Part II of our journey away from the Shack

The Shack in a very tiny nutshell:
Mackenzie Phillips (Mack) lost his youngest daughter, Missy, in a tragic abduction. Police suspect that Missy was murdered in an abandoned shack in the Oregon wilderness. Her body was never found. Four years later, Mack finds a note, supposedly from God, inviting him to that shack for the weekend. Mack confronts his pain and dialogues with God (a black-woman named “Papa”), and the other members of the trinity (Jesus the Middle Eastern Carpenter; the Holy Spirit an Asian woman named Sarayu) about the weighty and important issues of the world. It is these dialogues which comprise the majority of this book, and which concern this review. The Shack is a metaphor for the psychological constructs we make out of our pain.

The Shack and The Atonement:
While some would say it is unfair to judge a fictional work from a theological perspective, the language of The Shack (not to mention the raving endorsements on the cover) make it apparent that this work is theological in nature. At its essence, The Shack seeks to provide answers to one of the greatest theological problems in the world: pain and suffering. Nitpicking and pettiness, which mark far too many Christian reviews, are not necessary in order to find the flaws in this novel. The author clearly seeks to break down the reader’s conception of God, and rebuild it with new conclusions. Technically speaking, any discussion of God is theology. The Shack is most certainly theology; simply in narrative form. The question is not whether theology itself is good or bad; but whether The Shack promotes good or bad theology.
Whether Christians agree or disagree on the varying topics in this book, the atonement presented by W.P. Young cannot be accepted by anyone who calls him or herself a Christian. Historically, it is a proper understanding of the Trinity that has distinguished orthodox Christianity from unorthodox (for a detailed discussion of the Trinity in The Shack see the linked article). While The Shack certainly falls outside the bounds of Christianity on the Trinity, the most devastating consequences of this subversive theology are in its views of salvation. Consider the following excerpt:
“Papa sat forward and crossed her arms on the table. “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.”
“The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?”
“The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.” (p. 192)
Young claims to answer the following question on behalf of God:
What did Jesus accomplish on the cross?
Answer:
God is now reconciled to the world.
When Mack clarifies “You mean those who believe in you?” and Papa restates “The whole world.” Not only does Young fail to describe in what way Christ has restored the world to God, the clear implication of this statement is that people will be saved without believing in Jesus. At best Young’s portrayal is lacking many important details, and at worst it is an all out call to universalism – the belief that everyone will be saved. Young’s choice of words neither affirms nor denies universalism, but he also fails to describe the means by which a man can be reconciled to God.
Consider another confusing dialogue. Jesus explained paradoxically that He does not intend to make Christians out of people:
…Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?
'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you' (182).
Biblically, God will save people with no distinction to status, race, or gender (Rom. 3:22, 10:12). Everyone who believes in Christ will be saved regardless of their background. While Young certainly accommodates this view, he fails to mention that not all men will be saved. Furthermore, he implies that the term “Christian” is a non-biblical or institutionalized term (see Acts11:26). Rather than discussing what it means to truly be a Christian, the author plays games with language.
Other statements leave the reader equally confused about the nature of the atonement. Jesus tells Mack “I am the best way that anyone can relate [to God]” This is a far-cry from John 14:6 in which Jesus makes the claim that He is the only way to God. Toward the end of the book, Young states that God has forgiven all humans for their sins (p. 225). Throughout The Shack, language remains ambiguous enough that the reader cannot nail down any solid conclusions.