This Week in Review - 3/24/2017

Here's another list of interesting links and resources I discovered this week. Quite a few to share here, from a variety of topics!

Creation Accounts and Ancient Near Eastern Religions from Christian Research Institute - It's common for people to say the Genesis narrative is just a rehash of Near Eastern religions, or at the very least that the ancient Jews may have been influenced by them. As this study from CRI shows, a lot of those connections are at best weak or superficial. It's a lot like many of those supposed connections between Christ's death and resurrection and other "dying and rising" myths.

Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi? from GotQuestions.org - A common claim is that the Law of Moses didn't really present anything new that Hammurabi didn't already try. This article provides some comparisons, and shows that all similarities are due to the fact that Hammurabi, and countless other cultures, recognize that things like theft, adultery, etc., are serious crimes that deserve punishment (y'know, that whole Romans 1 thing). The key differences are that, while Hammurabi's code dealt with criminal and civil law, the Law of Moses expands things into the spiritual and personal realm.

The Human Kind from Answers in Genesis - A little known fact among many people today is that, in the early stages of the theory of evolution, racism, and the concept of different levels of racial development, was wildly popular and accepted. Nowadays evolutionists and atheists like to distance themselves from that truth, but, rationally speaking (and looking at the issue of human biodiversity), that is evolution's logical step.

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? from Answers in Genesis - Good read that answers the question on if scripture itself interprets Genesis as a literal, or figurative account. A lot of these arguments are similar to ones I've made in the past, so it's good to see other, more learned men coming to the same conclusions.

Jesus Created The Universe: The Deity Of Christ from Reasons for Jesus - Christ is divine not only from His own claims to being divine, but also the fact that scripture attests to His role as a "causal agent" for the act of creation.

How Early Was Jesus Being Worshiped As God? from Jonathan Morrow - A short read that provides both a quote from scripture and a quote from Pliny on the issue of the historicity of the worship of Christ. Some additional links are provided.

Is the Original Text of the New Testament Lost? Rethinking Our Access to the Autographs from Canon Fodder - A common argument from many today is that, since we don't have access to the original copies of the books in the Bible, we can't really know what they say. Is that true? A few scholarly thoughts on the subject are found here.

Two Moral Atrocities God supposedly committed from DyerThoughts - William Dyer addresses two supposed moral dilemmas that God commits in scripture: creating people with disabilities, and the infamous she-bear incident with Elisha and the youths. Do these prove God isn't worthy of worship? Dyer addresses each, especially by clarifying what's going on in the Elisha narrative.

Did Daniel Accurately Predict a Succession of Nations? from Christian Research Institute - Nice read on the historical narrative found within Daniel, from the fall of Babylon to the rise of the Seleucid Empire. In some respects it could have gone into even deeper detail, or handled the troubling passages from Daniel 11:40-onward, but it's good for what it is.

God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind from Southern Evangelical Seminary - There are a lot of responses out there to The Shack, many of them strictly doctrinal. This article gets to the heart of the matter, by addressing the "experiential emotionalism" so rampant in modern western Christianity. It's a gracious and fine read.

The Most Dangerous Man in Christendom? from First Things - Carl Trueman addresses the charge made that he's "the most dangerous man in Christendom" due to a charge of "high sacramentalism." Trueman goes on to discuss the problem within modern Evangelicalism of loving conversion/witnessing tactics, while at the same time glorifying the men of the Reformation-era, many of whom would be deemed "high sacramentalists" by those same Evangelicals.

Leaving the NAR Church: Derrick's story from Pirate Christian - Derrick, from the UK, shares the experiences of how his family was sucked into the New Apostolic Reformation. He talks about how it left some family members homeless and without jobs due to the advice of a false prophet, while others became involved under false teachers like Mike Bickle. As it grew more stranger and destructive, Derrick eventually left the movement, seeing it for the demonic deception that it was.

The Mailbag: I “feel led” in a different direction from my husband from Michelle Lesley - As the title implies, what does a wife do when she "feels led" differently than her husband? How is she able to still "submit"? Ms. Lesley covers that question from a biblical viewpoint.

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond from BeliefNet - Excellent article by Alister McGrath on the supposed disconnect science gives faith. He speaks a little on his own journey into faith, and how he eventually came to realize how philosophically shallow Richard Dawkins' arguments were. As he writes, "Dawkins and his circle" present a rationale which, "far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone."

Secularism isn't a Neutral Position from Come Reason Ministries - Is secular thought really a "neutral" point compared to religion? On the contrary, it basically becomes a religion all its own.

What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? from Answers in Genesis - Because it's a topic that comes up every now and then...

Ten quick responses to atheist claims from Christian Today - As the title suggests, these are some quick responses to common atheist objections like "I just believe one less God than you," "There are so many denominations," etc.

44 Quotes from Former Atheists from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - What the title implies. Includes some well known former atheists like C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, as well as some lesser known ones.

3 Apologetics Strategies From the Book of Acts from Alisa Childers - Three quick points about the way the apostles handled apologetics against Jews and Gentiles in the book of Acts.

This Week in Review - 3/17/2017

Time for yet another roundup of highlights this week.

What Does The Shack Really Teach? “Lies We Believe About God” Tells Us from Tim Challies - An important read for any Christian tackling any debate that exists over The Shack. Tim Challies goes through William Paul Young's straight theological treatise Lies We Believe About God and presents excerpts and summaries of what Young truly believes, but might have kept vague in his fictional novel. Would you be surprised to learn Young isn't too fond of the topics of the crucifixion, sin, or God's absolute sovereignty?

Did Jesus Exist? All Scholars Agree He “Certainly” Existed from Reasons for Jesus - Do all scholars teach that Jesus never existed? Actually, that's far from the truth - even atheist or agnostic scholars widely believe he at the very least existed. This article provides relevant quotes to that very topic.

How Atheist Hate & Mockery Led a Richard Dawkins Fan, Richard Morgan, to Faith from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - It wasn't a superficial reason like "Oh, these guys are mean, I'm going to stop being one." Rather, it was seeing how vitriolic they were towards all contrary thought, especially when a pastor joined the forum and started to present calm, reasonable, and kind answers to atheist objections, and only received more of the same. This article is a good read on that whole experience.

Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language from Reasons to Believe - A discussion on how language developed, and what makes a language to begin with. As the author points out, it's not just a bunch of grunts and barks.

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins' six-part argument against the existence of God, and why it's philosophically unsound.

The Definition That Will Not Die! from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris discuss five common arguments in favor of atheism that even some atheists consider unsound. These include "You can't prove something doesn't exist," "Lack of belief isn't a belief," etc.

