A Critique of The Shack

I am currently working on providing a careful theological/doctrinal Biblical analysis of the book by Wm. Paul Young entitled The Shack.  I am posting A Critique of The Shack as I write it, so there will be additions to this page as I finish them, so stay tuned.  There is much to address.   

This book seems to have an audience with Evangelicals, which is curious for a book about the nature of God (in the form of an allegory-not just fiction) that makes no claims to being Bible based, and in fact, moves away intentionally from being Bible based.  Here is a quote in this regard: 

“In seminary he [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.  God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects.  It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients or uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.  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?”  [bold mine] Wm. Paul Young, The Shack, page 67-68.

It is a number #1 New York Times bestseller; there are Five Million books in print.  It is endorsed on the back of the book by Michael W. Smith and others. 

I have personally communicated with several Evangelicals who have read the book.  Some have said they were uncomfortable with it, while others did not notice any particular problem with the book.  A large church in my area has had the author speak at the church and sells the book in their bookstore with no particular warning to the flock there.  It is strange how Evangelicals are courting this man who is most certainly not Evangelical himself (not if you define Evangelicalism in any conservative sense).  This book may be the miner’s canary as it says something about the poor state of Evangelicalism. 

For those interested, I have endnotes for each chapter at the very end of this post; if you scroll to the very bottom you will see them.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the Table of Contents for the completed posts to date and the pending posts:

Table of Contents 

Introduction                                                            

1. The Shack: The Author and His Purpose………..Chapter 1
2. The Shack’s Genre……………………………………….Chapter 2
3. Out With The Old and In With The New………..Chapter 3
4. Introduction to Young’s False Teaching………….Chapter 4
5. Revelation and Scripture ……………………………..Chapter 5
6. The Triune Godhead……………………………………Chapter 6
7. God’s Decree………………………………………………Pending
8. Creation……………………………………………………..Pending
9. The Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment………………….Pending
10. Christ the Mediator (atonement)………………….Pending
11. Free Will…………………………………………………….Pending
12. Repentance…………………………………………………Pending
13. Salvation ……………………………………………………Pending
14. Good Works ……………………………………………….Pending
15. The Law…………………………………………………….Pending
16. The Gospel ……………………………………………….Pending
17. Religious Worship……………………………………….Pending
18. Civil institutions …………………………………………Pending
19. Marriage …………………………………………………..Pending
20. The Church………………………………………………..Pending
21. Prayer……………………………………………………….Pending
22. Last Things (heaven)…………………………………..Pending  

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

A CRITIQUE OF THE SHACK 

 

by 

Gary Marble 

  

INTRODUCTION 

The very first contact I had with this book was at a party of a good friend who had just finished his dissertation for his doctoral degree.  He was given the book as a gift.  I read the cover and saw the following from one endorser on the front of the book: 

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

Having recently read the Pilgrim’s Progress, I confess I was immediately skeptical.  The Pilgrim’s Progress is so rich in Scripture and Reformed Theology that I doubted a modern writer could top John Bunyan’s classic work, written from prison no less.  My specific skeptical thought was, “What some people won’t do for marketing.”  But then I thought, “What if Peterson is sincere and really thinks that, and if so what does that say about Peterson and others?”  I thought either The Shack is real good (which I doubted) or the people who think it is a modern Pilgrim’s Progress have real poor discernment.  

I heard the person who gave the book to my friend say it was very popular and lots of people were talking about it.  As someone interested in Evangelical trends and the general state of the Church, I made a note of it and thought I would read it sometime to see what people were seeing in it. 

Time went by and The Shack kept popping up here and there.  In my circles, I mostly heard negative things, but I understood that The Shack had gained a wide audience particularly among Evangelicals.  As well, I had spoken with a few people who had read the book and expressed some concerns, and about an equal number said they did not particularly have a problem with it.  

The time had come to add The Shack to my already unattainable reading list. 

After reading the book and understanding that the book was very popular among Evangelicals, I decided I had to put my thoughts about it in writing for my own sake, and if the Lord is pleased to use it, for other’s sake as well. 

I want to take this critique slowly and carefully and as orderly as possible.  I could just blurt out my opinion right here and now; I could go on a tirade, but you would probably be unmoved or unconvinced about my negative view of the book by just my ranting.  So let me try to support my opinions reasonably, responsibly and carefully. 

This is the challenge for my critique: 

• Those who have read the book and did not have a problem with it have likely already moved on and probably do not care too much about any controversy or a critique of the book. 
•  Those who have read it and did have a problem with it probably already know what the problems are and don’t need me to point out the issues. 

Maybe I can help those somewhere in between or those that have been told they missed error, but just don’t really see it.  

For those who have moved on, I will put a little teaser out there to try to lure you into reading this:   

• What if you consider yourself a Bible believing Evangelical Christian and you just read a book containing multiple fairly blatant heresies and you missed them?  Would that get your attention?  Wouldn’t you want to know what you missed, and more importantly (personally for you), why did you miss them?  Does this mean you might be missing other errors in your Christian walk?
• For those who would answer “Yes, I do want to know what I missed and why,” I will try to state simply and clearly what you missed, supporting it from Scripture and from the Church Creeds and Confessions to give a little historical perspective on the errors in the book.  Perhaps, Lord willing, this will help you watch for errors in the future.

Books full of error and heresy come out all the time, and so what makes this book stand out?  It is the fact that it has such an apparent acceptance among many Evangelicals.  Perhaps this book might serve to show us that just because the king is told he has clothes on, does not mean he does.  Just because we are told The Shack will help us grow in our Christian walk, does not mean we should read it.  Perhaps the proverbial king is shamefully naked, and perhaps the Evangelical church is shamefully naked, and has believed a lie that Young has a powerful book that will  “leave you craving for the presence of God.”  That is a quote is from Michael W. Smith’s endorsement on the back of The Shack.  Where and to whom we look for truth about God, says a lot about our hearts and minds.   

