THE SHACK, "ELOUSIA," AND THE BLACK MADONNA

Imagination, Image, and Idolatry

God is Truth. That He is Truth distinguishes Him from idols which are false. Of the Lord, the prophet declared, "There is none like Thee, O Lord; Thou art great, and great is Thy name in might," and explained of those who create idols, "But they are altogether stupid and foolish In their discipline of delusion--their idol is wood!" The prophetic commentary which follows then states, "Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, And gold from Uphaz, The work of a craftsman and of the hands of a goldsmith; Violet and purple are their clothing; They are all the work of skilled men. But the Lord is the true God . . ." (Jeremiah 10:6-10, NASB).[1] In this vein, A.W. Tozer once wrote: “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”[2]

But idols arise out of human imagination. Humanity possesses an entrenched propensity to manufacture gods according to their liking. Humanoids make god however they want him/her/it to be. In the description of the declension into idolatry, the Apostle Paul wrote that though "they knew God," the heathen became "vain in their imaginations . . . And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" (Romans 1:21-23a, KJV). The word "imagination" is interesting, for it means, "the thinking of a man deliberating with himself."[3] Imagination creates images--even idolatrous images--and the images can either be material or mental, actual or verbal.[4] Humans will fashion god however they want him, her, or it to be. They will manufacture gods after their own thinking, idolatrous images that can be material or mental, actual or verbal.

Words create mental pictures. Someone once said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In an image oriented age where people watch more and read less, the statement makes a point. But words also create powerful images. We see through the mind's eye. Someone once defined idolatry as thinking wrong thoughts about God. So the question becomes, with the stroke of his verbal brush, what picture of God has William P. Young created in his best selling novel, The Shack? I am fearful that the author's painting of Him, though fictional, might promote the wrong image of God.

The novel tugs at the emotional strings of its readers, and for just that reason the book has become a bestseller in the fiction category. I am therefore aware that I am about to tread where angels might not dare. This pastor realizes he is about to enter the personal and emotional "space" of the human heart. People feel very deeply about this book and its author. I ask only, as you read Young's book with an open heart, that you might also read this review of the book with an open mind. We shall deal only with the book's concept of the Trinity.

We now proceed to look at the theology of The Shack.[4] We turn to the ideas presented in the book about God. The god of The Shack (In this reference, I refuse to spell God with an upper case "G.") is an imagined hermaphroditic trinity, consisting of a retreat center owner and hostess who goes by the name of "Elousia," a carpenter-handyman by the name of "Jesus," and a gardener who goes by the name of "Sarayu." In order, we consider the three main characters, and another omniscient and sensual lady who goes by the name of "Sophia," or Wisdom.

THE FIRST PERSON --The first person of the godhead goes by the name of "Papa" (perhaps alluding to the Apostle Paul's designation of Him as "Abba," Romans 8:15). "Papa" is the main character's wife's name for God. But upon Mack's arrival at The Shack, where he has been invited by "Papa" to work through the grief of having lost his daughter via a kidnapping by a serial rapist-killer, "Papa" morphs into a large and loving African-American woman named "Elousia" (i.e., a combination of the Hebrew name for God the Creator, "El," and the Greek word "ousia" denoting the Platonic-philosophical meaning of "being" or "existence"). Among other characteristics, "Elousia" describes herself as, "the Creator God who is truly real and the ground of all being." (The Shack, 111).

This name for God appears to be borrowed from the writings of theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965), who referred to God as "the Ground of Being." By so designating deity, Tillich meant that, "God is not a being, not even the highest of all beings; he is being itself, or the ground of being, the internal power or force that causes everything to exist."[3] This conception of God compliments the perception of deity amongst devotees to the New Age/New Spirituality. Even though Tillich's assertions about deity were esoteric and complex, Young presents a Tillich-like scheme that defines deity as a hermaphroditic "ground of all being" that dwells "in, around, and through all things . . ." (The Shack, 112). Such a view of God is acknowledged to be panentheistic (i.e., God dwells "through all things").[4] This may explain why, toward the end of his life, Tillich himself no longer prayed. He only meditated. To him there existed no personal or transcendental God to pray to. For reason of being "the Ground of Being," God was immanent. So like an airplane, which is refused take-off for reason mechanical failure, the concept of god in The Shack never gets off the "ground."