Answering the Galileo Myth from Stand to Reason - A small post dealing with the story of Galileo and the church, which is often cited to say that science and religion conflict with each other. I might add to this a post I shared quite a while ago, covering that same topic, and bringing up a few points rarely discussed in the Galileo story.

Basic Training: The Bible Is Sufficient from Michelle Lesley - A little guide on the sufficiency of scripture, especially in this day and age of the New Apostolic Reformation nonsense.

The Reliability of the Bible – 4 Quick Thoughts from Reasonable Theology - If you've read anything on manuscript evidence before, you'll probably already recognize these four "quick thoughts." Still, it pays to be reminded every now and then.

5 apologetics arguments Christians should avoid from Premier Christianity - Most of these are just silly claims (eg., the Blood Moons stuff), however, they're worth mentioning, just in case anyone takes any of these seriously.

And in the humor corner...

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Reject Santa Claus from A Clear Lens - Funny, short read. (It's not what you think.)

IHOP-KC Supports "The Shack"

Recently, on the International House of Prayer's website, an article was posted about the new movie The Shack, based on the book of the same name. It was written by Jono Hall, COO of IHOP-KC, and is entitled Is the Film, The Shack Heresy? I'll be quoting the article in full, albeit in chunks, but feel free to click on the link provided and read it in one go before continuing here. For the sake of visual organization, any part quoted from the article will be typed in purple.

Before we begin the article proper, I want to, in the immortal words of Prince Humperdinck, "skip to the end," and address a section added at the end of the article:

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the International House of Prayer.

Whoa, wait a minute, IHOP-KC! This isn't a guest-post you permitted someone from another organization to put up; this was posted on your website, shared by your Twitter account, and was written not only by one of your staff members, but your Chief-Operations-Officer - in other words, someone in high-ranking leadership. That's not to mention that, according to his biography, he is "an instructor at IHOPU in subjects such as church history, basic christian beliefs, and media production," and his wife is "Director of Forerunner Media Institute at IHOPU." My point is, don't post something by one of your top and most influential leaders, go out and advertise it, then try, at the same time, to distance yourself from it, or leave some wiggle room to escape if this backfires. This is your baby, IHOP-KC - own it.

As we dig deeper into the article, the discerning reader will see just why IHOP-KC might want some wiggle room.

Across the country this week, church pastors and teachers will stand before congregations, open their Bible, and talk about God. They will try, as they are able, to convey something about who God is, His divine nature, His attributes, His ways, and His emotions. My guess is that few will get it exactly right, unless all they do is read the Bible. Some will seriously misrepresent God. Teaching about God is a heavy responsibility and that is why James said, “Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). My question is, how wrong do these people have to be to be considered “heretics” by other brothers?

The reason I bring this up is because of the hubbub around a movie that will be released today (March 3) called The Shack. I’m sure you have heard of the book; it has, after all, sold over 22 million copies. It has ministered healing to the many millions who have read it, but, on the other side of the coin, has provoked a firestorm of criticism from those who call it heresy and false teaching and say it should be avoided in the same way as pornography.

Immediately we have a classic ploy used by many to soften the blow of heresy by in essence appealing to divergent viewpoints. Mr. Hall basically tells us, "Thousands will preach the Bible on Sunday, but only few will get it exactly right, will they not?" This leads into the question, "how wrong do these people have to be to be considered 'heretics' by other brothers?"

One would think from this that we were discussing topics like who you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether you're a Postmillennial that believes the thousand years are literal or a Postmillennial that holds it's figurative. I wish this were the case, since one could rightfully say that we should be gracious about divergent views; unfortunately, this isn't at all what we are talking about. We're talking about a story which portrays God the Father bearing crucifixion scars, which talks about theological issues but never once quotes the Bible, and which portrays judgment in light of personal reconciliation sans any justice of God.

What Mr. Hall is doing here is equivocating lighter differences with larger ones, as if we should treat one like the other. While that may not seem terribly obvious here, it will become more clear as we continue.

Before I examine some of the controversy, I do want to say that we were visited last week by Brad Cummings who is both co-writer of the novel and co-producer of the film. As Brad served as a pastor at the Malibu Vineyard Fellowship during the 1990’s, we found we had mutual friends and we shared some stories before I listened to some of Brad’s personal, and at times painful, journey in the making of The Shack. We spent an enjoyable time together talking about some of the challenges that people have had with the novel before we saw a preview of the movie.

To give a little background to the storyline of The Shack, it follows a man named Mack who, after the murder of one of his children, is invited to spend time in a mountain shack with three individuals who turn out to be the three persons of the Trinity. The ensuing conversations and interactions with “God” lead to much healing in Mack’s life.

I must say I really enjoyed the movie. It was a well-told story of forgiveness and healing. I always have grace for movie directors who are trying to reduce a cherished book into a much-shortened movie format. Meddling with people’s imaginations is always going to be a challenge. However, I think that the storm of criticism surrounding The Shack is found in another area entirely!

That the story is about a man meeting God representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit inside a shack should have immediately sent up red flags for Mr. Hall. As I pointed out in my own review of the book, this is in essence a really bad metaphor of the Trinity put into novel form, now film. It's on par with comparing the Trinity to water being liquid, ice, or steam (which is Modalism), or comparing the Trinity to a man who's a grandfather, a father, and an uncle (again, Modalism).

At this point in the article, Mr. Hall begins writing on the representation of God in the movie.

The fact that, for most of the story, the three persons of the Trinity are conveyed as Papa, a black female played by Octavia Spencer; the Spirit, called Sarayu, and played by Sumire Matsubara; and Jesus, played by Aviv Alush, the first Israeli Jew to play Jesus, has been a big challenge for many. While I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack, this fictional representation is understandable in the context of the story—a black female from Mack’s childhood represented healing, safety, and wisdom to Mack.

Note what Mr. Hall says at the end there: this "fictional representation" is "understandable" because "a black female" personally represents "healing, safety, and wisdom" to the main character. In other words, because a black female is something that the main character responds to personally, it is justifiable. This is similar to some liberals who argue that women who suffered abuse from their birth fathers should be permitted to call God "mother."

I hope the discerning reader will not have to hear an explanation on why this is such a fallacious rationale. I have heard some white supremacists say that they reject Christianity because they could never worship a dark-skinned Jew on a cross - would Mr. Hall suggest that, in such a situation, presenting a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus before them would be far better? What if someone wrote such a story, in which a white supremacist encounters Jesus, who appears to him as someone who could pass for a Swedish bodybuilder? Would Mr. Hall be alright with this, since it's "understandable in the context of the story"?

What this mindset does is filter our orthodox understanding of God through our personal emotions and needs. The fact is, there are certain realities about God that we cannot deny based upon our personal feelings and emotions. What we know from scripture is that Christ Himself refers to God the Father as "father" (Lk 23:46) and encourages believers to do likewise (Mt 6:9). The Holy Spirit is referred to by masculine pronouns in the original Greek of the New Testament (cf. Jn 14:26). The reality of God and His existence simply is - and it's not too concerned with someone's personal feelings or needs.