• “For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. ¹⁸ I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.” Rev 3:17-18 (ESV)

Since I began this critique of The Shack, a new book has been published entitled Burning Down The Shack: How the ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions, by James B. De Young.  De Young, knows William Paul Young personally and the background of the underlying teaching behind The Shack.  This book is of immense help in understanding what critics of the book could really only guess at.  I have read the book and feel it important to add to my critique of The Shack some invaluable insight from Burning Down The Shack.

In my critique, I have indicated that Young is attempting to create a new god for us to worship.  In this new book, De Young shows us why he is trying to create a new god; I have only been able to focus on what and how he is doing this, but not why.  As with many things in life, when we know the why of something, then so many other things begin to fit into place.  When we know the why of something, then what and the how is easier to understand. 

I will quote from De Young’s book here to help you understand what I am talking about:

 “For almost seven years Paul and I drove together to almost every meeting—a trip of about thirty minutes.  We would share our latest thinking about a host of things.  It now appears that some of the ideas found in The Shack took seed during those discussions.  But none of the presentations at M3 Forum[1] ever rose to the level of heresy as the evangelical church defines the term—not till 2004, that is.

 The Unacknowledged Background to The Shack: Paul’s Embrace of Universal Reconciliation

In April of that year, in a 103-page, single-spaced paper, Paul surprisingly presented his embrace of universal reconciliation.  It is the Christian form of universalism, not the pagan form.  It is crucial to understand the distinction.  The pagan form, also called general reconciliation, claims that there are many ways to God and that Jesus Christ is only one of the many ways to God.  This is rightly rejected in The Shack.[2]

 So-called Christian universalism, which Paul Young did embrace, insists that all must come to God through Jesus Christ either before they die or after they die.  If people do not believe in Jesus before they die, God will use the fires of hell to purge away (not punish) the unbelief of all, even that of the devil and fallen angels, so that hell is finally emptied of all beings and all go to heaven.  In other words, after people die, they have a second chance to repent of their sins—actually not just a chance to repent but a certainty that they will.  The point is that in the end hell ceases to exist.  There is no eternal judgment.  This is the form of universalism embedded in The Shack.”[3]

There is much said in De Young’s book to fill this out and document De Young’s claims.  De Young indicates that all of the strange and unbiblical ideas about God and other doctrine in The Shack are really just attempts to make Young’s theology fit into the false teaching called universal reconciliation.  Honestly, a discerning read of The Shack shows this doctrine to exist rather plainly.  This doctrine should be able to be spotted without the need of the details of “The Story Behind the Story”, but De Young’s critique documents (as it were) the heresy behind the heresies. 

De Young has done an immense service to the body of Christ in publishing the book.  But the truth behind this best seller needs to be known.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of discernment in many evangelicals to see the problems like this one in The Shack, De Young needed to spell it out for many.  If the new light shed on The Shack with this personal knowledge that De Young has shared with us does not convince one of the real problem in The Shack, I am not sure any reasoning will. 

When I get to the theological categories (listed below) that I intend on addressing, I will indicate exactly where this doctrine of universal reconciliation in found through out The Shack.  For now, here is one fairly obvious quote:

•  “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship.”  Page 227

Even if one could not immediately identify this quote specifically as “universal reconciliation,” or some other form of universalism, I would think most evangelicals would at minimum raise their eyebrow; better yet, they might tag the quote as probably unbiblical.  For the life of me, I can’t understand how this one could get past some of those whom I have personally spoken to, who saw no problem with this book.  I want be gracious, but how could one overlook that?  This quote flies in the face of the doctrine of justification by faith alone: the chief tenant of protestant evangelicalism. 

•  “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” Heb 2:1 (ESV)

So I felt as I continued on (now I am working on chapter 7) with my critique of The Shack that I should add this important piece of information to the critiquing of The Shack.  As you read where I show how Young has attempted to create a new god by redefining, changing the old boundaries found in the Word of God, you can better understand Young’s motivations for doing so with the insight from De Young’s book.  Young is attempting to fit his god into his box labeled “universal reconciliation”, rather than embracing the One true just and holy God who will be no means leave the guilty unpunished (Ex. 34:7).  God sent his only Son for a propitiation for those who by faith alone rest on Christ alone; any person who teaches of another way, will receive judgment.  

To embrace universal reconciliation and to teach it is to ignore and to twist the plain sense of the Scripture. 

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  John 3:16-18 (ESV)
•  And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, ²⁸ so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Heb 9:27-28 (ESV)

  _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

  

A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 1  

 

The Shack: The Author and His Purpose 

The best place to start in understanding a book is by looking at the author.  This starting place may not tell us as much as we would like to know about an author’s work, but it will generally give us some insight.  In the case of this author, it will give us a lot of insight. 

Who is Wm. Paul Young? 

 Mr. Young is a husband, and a father of several children.  He has some form of Christian up bringing.  He calls himself a “Jesus follower” and does not seem to be comfortable calling himself a Christian.[1]  In a CBN 700 Club interview[2], he stated that he grew up as a religious person, a missionary kid, went to Bible school and then to seminary for a couple years, and has served in the church. 

 He went on to state in this interview: 

• “All the way back to my childhood is full of secrets and shame, and shame became the underlying motivation in my life.  How do you deal with that?  You either run to rebellion when you don’t understand how much we’re loved, or you run to religion.  I ran to religion; others that I know run to rebellion.”[3]

 What is the Author’s Purpose? 

