A Critique of The ShackI was asked to do a book review or critique on a certain book, so I visited a popular big chain bookstore as I usually do a couple times a week. Looking through the religious section and taking up four shelves worth of space, was the book I was looking for, The Shack, written by William Paul Young.

Admittedly, I hadn’t heard a whole lot on the book so I purchased it for $14.99 and started reading it that evening.

The book is endorsed on the front cover by Eugene Peterson, creator of the The Message which is a paraphrase of the Bible.

“This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!” – Eugene Peterson

At the time of this teaching, The Shack has been on the New York Times best sellers list for Paperback Trade Fiction for twenty-four weeks, and is ranked number one on the Publishers Weekly for the latest bestsellers of trade paperbacks.

From Humble Beginnings

Mr. Young wrote the book for his children, completed it and had it bound at Office Depot in time for them to receive it Christmas 2005.

After completing the book, Mr. Young showed the book around and was encouraged to get the book published. He tried to get it published but it was rejected. So with less than a $300 marketing budget, Mr. Young and two friends began Windblown Media Publishing Company and began distributing the book out of a garage.

1

By word-of-mouth, the book has become a bestseller and the cover boasts of “Over Two Million Copies in Print” and it has been printed in twenty different translations and the rest is history.

According to several websites and blogs, The Shack is becoming a big hit among the Emerging Church Movement.

The internet community is giving rave reviews and testimonies and many of these people are “setting aside their preconceived ideas” of who God is in favor of an experience with the god in The Shack.

The Story Line

The Shack is a fictional story about a man named Mackenzie Allen Phillips, Mack for short, who after his daughter Missy was abducted and murdered during a family camping trip on Labor Day weekend, is left in The Great Sadness and blames God for his daughter’s murder.

Although Missy’s body wasn’t found, evidence of the brutal murder by a serial killer is found by the police at an abandoned shack.

Jump ahead four years - Mack receives a letter in the mailbox and when he opens it, he discovers it’s an invitation to the shack and it’s signed by “Papa”, Mack’s wife Nan’s favorite name for God.

After struggling with the idea and not knowing what to expect, Mack visits the shack, the place of Missy’s murder, and spends a weekend with not only God known as “Papa” in the story, but also the other two members of the Trinity.

Each of the members of the Godhead is presented in The Shack in bodily form. God the Father, known as “Papa”, also goes by the name Elousia and is portrayed as a “large beaming African-American woman.”

The incarnate Jesus is “middle eastern and is dressed like a laborer, complete with belt and gloves…wearing jeans…and a plaid shirt.”

2

The Holy Spirit is a physical manifestation of woman of Asian descent whose name is Sarayu, which is Sanskrit for “wind”. (p. 110)

The story unfolds and Mack is given the opportunity to dialog with the Trinity, there is no action in the book as it’s mostly dialog about love, theology, forgiveness, free-will, creation and the fall of humans and the Trinity as we do get a glimpse of the relationship between the three according to Mr. Young’s theology.

So what’s the problem here? The book is a work of fiction so why are we even discussing it?

A work of fiction does not necessarily negate it as a harmless piece of writing.

For example, The Shack’s website states that “it offers one of the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity that has been written in our time.”

Even though The Shack is a work of fiction, “it is clearly intended to communicate theological truths. It is meant to impact the way the reader thinks about God, about love and about life. It is not a book that was written only to share a story, but to share a theology.”1

On September 21, 2008 Mr. Young, while teaching at Crossroads Church in Denver, stated that The Shack “is a parable” and that “a parable is a fiction that truth is wrapped up inside of…”

Calvary’s Distribution blog states that “The book's conversational tone is intended to catch the reader off guard with overt casualness. There is a personalized-trademarked version of God that requires the least bit of commitment; seeker-friendly experience over truth; an air of anti-authority for the spiritually lazy consumer. The double-speak and theology that is embedded in this book with its underlying condescension, protesting agenda, and liberal theology are genetic markers of the emergent church.”2

Still, people like Michael W. Smith, Gayle Erwin, Kathie Lee Gifford, Wynonna Judd and Eugene Peterson, as well as other prominent Christians, are

3

endorsing the book and it’s even being lauded on the Internet as changing the way people think about God.

Let’s take a look at some reader reviews from Amazon.com and you’ll see what I mean:

◦ “William Young has described God and the Holy Spirit better than any doctor of the Church could, in language everyone can understand.”

◦ “It answers the questions we all grew up wondering and the answers just might change your entire outlook on life while changing your preconceived notions of theology.”

◦ “As a seminary graduate and a veteran of decades of ministry, I highly recommend The Shack. It is delightful reading and gives clear, disarming theological insights that will shake up traditionalists.”

◦ “This book is powerful. Not only is it incredibly well-written, but it is realistic as well. It will blow all your preconceived notions about God, yourself, and Truth right out of the water.”