The Shack is a work of fiction, and therefore what the authors have done is to present something of who God is in much the same way that C.S. Lewis tried to present Aslan the Lion as a type of Christ. I think we can always have the conversation of whether this is covered by the prohibition on making graven images in Exodus 20, but I would submit if we are going to apply this consistently, we must then be careful about illustrations for God in children’s Bibles and also how we describe God in the pulpit. I think what is clear is that these are not graven idols that people are physically worshipping. If we are shocked because Papa is portrayed as a black female and not a Caucasian male, then we might have some other issues!

The appeal to Aslan is problematic for a reason found within Mr. Hall's own wording; that is, he himself admits that Aslan is "a type of Christ." Aslan was meant to represent Christ in metaphor, not in reality. Throughout the history of literature and film, there have been many characters who were meant to represent a Christ-like figure, but we're not talking about that here - the Jesus of The Shack is supposed to be literally Christ Himself. To compare the two is completely erroneous. This confusion was seen even earlier in the article, when Mr. Hall wrote on Mack's "ensuing conversations and interactions with 'God,'" with "God" in quotations as if it's not really God in the Shack. The fact is, William Paul Young's book is about the literal God, and the three characters in the Shack are supposed to be the actual Trinitarian God of the Bible.

The appeal to "children's Bibles" and other artistic portrayals of God is a common one being made by some supporters of The Shack, but is likewise problematic. For one, it's an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy: that there exist other poor visual representations of God, even socially acceptable ones, does not deny that the visual representations in The Shack are unacceptable. For another, there are plenty of criticisms, and discussions, out there regarding portrayals of God (especially God the Father) in art and film. Regardless, whatever erroneous portrayals of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit as men may exist, portraying them as females only adds error upon error. As pointed out before, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are referred to in scripture, even by Christ, with masculine pronouns. In fact, one has to wonder why there even needs to be any discussion on gender and the Trinity in the first place.

As for the notion that people aren't worshiping these characters as graven idols, I would contend there are other ways to worship idols which we may not be aware of. Many who have read The Shack, or will see the movie, see the portrayal of God as who God really is, and what God really believes, when all of it is simply untrue. They will think what Jesus teaches and espouses in The Shack is what Christ really intends people to believe about him. In this sense, even if they realize God is not a black woman named Papa, they will be worshiping an idol of William Young's creation.

Perhaps of greater concern to us, however, is the subject of universal reconciliation, the belief that in the end everyone will be saved. It was unclear in the novel what the belief of the author was. Brad was very clear, as co-author, that he did not believe universal reconciliation was a teaching found in the Bible and did not want the movie to be as open-ended as the book in relation to this subject. (He did say that the lead author, Wm Paul Young, had a different theological background.) The movie, however, did not open this door. The movie did provide some initial thoughts around the subject of the wrath of God with which I would respectfully have to disagree, but here I think is the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God (Romans 11:22)—both His Father heart and His Holy transcendence. I thought they did the former well, but perhaps not the latter.

It's amazing that Mr. Hall presents so much vagueness around the original novel's interpretation of judgment: he says that it's "unclear" and "open-ended" what William Paul Young's beliefs are, only knowing that Young has "a different theological background." I think anyone who read the original book would see that, while it might have been vague enough to give wiggle room for denying "universal reconciliation," it certainly wasn't orthodox or biblical. Young's portrayal of "judgment" is far closer to the ancient heresy of apocatastasis, which was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. Gregory of Nyssa, talking about the belief, is quoted as saying:

The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist. [source]

Compare this with the notion of "judgment" found in the original Shack novel. Mack finds his father, who had abused him, struggling and suffering with the guilt of his past, and it is only after Mack forgives his father that they both find some reconciliation. Mack is then told by Sophia (the personification of Wisdom from Proverbs) that "judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right." While it would be wrong to say these two beliefs are identical, my point in bringing this up is to illustrate how William Paul Young's view of judgment fits far closer to historical heresies than it does anything that can be considered orthodox. It makes judgment a more personal, horizontal action within human society, rather than a crime against the almighty God. It makes senseless entire sections of the prophetic books and Revelation, and renders pointless the words of scripture that "it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (He 10:31).

I would certainly agree with Mr. Hall that those speaking on the judgment of God face "the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God"; it is a dangerous trap to fall into where a person might emphasize one without minimizing the other. However, to shrug off error found in The Shack with, "Well, William Paul Young is kinda vague about it, and he's from a different theological background," is to play fast and loose with what the reader is presented. William Young did not simply portray the severity of God's judgment poorly - he didn't portray it at all.

As we watched the movie, while I personally might have done things differently, I found it very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been. As I watched, I kept looking over at a security guard to my left—she had tears in her eyes. The next morning, Brad posted on social media, “So the security guard from last night’s screening in Kansas City pulls me aside while we are finishing up—a wonderful black lady—and she says: ‘I see an awful lot of movies, and hands down this is the best one I have seen—EVER!’—and gives me a huge hug and holds on. I just squeezed back, having no real idea the depth of what was transacting in her, but loving whatever it was. When we let go and stepped back, her eyes were beaming but with tears full to the brim.”

Once again, there is an appeal to personal emotion. The argument presented here is basically, "Someone who watched The Shack was moved to tears and said it was the best movie ever - surely it has to be good!" By such logic, those who wept when Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election must be justified in their reaction, and Hillary Clinton - a woman most hostile to the Christian worldview - should have become president.

Sadly, that such a mindset is coming from IHOP-KC does not surprise me. When speaking to members in the past, and attempting to show the errors of Mike Bickle's teachings, the most common response I get is, "I feel personally fulfilled, that's how I know it's right." When you listen to the testimonies of those who have joined IHOP-KC, one common theme is that they were personally moved by what was going on, and that was why they joined. This is simply the logical conclusion of the Charismatic doctrine of solus adfectus, or "emotions alone," over and against sola scriptura. If someone is moved to tears, and it involves God, then it doesn't matter what else we know about it - it has to be real. When we adopt such a mindset, we shouldn't be shocked if unbiblical portrayals of God seem alright to us, based mostly on the notion that someone is emotionally "healed" by it.

Indeed, the continual mantra that The Shack has "ministered healing" to its readers or viewers shows just why William Young's work is so seductive in its nature: because it attacks a person's soul at its worst. Many people I've encountered who liked the book read it when they were struggling with depression or some deep sadness in their life, and felt that the book assisted them. However, just as one might be tempted to harm their physical bodies by turning to alcohol or drugs to combat depression, so too can the devil tempt one with spiritual harm by leading a suffering person into false doctrine. Being personally satisfied is not a mark of being healed, but rather complete, perfect healing found in the comfort of the true God, and the true Gospel - and one will find neither in The Shack.

