The Joy of the Truth

Rejection of Religion

The largest problem with The Shack lies in what seems to be its main message. God tries very hard to rid Mack of all notions of religion, hierarchy, ritual, tradition, authority and law. In the great tradition of fashioning God in our own image, Young adopts a very American, democratic vision of God. The problem is that this vision of God is not Biblical, and contradicts the constant teaching and practices of the Church. Young’s error, an error shared by most Evangelicals, is a misunderstanding of the proper role of law and authority that stems from an Americanized exegesis of Scripture with no connection to Tradition to tie our understanding of Scripture to the teachings of the Apostles.

According to God’s teachings in The Shack, Original Sin was not a sin of prideful disobedience, but of independence.  Instead of putting their complete and total trust in God, Adam & Eve struck out on their own.  Fallen human nature is henceforth expressed by our attempts to independently control our own lives.  There is certainly some truth to the independence factor of Original Sin.  Adam & Eve should have put their trust in God, as symbolized by the Tree of Life.  We do express too much independence as fallen human beings and we fail to trust God enough.  However, to make the fall all about independence misses the importance of price and concupiscence in our sinful nature.  More importantly, The Shack makes our dependence on God so absolute that humanity would sacrifice its free will by following God.  Young misses the fact that God wants us to use our will within our relationship with Him, to choose a relationship with Him but also to make choices within that relationship to cooperate with Grace and to live fully human lives.

The Shack definitely takes this myopic view of Original Sin to its logical conclusion. Young sees human institutions as instruments of independence that oppose a true trusting relationship with God.  His God rails against economics, politics, religion, rules, authority and expectations.  The Catholic Church offers a more Biblical and balanced view of human institutions that says that submission to God and cooperation with Grace lead us to use human institutions to spread His love and goodness.  Where human institutions fail to bring God’s love and goodness to other human beings, they need to be reformed.  However, where they succeed, they constitute a beautiful cooperation between human free-will and the Will of God.

Exactly where in the Bible does God condemn human government, economics and religion? The belief that God does not work through these institutions can only come from a very selective reading of the Bible. All authority comes from God, even the authority of human institutions. The purpose of all authority is to lead us to authentic good. While God does show that human institutions can lead us away from trusting in Him (the best example is when God warns the Hebrew people against having a king because He wanted them to follow Him as their King), other times God sets up human institutions to bring about His will, such as when He instructed Moses to organize the Judges to help govern the Hebrew nation. Jesus set up the Church led by the Apostles in hierarchical format. We even see the equivalent of bishops, priests and deacons mentioned in the New Testament. Furthermore, history tells us that this is the form the Church took from the time of the Apostles. Other expressions of this misunderstanding of law, authority and religion include

• God ridiculing Mack for bowing his head and closing his eyes to pray (page 120). Sure, Mack is in their presence and perhaps didn’t need to close out the distractions of the world, but there is no attempt to explore why this is may be a valid posture of prayer.
• Jesus making the claim that Scripture does not contain demands and rules (page 197), completely ignoring Jesus’ teaching in the Bible about the sheep and the goats (among other teachings) and Paul’s teachings that certain immoral acts will keep people from the Kingdom of God. Again, Young creates a false distinction between the law and love. He does not realize that the purpose of the moral law is to teach us to love!
• A complete misrepresentation of the 10 Commandments as a set of impossible ideals intended to show us that it is impossible to be righteous: Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) says, "Actually, we wanted you to give up tyring to be righteous on your own. It was a mirror to reveal just how filthy your face gets when you live independently" (page 202). This is a common Evangelical claim, but one that is very unbiblical. Why would the Old Testament praise such a law before they were given a savior? Why would Jesus claim that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and then teach a law that was even more exacting?
• A complete misunderstanding of freedom. Again, Sarayu claim, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control." He also says that the law is a weapon that we use to judge others. In other words, trying to keep the moral law is opposed to God’s will for us. God even tells Mack that under Jesus all things are lawful – he doesn’t have to follow the rules! God says, "Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse" (page 203). This is so opposed to biblical truth that tells us that God gave us the Law in order to set us free, to teach us to love, and to lead us to conversion of heart.  God’s love does not abolish human freedom by turning independence into dependence.  It fulfills human freedom by turning human independence into interdependence, a life of cooperation with Grace and participation in the Divine Life.

The Shack’s disdain for religion was born only in the 20th century in the Evangelical community, based on selective reading of Jesus’ teachings against legalism. The following passage provides a clear portrayal of this disdain.

Mack looked back at the lake before responding. "I would have preferred that you did take control at times. It would have saved me and people I care about a lot of pain."

"To force my will on you," Jesus replied, "is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy."

"That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

Mack was surprised. "How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"

"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me."

"And that’s how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I means between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?"

Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expressio of your new nature within relationships" (145-146).

The assumption that Young makes here is that obedience and authority are diametrically opposed to love and respect. Young fails to see that obedience and authority have an unfallen aspect to them, which we see in God’s dealings with His people. They are certainly subservient to love and respect, and indeed obedience and authority lead us to love and respect. But they are not opposed.

The purpose of law and authority is to lead us to what is authentically good for us. The goal of love is to lead others to the greatest possible good. So, ideally law and authority are acts of love (as they always are with God and with the Church). In a fallen world, law and authority help us to overcome ignorance and selfishness and to reach for what is truly good for us when we would really prefer an inferior good (or to reach what is good for others when we would prefer to selfishly focus on our own good). In an unfallen world, law and authority would still have this purpose, but they would not have to overcome sin and ignorance. Instead they would serve to organize human society to help us to work together to attain authentic good for each other.

In one of the many discussions that Mack has with God on the evil of religion, Jesus explains to Mack that His Church is all about relationships, not about human institutions or laws or hierarchy. Mack proclaims,

"I really do want to understand. I mean, I find the way you are so different from all the well-intentioned religious stuff I’m familiar with."

As well-intentioned as it might be, you know that religious machinery can chew people up!" Jesus said with a bite of his own. "An awful lot of what is done in my name has nothing to do with me and is often, even if unintentional, very contrary to my purposes."

"You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?" Mack said, not sure if he was asking a question or making an observation.

"I don’t create institutions — never have, never will" (178-179).

Again, Young makes the false assumption that human institutions and authorities are contrary to love and true faith. After a brief interlude that poses a false contrast between marriage as an institution and marriage as a relationship, Jesus continues,

"Like I said, I don’t create institutions; that’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big into religion," Jesus said a little sarcastically, "and not very fond of politics or economics either." Jesus’ visage darkened noticeably. "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?"

Mack hesitated. He wasn’t sure what to say. This all felt a little over his head. Noticing that Mack’s eyes were glazing over, Jesus downshifted. "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 gain some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false! Systems cannot provide you security, only I can" (179).

These errors about law, authority, freedom, religion, ritual, etc. are core to the message of the book. God’s main concern in this book does not seem to be to set Mackenzie free from his pain (though he does do this) or to set him free from sin, but to set him free from religion.

Overall Recommendation

Despite the attention that The Shack has received as a Christian bestseller, I found the book seriously lacking. It contains within it a nice story about healing and forgiveness, but that story is told through mediocre writing and surrounded by proselytizing and preaching. Unfortunately, The Shack also preaches the wrong gospel. Overall, I would not recommend The Shack. If you do read it, be sure to read it critically, with your Bible and Catechism close at hand.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 3: Portrayal of God – What The Shack Got Right) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 1: Literary Review) This book review will is published in parts on the...
4. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 5: Theological Problem – Understanding of the Incarnation) The Shack does fall into major theological error in its...
5. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 4: Theological Problem with God as Father) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Leave a Reply