◦ “I have been to Bible School, studied the Bible for years...thought I had a strong faith, have written numerous books about my faith - and yet, this book...this one book, THE SHACK, has changed my life.”

◦ “I truly believe that “The Shack” has the potential to shake up and alter the entire Church. This book will seriously mess with your theology -- and you will be GLAD. Yeah, it's really that good.”

◦ “Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good.”

◦ “This book will change my life.”

Pastor Steve Berger says The Shack is “theologically enlightening…”

Gayle Irwin, Author of The Jesus Style says The Shack is “teaching powerful theological lessons…”Kathie Lee Gifford says, “The Shack will change the way you think about God forever.”

4

So here we have The Shack, which is endorsed by some very famous people and Christians, and according to the reviews is changing people’s lives and how they think about God and theology. The Shack strives to turn our preconceived notions of God on its head and uses little to no Scripture to back up its theological assertions.

The purpose of this paper is two fold: first, we’ll go over the need for apologetics, a correct understanding of theology and discernment. Second, we’ll take a deeper look at seven things wrong with The Shack theologically and doctrinally.

Apologetics 101

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia and means “to give a rational defense of the Christian faith.” Webster’s second edition defines apologetics as “that branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity.”

Titus 1:9 exhorts as in the context of qualified elders to “hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”

1 Peter 3:15 says “and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”

◦ The same verse in the NASB reads “with gentleness and reverence.”

◦ The NIV says “with gentleness and respect.”

◦ The word meekness or gentleness [Greek: prautes] means mild, gentle or humble.

◦ While the word fear, respect or reverence [Greek: phobos] means alarm or fright, it also means “in reverential awe of God.”

◦ In other words, 1 Peter 3:15 could be translated “with humbleness and in reverential awe of God.”

We see apologetics in action and applied as we see Paul defending the Christian faith of the budding early church:

5

◦ In Thessalonica the Bible says that “for three Sabbaths [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating…” according Acts 17:2, 3.

◦ In Athens, “he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers” in Acts 17:17.

◦ In Corinth, “he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks” in Acts 18:4.

◦ See also Acts 18:19; 19:8, 9

The word reasoned [Greek: dialegomai] means “to say thoroughly, discuss (in argument or exhortation) dispute, preach unto, reason with, speak.”

We also see Pauls application of apologetics in his “defense” to King Agrippa:

◦ Acts 26:1, 2 says “Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You have permission to speak for yourself.’ So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense [apologeomai]: ‘King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense [apologeomai] against all the accusations of the Jews’” NIV

Discernment 101

Spiritual discernment is defined as “the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.”3

A discerning mature Christian is one who consistently reads and understands the Scriptures and thus, knows how to apply them to everyday life. We can compare what we see or hear, to the knowledge of the Bible and to what God has defined as right and wrong doctrine/theology.

Tim Challies, author of such books as The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, says that “the Bible tells us that discernment is the mark of those who have spiritual life, the mark of those who have attained spiritual growth and the mark of those who have attained spiritual maturity.” (emphasis added)

6

Discernment and the mature Christian should go hand-in-hand according to the Bible, since “everyone who partakes only of milk…he is a babe.”

◦ Hebrews 5:14 says that, “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

◦ This same verse in the NASB says, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”

The word discern [Greek: diakrisis] means “judicial estimation” or in other words, “to judge or to assess”.

Babies do not discriminate between good nutritious foods and harmful things they put in their mouths; whereas the mature adult knows how to “judge or assess” between what is good and what is bad to put in their mouths.

Likewise, mature Christians, who are spiritually discerning are required to be able to discern good doctrine and theology from bad doctrine and theology.

Theology 101

Theology comes from two Greek words theos meaning “God” and logos meaning “to talk, discourse or rational utterance” and thus theology means “to talk about God rationally or to discourse about God rationally” but over time has been understood to mean “the study of God”.

Augustine (AD 354-430), Bishop of Hippo and theologian defines theology as “rational discussion respecting the deity”4

A Theologian is someone who studies God or studies about God and is usually regarded as someone with a Seminary education.

But in that respect, Christians who read their Bibles, pray, seek Gods will, attend church and fellowship with other believers discussing the nature and

7

character of God – hopefully rationally, could be considered theologians as well.

In other words, we all have the responsibility to know who God is by how He has revealed Himself i.e., His nature and His character in the Scriptures.

In John 17:3, Jesus prayed that “they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

Without the proper view of God and a sound theological understanding of His character and nature and who He is as He has defined Himself in the Scriptures, we can be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine and trickery of men” (Ephesians 4:14) and ultimately be open to all kinds of theological heresies.

It’s said that when banks teach cashiers about counterfeit money, they don’t give them counterfeit money, but instead give them the real thing. They give the cashiers real money to hold, feel, inspect, smell and become familiar with so that when a counterfeit does loom on the horizon, they are so familiar with the truth they can spot the counterfeit instantly.

