Theophanies and The Shack

Since my last blog about The Shack, I’ve read several reviews of it. One by Katherine Jeffrey, entitled "I Am Not Who You Think I Am," ran in the January/February 2010 issue of Books&Culture. One statement there struck a chord with me: “Theophany is strictly circumscribed in Christian literary tradition." Thus over the years religious authors have not been allowed to include speeches by God in their works. Jeffrey discusses some minor exceptions to that rule in Medieval literature and some egregious violations in recent films such as O, God!, Dogma and Evan Almighty.

I had an encounter with this principle in a preaching class in seminary. One of my sermons featured a dialogue with God in which I played His part as well as the person to whom He was speaking. Though I certainly tried to make my words consistent with the scriptures, they were not from holy writ. I foolishly thought that my dialogue would be an effective rhetorical tool; my preaching professor thought otherwise. The message I received was that I should never play the part of God in a sermon or anywhere else for that matter. It is not a safe or prudent practice.

When I read Jeffrey's dictum about theophanies in literature, I thought back to my seminary experience. I also recalled my reaction, a few years later, witnessing Morgan Freeman play the part of God in Bruce Almighty. Horrors! More recently, I admit that I have become desensitized and watched Evan Almighty without my previous strong aversion. Now, after reading Jeffrey's reminder, my appropriate sensitivity has been restored.

As Jeffrey points out, "The Shack breaks all the rules." "There are no significant Christian literary precedents for Young's exuberant representation of the Godhead." In case you haven't read the book, I note that all three persons of the Trinity have much to say in it. I consider the dialogues by Papa, Jesus and Sarayu with Mack to be one man's attempt to give greater weight to his own beliefs about "the problem of pain." He does so by using characters who represent God, and that is dangerous business.

If Young were here he might respond with a query about what Lewis was doing with Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia. Aren't Aslan's appearances theophanies? I would have to admit that Lewis came as close as he could to the line without crossing it. Here is what Lewis had to say about Aslan in a letter to some fifth grade students: "You are mistaken when you think that everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way. I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia': I said 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.' If you think about it, you will see that it is quite a different thing." Lewis's success has been verified by millions of readers, both by those who have seen resemblances to Christ in Aslan as well as those who haven't.

Lewis did something similar in the Chronicles to what Young has done in The Shack, but Lewis remained within bounds of Christian orthodoxy both in method and in message. In fact, I consider The Chronicles of Narnia to be so effective and accurate that they are able to function as a Mere Christianity for younger readers.

There are many vantage points from which to evaluate The Shack. The one I have noted from Jeffrey's review is enough to make my theological Geiger counter (as another seminary professor used to say) tick loudly and clearly.