I have learned, based on interviews with William Young, articles and newspaper Q and A sessions, that Young originally was prodded by his wife to write a book for his children for the purpose of expressing what his views were about God.  Young said in the same interview done by the 700 Club, that he wrote the book “to help them understand the big picture of how their dad thinks”, and because “I would love you [his children] to be in love with this God I have.”[4]   

He went on in that interview, with the CBN[5] 700 Club, to state that the protagonist (the main character) Mack, is a metaphor representing the author’s life and his process of healing of his own Great Sadness[6]; the many years of healing for Young are represented in a week.  So there we have it directly from the author, Mack (the protagonist) in The Shack, is an allegory of the author’s own life.  This is important to keep in mind as we go through the book. 

The Author’s Purpose Broadened 

At some point later down the road, I am unclear how much later, he decided to try to have the book published; he sent the book to several Christian publishers who rejected the manuscript stating that it would not be accepted by their readers.    

The book was revised by Young’s three friends and Young.  I am unclear as to the order of the revision, after the publishers rejected it or before.  This is what he says about the revisions: 

• “I brought a stone to three friends.  It was a chunk of boulder that I had carved out of the caves of my experience.  These three, Wayne Jacobsen, Brad Cummings, and Bobby Downes, with great and careful kindness helped me chip away at that rock until we were able to see a wonder below its face.”[7]

Now it is not just Young’s theology, but a collaborative theology with three other writers. 

Two friends decided to start a publishing company called Windblown Media, and they published his book that others would not.  From there The Shack has become a number one New York Times Bestseller, and has been on Amazon’s top selling book list for a long time; it has sold multiple millions of copies. 

Clearly, the new expanded purpose of his book is to evangelize more than just his children; he now seeks to evangelize anyone who will read the book. 

When Young was asked by the 700 Club host what he wanted people to walk away with after they read his book, Young said the following, which will give us a verbal purpose of sorts: 

• “I want them to know or have a sense that God is much bigger than they had thought; that He is totally outside the box; that although His behavior is unpredictable, you are dealing with an actual person in terms of the three but the one; even though His behavior is uncertain, in a world of uncertainty His character is absolutely certain, and that’s why the core question is: Is He good? Is He involved?  And if can say “yes” to those then I’ve got someplace to plant my feet that I did not have otherwise.”[8]

Is the Author’s Purpose Good? 

The above statement might sound noble, but we need to go slow here and make sure we understand what he means.  Unfortunately, in this day and age that has a diverse understanding of religion, spirituality, and even Christianity, we can never assume anymore that people mean what we think they mean.  We need to always ask, “Do they mean by their choice of words what I understand those words to mean?”  Often the wolves slip in to the flock by their use of clever language.  

In this case, we need to ask what Young means in the above quotation when he says God “is totally outside of the box.”  We use this terminology often, and we like it.  We like it because we like freedom, liberty, new ideas, and most of all we love no limitations.  When you combine those things we love with an infinite God, it seems like we are tracking with Young, or so we think. 

 What Young actually appears to mean is that God can’t be known and understood by a mere book, namely the Bible.  “Oh come on,” you might say. No really!  That is what he means.  I will show you this on page 67 to 68:  

• “In seminary he [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.  God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects.  It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients or uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.  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?”  [bold mine] Wm. Paul Young, The Shack, page 67-68.

Now first let me just briefly say that part of his statement appears to be responding to the Roman Catholic Church who states that the Scriptures can only be properly interpreted by them; but clearly the Protestant’s view, which Young should be more than familiar with, is that all can equally access the Scripture.  With use of ordinary means, the Bible can be understood, whether educated and uneducated, and without the mediation of the Church or any man for that matter.  Teachers help yes, but protestants don’t generally say teachers are required in order understand the Bible.  

So when we take the Roman Catholic Church out of the equation in Young’s statement, you have Young saying with disdain that many apparently think that only the prophets and the like of the Old Testament could hear from God directly, and that now in the modern age we just have to settle for the Bible.  Young’s view is that the knowledge of God is not limited to the inspired text of the Bible, and that anyone who thinks so is limiting their knowledge of God and is putting Him in a box.  

Let me add to this, that in the book Young says God is not to be limited or put in a box by only finding knowledge of God in Scripture.  But to take it even further, in the above 700 Club interview he states God “is totally outside of the box.”  Does this mean that God is not even found in the Bible at all?   As we go on, it is about the only thing that we can conclude Young means. 

So are you still with Young?  Is God “totally outside of the “box”?  Is God totally outside of Scripture?  We certainly acknowledge the Bible is not God, and even that God is greater than His revelation found in the Bible, but that does not mean that what He has revealed in the Bible is insufficient, nor does it mean that we are free to make conclusions beyond the Scriptures about God.  As well, we cannot know more about God than is revealed in the Bible.  Yes, we can “experience” more of the truths in the Bible about God, but that is a lot different from saying we can know more about God beyond the Scriptures. Even our “experience” of God is subject to the authentication of the Bible. 

Actually, the only place we can go to know more about God is in the box; that is the way God chose to show Himself in these last days; so why point us outside of the box?  It is precisely because man’s heart is desperately wicked, that the Scriptures are all we can rely on; otherwise we are left to our own devices, and imaginations.  This is just where a false teacher would like us to look—outside of the Bible (box) for God.  Why would Young want us to look outside of the Bible?  Because, Young can only persuade us of his false teaching if we leave the Bible behind.  Why?  It’s simple: his views contradict the Bible.   