So, with the definitions of Apologetics, Discernment, and Theology under our belts, lets look at the Theology of The Shack, to discern if what it’s teaching about God is correct and apply Apologetics to defend the historical Christian faith.

1. The Shack criticizes the Christian faith.

The Shacks subtle way of undermining the Christian faith and its criticizing and condescending tone regarding several areas of contemporary Christianity is not to be ignored just because the book is a work of fiction.

Mr. Young uses his fictional story of Mack’s conversation with The Shacks trinity to not only criticize contemporary Christianity but replace it with an experience based theology much like the postmodern movement of today called the Emerging Church.

8

We can see parallels between what the Emerging Church teaches and how Mr. Young looks at the church as a whole in the following examples:

◦ The Shack criticizes Seminary Education:

“Mack struggled to keep up with [Papa], to make some sense of what was happening. None of his old seminary training was helping him in the least.” (p. 91)

Here we see the book teaching that whatever was learned from seminary is not of any value in knowing of God or about God, i.e. theology. This is a very popular concept today within the Emerging Church:

◦ “I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means.”5

◦ The Shack criticizes the Church:

[Mack speaking to Jesus] “You’re talking about the church as this woman you’re in love with; I’m pretty sure I haven’t met her…She’s not the place I go on Sundays…[Jesus replies] Mack, that’s because you’re only seeing the institution, a man-made system. That’s not what I came to build...I don’t create institutions – never have, never will.” (p. 177-179)

The church is seen as a man-made institution that Jesus never instituted and looked down upon with distain by both Mack and Jesus.The Emerging Church teaches that the church is an evolving entity that needs re-envisioning and needs to be re-constructed to adapt to the changing culture and that “many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that’s distorted and false.”6

◦ The Shack criticizes Sunday School:

“‘You’re talking about Jesus, right? Is this going to be a let’s try-to-understand-the-Trinity sort of thing?’ [Papa] chuckled. ‘Sort of, but this isn’t Sunday School. This is a flying lesson.’” (p. 98)

9

To the Emerging Church, experience takes president over expository and systematic Bible teaching.

According to Tony Jones, the U.S. National Coordinator for the Emerging Church:

◦ “[We should] stop looking for some objective Truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible.”7

◦ The Shack criticizes Family Devotions:

“Mack had to suppress a snicker at the thought of God having devotions. Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories…He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible.” (p. 107)

According to the Emerging Church movement:

◦ “…the Bible is not about truth and doctrine but about hopes and ideas and participation.”8

◦ The Shack criticizes the word “Christian”:

[Mack asks Jesus] “Is that what it means to be a Christian…‘Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian…Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims…I have no desire to make them Christian…’” (p. 182)

Again, we see the Emerging Church rear its head and echoes what one of its main proponents, Brian McLaren teaches:

◦ “I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts…”9

Erwin Raphael McManus, a leader in the Emerging Church movement stated:

◦ “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.”10

10

◦ The Shack criticizes theological expectations:

[Sarayu, the personification of the Holy Spirit says] “I have a great fondness for uncertainty.” (p. 203) To the Emerging Church and postmodern movement, certainty is something that we are unsure of and assurance in Scripture is considered the height of arrogance.

Brian McLaren, a main proponent and leader in the Emerging Church movement, parallels this line of thought: 11

◦ “I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue…often stimulate more thought than clarity.” (emphasis added)

◦ “When we talk about the word ‘faith’ and the word ‘certainty,’ we’ve got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by ‘certainty’? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.”

◦ The Shack criticizes Jesus as our example:

[Jesus speaking] “Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus,’ it means for your independence to be killed.” (p. 149)

I don’t think that even the Emerging Church has the audacity to claim that Jesus is not our example so we’ll turn to our Bibles, our final court of appeal and trust in what it says rather that the Jesus of The Shack: Biblical Teaching

◦ John 13:14, 15 says, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you.” (emphasis added)

11

◦ 1 Peter 2:20, 21 says, “For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.” (emphasis added)

◦ 1 Corinthians 11:1 says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” NIV

As we can see, The Shack criticizes many of the things that are Biblically based and we hold dear, relying instead on a touchy-feely experience to the detriment of all else. This parallels closely to the teachings of the Emerging Church in regards to how they view the Church, the Scriptures, seminary training, theological presuppositions and even using the word “Christian”.

2. The Shack undermines Gods’ Authority, Character and Holiness.

In The Shack, God’s character is nothing like how He portrays Himself in the Bible. For example, in the Bible we read of God’s Holiness and the fact that He cannot tolerate sin, and thus as humans, we cannot be in His presence because of that sin.

In other words, Gods Holiness and Righteousness, His character and nature, preclude any such thing as a sinful thought or action – this is why we have a mediator between us and God, the God/man Jesus Christ.