The final part of the article:

I am sure this movie will bring healing to many and, no, I don’t believe it is heresy!

Thank you, Brad.

Recall that earlier Mr. Hall stated, "I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack." In the process of "not defending" The Shack, Mr. Hall has...

• Claimed the book "ministered healing to the many millions who have read it."
• Defended the intentions of the novel's co-writer and the film's co-producer.
• Said he considered the movie a "well-told story of forgiveness and healing."
• Defended the visual representations of God the Father, calling them "understandable," and even comparing it to Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia.
• Played apologist for the film's depiction of judgment.
• Said he found the film "very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been," adding that he is "sure this movie will bring healing to many."
• Cited a person being moved to tears and called it the best film they had ever seen.
• Thanked the co-writer and co-producer for his work involved with The Shack.
• Deemed that The Shack wasn't heresy.

I can only wish more people would not-defend me in this way!

Let me remind the reader that Jono Hall is an instructor at IHOPU for church history and "basic christian beliefs," and yet he seems unable, during the course of his examination of The Shack, to identify historical heresies and fundamental problems found within. Gross doctrinal errors found in William Paul Young's writing, noticeable to discernment ministries and laymen alike, were gleaned over or minimized. At best, Mr. Hall said in this article that there were some points or teachings which he would "respectfully have to disagree" with, while on Twitter he said he had "far fewer" issues with the movie than the book. (A book which, if you remember, he said "ministered healing to the many millions.")

IHOP-KC can add all the disclaimers they want, and Mr. Hall can swear up and down he's not defending anything, but that won't change things. The fact remains that someone at the leadership of IHOP-KC, on IHOP-KC's website, just gave what is considered the poster boy for heretical fiction a passing grade. The COO of IHOP-KC has come out and said that he believes The Shack is not heresy.

You can't get around that.

More surprising to me is that the language used in the article is similar to that found in Emergent and progressive circles: the objections people make to The Shack are not criticisms of unbiblical doctrines, but are merely "challenges" they have with the story; erroneous portrayals of God are perfectly fine so long as someone gets some personal fulfillment from the story. I wonder if any supposed contradictions between scripture and The Shack would be shrugged off as "tensions" that we can permit to exist?

In the past, I've extensively covered the strange doctrines coming out of IHOP-KC, not only in regards to the end time prophecies, but their teachings on prayer, God's power, and Christ's humanity. In all those moments, they had maintained some level of an orthodox facade, certainly in regards to topics such as the judgment of God or the importance of gleaning from the Bible. Here, on the other hand, we have someone from IHOP-KC's leadership calling heresy orthodoxy and defending it with someone crying at a movie. Is this a sign of where IHOP-KC is going? Are they becoming more Emergent in their theology? Or are they simply growing more liberal in some areas? Is this part of the trend that many have noticed, which is that IHOP-KC is attempting to mainstream itself more?

If this is the case, I honestly would not be surprised if Doug Pagitt or Jory Micah spoke at a future OneThing conference - and I don't write that in jest. Either way, I may very well have to continue monitoring what is coming out of Kansas City.

"Pilgrim's Progress" vs. "The Shack"

Sometime ago I finally read through Pilgrim's Progress for the first time in my life. As I finished, I couldn't help but remember that the front cover of William P. Young's The Shack (which I've reviewed before) has Eugene Peterson (infamous for his Message translation) comparing Young's book to John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. I decided to discuss just how different these two books actually are, and why comparing them is not only offensive to the memory of Mr. Bunyan, but the discerning reader.

1. Plethora of scriptural citations/references vs. Absolutely none

Pilgrim's Progress is, from the very first page on, literally dotted with either scripture citations or references to scripture citations. This is not merely John Bunyan's opinion or his own personal theology, but the teachings of scripture put into a literary format. Many modern versions of Pilgrim's Progress either place the scriptural index right in the text itself, or at the end of every chapter.

The Shack, by stark contrast, has absolutely no scriptural citations, nor references to scripture. None. There could never be a scripture index because there are no verses to cite. Everything is from the mind of William P. Young, and everything that is written is simply from the substance of William P. Young's personal beliefs. At times scripture is vaguely referred to (such as Mack asking "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?", etc.), but never is a direct reference made.

This plainly reveals the original source material for these two works: John Bunyan's source was the Bible; William P. Young's source material was an idol known as William P. Young's theology. This is probably one of the most important differences between the two.

2. Orthodox Metaphors vs. Heretical Metaphors

Metaphors abound in Pilgrim's Progress, and virtually every character is a representation either of an attitude, a virtue, a vice, or a worldly truth. For example, the character of Pliable, who joins Christian early on but quickly abandons him at the Swamp of Despondence, is a representation of individuals who enjoy the idea of salvation, but then quickly run away at the conviction of their sins. Another example is Faithful, Christian's initial fellow pilgrim who is martyred by the residents of Vanity Fair and becomes a literal representation of the command from scripture to "be faithful until death" (Rev 2:10).

There are, however, very few metaphors in terms of God Himself. Christ is referred to as "Lord of the Hill," "King of the Land," etc., but no one within the story specifically represents Christ in any way other than what He is as the Glorified Lord. There are some who say that the character of Interpreter is meant to be the Holy Spirit, but even if this were so, it would not represent the Holy Spirit in Person so much as what the Holy Spirit does for the believer (that is, endow him with saving knowledge regarding Christ). While Bunyan has fun with literary interpretations, he does not stray too far from what scripture says of a believer's world view and, most of all, scriptural theology.

The Shack, by contrast, is an entire book centered around what is ultimately a bad metaphor for the Trinity (three people inside a shack). To top it off, every ethnic group seems to be represented therein: the Father is an old black woman, the Son is a Middle Eastern man (somewhat fitting, I suppose), and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. We are later introduced to a Hispanic woman named Sophia who is said to be the personification of God's wisdom.

What's more, William P. Young's literary interpretations are simply heretical. Papa (the Father character) reveals crucifixion scars on her hands and says, "We were there together," meaning that the Father and Son were crucified together and suffered together, which has been considered heretical since the early days of the church. It likewise contradicts the teachings of scripture that we are reconciled by the Son's body (Col 1:21-22) and that it was the Son who took upon flesh (John 1:14) and humbled Himself before men (Phi 2:5-11). The Father could only have scars if He had a physical body, and unless we are Modalists, we cannot rightfully say that He did.

This is probably one reason why so much of Bunyan's book deals with metaphors pertaining to believers and their interaction with faith and the world, rather than direct interaction with God. Any false representation would have led to dangerous grounds, and most likely Bunyan sought to avoid such traps.