Systematically, consistently and tirelessly, Young tries to undermine authority, law, rules, tradition and civility until finally the reader collapses in a heap of nothingness.  Just when we are emptied of our old God, our old boundaries, the old paths, Young comes in with a new way and a new god.  Only if you dismiss the Bible is Young’s god even viable.  I will document this undermining as I go on. 

So it seems the author’s purpose is to help us look for God outside of the Scriptures; once we do that, apparently, we will find an amazing God to love and worship.  One we can crave to be with.  As it turns out, this might just be an interesting experiment to see just how well man can know and understand God outside of the Scriptures.  Does Young do well without the Scriptures?  I think you know the answer.  And now that we know the author’s purpose in writing the book, it might be appropriate to as ask ourselves what our purpose is or was in reading the book.  Was our purpose accomplished?  I hope the author’s purpose was not accomplished! 

I hope this has caused your discernment level to be elevated as we continue.  There are still a  few more preliminary issues we need to go over before we directly address Young’s heresies. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 2 

 

The Shack’s Genre? 

 When ever studying literature and analyzing it, you need to determine its genre.  Is it poetic, allegorical, mythical, apocalyptic, etc?  This knowledge then helps determine how to go about interpreting the meaning of the writing. 

 The Shack is a fictional book, a theological book, and an allegorical book.  A fictional book is a novel or story that describes imaginary people and events.  This certainly applies to The Shack. A theological book is a book that deals with theology.  Theology, strictly speaking, is the study of God.  The Shack certainly makes many theological statements, and in fact, that is the purpose of the book: to teach people about Young’s view of God. Allegorical writing is where every aspect of a story is representative, symbolic, of something else, often a larger abstract concept or important historical/geopolitical event.[9]  In terms of the allegory in The Shack, we are not certain exactly which portions of the fictional work represent the author’s life.  I am not sure every single aspect of Mack’s life in the book represent Young’s life, but no doubt a great deal of it does. 

So The Shack’s genre is a theological fictional allegorical work.  Theology and fiction sound oxymoronic, but nevertheless, let’s review the fictional part of the book by looking at the plot.  I think it is fairly easy to separate the theology from the fiction in this book.  So let’s look briefly at the fictional aspect of the book and then we can concentrate on the theology.  

Let me just point out that some defenders of Young’s book are critical of those who take Young “to literally” when The Shack is just after all a work of fiction and allegory.  It is clear Young’s purpose is the theology; the fictional aspect is just there to undergird the theology.  Theology (Young’s beliefs about God) is Young’s stated purpose.  Even the fiction is allegorical, meaning it has a literal point.  For all practical purposes, this book is a work of theology.  As such, it is perfectly legitimate to critique the theology from its source of revelation, to its legitimacy, and to its application.  If Young wants to write theology, he is free to do so; but neither he nor his fans can hide behind the defense of  “It’s only fiction or allegory” when the battle gets heated.      

Young’s theology has to stand up, for the Evangelical, to the Scriptures;  if it does not stand up to that standard, then the Evangelical is free, and is in fact obligated, to reject it.  Extra-biblical revelation is mere speculation.  The Evangelical has a hill to die on; the theological speculator has no hill, let alone one to die on.  Will he die for his imaginations?  

So getting back to the genre of  The Shack.  This is the fictional aspect of The Shack: 

Mack’s History 

The book starts with the main character Mack’s history.  This is important as we go on to analyze other aspects of the book.  I will put this part in bullet point form: 

• Mack is born in the Midwest
• Mack is a farm boy
• Born into an Irish-American family
• His family has a strong work hard ethic
• His family had rigorous rules.
• Mack’s father is externally religious
• Mack’s dad is an overly strict church-elder
• Mack’s father is a closet drinker
• Mack’s father was “a vicious, mean, beat-your-wife-and then-ask-for-God-for-forgiveness-drunk.”[10]
• More than once Mack’s dad beat his wife unconscious
• Mack never intervened
•  Mack bared his a soul about his dad to a church leader who in turn told Mack’s dad which resulted in Mack being “tied to a big oak tree at the back of the house, he was beaten with a belt and Bible verses every time his dad woke from a stupor and put down his bottle.”[11]
• Mack, at thirteen, left home after putting varmint poison in every bottle of booze.  I am unclear as to whether this killed his father or not.
• Mack fought in a war unspecified
• Mack went to seminary in Australia
• “When Mack had his fill of theology and philosophy he came back to the States.”[12]
• Mack moved to Oregon where he met and married his wife
• Mack is about to turn 56 years old at the time the story takes place.
• Mack has a love hate relationship with religion
• Mack is not very religious
• Mack suspects God is brooding, distant and aloof
• Mack sometimes shows up at a “local pew and pulpit Bible church (the fifty-fifth Independent Assembly of Saint John the Baptist” church.[13]
• Mack has five beautiful children

 If a third of this actually happened to Young (remember he has told us this book is an allegory of his life), then I have great compassion for all he went through, and I understand why he would despise church.  

 The Murder 

I will spare you the gut wrenching details, but Mack’s youngest daughter Missy is kidnapped and murdered.  What I would like to say about this aspect of the story is that whether intentional or not (of course it is intentional) Young has picked a circumstance that could not be out done in terms of questioning God’s sovereignty, goodness and loving providence.  It is designed, I believe to hit the reader so hard he is left trying to recover his faith just as Young is trying to give you a new faith to replace the one that just got ripped out from under you.  Young goes for the juggler here, and aims more to the emotions than the intellect.  I find this methodology insidious.  It gives Young a chance to suggest that the Old God it not up to the task of answering the hard questions that result from a young “innocent” child being murdered, but is the new god really up to it? 