Problematic character issues arise in the god of The Shack that cannot be glibly overlooked such as his/her “questionable sense of humor” (p. 88-89), listens to “funk and blues” and every other kind of music (p. 90-91) and even calls men “idiots”. (p. 192)

In The Shack, we see a different god and a different trinity than the one that is set forth in the Bible

For example:

12

◦ The god of The Shack downplays the authority and hierarchy of the Trinity:

[Sarayu, the personification of the Holy Spirit says] “Hierarchy would make no sense among us…‘Such a waste!’ said Papa…[Jesus adds] ‘and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.’” (p. 122)

Biblical Teaching

Not only is authority and hierarchy Biblically taught within the Godhead, it’s also taught within the church and the family unit:

◦ Luke 22:42 teaches that Jesus submits to the Father, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”

◦ John 14:25 teaches that the Holy Spirit is subject to both the Father and the Son, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things…”

◦ Ephesians 5:22-24 says “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

◦ Romans 28:1 says “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

So here we see hierarchy and authority as taught by the Bible, which negates anything taught by the god of The Shack.

◦ The god of The Shack downplays sin:

[Papa, speaking to Mack says] “I don’t need to punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish sin; it’s my joy to cure it.” (p. 120)

13

Here we see that the god of The Shack is not interested in or doesn’t care about judging people for their sin. In fact, this god is rather cavalier about the whole notion.

Biblical Teaching

The Bible teaches that not only is God Holy, but He will judge and punish those who have rejected Him:

◦ Isaiah 6:3 says, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.”

◦ Acts 17:31 says that God “has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.”

◦ Romans 2:5, 6 speaking of God’s righteous judgment says, “you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds.’”

Dr. Norman Geisler states:

◦ “God’s righteousness (or justice) is a moral attribute; as such, it is intrinsic to God (and extrinsic to creatures). Being an infinite and unchanging Being, God is infinitely and immutably righteous.”12

◦ “God is absolutely holy, and as such He must punish sin. Therefore, as long as people are living in sin and rebellion against God, He must punish them.”13

The truth is, sin is very serious to God and is the reason that Jesus took on the form of a bondservant and came in the likeness of men and made Himself of no reputation (Philippians 2:7).

Sin is the reason why Jesus came and died on the cross taking our place so we wouldn’t have to.

14

In Matthew 25:31-46 we read that Jesus will judge the nations and will separate the sheep from the goats and the goats He will punish and declare “Depart from Me you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels...and these will go away into everlasting punishment…” – that sounds like punishment to me.

◦ The Jesus of The Shack is more human than God:

The Shack teaches that although Jesus was fully human and God, it nevertheless distorts Jesus’ true nature and character by claiming that He never used His divine nature, but instead relied solely on the power of the Father.

Papa says “[Jesus] has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. [Mack asks] ‘So, when he healed the blind?’ [Papa replies] ‘He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.’” (p. 99-100)

We also get a glimpse of a clumsy Jesus when he drops a large bowl of “batter or sauce on the floor” and it splatters all over Papa and “her skirt and bare feet are covered in the gooey mess.” (p. 104) Jesus is then teased about “humans being clumsy” and calling him “greasy fingers” as they all laugh.

Biblical Teaching

Although The Shack is correct in that Jesus was fully God and fully human, nevertheless the Bible teaches that Jesus never divested Himself of a single attribute of God. To do so would make Him less than God.

In Matthew 9:1-8, we read of Jesus reading men’s thoughts, forgiving sins and healing a paralytic and stating “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins…” (emphasis added)

In Matthew 9:27-31, we read of two blind men who cry out to Jesus to “have mercy on us.” In verse 28 Jesus asks, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” and then Jesus healed them. (emphasis added)

15

In Luke 8:40-48, we read of the a women who after “having a flow of blood for twelve years…touched the border of Jesus garment” and Jesus replies that “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out of Me.” (emphasis added)

The bottom line is that the attributes of the god of The Shack are not the same ones we read of when we read about the God of the Bible.

The Bible teaches that Jesus and the Father are one in essence or nature, i.e., they are both God but that Jesus is subordinate in role or functionality.

It is important to remember that “difference in function does not indicate inferiority in nature.”14

The God of the Bible has unquestionable character, He is unchanging and reliable (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Psalm 102:26, 27), He is perfect (2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25; Matthew 5:48), He is Holy (Isaiah 6:3), He is just (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:30) and fair (Psalm 139:1-5; Proverbs 5:21).

3. The Shack teaches Panentheism.

Panentheism comes from the Greek words pan for “all”, en for “in” and theos for “God” and thus panentheism means “all-in-God”. In other words, it’s the idea that God is larger than the universe but that the universe and everything in it exists inside of God.

This is different from pantheism which is defined as “God is all and all is God” and basically means that God exists and is synonymous with the material universe.