3. Obvious Allegories vs. Near Literal Representations

As already stated, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is an entirely allegorical book. Like Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, it was never meant to be a literal interpretation of anything. Bunyan avoids any possibility of this being accepted literally by stating early on that all of it is a dream, and reminds the reader throughout the book that he is simply repeating what he saw in a dream.

Young, on the other hand, opens up The Shack with a claim that his story is true and that there is a real person named Mack who shared this experience with him. Now granted, I know that Young doesn't really believe that Mack exists nor does he claim this in public, but this leads to a different feel for The Shack than Pilgrim's Progress. That is, while Bunyan introduces the story as a dream, and hence the reader understands that the language of Pilgrim's Progress is that of a dream, Young introduces The Shack as a first-hand account, hence readers are supposed to have the mindset that a man named Mack really did go through all these experiences. That is, the reader is led to have a mindset that God really would manifest Himself as He does in The Shack.

If a man named Mack had indeed experienced all that is told of in The Shack, I would have promptly pointed him to Paul's warning that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14).

4. Absolute Truths vs. Vague Theology

The main protagonists of Pilgrim's Progress (Christian, Faithful and Hopeful) meet various people along the way and, in particularly near the end, hold long discussions with them. What is thoroughly discussed is not only what is wrong and what is right, but that the wrong is an evil wrong that can benefit no man. The character of Ignorance, for example, is told by Christian and Hopeful that he cannot hope to enter the Celestial City (heaven) by his own ways, but he rejects their pleas and is in the end cast out by the Shining Ones (angels) of the city. Another example is seen in the character of Mr. By-ends and his friends, who discuss theology but are thoroughly silenced by Christian and Hopeful when their beliefs are shown to be completely fallacious.

Furthermore, the theology of John Bunyan is plainly seen in the pages of his book. One cannot walk away from Pilgrim's Progress and wonder what Bunyan believed in regards to salvation, our role in salvation, and God's sovereignty. In fact, if one reads Bunyan's purely theological works after reading Pilgrim's Progress, they will find a great consistency with the novel. Everything is there for you, in black and white, and easy to understand. Considering Bunyan wrote this in prison, in the midst of his own persecution, we should not be altogether surprised.

By contrast, The Shack reads like an Emergent book in the sense that the theology is at times so vague that it's difficult to lay down exactly what Young is trying to say. The one that stood out to me the most was William P. Young's Jesus responding to the question "Do all roads lead to you?" with: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."

This, of course, leads the book to become very dangerous. When our Blessed Lord speaks of tares and wheat in the gospels, the tares He refers to are plants that look like wheat but are actually poisonous, and cannot be fully shown for what they are until the time of harvest. Young's book, like so many, is essentially a literary tare. It might, from the initial reading, seem orthodox, or even semi-orthodox, but when one really gets down and studies what he is saying, one realizes just how heretical it is. One of the biggest examples of this in the book (next to the previously mentioned teaching of universalism) is the teaching of a restorative hell, shown in the scene where Mack reconciles with his deceased father. Young does not flat out say he believes in a restorative hell in the book, but when one reads through what he is teaching, that is the obvious conclusion.

Bunyan is not afraid to come out and say, "This is what I believe, it is based on the word of God, and I am sticking by it whether you like it or not." Anyone afraid to do likewise, and anyone who feels they need to essentially hide their theology, should themselves and their work be considered very dangerous.

5. God-centered Goals vs. Man-centered Goals

The goal of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was to be an evangelical tool. It was written to explain the gospel in literature. It was written, first and foremost, to present God's message to the world while remaining faithful to the word of God.

The Shack, on the other hand, is essentially something to make someone feel better. Young himself experienced some great suffering in his life, and many who hold The Shack to be a wonderful piece of literature are likewise those who suffered from some tragedy in their life. Young has even said in interviews and lectures that certain representations (such as the crucifixion scars on the Father) were done to make people feel closer to God. The entire goal of the book, then, is to please men through emotional connections.

Some might wonder why I am presenting this as a contention against Bunyan. After all, isn't it good to make people feel better? I respond that the idiom is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven." There is nothing worse than presenting falsehood and distortion of truth in the form of spiritual healing. It is just as bad as a doctor giving poison to a patient on the pretext that it will save their lives from a disease.

As such, what Young did in The Shack was try to make people feel better by completely distorting scriptural teachings and misrepresenting how God has revealed Himself to be. Unfortunately many people, seeking to please their itching ears, have grasped onto his work as a great piece of literature simply because it makes them feel better. I for one would much rather have a terrible life on earth with hopes of a glorious life in heaven than a great life on earth with an eternity in hell.

A Simple Review of "The Shack"

INTRODUCTION

I haven't encountered a religious-themed book with such mixed reviews as William P. Young's The Shack. Some family members told me it was worth a try. Women at a church I used to go to were reading it in their book club. A woman I knew at another church swore by it as a great novel (and, disturbingly enough, she quoted it more often than the Bible). At the same time, an old high school friend told me that she had tried to read it and lost interest, finding it to be like "a Disney version of C.S. Lewis." I heard over and over again from various circles (including the "Bible Answer Man," Hank Haanagraaf) that it was a heretical book, and heard little bits and snippets from the novel that supposedly proved why it was just so gosh darn heretical.

It was time I saw what it was like for myself...but here I have to be honest about something: I really tried to avoid this book. I kept telling myself I should buy it and dive in, but couldn't bear the thought of spending the money. My mother, at the recommendation of others, bought it for me as a birthday present. Even then, it simply rested on my bookshelf unread, nestled lovingly between John MacArthur's Charismatic Chaos and G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. I'd pass by and take notice of it, then look away and continue on. Something inside just kept me from reading it. Whenever I thought of reading it, it would get sidestepped by something like James White's The God Who Justifies or Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit (you can tell how eclectic my library is by now).

Finally, I said to myself, "Look, people are responding to this book, and it's making a mark on the Church. I should at least give it a try so I can have a valid opinion." If it was bad, it was bad, and I could at least explain my opinion to fans. If it was good, I'd be pleasantly surprised (and I have in the past), and I could try to defend it fairly against critics. So, after prolonged hesitation, I dove in.

The book itself isn't that long (at 248 pages), nor is it that hard to read, as I managed to get halfway through reading off and on throughout one day. The introduction has William Young claiming that the main character is in fact real, trying to give a kind of Dr. Watson-like feel to the story. Personally I don't know why he did this. Everyone will pretty much figure out this was a fictional story (something even more obvious as we go along). It also doesn't really add anything, given Young is neither an active character nor is he even present in the story. It's like those games you remember as a kid, where a friend would fake something that everyone knew was fake, then would conclude it with, "Ha! Just kidding," as if he had just confounded the world.