 The Note 

Several years after the murder, Mack receives a note which is an  invitation from God to meet him at the shack where Missy was murdered.  In other words, God wants to meet Mack right at the precise point of his greatest pain.  Mack decides, through much doubt, to go to the shack and see if God really is the one who gave him the note. 

 The Shack 

At the shack Mack is confronted with The Great Sadness.  This is the great theme throughout the book and is sort of the allegory of all of mankind’s greatest need.  Mack falls asleep in the shack and wakes in a mansion cabin structure instead of the shack and meets the godhead there. 

The Father is made in the likeness of a black women whose name is Papa; Jesus is made in the likeness of a Middle Eastern man; the Holy Spirit is made in the likeness of a transparent Asian woman named Sarayu. 

 The Re-Education  

Once he meets this godhead, he undergoes a series of re-education lessons.  All his preconceived ideas are destroyed and he is re-educated by Papa, Jesus and Sarayu about what they are really like.  Obviously this re-education process is where we will find most of the theology in the book. 

 Missy and Healing 

He is able to briefly communicate with Missy who is in heaven and through Mack’s re-education Mack finds healing for his great sadness.  Mack is able to forgive the murderer. Mack’s time is now done; he has to choose whether to go back to his family or stay with the godhead.  He decides to go back. 

 Going Back 

 Mack wakes up in the shack and everything is as it was before he fell asleep.  There seems to be a tension as to whether all that Mack experienced was a dream or whether it really happened.  It is almost a test of faith for Mack and the reader.   As Mack drives home from the shack, he is in a vehicle accident that is fairly serious putting him in the hospital.  Willy, his best friend, and his family gather around him at the hospital.  In time they come to believe he had an actual experience with God. 

 Murder Solved 

After Mack is well enough, he takes the police to the place that he was shown while at the shack, and they recover Missy’s body and make an arrest of the murderer. 

 The New Mack 

 The book shows how Mack is a new man after his “shack” experience.  And this seems to be the best argument put forward as to the reality of Mack’s new found god.   

“As for Mack, he continues to live his normal productive life and remains adamant that every word of the story is true.  All the changes in his life, he tells me, are enough evidence for him.  The Great Sadness is gone, and he experiences most days with a profound sense of joy.”[14] 

Mack has new wisdom, is a new person and the book seeks to show how this new life of Mack’s had a ripple effect,  impacting those around him.  

The Revolution of a New god 

The book ends with a call to mobilization with this new god and the theology that Young has put forward in the book.  For example in the very last page we read this:  

“If you ever get a chance to hang out with Mack, you will soon learn that he’s hoping for a new revolution, one of love and kindness—a revolution that revolves around Jesus and what he did for us all and what he continues to do in anyone who has a hunger for reconciliation and a place to call home.”[15] 

Notice in this quote that Mack (Young in allegory) is seeking for a revolution, not a reformation.  A reformation seeks to reform that which is already established.  A revolution seeks to overthrow the old and replace it with something entirely new.  This further confirms Young’s desire to create a new god, not the God already revealed in the Bible.  Remember, words have meaning; Young is being very deliberate in his choice of language.

I want to say much about this quote, but without having critiqued the theological details yet of what the revolution entails, I will have to wait until later to get back to it. 

This gives us the genre of the book and the basic outline of the fictional and allegorical aspect of the book.  We can now begin to look at the theological aspect of the book. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 3 

  

Out with the Old and In with the New  

In the last section we ended with the fictional plot of the book, but there is a undergirding structure even to the fictional plot of The Shack.  This structure is the theology of the book.  I see three major movements (if it can be called that in a book):  

1. Deconstruction-The act of tearing down something already built.  
2. Reconstruction- The act of rebuilding something torn down.  
3. Application- Applying what has been reconstructed to life.

 1. Deconstruction  

The deconstruction process (see the above definition for my use of the word) begins in the Forward of The Shack where we are introduced to Mack and his past.  Let’s look again at key events in Mack’s past that relate to religion:  

• His family had rigorous (rigid, unyielding) rules.
• Mack’s father is externally religious
• Mack’s dad is an overly strict church-elder
• Mack’s father is a closet drinker
• Mack’s father was “a vicious, mean, beat-your-wife-and then-ask-for-God-for-forgiveness-drunk.”
• Mack bared his a soul about his dad to a church leader who in turn told Mack’s dad which resulted in Mack being “tied to a big oak tree at the back of the house, he was beaten with a belt and Bible verses every time his dad woke from a stupor and put down his bottle.”
• Mack went to seminary in Australia
• “When Mack had his fill of theology and philosophy he came back to the States.”
• Mack has a love hate relationship with religion
• Mack is not very religious
• Mack suspects God is brooding, distant and aloof
• Mack sometimes shows up at a “local pew and pulpit Bible church (the fifty-fifth Independent Assembly of Saint John the Baptist” church). [16]

So Mack’s very religious father is a hypocrite, a drunkard, a child and wife abuser; the church (at least a leader) when advised of this problem with Mack’s father(who is also a church leader) did nothing to protect the abused, thus siding with their church leader against the victims.  The church appears to have not been a concerned about the abused.  

Mack has a view of God that is of a “brooding, distant and aloof” God.  Mack is not religious.  In his state of “irreligiousness” and distant view of God, he still, for some odd reason, attends seminary until he has had his “fill of religion and philosophy.”   
  