The Shack also describes Jesus to be a quite human person--a relatively unattractive Middle Eastern Jewish man with a "big nose" who functioned as the transformed shack's retreat center's repairman. (The Shack, 111).[5] As regards Young's portrayal of Jesus' humanity, there's little disagreement. The author's portrayal of Jesus in a literary, but symbolic sense, appears to be reasonable and within the bounds of Scripture (See Matthew 1:1-17; Romans 1:3; Isaiah 53:2; Mark 6:3).

Nevertheless, the author leaves the door open for the idea that Jesus originated from "Papa-mama." In explaining the derivation of woman from man, The Shack's Jesus tells Mack: "We created a circle of relationship, like our own, but for humans. She out of him, and now all males, including me, birthed through her (Eve), and ALL originating from God." (Capital emphasis mine, The Shack, 148).[6] Seemingly, this dialog makes Jesus' birth to be as profane as the rest of humanity's, thus calling into question His being the "only begotten of the Father" (meaning unique, or only one of His kind, John 1:14). In this regard, never once in the novel is Jesus (His human name) ever referred to as "Christ" (His self-chosen messianic name, Matthew 16:16). Young therefore, presents his readers with a very human Jesus who comes up short of being "the Christ."

The novel also pictures Jesus as desiring all humans to be transformed "into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved." (The Shack, 182). In this regard, one can note the capitalization of "Beloved." When capitalized in many Bible translations, "Beloved" refers to the special and exceptional relationship that belonged between Jesus and His Father. For example, Paul wrote of the grace God bestowed upon the believer "in the Beloved" (in Christ, Ephesians 1:6, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, 1901 ASV). Thus, when the "Jesus" of The Shack said he desires people to be transformed "into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved," it is as if Jesus envisions that humans can achieve a divine state equal to that which He possesses.[7] In contrast, the Bible teaches that while believers are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), we are not and never will be consumed of it (Romans 7:14ff.). We will ever remain the creatures of the Creator. We turn now to the third member of The Shack's trinity.

"Sarayu" is the shack/retreat center's gardener--perhaps referring to Spirit's production of fruit in Christian living (Galatians 5:22-23)--is the character impersonating the Holy Spirit. Just after his introduction to her, Mack asks Jesus, "Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?" Jesus answers, "Yes, She is Creativity; she is Action; she is Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit." Mack responds, "And her name Sarayu?" Jesus explains, "That is a simple name from one of our human languages. It means 'Wind,' a common wind actually. She loves that name." (The Shack, 110).

Sarayu is likely a word the author coined from the Sanskrit language (India's religious and literary language). Too, it might be construed to relate to the blowing of the wind alluded to by Jesus (John 3:8). But by naming the Spirit Sarayu, the author seems to be referencing the Rig Veda, the Hindu scriptures, for Sarayu bears semantic and phonetic resemblance to Vayu, the word for "wind" contained in those writings.[8] In so identifying the Spirit with the Indic word for "wind," is the author making overture to eastern religion? Nevertheless, the novel's impersonation of the Holy Spirit as female contradicts Jesus' clear teaching that the Spirit is neither an "it" nor a "she," but "He" (John 16:13).

Is there a fourth member of Young's polymorphous trinity? Maybe . . . we are left to our imagination. "Sophia," the extended Wisdom of "Papa," though secluded and secreted not far away from the broken-down shack that had been transformed into a resplendent retreat center, is a divine-like lady-judge, who is wise in all the ways in which "Papa" conducts his/her affairs (See Proverbs 8:1-36; 1 Corinthians 1:24.). In her verbal exchanges with Mack, she clearly evidences clairvoyant, if not omniscient, perceptions. (The Shack, 156, 160).