The Shack subtly teaches the concept of panentheism as we see in the following quote from the book:

◦ “[The Incarnate Jesus is speaking and says] “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things...” (p. 112)

16

Biblical Teaching

Panentheism as well as Pantheism is decidedly unbiblical. Scripture teaches that God is transcendent of His creation, not part of it or it part of Him.

God was before creation (Genesis 1:1) and exists outside of creation and is not in rocks or trees and rocks and trees do not dwell in Him.

While God is present everywhere according to Psalm 139:7-8, God is not everything:

◦ Psalm 139:7-8 says, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.”

◦ Isaiah 57:15 says, “For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit. To revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.’”

◦ Here we see His Transcendence meaning God is above and uniquely different than His creation.

◦ And we see His Immanence meaning God still works and His presence is felt in the lives of believers who repent and live by faith.

One of the problems with panentheism as a worldview is that evil would then reside in God.

In other words, to the panentheistic worldview, “evil is a necessary part of the ongoing progress of the interaction of God and the whole world (his body).”15

And yet we know that God is not evil but is holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), sovereign (1 Chronicles 29:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 37:20), self-existent (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 36:9), eternal (Psalm 90:2; Habakkuk 1:12), immutable (Psalm 33:11; James 1:17), perfect (Deuteronomy 32:3-4), and infinite (Job 5:9; 9:10).

17

God’s attributes are inconsistent with a panentheistic worldview.

4. The Shack teaches Universalism.

The Shack teaches a concept known as “universalism, Christian universalism or universal reconciliation”. This is the concept that all people will be reconciled and eventually saved whether in this life or the next.

Dr. James B. DeYoung, Th.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary comments on The Shacks author:

◦ “Who is the author? William P. Young, a man I have known for over a dozen years. About four years ago Paul embraced ‘Christian universalism,’ and has defended this view on several occasions. While he frequently disavows ‘general universalism,’ the idea that many roads lead to God, he has affirmed his hope that all will be reconciled to God either this side of death or after death.”16

Christian Universalism teaches that God’s supreme and most important attribute, effectively limiting all others including judgment and righteousness, is His love. This love extends beyond the grave to all who have died, to the demons and to Satan himself, as universalism teaches that even fallen angels will one day “bow the knee” and repent and be accepted back into heaven.

As mentioned earlier, The Shack downplays sin and to carry this out to its logical conclusion, leads to “universalism” as we see in several examples in The Shack:

◦ [Mack asks Papa] “aren’t you the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?...[Papa replies] I don’t need to punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish sin; it’s my joy to cure it.” (p. 119-120)

◦ Papa “redeems” the final outcome i.e., the final judgment. (p. 127)

◦ Redeem means to “save or to purchase back; to free from captivity by a payment.” In other words, the final judgment will

18

be redeemed and freed from captivity according to universalisms view.

◦ Mack is given the choice to “choose three of your children to spend eternity in hell”, Sophia, the personification of God’s wisdom says, “I am only asking you to do something that you believe God does.” (p. 162 emphasis added)

◦ The idea that God will not “condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from His presence and apart from His love.” (p. 162)

◦ Papa asserts that she/he is reconciled to the whole world, not just to those who believe. “‘I am now fully reconciled to the whole world.’ [Mack asks] ‘The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?’ ‘The whole world, Mack’” (p. 192)

Biblical Teaching

As with panentheism, universalism is an unbiblical worldview. The Bible makes it clear that you choose now, today, to be a follower of Jesus Christ because when you die, then comes the judgment.

◦ Hebrews 9:27 says, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.”

Let’s take a look at what the Bible teaches when it comes to Hell.

The Biblical doctrine of hell, as well as heaven, can be seen in Matthew 25:46:

◦ “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

It’s important to note here that the punishment is said to be everlasting or eternal [Greek: aionios]. It’s the same Greek word used to describe the righteous to eternal [aionios] life.

The same Greek adjective is also used to describe the eternal [aionios] God.

◦ Romans 16:26◦ Timothy 1:17◦ Hebrews 9:14; 13:8

19

◦ Revelation 4:9

Professor and Chair, Dept. of Theology at Talbot School of Theology, Alan Gomes notes:

◦ “What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective aionion is used to describe both the length of punishment for the wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked without at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for the redeemed. I would do violence to the parallel to give it an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked.”17

As for Universalists teaching that the demons and Satan will one day “bow the knee”, repent and be welcomed back into heaven, all we have to do is turn to the Book of Revelation:

◦ Revelation 20:10 says “The devil, who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (emphasis added)

Dr. Norman Geisler says:

◦ “Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) taught that any belief based on a mere wish that something be true is an illusion. No loving person would want anyone else to suffer in hell forever; however, strong desire to the contrary seems to be a primary impulse in universalist thinking, setting up an implausible and unbiblical system of belief.”18

5. The Shack downplays the Bibles Sufficiency.

As with the previous questionable theological distortions The Shack subtly alludes to, it also questions and totally disregards the Bibles sufficiency as seen in the following quote:

◦ “In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course.

