible news. What did they do instead? The exact opposite--they fled and kept their mouths shut. Now if you think about the immediate context, no, it doesn't make sense for Mark to end this way. But what was Mark trying to communicate here? I think he is ending his story with a hanging question for a reason. All throughout his gospel, we learn of this extraordinary man who claims to be God. He performs miracles, heals the sick, feeds the masses, and he even claims to forgive sins! He performs actions that fulfill Old Testament messianic prophecies, he identifies and equates himself with God, he winds up on a cross, yet his tomb is found to be empty. The reader takes part in this journey for 16 chapters, and Mark hopes that by this time he has fashioned a new disciple for the kingdom. But there is one question that remains, and it deals with identification. For the reader who believes, with whom will he or she identify? Will I go and tell, or will I flee and keep quiet? This is the same question that all believers must answer, often on a daily basis. Will I obey the young man's command, or will I follow the example of the three women at the tomb? This is why ending Mark's gospel at 16:8 makes perfect sense. The shorter ending forces the reader to look within, to answer the hanging question for his or her own life. It is really the question, the answer to which is the foundation for all else: What will you do with the message of Christ?

Christianity Without Church?

Why does organized religion matter? Isn't faith a private, personal, subjective thing, after all? It's a relationship with Jesus, so who cares about getting all gussied up and driving to a building every Sunday morning? This is the kind of thinking Kevin DeYoung examines in a Christianity Today interview about his new book, Why We Love the Church.

DeYoung points out that while the term church can refer to believers in general, two Christians meeting at Starbucks does not constitute a true church, i.e. a defined local community of believers. Why not? DeYoung says that the church as an institution has a structured litugry (teaching, singing, praying, ordinances) and offices (pastor/elder/bishop and deacon/deaconess). This is another important meaning of the word ekklesia. Coming together in a regular, organized manner is essential, he says, to have a lasting impact. (It's also commanded of us in Heb. 10:25.) Furthermore, he claims that many of those who care decrying the necessity of an organized church are, quite simply, immature in the faith. I tend to agree with this assessment. Organization, structure and even routine are extremely necessary for Christians. Let me explain.

Imagine that a group of Christians decided they were no longer going to celebrate Christmas by purchasing gifts, decorating, caroling, seeing family, etc. After all, December 25 isn't really Jesus' birthday, and we all just do the same things over and over again, year after year. Besides, what do any of those things have to do with one's relationship to Christ? They're just external trappings, so it is asserted. This, of course, is missing the point. All of those activities are part of the tradition of Christmas. Giving gifts reminds us of Christ's ultimate gift. Family get togethers provide a structured, planned time of fellowship with kin, something we need to stay connected to one another for a lifetime. And perhaps this is the only time each year when Luke 1-2 is read.

Tradition, organization and structure allow for remembering, learning and growth opportunities over the long term. There is certainly a place for spontaneous meetings over coffee, but this alone will not contribute to lasting growth. Fellowship, teaching, congregational singing and prayer are all part of the essential dynamic called the local church, the involvement in which is expected by all beleivers. One should question its necessity ony with great care.

A Concise History of Beards--Mine, Too!

Ever since I was 18, I have almost always sported a goatee or a full beard. Periods of clean-shavenness have been exceedingly rare and short-lived. I recently started thinking, why do I prefer having facial hair? An interesting question, one which I will answer shortly. Before I do, though, I thought I would share a brief pogonological comment or two. So here it is, ladies and gentlemen: A concise history of the beard in Western civilization.

The oldest flint razors that have been discovered thus far date to around 30,000 BCE. This means that men living prior to this date had no choice but to walk around fully bearded, wearing the skins of saber-tooth tigers they killed themselves. After that, the history of facial hair gets a little fuzzy (no pun intended) for about 27,000 years. Enter the ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans. The Israelites, of course, all had beards, since Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving (or so it was interpreted). Thus growing a beard was a God-honoring prospect, a profoundly pious act. The ancient Greeks also revered the beard, considering it a sign of wisdom and virility. The most famous Greek of all, Alexander the Great, changed the social norm when he commanded his armies to enter battle cleanly shaven. Why? The enemy could grab one's beard during hand-to-hand combat, putting oneself at extreme disadvantage! The Romans, too, preferred the clean-cut look (at least after 300 BCE, which is when the first barber reached Rome), considering facial hair to denote slovenliness.

After these ancient societies collapsed, Europe descended into the Dark Ages. Apparently pogonologists were in short supply, because I could find no information about beards during that time (can you believe it?). We can, however, pick up in our history of the beard in the Middle Ages. 15th-century Europe was a beardless society; the fad was reborn in the 16th century. At this time, the first association of beards and politics appears. Catherine the Great did her best to do away with beards, because to sport one was to protest the religious climate of the day. In fact, priests who had traditionally been clean-shaven as a show of their celibacy, grew out their beards (and got married) to send a message. This love affair with the beard was short-lived, however; by the 1600s, they were no longer in vogue. That this was the case can be seen in Peter I. He wanted to be like the West so much that in 1698 he forbade his fellow Russians to grow beards, and by 1705 he was exacting a 100-ruble tax on men who defied his orders.

Beards were by and large out of style from that point until the Civil War (thanks to a little help from men like Abraham Lincoln and Ambrose Burnside). The mantra of the day, of course, was "the bigger, the better." But the mighty beard took another downturn in WWI. Soldiers were required to shave, since a grizzly face would inhibit gas masks from sealing tightly. Also during that era, movies were becoming more and more popular, and of course, many flicks were about the war, featuring actors portraying soldiers--sans beard for authenticity's sake. Concurrently, major ad campaigns by razor companies emphasized the importance of a good, clean shave. Thus from 1920-1960, beards were virtually forbidden. The arrival of the Beatnik movement in the 50s led some members to grow beards just to be nonconformists. The hippies of the 60s picked up on the habit from them, but they used the beard/long-hair combination as a means of protest against the US government and the Vietnam War. By the 70s, however, this look had become mainstream and carried with it no political baggage. The 1980s saw a return to the hairless face, which persisted until the 2000s, where the trend has been to grow sideburns, goatees and pencil-thin beards.

The beard has been around as long as men have. Over the last 6,000 years or so, men have been shaving their faces and growing out their beards for various reasons--sometimes social, sometimes political, sometimes religious. The beard continually rises in and falls out of style, again, for myriad reasons.

With the prolific history of the beard now stated, I can answer my initial question: Why do I have one? For me, there is no social, religious or political reason. I think, rather, that it comes down to the issue of fatherhood. You see, I have never seen my dad without a full beard. (In fact, in 30+ years of marriage, neither has my mom!) My dad's beard is his most distinguising physical characteristic. I can't imagine him without it--nor do I want to. I suppose his genes allowed me to grow a beard in the first place, but there's more than reproductive biology at work here. Having facial hair just feels right. Being clean-shaven just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it; I don't know why I feel this way. Perhaps I am trying to emulate him, but especially now as a father myself, I can't imagine taking a razor to my entire face. I can't imagine going through life with a smooth chin. It just ain't right.

For more information on the history of beards, check out the following links:

• The Troubled History of Beards - damninteresting.com
• Beard - Wikipedia
• A Brief History of Beards - The Brooklyn Rail
• Growing a Beard: The History and Philosophies Behind the Current Trend - Associated Content
• Beard: Encyclopedia II - experiencefestival.com