Book Review, "The Shack"

[darinhouston]

Do you think he was subordinate only in his humanity?

[mattrose]

Well, in talking about the inner-workings of the Trinity, I am certainly out of my area of expertise! I am not overly interested in technical terms when it comes to the Trinity (like subordinationism). It seems to me that the concept of subordinationism is, indeed, wrong if/when it refers to some inequality between the Father, Son & Spirit. But if you're talking about relational submission (which some people seem to mean when they speak of subordinationism), then I really take no issue with that. In that sense, and to hopefully respond to your question, I think the 2nd Person eternally submits to the 1st. This was, of course, especially evident to us during the earthly ministry of Jesus. What do you think?

[darinhouston]

I tend to agree with you, Matt. I think relational and functional subordination is clearly evident (whether eternally so begs too many questions), but I think we just don't know enough about Jesus (or even the Word) to state with any authority the extent to which they are or are not "equal" in the way we normally use that term.

[SteveF]

Matt, I thought your intern had some insightfull comments on The Shack in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS_Om4jN ... r_embedded

[mattrose]

Haha, good find Steve! We made some silly videos over the last 6 months

[21centpilgrim]

How can the quote from the book from Papa (God the Father) to Mack not elicit concern? - "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy cure it" page 120

Is this true? I believe it is scripturaly false. 2Peter 2:9 The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

Also Young rejects penal substitution, believes in ultimate reconciliation (which is not a big red flag to some here), creates a false dichotomy between God's love/grace and his holiness/judgment. He believes that obeying God and being his friend are opposites too. He has said in print that he wants to do away with an angry God. He said this on his website - "I am personally convinced that Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised and now reigns as a fully human being, and has not drawn upon his deity ever in that process."

He is currently involved in a multimillion dollar lawsuit between himself, the two other Christian men who reedited the book with him, and the publishing company. A secular interviewer in Portland wrote an article and interviewed Young, one of his conclusions, with no dog in the fight, was that The Shack was a mixture of Christianity and New Age religion. It is funny how an unbeliever can see things so clearly.

Young has clearly been hurt by the institutional church and that comes out much in The Shack. Many people identify with this and so sympathize and disregard the many questionable or even blatant unbiblical teachings in the book. He would do well to listen to Steve's teaching on having a unoffendable spirit. There is much difference between operating out of our woundedness and operating out of the Holy Spirit.
I have sat down and talked with Young in person and shared some of my concerns, he is totally convinced that the book is of the Holy Spirit and raised his voice at me and waived a book in my face that denied penal substitution. This was in a coffee joint in Portland a number of years ago.

[mattrose]

How can the quote from the book from Papa (God the Father) to Mack not elicit concern? - "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy cure it" page 120

Is this true? I believe it is scripturaly false. 2Peter 2:9 The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

I do believe that is one of the quotes that elicits concern. But note, Young is not making any sort of case that sin doesn't get punished. He's simply saying that sin is its own punishment. How would sin become its own punishment except that God set the world up in that way? I think Young's point is to emphasize God's love to a culture that generally thinks of Him primarily as a judge/cop. It's a move from seeing God as primarily vindictive to seeing Him as primarily victorious. I think that's a good move.

Also Young rejects penal substitution,

Out of curiousity, do you have a page number for this statement? Additionally, I think there are a number of 'orthodox' ways for understanding how the atonement works. Some pick 1 particular metaphor. Others take a more eclectic view. I wouldn't consider somebody outside the pale of orthodoxy until they deny that the cross accomplished the goal.

believes in ultimate reconciliation (which is not a big red flag to some here),

I didn't read the book that way. I especially think of the section where Mack asks if that means that all roads lead to God. Jesus responds by saying that “most roads don’t lead anywhere…[but] I will travel any road to find you” (182). I very much agree with this way of thinking. It seems to insist, though, that not all roads lead to God.

creates a false dichotomy between God's love/grace and his holiness/judgment. He believes that obeying God and being his friend are opposites too. He has said in print that he wants to do away with an angry God.

I think he struggles with the issue of understanding God's love/grace and holiness/judgment together. I ask you, who doesn't??? I think he is largely correct, though, in emphasizing God's love. So many non-Christians (and Christians) think God is out to get them (negatively) when, really, God is out to get them (positively).

He said this on his website - "I am personally convinced that Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised and now reigns as a fully human being, and has not drawn upon his deity ever in that process."

This is kenotic theory. In many forms it is well within orthodoxy, part of an in-house debate. There's nothing in this quote that shows it to be a heretical form (like a form that denies Jesus' deity). He affirms that Jesus is deity, but believes that He no longer draws upon that.

He is currently involved in a multimillion dollar lawsuit between himself, the two other Christian men who reedited the book with him, and the publishing company.

