"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 it's own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." (The Shack, pages 119-120)
Imagine being a child again and playing hide and go seek at twilight with your siblings and neighborhood friends. Everyone scatters and hides while the "Seeker" covers their eyes and counts. After the designated time the "Seeker" yells, "Here I come!", and the quest begins. He searches high and low, behind every bush, tree, or building. You have a rule that if someone is running toward home base and the "Seeker" tags them, they must also yell their name so that the others know who's been caught. If you forget to do one thing or the other, they get to "home free". Suppose you see Jonah running toward home, and running as fast as you can, you catch him just before he touches home base. You yell, "Sammy!" at the top of your lungs. Now Jonah is delighted because you have given him the gift of being home free -- you called the wrong name. But you insist that you have tagged Sammy, and after all isn't it a proven fact because you tagged a boy, who's wearing a shirt and shorts. Just like Sammy! He has short hair and is a fast runner. Must be Sammy! To cinch the call, you know you're right because he's wearing PF Fliers with no socks. There you go, it must be Sammy. On further examination you find that "Sammy's" hair is brown, while Jonah is a blond, but hey hair is hair. And come on, he clearly has on shoes and boys will be boys. By now, all the children have come out of hiding, because this scenario is far more interesting than the game itself. Everyone has an opinion and reason to support or deny your conclusion. Finally, Sammy steps forward and settles the matter. He says, "Seeker, while you were right about many things that you stated about Jonah appearing to be me, you also gave incorrect information. And while we can all argue about the description, and comparisons, the bottom line is that he's not Sammy, I am!" Identity is important!
Silly illustration that it is, a basic problem of using non-fiction characters in fictional stories is that an author should represent the real life characters with some integrity. There should be no glaring discrepancies relating to their character, physical attributes, or actions. Confusing Mother Theresa with Billy Graham would be an issue, not because one is better or worse than the other, but because they are two different people. Anyone remember the Sandra Bullock movie of a few years ago, "The Net"? A reclusive computer programmer has her identity stolen and can't convince anyone that she is who she says. Sinister happenings ensue as she tries to prove that what appears to be true, is not. Certainly Young has a right to write any fictional character in whatever way he chooses, but to present a view of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that while similar, has majorly inaccurate information when compared to the testimony of scripture, and call it "Christian" is quite another. I acknowledge that there is much about God that is a mystery. Students of the Bible have throughout the history of the church acknowledged that there is still much that we can know with confidence. What are these truths?
Once again, I'm relying heavily on Tim Challies, editor of Discerning Reader for the excellent content of his critique of The Shack. He points out that to define the Trinity we really need to make three statements. "God is three persons. Each person is fully God. There is one God." He expands upon this by saying that "each of these three is equal in divine attributes; each is fully God." Considering that the Trinity is a woven throughout the book, and key to Mack's experience at the shack, it seems wise to compare Young's trinity to that of the Bible. Parenthetically, in reading reviews, and listening to people talk about how the book has impacted them, The Shack has been repeatedly accredited with bringing understanding of the Trinity for the first time in reader's lives. So, does Young's portrayal jive with what the Bible?
In portraying God the Father as an African American woman known as Papa, and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman named Sarayu, Young immediately stands against a scripture. The Bible says that the Creator is transcendent to His creation and can't be represented in a visual portrayal. This would be a violation of the third commandment, forbidding the making of graven images. John 4:24 says that "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The representation of Christ is based on some fact, but the other members of the Trinity are diminished by Young. In Romans 1:22-23, the Apostle Paul thought that this kind of confusion was a very serious matter and called those who claimed to be wise, fools. Why? Because they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." I've been told that this is a silly argument, but then it's not others, or my, identity that is being confused. It's God we are discussing.
To further our understanding of the Trinity we need to examine the issue of hierarchy. One thing that Young captures beautifully is the harmonious functioning of the members of the Trinity. But because he can not humanly understand how roles and hierarchy do not diminish the divine community, he states that equality and submission can not coexist. On page 122 Mackenzie is told, "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." Young goes even farther in implying that submission would be basically evil because it is only possible, or necessary, when sin is present. "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." (page 124) The problem with Young's thinking is that the Bible teaches harmony, but also hierarchy. I Corinthians 11:3 states that Christ is the head of every man, the husband is head of the wife, and God the Father is the head of Christ. John 6:38 tells us that Jesus didn't come to Earth to do His own will, but to do the Father's will. Further, in John 8:28, Jesus asserts that He speaks what the Father has taught Him. Jesus, taking on the form of man, placed Himself in a subordinate role to His Father, all the while being equal in essence, says Challies. If subordination is evident Biblically, even among the sinless members of the Trinity, how can Young rightfully attribute the need for roles, and submission to the presence of sin? His conclusions are a contradiction of the Bible.
If Young truly loves God intimately, shouldn't he represent the Trinity as it is represented in scripture? Perhaps the real truth is that this book tells you more about Young and his imaginings than it does about who God really is. Young, himself asserts this on his web page, saying, "The Shack will tell you much more about me than a few facts ever could. In some ways my life is partly revealed in both characters—Willie and Mack". The bottom line to me is, if this weren't influencing people to worship a God who is in large part an illusion, that would not be a bad thing. Autobiography should not be read as non-fiction!
Modalism is a heresy that teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes (or aspects of God), rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. Young really blurs the lines between Modalism and orthodox Trinitarianism. There are several examples that show this confused thinking. First, Papa bears the scars on her wrists, and points out that Christ's suffering "cost us dearly" (page 95) It's not clear what she means by, "we were there (the cross?) together." (page 96) On page 99, Next, Papa states that "we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human." Biblically, what Young speaks of through Papa only applies to Jesus, not the Father or Holy Spirit. Even while human, Jesus maintained His divinity. The scripture never speaks of God the Father or the Holy Spirit speaking themselves into existence, or being human. Only Jesus was God incarnate. Finally, Young makes a strong point of Papa being a verb, rather than a noun. On page 204 Papa equates a universe of nouns as dead, because only verbs are "dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am verb". (page 204) Catchy, but there is a clear implication that God is a force, rather than a person. This is a decided move away from Biblical teaching on God's being and identity as the person (noun) who acted (verb) in creation and redemption, and who is lovely, holy, merciful, and love, etc. (adjective).
Lastly, I completely identify with Tim Challies alarm over how Mack behaves in the presence of God. This above all else was baffling to me, coming from the pen of someone who purports be be a Christian writer. Everything we know about those who have encountered the living God tells us that they were staggered and awed by His glory. Moses hid his face when God passed by, (Exodus 3;6) and we are told later in Exodus (33:20) that God told Moses, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live. When Isaiah is allowed into the presence of God, the glaring difference between a holy God and a sinful man, causes him to cry out in stricken repentance. Any time we get a glimpse of the throne room of God, those present are all worshiping Him and praising His glory. But Mack swears fouly before Young's god, and displays anger toward him. He treats him more as a peer than the God of the universe. Speaks volumes to me!
So, is identity important? Your own person hood is precious to you - why would the eternal, all-knowing, unchanging God's be less to Him? Young certainly has every right to present any character as He wishes, but to influence people with either misunderstanding or misrepresentation of God is a staggering responsibility. The real God has shown Himself to us, so let us not blur His identity to a hungry and spiritually starving world.