We also see disdain on Mack’s part for organized religious church structure.  I say this based on Mack’s view of the “local pew and pulpit Bible church (the fifty-fifth Independent Assembly of Saint John the Baptist” [17]   

So far, we cannot easily identify whether Mack has just had a real bad experience of religion and church (we assume Christianity), or whether Young is setting us up to also feel disdain for traditional Christianity; a Christianity where a Christian family, regular church attendance, and pulpit preaching are part and parcel of good Christian discipleship.  

If indeed Young is deconstructing traditional Christian institutions as I propose, he has just mentioned the following critical Christian institutions: 

• Christian family
• Christian Churches 
• Christian education
• Christian preaching. 

What’s left after institutions?  Perhaps he won’t touch the basis of authority for the Christian (The Bible), and about godly practices (prayer, Christian worship through song, fellowship)?  Here we have a quote from page 67 and 68:  

• “In seminary he [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.  God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects.  It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients or uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.  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?”  [bold print mine] Wm. Paul Young, The Shack, page 67-68. 

The Scriptures appear to be undermined as the sole means by which we can know what God is like.  Young has undermined the view Sola Scriptura (Latin for Scripture alone) if not an out and out denial of its authority.  Let’s look further:    

• “He realized he was stuck, and Sunday prayers and hymns weren’t cutting it anymore, if they ever really had.  Cloistered spirituality seemed to change nothing in lives of the people he knew, except maybe Nan.  But she was special.  God might really love her.  She wasn’t a screwup like him.  He was sick of God and God’s religion, sick of all the little religious social clubs that didn’t seem to make any real difference or effect any real changes.  Yes Mack wanted more, and he was about to get much more than he bargained for.” [18] 

Mack (who is Young in allegory) has now mentioned prayer, sacred song, and even possibly Christian fellowship as having never really worked for Mack. Here we have what appears to be more undermining and deconstruction. 
  

In all fairness, we do not yet know whether it is just Mack that has a problem with these institutions, Scripture, and so on, simply due to his horrible past exposure to religion from his father, or whether Young is deriding these things through Mack.  

The Christian Church has considered all of these practices (in addition to Lord’s Supper and Baptism) as important means to bring about godliness in believers.  Young has seemingly marginalized them through Mack’s attitude.  These things are a “means” to our growth.  Since these institutions and spiritual activities are very important Biblical means to growth, we would expect Mack to come back to these things if and when his faith is found and/or renewed.  However, if Mack finds his faith and renewal without, aside, apart, and unrelated to these means of growth (sometimes called “means of grace”), then it would appear Young is intentionally undermining these institutions and practices.  

We should watch carefully to see if Young gets back to these things as a means to Mack’s growth or whether they are left discarded.  If left discarded, it could mean that Young is deconstructing these things for the purpose of reconstructing something else in its place.   These types of comments about various means of grace continue throughout the book, and even come into the conversations Mack has with Young’s imaginary trinity.  

There is a certain degree in which many of us who have been raised in the church can identify with Mack in what seems like empty ritualistic practices of the church; to the unsaved or backslidden person, these means of grace can seem useless.  For one who has not been regenerated or born from above, all the things done in churches will seem pointless to us and can even become something despised.  As well, it is possible that these means of grace become ritualistic or legalistic for even a saved person.   Also, Evangelical churches can sometimes continue with these various practices, without the doctrinal basis for understandiing their benefit; this ignorance can greatly decrease the benefit of these various means of grace.  

For these various reasons, and perhaps others, we can have compassion on Mack (or Young) for not seeing a great deal of benefit from these practises or institutions.  But it does not change the fact that God gave us the Scripture, the Church, the Christian family, prayer, fellowship, worship and pulpit preaching as a great blessing.  No matter what one man’s experience may be, we should be careful that we do not allow ourselves to be swayed from their use and benefit.  “Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown” (Rev 3:11 (ESV))  

The deconstruction continues through much of the book.  I would add that even the use of Mack’s young daughter being kidnapped and murdered is probably the foundational device used in the deconstruction process. It is highly, and I mean highly, emotionally charged!  What would cause our faith to be tested in a sovereign and holy God more than such an incident? It especially impacts us if we, as readers, have our own children or grandchildren.  The thought of such an event fills us with fear and dread.  We know it could deeply test our faith.   

I actually despise Young’s method on this and think it insidious.  If Young wants to write a book that explains his theology of God fine, but to use such an emotionally charged device allows him a little more power to deconstruct our view of God and replace it with his own. 
  

2. Reconstruction  

The reconstruction process (see the above definition for my use of the word) begins when Mack receives an apparent note from God inviting Mack to the shack where Missy was murdered.  Once Mack is at the shack and talking with the trinity, the real reconstruction of the new god begins.  

I will wait until we get into the theology of Young’s new god to illustrate the extent of the reconstruction.  But within the conversations Mack has with the trinity, you will see this rebuilding or re-educating process happening.  As well, a pattern emerges in the way this re-education process happens.  The pattern is similar to the kind of thing Jesus said in the Scriptures: “You have heard it said, but I tell you.”  Young’s god has to re-educate Mack away from his former traditional views of God toward the views of the new god.  

Given Mack’s religious exposure, Mack may have some very wrong views of the True and Living God.  I acknowledge that Young has set up in Mack’s past a scenario where Mack needs to be re-educated.  I understand that.  The stage is set and we are ready for Mack to find out what God is like.  If Young was simply setting the stage to present Mack with the Biblical God, I obviously would not accuse Young of deconstructionism of the Biblical God.  But the objection I have is the truth basis for how Mack is re-educated and the actual message by which it is done.  