20

God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects…Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” (p. 65-66)

The idea that the Bible is not sufficient and the doubt and distrust that it can be “properly interpreted” is an aspect that hits very close to home in regards to the teachings of the Emerging Church Movement:

◦ “[We should] stop looking for some objective Truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible.”19

◦ “The reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, joined to the invention of the printing press and underwritten by the democratic trust in the intelligence of the ‘common person,’ has created the situation that now makes people believe that they can read the Bible ‘on their own.’ That presumption must be challenged, and that is why the Scripture should be taken away from Christians in North America.”20

The Shack shows its low regard for Scripture not only when Mack mocks Seminary education, but also in the misrepresentation and theological distortions of God and His authority, hierarchy and character, the Trinity, judgment, universalism and other important issues.

Just the fact that The Shack rarely cites any Scripture directly but constantly misrepresents theological issues is enough to send up red flags and have our bologna detectors on red alert.

Biblical Teaching

1. The Bible claims to be authoritative meaning that all the words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.21

◦ Matthew 7:28-29 says, “And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (emphasis added)

21

2. The Bible claims to be inerrant meaning that Scripture in the original autographs do not affirm anything that is contrary to the fact.22

We demonstrate inerrancy in two premises and one conclusion:

a. God cannot commit error. (John 14:6)b. The Bible is the word of God. (Hebrews 4:12)c. Therefore, the Bible cannot commit error. (Psalm 19:7-10)

3. The Bible claims infallibility meaning that the Bible cannot or will not lead us astray and give us wrong advice in matters of faith and practice.

Again, we can demonstrate infallibility in two premises and one conclusion:

a. God cannot lie. (Numbers 23:19)b. The Bible is the word of God. (Hebrews 4:12)c. Therefore, the Bible cannot lie. (John 17:17)

New Testament infallibility is seen as Jesus promised His apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them additional truths and give them remembrance of all He had taught (John 14:25-26; 16:13). This prepared them – as agents to the complete and final revelation of Jesus Christ – to write the NT and establish the church, which began on the Day of Pentecost.23

4. The Bibles claims of sufficiency, simply meaning that the Bible is sufficient in and of itself and we need no other writings to supplement it, is seen in the following verse.

◦ 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says, “And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

◦ Jude 3 says, “…I found it necessary to write you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (emphasis added)

Other verses that attest to the prominent position that the Bible holds in Gods sight and therefore, our sight as well:

22

◦ Psalm 119:89 says, “Forever, O LORD, your word stands firm in heaven.”

◦ Psalm 138:2 says, “For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.”

◦ Matthew 22:29 says, “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.’”

◦ John 6:68 says, “Simon Peter replied, ‘Lord, to whom would we go? You alone have the words that give eternal life.’”

◦ In John 17:17 Jesus says, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”

If God has such a high regard for the Scriptures, shouldn’t we?

6. The Shack teaches a Modalistic Theology.

The Shack espouses the view of God known as Modalism, Patripassianism or Sabellianism.

This view denies the existence of the Trinity and instead holds to the view that God is a single person who in biblical times revealed or manifested Himself in three modes or forms rather than God being three distinct persons.

In other words, God’s mode was as the Father in the Old Testament, Jesus in the New Testament and the Spirit in both.

Patripassianism comes from the Latin and means “the father suffers” referring to the belief that God the Father became incarnate and suffered on the cross as the Son.

Today, modalist churches or “Jesus-only” include the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches and they deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, baptize on the name of Jesus only and require water baptism for salvation.

23

Let’s look at what The Shack says:

◦ “Papa didn’t answer, only looked down at their hands. His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his...Jesus reached across the table and took Papa’s hands in his, scars now clearly visible on his wrists.” (p. 95, 107)

◦ “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. ...flesh and blood.” (p. 99)

Biblical Teaching

The Shacks teaching clearly contradicts Biblical orthodoxy when it comes to the Trinity because Mr. Young makes the three indistinguishable as seen in the previous quotes.

But, when we study the Bible, we learn that the three are distinct persons and individuals and only Jesus suffered and died on the cross.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is a Trinity so let’s define what we’re talking about:

◦ “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”24

First, realize that the doctrine rests completely upon the truth of the first clause: there is only one God.

◦ Deuteronomy 6:4 makes that perfectly clear “Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”

Second, the definition insists that there are three eternally existent divine persons. Please note that we are not saying there are three beings that are one being, or three persons that are one person. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine Beings.

24

The Father is eternal:

◦ Romans 16:26-27 says, “but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God…”

The Son is eternal:

◦ John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The New English Bible puts John 1:1 very appropriately, “When all things began, the Word already was.”

◦ John 17:5 says, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

The Holy Spirit is eternal:

◦ Hebrews 9:14 says, “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God…”

We need to realize that we’re talking about one what and three who’s. The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit.

And thirdly, we are told that there is a relationship among these divine persons, in other words, they interact as individuals.