The plot involves the main character, Mackenzie Allen Philips (known simply as Mack) living in great depression after the disappearance and assumed murder of his young daughter at the hands of a serial child murderer known by the press as "the Little Ladykiller." Having worked in the news industry for four years and knowing what makes news managers shiver in their shoes, I personally think any news outlet that used this nickname would be considered tasteless and receive a lot of angry threats of lawsuits from the victims' family members.

One day Mack gets a strange note in the mail asking him to return to the shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was found. It is simply signed "Papa," the word Mack's wife used to refer to God. Curiosity overtakes Mack and he heads out to the shack. There he finds nothing and, in a fit of rage, destroys much of what is inside the shack. He heads out, only to find the snowy terrain turn into a beautiful landscape straight out of a Disney film. Mack realizes that God must be inside the shack. He enters and is greeted by...a large African American woman. Then appears a small Asian woman. Then out comes a Middle Eastern man. The large black woman calls herself Elousia. The Middle Eastern man, dressed as a carpenter, introduces himself as none other than Jesus (haw haw he's a carpenter haw haw). The Asian woman calls herself Sarayu. Then comes the climactic part of the chapter:

Thoughts tumbled over each other as Mack struggled to figure out what to do. Was one of these people God? What if they were hallucinations or angels, or God was coming later? That could be embarrassing. Since there were three of them, maybe this was a Trinity sort of thing. But two women and a man and none of them white? Then again, why had he naturally assumed that God would be white? He knew his mind was rambling so he focused on the one question he most wanted answered.

"Then," Mack struggled to ask, "which one of you is God?"

"I am," said all three in unison. Mack looked from one to the next, and even though he couldn't begin to grasp what he was seeing and hearing, he somehow believed them. [pg 87]

From here begins the famous portion of the book where Mack finds his spiritually awakening, interacting with each Trinitarian Person. Several topics are discussed in a kind of "talk it out" fashion, with someone asking questions or bringing up tough points to be answered by another, or someone teaching another certain beliefs or understandings through questions. One can see similar treatment in ancient texts such as Plato's Republic, or even in more recent works such as Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Some parts even come across like Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, with character changes and events in the past being resolved for moral conclusions.

INITIAL REACTIONS

We have here three people in a shack representing the Christian God. This reminded me of an old metaphor for the Trinity that compares it to three people inside a carriage. This metaphor is known as a bad one. Therefore, I couldn't help but feel I was about to embark on a book that was essentially a 248-paged bad metaphor. It could only have been worse if William Young had written a book about a man who goes to a shack and meets an old grandfather who then transforms into a middle-aged father and then a young son.

Before we even reached this point, I had a problem believing that Mack would have ventured forth to the shack to begin with. In most fiction writing classes (especially those regarding film or drama) they talk about something called "suspension of disbelief," which deals with a twist or turn in the narrative that starts the main story, and - regardless of circumstance - comes across as believable to the audience. For example, lightning striking a robot would not make it a conscious being in real life, however in the 1986 film Short Circuit was done in such a way that the audience could move forward without questioning. The Shack, I feel, does not meet this criteria with this plot element. Mack seems all too ready to head over to the shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was found, and seems to immediately assume it's God there waiting for him. Many of the most devout people I know would probably think the thing was a hoax, or completely unrelated to the event. I probably would have disregarded it entirely. There do exist scenes in the book where Mack discusses with a friend that it might be a hoax, but this is after he has decided to move forward with the trip. I probably would have had Mack continue rejecting the letter until maybe a year later a similar note appeared, prompting further curiosity to see who was sending it.

THE ROLE OF THE TRINITY

Now the immediate reaction by some may be to the transformation of the Trinity into a black woman, Jesus, and an Asian woman. Oh, but wait a moment - it doesn't stop there! In Chapter 11 Mack will be introduced to a Hispanic woman known as Sophia, the supposed embodiment of Wisdom. As I read, I couldn't help but think to myself, "Oh no...William Young turned God into the Burger King Kids Club!" I seriously expected a boy in a wheelchair to come out and introduce herself as the personification of God's grace (boy, imagine the theological implications of that!).

The transformation of God the Father into an old black woman named Papa would certainly be a shock to anyone, and Mack addresses this to Papa early on in their encounter.

She picked up a wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort of batter. "Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it's because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning."

She leaned forward as if to share a secret. "To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes." [pg. 93]

Papa will eventually transform into a man come Chapter 16, but the shock here doesn't necessarily come from the skin color or gender. If I were in Mack's situation, I would be immediately shocked that God the Father had revealed Himself at all. What was it that the beloved apostle John wrote at the very beginning of his gospel? "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known" (John 1:18; ESV). What was it that God did when He appeared to Moses? He covered him up because if Moses saw even a bit of God's face, he would have died. What did Christ Himself say to the failing disciples? That no one has seen the Father "except He who is from God; He has seen the Father" (John 6:46; NKJV). What did the apostle Paul write to the Colossians? That Christ (and no one else in the Trinity) is the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15; ESV). Mack is therefore very fortunate, because he's experiencing something that few prophets and no apostles ever witnessed. Some might emphasize that Young is responding to common stereotypes by not showing God the Father as an old bearded man...folks, both interpretations are wrong.

I can just hear some readers saying, "But what of Genesis 18!", referring to the chapter where the Lord appears to Abraham in the form of three men, believed by many to be an early revelation of the Trinitarian nature of God. The problem here is that the chapter states the Lord speaking in unison, and does not differentiate between any of the men in either way. It doesn't say, "So an Asian guy, African guy, and white guy appeared to Abraham..." You don't have an incident where Abraham asks, "Which one of you is God?" and all three answer comically in unison, "I am!"

What we're missing here is the real problem in the transformation of the Father and Holy Spirit into tangible personalities on par with Jesus. The problem therein deals not only with the role of the Incarnation, but the roles between the Persons of the Trinity. No where did it come out clearer than the section where Mack discovers something about Papa's body:

"How can you really know how I feel?" Mack asked, looking back into her eyes.

Papa didn't answer, only looked down at her 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. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes. Tears were slowly making their way down her face, little pathways through the flour that dusted her cheeks.

"Don't ever think what my son chose to do didn't cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark," she stated softly and gently. "We were there together." [pg. 95-96]

My immediate - and quite literal - reaction upon reading this was: WHAT?!

William Young completely confuses his readers in regards to the Trinitarian roles. The Father and Son were both on the cross? That almost comes across as modalism, except Young has established the Father and Son as two separate characters within the story. The Father has the scars of the crucifixion? In order for that to have happened, the Father would have had to have become incarnate. That was not what the Father did. Only the Son became incarnate. The wounds suffered by Christ were His because of an earthly body. The Father never had an earthly body, therefore the Father could never have had scars.