I acknowledged that our (not just Mack’s) traditional views of God are often insufficient.  I think because we know this is true, we are a little open to language that suggests our current views of God are inadequate.  But before we discard our old views we should know whether or not they actually are inadequate.  Young just assumes the views we have are insufficient. [19]  I think he does this because of his view that the Bible, Church, seminary and preaching are not adequate means to communicate God’s character.    

If our traditional views are informed by the Word of God, we should not tolerate someone contradicting those views.  On the other hand, if our traditional views of God are not informed by the Word of God, then we should shed them from our minds.  But with what will we replace those false views of God with?  That is a critical question in which the only answer can be the revelation found in the Scriptures.  

A weak faith is subject to this kind of deconstruction and reconstruction.  A weak faith has a lack conviction.  Perhaps the weak faith is due to our unbiblical views of God; perhaps they should reform.  Regardless, any such reform of thinking must be informed by the Scriptures.  Maybe our faith is Biblical, but is just weak; in that case, we should gird up our minds, and become more entrenched in the Word of God and stand strong.    
  

Young gives us no basis, other than his experience and intuition, upon which to accept this reconstructed god.  This is a grossly inadequate basis upon which to tear down the old God and to rebuild a new god.  It is almost unbelievable that such a foundational truth for Evangelicals (who God is based on Scripture) is just given up because of some man’s opinion; such is the condition in which we find ourselves.  We are in a time of falling away from sound doctrine.  As Evangelicals, we are serving other gods and committing spiritual adultery with another god, if we embrace unbiblical ideas and data about the Only One True Living God.  Young’s book is a form of spiritual pornography; we should not be looking at false images of God, when we know where the truth is found.  Young’s god may look more attractive to our flesh, but it (or should I say “she” (papa)) is no god or goddess at all! 

“The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply;” Psalms 16:4b 

 

3.  Application  

 As Mack’s visit with the godhead at the shack begins to wind down, Young begins to make applications of what life should be like with this new and reconstructed god.  The application continues all the way to the very end of the book through the After Words and Acknowledgements.  

The application is where we begin to see just how serious Young is about his theology.  “If ever you get a chance to hang out with Mack, you will soon learn that he’s hoping for a new revolution….” [20]  We see that he is very serious about his god and thinks his view actually reveals to us the real one true and living god.  How far we have come, when mere intuition and imagination is adequate to create a new god, a new faith and to do away with the orthodox theology of thousands of years from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and all we have learned throughout Church history.  

It is possible that Young and others might view this new god as an addition to the God of Scriptures, an expanded view, or as a compliment to the historical views of God.  But we will see that they contradict God as revealed in the Bible.  This is the classic case of out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the-new.  So to summarize, the foundational structure of the book upon which the fictional story line and the theological aspect is built, is three-fold: ^[21]  

• First, Young tears down (deconstructs) the old views of God (at least the ones he hits upon), the basis for the old God, and the institutions used by God for teaching the Scriptures (church, family, seminary).
• Second, he begins to rebuild (reconstruct) a new god; he does so without providing a stated basis of truth or authority. 
• Thirdly, Young proceeds to show us how we should then live with this new god as the center of our affections.

I hope I have laid a foundation by which we can now begin to evaluate Young’s claims of truth for his new god; we will evaluate the claims by the authority of Scripture and in light of church history.  The Scriptures will judge the truthfulness of Young’s claims, and church history will give us some perspective on Young’s views of god.    

___________________________________________________________________________________________

A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 4  

 

Introduction to Young’s False Teaching  

As Mack meets with “the three” in The Shack, they cover a whole array of topics.  It is almost like a catechism of sorts where there is a theological question and then a theological answer.  Although far from organized, Young is attempting to give us his theology.    

In the Bible, we have many doctrines laid out for us in the various books of the Scriptures, and what is helpful is to organize or systematize, all the various teachings of the Bible.  This area of theological discipline is known as ‘systematic theology’.  Through the hard work of those who have preceded us, we have some excellent systematic theology books available to us.  These tools are of immense value to us, because it helps us to get our minds around the whole counsel of God.  If  we have a good systematic theology book like that of Louis Berkhof , Wayne Grudem,or others, we can look up a topic such as ‘the atonement’ or ‘God’s providence’ and see there all the Bible teaches on that topic.  And by doing so, we able to study and see the wonderful unity of the Word of God.  

What I want to attempt to do here is to bring all of Young’s various teaching topics together under proper doctrinal/theological categories, so I can better analyze Young’s teaching by the standard of the Word of God.  One by product of this will also be to see if there is any unity and/or contradictions in Young’s teaching.   

Young’s book appears almost random in its teaching topics.  As a result, it took me hours to label all the various topics and to organize them into categories.  I have a sense Young would not approve of my categorizing his theology.  After all, Young states that there is “beauty in ambiguity.”  See this link for his blog post on this subject http://www.windrumors.com/43/the-beauty-of-ambiguity-mystery/.  I strongly disagree with Young here, especially if he applies that to the teaching of the Bible.  True beauty is in order and precision, just as our God is a God of order and precision.  We have only to look at the order of creation and the clarity in God’s Word to see this is true.  True beauty is found in order, unity and clarity.     

God’s word is laid out for us precept upon precept, and I intend to take each subject that Young espouses and address them in an orderly fashion, addressing them in light of the Bible’s precepts.  I will address Young’s errors in the following order, and under these categories:  

•  1.  The Scriptures 
• 2.  The Godhead 
• 3.  God’s Decree
• 4.  Creation
• 5.  The Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment
• 6.  Christ the Mediator (atonement)
• 7.  Free Will
• 8.  repentance
• 9.  Salvation
• 10.  Good Works
• 11.  The Law
• 12.  The Gospel
• 13.  Religious Worship
• 14.  Civil institutions
• 15.  Marriage
• 16.  The Church
• 17.  Prayer
• 18.  Last Things (heaven).  