When we speak of relationship, we are speaking of three individual, separate and eternally distinct persons who relate to each other personally. In other words,

◦ The Father sends the Son. (Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14)◦ The Father sends the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26; Galatians 4:6)◦ The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. (John 3:35;

5:20; 14:31)

25

◦ The Father and Son glorify each other. (John 17:1,4,5)◦ The Holy Spirit glorifies the Son. (John 16:14)

Here are examples in Scripture that mention the three together, yet uniquely distinct and separate:

◦ Matthew 28:19, 20 says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

First, note that the word name [Greek: onoma] is singular. Matthew did not say “…baptizing them in the names of the Father…”

Second, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are invoked as three equal Persons.

◦ Matthew 3:16, 17 says, “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’”

As with Panentheism, Modalism is a decidedly unbiblical and heretical view of God.

7. The Shack displays a complete lack of a “Fear of the Lord”.

The relationship Mack has with the god of The Shack lacks any kind of what the Bible calls a “Fear of the Lord”.

The book succeeds in creating a type of “buddy system” or “down home good-ole-boy” type of god where Jesus can be your fishing buddy, God who by the way reminds me a lot of the motherly Oracle in The Matrix Trilogy movies, can be the neighborhood mom who bakes cookies and you can garden with the Holy Spirit or you can get psycho-analyzed by Sophia, the personification of God’s wisdom. (p. 171)

26

For example, we see this complete lack of fear of the Lord:

◦ Mack is eating “greens” at the table with Jesus and Sarayu when Papa comes in and says “Whoa…take it easy on those greens, young man. Those things can give you the trots if you ain’t careful.” (p. 121)

◦ “Mack poured himself some coffee and walked out on the front porch. Papa was reclining on an old Adirondack chair, eyes closed, soaking in the sun. ‘What’s this? God has time to catch a few rays? Don’t you have anything better to do this afternoon?’” (p. 183)

◦ [Papa speaking to Mack] “‘Men! Such idiots sometimes.’ He couldn’t believe it. ‘Did I hear God call me an idiot?’…‘If the shoe fits, honey. Yes sir, if the shoe fits…’” (p. 192-193)

◦ After the “batter or sauce” spills all over Papa’s feet Jesus cleans Papa’s feet as she coos “Ooooh, that feels soooo good!” (p. 105) and as their eating dinner “Papa winked at Mack as she passed him the rice. ‘You just can’t get good help around here.’ Everyone laughed.” (p.105) – of course talking about Jesus.

These are just a few, but do we ever see God in the Bible joking about diarrhea, calling Christians idiots, being mocked by believers and making fun of Jesus Christ?

Biblical Teaching

The term “fear of the Lord” appears approximately 27 times in the Bible depending on what Bible translation you use.

When you look at the word fear [Hebrew: yirah] it means “reverent or reverence” but can also be likened to “awe”.

So when we look at one of those 27 verses like Proverbs 1:27, it would then say “The [reverential awe] of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and knowledge.”

In other words, until we understand who God is, i.e. His nature, character, holiness, righteousness, His judgments, mercy and grace, and have a reverential awe of those attributes; we cannot have true wisdom.

27

Dr. Mark Fackler, Professor at Calvin College and Editor of 500 Questions & Answers from the Bible says:

◦ “While an element of literal fear is involved, this kind of fear refers more to a loving, reverential respect of God. The man or woman who “fears” the Lord will submit to God’s will and care more about God’s honor than self-esteem or wealth.”25

Of course the term “fear of the Lord” to those who are perishing i.e., the unbeliever - means fearing Gods judgment and punishment by spending eternity in hell.

Hebrews 12:28-29 is an excellent explanation of what the “fear of the Lord” means:

◦ “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.”

The Jesus of the Bible warns in Matthew 7:13 “Broad is the road that leads to destruction” while the Jesus of the shack says “Most roads don’t lead anywhere.” (p. 182)

The fear of spending eternity apart from God in hell is lost in The Shack since its Jesus states that “most roads don’t lead anywhere.”

Conclusion

The devil doesn’t come to us in a red suit with horns a tail and a pitchfork and say “Hey, here I am so watch out!” – That would be too obvious!

What he does do is stuff the skin of the truth; just enough to make it palatable, with a great big lie and we keep falling for it hook, line and sinker.

The Shack ends up being a mish-mash of confusing theological conundrums, contradictions and double-speak that at times makes no sense at all.

28

◦ Papa says that to appear as a woman and “suggest that [Mack] call [her] Papa is simply to mix metaphors.” (p. 93)

◦ Papa keeps talking about flying and how Jesus can fly, “So, when you look at Jesus and it appears that he’s flying, he really is…flying. But what you are actually seeing is me; my life in him...love is the flying” (p. 98-101)

◦ God is supposed to submit to us because we’re a “circle of relationship”? (p. 145-146)

◦ We are supposed to judge God and the human race? (p. 160)

◦ Why would God wink at Mack’s lies saying “you’re a survivor…lies are one of the easiest places for survivors to run.” (p. 187)

Do these sound like the words of the God of the Bible or of the manmade god of the Shack?