In conclusion, under the cover of biblical allusion, The Shack presents a god which may be likened to the concept of divinity believed in by eastern religion with its mysticism and mythology. Readers ought to beware lest they, in their emotions, succumb to theological delusion, via the author's biblical allusions, that God is a "Papa" who morphs into a "Mama," a carpenter Jesus who is not names "the Christ," and the Holy Spirit who as well as being a "she," appears as an impersonization of an Indian deity. But you ask, "How can that happen?" How can anyone use the Bible to promote spiritual delusion? I would remind us that Satan alluded to the Bible to tempt Jesus. In the second phase of Jesus' temptation, Satan made reference to Psalm 91:11-12, to which Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (See Matthew 4:5-6, KJV.). Peter also informs us that false teachers frequently employ Scripture to veil their false teachings (See 2 Peter 3:16.). Thus, in The Shack we have a potpourri of spirituality created by the author to peddle mystical delusion via biblical allusion. The novel will surely continue to resonate with an Emergent Christian mindset that seems bent upon flirting with the New Age/New Spirituality of postmodernism.

But you might be thinking, "C'mon pastor. Give me a break. The book is only fiction!" My response to such a protest is twofold: First, by their definition, idols too are fiction. They are images of a god which doesn't exist (Jeremiah 10:14-16). And second, most of the Apocrypha books and the Gnostic Gospels are also fiction. Yet in the minds and hearts of many, these "fictional" writings have grown to possess an aura of sacredness about them that makes them religiously authoritative.

But to the extent that we follow the One who is Truth, we must evidence that we have fled "from idolatry" by not following after "cunningly devised fables" (1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Peter 1:16).

Pastor Larry DeBruyn

________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Apostle Paul also remarked of the reputation of the church at Thessalonica how they, "turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God" (I Thessalonians 1:9). Scripture also records that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also Truth (John 14:6; 1 John 5:7, 20). In this vein, one must note John’s closing word: "Little children, guard yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21).

[2] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1961) 12.

[3] On this point, it is appropriate to note that William P. Young accounts for the origin of The Shack for reason of personal and private conversations he had with God on his daily work-commute from Gresham to Portland, Oregon. World magazine reports that, "Young used 80 minutes each day . . . to fill yellow legal pads with imagined conversations with God focused on suffering, pain, and evil." (See Susan Olasky, "Commuter-driven bestseller," World, June 28/July 5, 2008, 49.) In contrast, Paul the apostle states that idolatry germinates from of people "deliberating" within themselves. Such Gnosis spirituality ever contests with the Logos spirituality of the Bible. The Word finds its origin with God (John 1:1, 14). Gnosis, the basis of the New Age/New Spirituality, finds its origin in the reasonings and experiences of man, or perhaps, from demons (1 Timothy 4:1).

[4] In that in the Front Matter The Shack receives rave theological kudos, it is not unfair to investigate and evaluate the book's theology, especially the doctrine of God known in the discipline of systematic theology as Theology Proper.

[5] See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) 333.

[6] For sake of explanation, pantheism teaches that God is all things while panentheism holds that God dwells in all things. For sake of analogy, a tree is not God (pantheism), but the sap which forms the "life force" in the tree is. God is "in" the tree, but the tree is not God. See Erickson, Theology, 333.

[5] On this point, I find it interesting that the novel has not yet been accused of racial stereotyping, i.e., that God is pictured as being a "large" or "big black woman" (The Shack, 84, 86), and that Jesus comes from a Jewish nation of people with "big noses" (The Shack, 111).

[6] Mysticism knows this state as theosis, where man's humanity merges into and is consumed of divinity. Men become gods. In biblical parlance, it's like those who are "beloved" (individual believers, Colossians 3:12; Hebrews 6:9; etc.) become "the Beloved" (a corporation of Christs, Ephesians 1:6; Compare Matthew 3:17.).

[7] When it acknowledged Jesus to have been "begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead," it might be construed that the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) allows for a concept that God originated Jesus (See http://www.carm.org/creeds/chalcedonian.htm). However, to imagine the mystery surrounding the Trinity to be analogous to some kind of human begetting (i.e., as in the Mormon doctrine of God) is improper. The relationship of the Father and Son to each other is their personal relationship, and it would be well for us creatures not invade their privacy (i.e., mystery). Their relationship is theirs alone. Though the unity for which Jesus prayed may be compared to that of His with the Father, it is only similar to ("as"), but not identical with, their unity (John 17:21).

[8] "Word Mythology Dictionary: Vayu," Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/vayu-2).