Furthermore, it confuses the relationship between the Incarnation's role and our sanctification through Christ. The Eternal Word, becoming incarnate in our sinful flesh, restored it through His resurrection in a spiritually glorified body. Upon ascending to paradise, Christ took the right hand of the Father - not a literal right hand like I would sit beside my Father, but uniting our corrupt flesh to the Divine Glory of the Father. Keep in mind I am not speaking the Christ deifies us into gods (as Mormons and Word of Faith leaders teach) but rather that, by partaking in the death and resurrection of Christ, we are sanctified and restored to the Father.

What about scripture? Paul wrote to the Colossians that "and you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death..." (Col. 1:21-22; ESV; emphasis mine). The "his" used for the section in bold is singular (it's also masculine) - the his clearly refers to Christ alone, for only the Son took a body of flesh and suffered death on the cross. Which, incidentally, is also referred to as his death - the death of the Son, not the Father.

More tellingly, what did Paul write to the Philippians?

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2:5-11; ESV]

Who was it "born in the likeness of men," and who "made himself nothing," "being found in human form"? The text clearly states that it was Jesus Christ. Furthermore, it clearly states that it was the Son, not the Father, who was on the cross. The role of the Father was the exaltation and bestowing of power and authority upon the Son - not taking the form of men and dying on the cross. The blessed apostle Paul would be utterly dumbfounded by this passage from The Shack.

Some time ago, I listened to a lecture by William Young where he explained that his reason for doing this was to show that the Father had empathy towards the Son's suffering and therefore our suffering as a whole. That's a very nice and sweet sentiment, but the problem is you can portray the love of the Father towards the suffering without going to unbiblical and unorthodox literary portrayals. Church Fathers and Christian scholars and theologians have done it for over 2000 years while keeping in line with scripture - why can't William Young do it here?

This confusion between the distinction amongst the Persons of the Trinity continues at a scene where Mack sits down to have a meal with them. Mack asks the three characters which amongst them is in charge, to which Jesus begins an explanation.

"That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

Mack was surprised. "How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"

"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don't want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me."

"And that's how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I mean between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?"

"Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expression of your new nature within relationships." [pg 145-146]

I have a feeling that William Young has never studied the monarchial relationship within the Trinity, something that even early Church Fathers wrote on. Namely, the relationship between the Persons in the Trinity and the submission and adherence to the will of some Persons to others. This is not to say that the Persons bark orders to one another (that would be far more possibile in the scenario Young creates), but that there works within the Trinity an order. The Son submits to the will of the Father (Gal 1:4). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and can be worked through the Son (John 14:26). Furthermore, the very notion that God submits to mankind as the Persons in the Trinity submit to one another is simply blasphemous.

What we are witnessing here, I believe, is a transformation of the Trinitarian relationship among the Persons into a social gospel. The relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is supposed to a model for how we get along to one another. Therein lies a problem: mankind cannot possibly relate to the Persons in the Trinity as they relate to one another. The Persons of the Trinity at their core are coeternal, coexistent and united by Essence - no two people in history could ever make the same claims about themselves.

It is one thing to try to use the Trinity as a metaphor for people to get along. It's another to turn it upside down and declare that the Trinity DOES get along like three people should. That's also dangerous and invites a tritheistic understanding of the Trinitarian God.

THE JESUS OF "THE SHACK"

Once the plot proper takes off, Jesus has a major role in William Young's novel. One of the first things that struck me about this Jesus was his passive aggressiveness.

"Really?" said Mack, still shaking his head, and not sure if he really believed that. "So now what am I supposed to do?"

"You're not supposed to do anything. You're free to do whatever you like." Jesus paused and then continued, trying to help by giving Mack a few suggestions. "I am working on a wood project in the shed; Sarayu is in the garden; or you could go fishing, canoeing, or go in and talk to Papa."

"Well, I sort of feel obligated to go in and talk to him, uh, her."

"Oh," now Jesus was serious. "Don't go because you feel obligated. That won't get you any points around here. Go because it's what you want to do." [pg. 89]

Once again, my immediate and literal reaction to this was: WHAT?!

Are you serious? Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth just tell someone "Don't go to God unless it's what you want to do"? Is this the same Jesus whose first word in His earthly ministry was "repent"? (Matt 4:17) Incidentally, the original Greek word for "repent" in that passage is in the imperative - in other words, it's a command. It's not a, "Repent, if that's what you want to do," but a, "Repent, because that's what you need to do."

I could suddenly see why Reformed Christians in particular hated this book so much. Some might argue that William Young is simply emphasizing free will, but that's the problem - he's overemphasizing it. Even knowledgeable Arminians would recognize that. Could you imagine going to the doctor with a bad flu, the doctor handing you an antibiotic to heal you, and saying, "Here's the medicine, but take it because you want to take it." Probably not. Why then should we imagine God saying, "Come to me not because you should, but because you want to." This means every person in hell can look up to God and rightfully say, "Well, you gave me the choice, now there are consequences to one of them? Why didn't you tell me that before?!"

Even stranger is what happens only a few pages later, where Papa explains the miracles of Jesus.

"Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can't. Jesus is fully human. Although he is fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost - the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence."

"So, when he healed the blind?"

"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." [pg 99-100]

Yet again, my immediate and literal reaction: WHAT?!

It is true that, in many moments during His earthly ministry, Christ fulfilled His role as the perfect Man. He fulfilled the Law as prescribed by God, He lived a prayerful and sinless life, and He entrusted everything to God's will. However, He was at all times God, and that deity could not be separated from Him. The miracles He performed, in fact, were evidence of who He was.

Let us stop and think for a moment: if William Young is correct in his statement through the character of Papa, that the Eternal Word was during His earthly life simply a man who entrusted to God's power to take care of things, then Christ was a heretic and blasphemer. Why do I say this? I say this because of an exchange that occurred between the Pharisees and Christ:

And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"... [Mark 2:1-10; ESV]

"Who can forgive sins but God alone?" the Pharisees ask. Uh oh! Is Jesus in trouble? Not the Jesus of scripture, who responds that this is done so that "you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." This authority, to forgive sins and heal, is found within Jesus because it is Jesus who does them. No, the Incarnate Word was not someone who simply gave up the power of His deities and left the Father to do all the work (which is dangerously close to Oneness Pentecostal theology). He did such work because He was God. Only God had the authority to forgive sins, therefore Christ was either God or blasphemer. We know He was not the latter. Indeed, it was He who created the world, therefore it was only He who could heal the world. Again I say: the miracles confirmed who He was.

Perhaps the biggest shocker is the section where William Young's Jesus teaches something dangerously close to universalism.

"Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda."