The world is becoming a more and more dangerous place, where theology is looked down upon as “too deep” for the normal person. As a result theology is thrown out the window along with discernment, for a feel good, experienced based gospel that really is no gospel at all.

As Christians, we need to employ critical thinking when counterfeits loom on the horizon, for the Bible expects and demands it of us:

◦ Proverbs 14:15 says, “The simple believes every word, but the prudent considers well his steps.”

◦ Proverbs 19:2 says, “It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.” NIV

◦ Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” NIV

◦ 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Test all things; hold fast what is good.”

◦ 1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God…”

29

True, The Shack is an emotional roller coaster that keeps the reader glued to the pages based on the experiences Mack is having with God.

But experience should not take precedence over the theological truths God has revealed about Himself in the Bible, because experiences are subjective while the Scriptures remain objective.

Be discerning and become so familiar with the truth that you’ll know instantly when a counterfeit is thrust your way. Know theology, read your Bible and get to know God as Jesus prayed (John 17:3) and finally, give a defense of the Christian faith.

30

Resources used for this teaching and recommended reading material:

1. Systematic Theology, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Kregel Publishers, ISBN: 0825423406

2. Systematic Theology, Dr. Norman Geisler, Bethany House Publishers, ISBNs: 0764225510, 0764225529, 0764225537, 0764225545

3. Systematic Theology, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Zondervan Publishers, ISBN: 0310286700

4. Portable Seminary, David Horton, General Editor, Bethany House Publishers, ISBN: 0764201603

5. 500 Questions & Answers from the Bible, Dr. Mark Fackler, Editor, Barbour Publishers, ISBN: 9781597894739

6. The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, World Publishing, ISBN: 0529106922

7. The Forgotten Trinity, James R. White, Bethany House, ISBN: 1556617259

If you have questions or comments, please feel free to email Robby Beum at robby@calvaryaurora.org

31

Notes1. Tim Challies, A Reader’s Review of The Shack http://www.challies.com/archives/book-

reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php accessed 10/04/20082. Calvary Distribution Blog accessed at: http://www.calvaryd.com/index.php?

option=com_myblog&show=review-of-the-shack-from-calvary-distribution.html&Itemid=27 accessed on 10/12/2008

3. Tim Challies, A Reader’s Review of The Shack http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php accessed 10/04/2008 p, 12

4. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology: Vols. 1&2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publishers, 1976), p. 6

5. Quotes from Kristen Bell on the Apologetics Index Website accessed July 22, 2007 - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture

6. Quotes from Brian McLaren as cited on http://www.apologeticsindex.org/304-emerging-church-versus-lifestyle accessed on 11/02/2008

7. Quotes of Tony Jones, Stanley Hauerwas on the Apologetics Index Website accessed on July 22, 2007 - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture

8. Understand the Times International website, Whatever Happened to the Bible?, Commentary by Roger Oakland accessed on July 22, 2007 - http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c55.shtml

9. Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), p. 29310. Erwin McManus Church website http://mosaic.org/internship/ accessed on 10/09/200811. Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), p. 27

and quote from Brian McLaren on http://www.apologeticsindex.org/298-emergin-church-conversation-versus-bible accessed on 10/13/2008

12. Dr. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume Two (Minneapolis, MN: BethanyHouse Publishers, 2003), p. 323

13. Dr. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume Three (Minneapolis, MN: BethanyHouse Publishers, 2004), p. 403

14. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1998), p. 66.15. David Horton, General Editor, The Portable Seminary (Minneapolis, MN:

BethanyHouse Publishers, 2006), p. 35716. James B. DeYoung, Book Review – The Shack

http://theshackreview.com/content/TheShackReview2Page.pdf accessed on 10/08/2008

17. Alan Gomes, “Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell,” Part One, Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, p. 18 cited in Reasoning from the Scriptures, pg. 384

18. Dr. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume Three (Minneapolis, MN: BethanyHouse Publishers, 2003), p. 404

19. Quote of Tony Jones on the Apologetics Index Website accessed on 10/10/2008 - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture

20. Quotes of Stanley Hauerwas on the Apologetics Index Website accessed on 10/10/2008 - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture

21. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994 ) pg. 7322. Ibid., pg. 9023. M.J. Tyner, M.A., Is the Bible the Infallible Word of God? (San Juan Capistrano, CA:

True-Way Tracts)

32

24. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1998), p. 26.25. Dr. Mark Fackler, Editor, 500 Questions & Answers from the Bible (Uhrichsville, OH:

Barbour Publishing, 2006), p. 84

33©2009 Robert Beum. The Author grants full permission to reproduce this document without alteration.