Defending The Shack: Black Madonna

The Shack has received its share of detractors for various reasons, but, outside of those directly involved in the book, I haven't seen many articles taking to task those who disagree. Now, I don’t believe God needs any help in defending Himself, and I have no problem agreeing to disagree but what I don't like is when others assume an author has a hidden agenda to promote something other than the God of the Bible using evidence with the consistency of Swiss cheese (it's full of holes). So, with a feeble attempt, I’m rendering aid to a brother, Paul Young, and hope that I’ll inspire others to do the same. Honestly, I’m not sure if this will be the only defense I write or if others will follow. It all depends on the Father. BTW, I don’t write this to change the mind of those who write such attacks for I don’t believe I can; I write this for those who read them and are influenced to consider The Shack as nothing but trash because nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article, “THE SHACK, ‘Elousia’, and the Black Madonna”, Pastor Larry DeBruyn claims Paul Young is promoting idolatrous goddess worship in The Shack. DeBruyn suggests that Young presents the First Person of the Trinity more as the Black Madonna than God the Father due to the appearance and actions of the character, Elousia. As I will demonstrate, this accusation is ridiculous and without merit. BTW, I could attack several things in his article such as his linkage to Paul Tillich, remarks on panentheism, and problems with using imagery (has he read the Bible?), but I’ll stick with the Black Virgin idiocy.

First of all, who or what is the Black Virgin/Madonna? Throughout Europe, many cathedrals contain statues of Mary which, by itself, is not unusual except they are black. What we know is they were crafted between the 11th-15th centuries when many cathedrals were built. What we don’t know is why. The earliest theory only dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, seven centuries after the fact, and there are several theories.

My own theory is Hermetic Philosophy began to merge with Christianity through Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, and several others in the early "church" history through Platonism and Neoplatonism. And just what is Hermeticism? Well, that’s a bit complicated, so I’ll try to keep it simple. Hermeticism is made up of three areas of mysticism, Theurgy, Astrology, and Alchemy, that are interrelated and the precursors of modern science. Hermeticism is also what I call one of the three pillars of western civilization, which includes literature, art, and architecture; the other two being Greek/Roman mythology and the Bible. Interestingly, it tends to be the forgotten component of our culture, and, sadly, some of the imagery it uses is often crudely referred as phallic. The goal of Hermeticism is to become one with the Divine or become divine through perfection. In the alchemical branch, this is done through a series of colored stages, the first of which is black. It is the stage of putrefaction which is when all the negative or imperfect qualities of a person are burned away, usually by trial and suffering. Now, by the twelfth century, this mode of thought had already blended with Christianity (Catholicism) throughout Europe. But why combine the black stage of alchemy with Mary? Mary is the one who brought perfection (Christ) into the world through the pain (suffering) of childbirth (a symbol much used in alchemy). That’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it (my other theory is that it was done as a joke so others would speculate on it for centuries to come).

DeBruyn, in all his great researching ability, decides to base all his information on the Black Virgin on one Internet article, “The Return of the Black Madonna: A Sign of Our Times or How the Black Madonna is Shaking Us Up for the Twenty-First Century” by Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox. But we’ll ignore the fact that Fox’s piece is a hodge-podge of mythologies, and pretend it’s authoritative. The first point DeBruyn mentions begins with quoting Fox, “’The Black Madonna invites us into the dark and therefore into our depths,’” and, “’This is where Divinity lies.’” He then reveals how Young associates darkness with the main character, Mack. Now while 1 John 1:5 is true in that there is no darkness in God, the same is not true of us. David says of God in 2 Samuel 22:29, “You are my lamp, O Lord; the Lord turns my darkness into light.” Mack was already in the “dark night of the soul”, but the Father was trying to call him out, and at no time did He equate the darkness with any kind of divinity.

Next, DeBruyn starts his second point with another statement from Fox, “’The Black Madonna calls us to Grieve.’” He proceeds to point out the scene of Mack’s “emotional catharsis” as if there’s something wrong with it. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And here, dear readers, is where it’s important to keep things in context whether it be Scripture or any book. If you look at the section the above scene was yanked from, hopefully, you’ll see the Father is attempting to bring Mack to a place of forgiveness. The character’s grieving is a result of trying to reach that destination.

Thirdly, DeBruyn quotes Fox again, “’The Black Madonna calls us down to honor our lower charkas [sic],’” and here are the chakras, “’our relationship to the whole (first chakra, as I have explained elsewhere is about picking up the vibrations for sound from the whole cosmos), our sexuality (second chakra) and our anger and moral outrage (third chakra.’” It would seem that DeBruyn has a base level of understanding of the chakras; otherwise, he would see there’s some disagreement of where the second chakra is located. According to my research, it’s in the head, not the genitals. Thanks to astrology and alchemy, each chakra has a heavenly body and metal associated with it, such as Saturn and lead belong to the first chakra. As one masters each chakra, body, or metal, depending on the discipline employed, the practitioner moves closer to perfection and, ultimately, divinity. The Kabala is especially tough because it includes these seven chakras along with three other elements (that makes 10) and all the paths that connect them (22 paths) for a grand total of 32 levels you must master before reaching the divine. As a side not, this is where Freemasons get there 32 degrees from, in case you wanted to know (33rd degree is honorary). Anyway, the placement of the chakras is partially based on areas of the body that experience sensations after physical or emotional exertion. Basically, the chakras are a mix of real physical sensations and false mystical beliefs. So when Young is describing Mack as having a moment of total bliss felt physically, he’s relating something that has been encountered by countless others for millennia (in fact, it sounds like a description of love at first sight) and not a Hindu religious experience. Besides the end result of several religions is this physical sensation, but that’s clearly not the case here for Mack’s end in this story is a much improved relationship with the Father, to put it mildly.

Lastly, DeBruyn buys into Fox’s blabber about creativity and imagination birthing gods. He then ties it into a statement made by Sophia to Mack on page 160, “Your imagination . . . is not serving you well at this moment.” I’m sorry but any fool can see she’s commenting on Mack’s imagination running wild because he’s thinking how inadequate he is to judge someone else, and he’s about to panic. He’s most definitely not about to birth a god or become one.

DeBruyn’s attacks are shoddy and downright foolish. Unfortunately, this is the pattern of many heresy hunters. Sometimes they get it right, like with Todd Bentley, but other times they’re shooting themselves or each other in the foot.