"Is that what it means to be a Christian?" It sounded kind of stupid as Mack said it, but it was how he was trying to sum everything up in his mind.

"Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian."

The idea struck Mack as odd and unexpected and he couldn't keep himself from grinning. "No, I suppose you aren't."

They arrived at the door of the workshop. Again Jesus stopped. "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."

"Does that mean," asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"

"Not at all," smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." [pg 181-182]

Aside from the silly statement "I'm not a Christian," as if the person who calls himself a Christian is living in error (of course Jesus wasn't Christian - He was God!), the teaching presented is simply heretical. He states, "Those who love me come from every system that exists," and then goes on to mention Buddhists, Mormons, and Muslims, putting them on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

Is this a proper assessment of various beliefs? Not at all. Democrats and Republicans are members of a political party which function within a government - not a religious system. Could some of those religious sects that William Young's Jesus mentions truly love him? No. Buddhists are inherently an atheistic faith which would deny the necessity of God in their lives, whereas Mormons believe in a warped view of Christ taught by a heretic and Muslims don't even believe in the deity of Christ, let alone the Trinity (in fact, they call both damnable heresy). Therefore, including political parties among religious faiths and condemning them all as "systems" is presenting a warped view of the various divisions facing the world.

Stating that religious groups which deny elements of Christ's person or His very deity "love him" presents a universalist - and therefore heretical - view of salvation. There had been a moment earlier in the book that universalism had been hinted at, in a dialogue between Mack and his daughter Missy.

Mack waited while his girls processed their thoughts. Missy was next to ask. "Is the Great Spirit another name for God - you know, Jesus' papa?"

Mack smiled in the dark. Obviously, Nan's nightly prayers were having an effect. "I would suppose so. It's a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great." [pg 31]

I did not want to jump to conclusions because I wanted to get into the book and understand William Young's point of view. Unfortunately, my gut reaction had proved correct.

We are told by William Young's Jesus that "I will travel any road to find you" after mentioning many such roads. Is this what Christ taught? Let me quote the Jesus of scripture.

"But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." [Matthew 10:33]

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." [John 6:44]

This is a very different picture than what William Young presents. Again, free will is being overemphasized so that accountability and orthodoxy are being forsaken.

THE REOCCURING PROBLEMS

The greatest problem with the theology of The Shack is that it presents two conundrums: on the one hand, it presents ideas and interpretations that are deeply unbiblical; on the other hand, it is so vague in its interpretation that sometimes it can hardly be considered doctrinal. It reminds me a lot of many Emergent teachers who give such wording in their theology that you can't help but feel like there's something under the surface, and it isn't until you search deeper that you realize something is really afoot. It's much like a crocodile who rests partially under the water, still and lifeless and seemingly harmless until it finally snaps at its pray.

The greatest example of this is the statement by William Young's Jesus, done in response to the question if all roads lead to heaven: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." It doesn't really respond to the question, and given what we've supplied before it can only lead to a kind of universalism. Again, too vague to be doctrinal (let alone edifying), and too poorly worded to be orthodox.

The continuing theme throughout the book is that God is love. God is love. God is love. Always love. God is love. That is true, God is love, but with such love comes not only a love for creation but a love for righteousness and truth. Lightness and darkness cannot coexist. What, then, becomes of such darkness? The book seems to avoid any serious response to judgment and punishment, particularly in scripture. Mack confronts Papa about punishment and judgment, saying: "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?" (pg 119), which Papa eventually shrugs off with: "You raise some important questions and we'll get around to them, I promise." (pg 120)

What does this promised resolution to judgment questions amount to? Sophia showing Mack his deceased daughter living happily in the afterlife, followed by the statement, "Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right" (pg. 169)

And once again, my immediate reaction: WHAT?!

Later on, in Chapter 15, Mack will meet his abusive father in a vague idea of the afterlife, where both father and son embrace and apparently resolve past differences. This leads one to wonder if William Young is putting forward the idea of a restorative hell, something which has been condemned by most orthodox Christians since the early days of the Church (the belief, known as apocatastasis, originated largely from Origin, and was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD). In any case, one imagines if this was what the afterlife was like, the rich man would have gone over to Lazarus and embraced him, asked for forgiveness, and then have been welcomed into the bosom of Abraham.

The default is always to fall back on the belief that God is love. It is true that God is love, but it is a divine love that cannot coexist with hate. Christians who thrive on the "God is love" mantra and don't look deeper into what such love entails become easy pray for atheists, who are not easily swayed by William Young's "let's talk about it later" argument and can readily cite passages from the Old Testament to try to prove their point. Indeed, the concept of "love" found in The Shack belongs more in the 1960's more than in scripture.

CONCLUSION

As I finished the last page and closed the book shut, I couldn't help but ponder on what I had just read. This was the novel that thousands of people had drooled over? This was the book that some quoted more than the Bible? Aside from the fact that I didn't find William Young's writing style anything near C.S. Lewis, and found the character interactions to sometimes be dull and inconsistent (Papa talks like Florida from Good Times one minute, then like Condoleezza Rice the next), it had to probably have been one of the most theologically unsound works of fiction I had ever come across. It also had some of the silliest metaphors I had ever read ("If a rainbow makes a sound, or a flower as it grows, that was the sound of her laughter"; pg 154).

J.R.R. Tolkien's subtle metaphors in his Lord of the Rings series were far more Christian than William Young's more blatant depictions. Tolkien, who often criticized fellow Christian writer C.S. Lewis for being obvious in his literary metaphors, would probably have much to say about the symbolism of Young's novel. On that note, I might say that I think Eugene Peterson, who is quoted on the front cover saying that this book does "for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his," owes John Bunyan an apology. No, I do not hold every Christian author up to the standard of Bunyan or Tolkien, but I cite them here simply as examples of what could have been reached for but wasn't.

The little author bio on the back of the book mentions that William Young "suffered great loss" in his life. No doubt this book, given its wording and focus, is meant for those who suffer great pain in their life. I've noticed that many who fell in love with this book may have done so because of such pain. Life pain is difficult, and sometimes we need to better our understanding of God to get through it. However, we cannot fictionalize our theology to create a God who pleases us. We have to keep our focus on the God of scripture, and the God who has revealed Himself throughout the ages first through the prophets and then His Son, Jesus Christ. Yes, He is a God of love, but we must not attempt to recreate or redefine that love. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I have no doubt William Young had good intentions writing this book - the problem is he wrote a 248-paged cobblestone for the road to hell.

The author's acknowledgments at the end of the book states: "I pray that you find the same grace there that I did, and that the abiding presence of Papa, Jesus and Sarayu will fill up your inside emptiness with joy unspeakable and full of glory." No thank you! I will entrust the real and true Father, Son and Holy Spirit to do that for me. Amen.