I make no claims to know anything about that.

A secular interviewer in Portland wrote an article and interviewed Young, one of his conclusions, with no dog in the fight, was that The Shack was a mixture of Christianity and New Age religion. It is funny how an unbeliever can see things so clearly.

This is a flawed argument on your part. You've already decided what the 'clear' view is and then use the secular interviewer to buttress your opinion. I could just as easily already have a 'clear' view that Young is the greatest theologian on the planet and then buttress it by saying 'look' secular interviewers don't like him so it's a sure sign he's on the right tract.

Your argument also assumes that a mixture of Christianity and the New Age would be a terrible thing. Let's assume, for a moment, that we both agree that Christianity is 100% true. Are you assuming that the New Age worldview is 100% false. I wouldn't! New Age is a mixture of truths and falsehoods. It is at least possible that Young has taken some of the stronger points of New Age thought (I wouldn't have any idea what these are, not being very familiar with the New Age movement) and has implemented them into his book. I would also caution you about viewing 'Christianity' as 100% true b/c it's too easy to mix up the truthful sort of Christianity with institutions, traditions, and man-made doctrinal statements.

Young has clearly been hurt by the institutional church and that comes out much in The Shack. Many people identify with this and so sympathize and disregard the many questionable or even blatant unbiblical teachings in the book.

I would agree with the first sentence. I am still wondering what is blatantly unbiblical. I think we're mostly talking about questionable, in-house debatable stuff.

He would do well to listen to Steve's teaching on having a unoffendable spirit. There is much difference between operating out of our woundedness and operating out of the Holy Spirit.
I have sat down and talked with Young in person and shared some of my concerns, he is totally convinced that the book is of the Holy Spirit and raised his voice at me and waived a book in my face that denied penal substitution. This was in a coffee joint in Portland a number of years ago.

I think your first 2 sentences are edifying and worthwhile. I don't doubt your report of interaction with Young. I have never met the man. I have heard him interviewed a couple of times and found him to be kind and thoughtful.

I really have no interest in getting into a discussion about the character of a person I've never met and probably will never meet (at least on this side of eternity). I can only say that, as a Christian with a strong theological bent, I found more in the book to be edified by than to be upset about. I'm not a big fan of heresy hunting. Nobody's theology is perfect. I think it is the mark of a healthy mind and heart to focus on that which is edifying.

[Paidion]

I guess Jesus wasn't a Trinitarian, for He recognized the authority of the Father over Him:

John 12:49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak.
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

He also considered the Father to be greater than He:

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Nowhere in Scripture do we find the Father submitting to the Son. No mutual submission here. Indeed, in spite of statements to the contrary, neither do we find "mutual submission" between married couples in scripture --- rather "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands."

I often wonder why people want the matter of authority eliminated, or even reversed. Well... maybe it's not so puzzling. Didn't Satan declare, "I will be like the most High!"? And didn't he tempt Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree by promising them that they would be like God, knowing good and evil?

We also notice, that unlike the Father, Jesus was not omniscient, even after His resurrection:

Revelation 1:1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John...

If God gave this revelation to Jesus Christ, this seems to imply that He wasn't aware of its contents until the Father revealed it to Him. When He had learned of these things, He sent His angel to John, who wrote them in the book called "Revelation".

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I think that trinitarians are aware of the verses about the Son's submission to and dependence upon the Father. When trinitarians say that the three "Persons" are equal in "Substance" (a word choice which I have never fully understood), I do not think we are saying they are equal in station. At least, I do not understand this to be the case.

I believe in some form of the kenotic theory, in which, in emptying Himself, and taking on the form of a servant, the Word lived entirely subject to His Father. While not all trinitarians understand this the same way, they are not unaware of verses speaking of the subjection of the Son to the Father.

I do agree with you that there is a widespread tendency in the church to downplay authority, and to exalt egalitarian ideals. This is probably due to abusive models of authority that many have in their minds. It is clear to me that authority is established by God for the sake of order and security among His creatures.

[Paidion]

I agree with Trinitarians that the Father and the Son are equal in "substance". As I understand it, this means that they are equally divine. But clearly they are not equal in position ---- that is, it could be said that there is a "hierarchy" here.

Likewise, a husband and wife are equal in "substance", that is they are equally human. Nevertheless, according to Paul, they are not equal in position. The wife is to subject herself to her husband, not in the sense of being a slave or the husband forcing his will upon her, but willingly, in recognition of the order which God has established. God has also established order in the Church. Disciples are to be subject to the elders whom God has set over them. Again, this does not imply that elders have the right to dominate them who are under their care, but to be good shepherds who lead the flock. Jesus gave the supreme example of true authority by serving His disciples, for example, washing their feet.