In looking at these categories, I find it interesting that for as much as Young is attempting to bring forward a new god with its new doctrines, he is not original.  There is nothing new under the sun, and he writes on traditional topics that fit under the above traditional doctrinal/theological categories.  Most, if not all, of Young’s teaching were believed by various heretics and false teachers throughout church history.  And this is where some church history will be helpful in giving us a historical perspective on The Shack.    

Identifying each of Young’s errors by previous false teachers’ names and times in history would be difficult for me as I lack the extensive training to do that justice.  But with the help of some books and tools at my disposal, I will do my best to bring in the historical perspective.    My primary aim though is to identify the truth of the topics Young teachings by using the Scriptures and examining how Young’s teachings measure up to that standard.   

I will take the various topics from Young under these listed categories, providing citations from The Shack,  then show what the Bible teaches, and provide an analysis of Young’s statements in light of the Bible.  If it seems helpful, I will bring in some perspective from church history, including commonly accepted statements made in creeds and confessions.   
 
 I hope to spend proportionately more time on the Biblical teaching of the topic Young brings us to, and less on Young’s actual teaching.  What I hope to gain by doing so, is that we won’t get too focused on Young.  There have been many false teachers before Young and there will be many after him.  What I want to focus on is the truth, not Young.  When we know the truth, the ‘Youngs’ of this world will have no effect upon us.  If we spend more time studying the genuine, then the counterfeit will be easier to spot.  

In the next section, Lord willing, I will begin addressing each topic under the categories listed above. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 5

 

Revelation and Scripture 

Just before we get started with a lot of quotes from The Shack, let’s take a little step back and reflect on a couple questions. Is it a small thing for a person to speak on God’s behalf?  It is a huge thing for us to do so.  And if we are going to do so, we better make sure God has truly said what we say He has.  The fear of God should rest on us when we speak for God. Another question for reflection is from where do we get God’s words?  Some believe you can only get God’s words from the Bible. Some believe you can get God’s words from within themselves referencing the Spirit as their source.  Some believe you can get God’s words from both.  What do you believe?  If we are going to speak for God, which of these three are truly, firmly and soundly reliable?   

I believe we can only get the words of God from the Bible, and because of this I do not believe it is okay to speak for God unless you are using the teachings or doctrines of the Bible.  Because of this fundamental foundational belief, I am not in the least swayed when someone claims to speak for God whether by a personal revelation, a vision, or any other form of revelation that is not from the Bible.  Anyone who speaks for God is expected to prove it by the Word of God, the Bible.  If they cannot do so, then they have nothing to say as far as I am concerned.  This view is supposed to be that of historical Evangelicals. 

 The doctrine of Scripture alone from the Reformation is foundational to Evangelicalism.  The Reformation, at its very foundation, was a denial that the truth of God could come from Scripture and the Church.  The Roman Catholic Church believed that the Bible and the Catholic Church were the authority for truth.  Michael Horton states: “On one side, the reformers faced the Roman Church, which believed its teaching authority to be final and absolute. The Roman Catholics said that tradition can be a form of infallible revelation even in the contemporary church; one needs an infallible Bible and an infallible interpreter of that sacred book.” [22]  The Reformation denied the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and stated it was the Bible alone.  This belief was called in Latin sola Scriptura or in English Scripture alone.  This is the historical position of Evangelical Protestants. 

Scripture alone is the belief that the Bible is the “only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”[23] If this is not your foundation and starting point, then my critique of The Shack is likely to either offend you or disinterest you.  On the other hand, if this is your foundation, then this chapter, which analyzes what The Shack has to say about the Bible, will be important in determining if The Shack has anything to offer you or others. 

When we are talking about how we know if something is from God, basically we are talking about revelation.  Revelation simply means something previously unknown or that was a mystery, but is now made known.  In the realm of theology there are two main categories of revelation.  There is general revelation and special (or specific) revelation. General revelation is revealed to us primarily by creation.  It is called general revelation because the audience receiving the revelation is general and broad. What it tells us about God is general and not very specific.  In Romans we see this:  

• For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.  Romans 1:19-20 (ESV) 
   

So the Bible tells us that God, through creation, gave a revelation to all mankind that He is eternal in power and divine in nature.  This revelation is to all mankind regardless of religion, ethnicity, or persuasion, and has been clearly shown to them by God.  The Bible teaches that this general revelation is for everyone.  However, this general revelation does not in any way tell us about a Savior and the way of salvation through Christ.  This general revelation leaves mankind with no excuse to say he did not  know there was a God to whom he is accountable. 

 When we move to special revelation, we are talking about a revelation of a different kind.  It is specific and detailed in what it reveals and it can only come from the Scriptures.  It reveals the way of salvation (all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience).  We can see that in this verse: 

• But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 3:14-15 (ESV) 

General revelation cannot “make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”  As you read these quotes from The Shack, you will see that the author is not just using general revelation to determine what God is like.  It is very clear that he is using special revelation, and yet, the Bible is not the source of it.  One has to ask, “Well, then where is he getting it?”   

Maybe you will able to determine Young’s source of revelation as you read some of these quotes in this chapter.  The source for Young’s revelation should be absolutely critical for the Evangelical and his or her enthusiasm for The Shack.  If Young’s authority and source for special revelation is not the Bible, then how can it be a valid source?   

Statement 1 

“For almost 2 days, tied to the big oak at the back of the house, he was beaten with a belt and Bible verses every time his dad woke from a stupor and put his bottle down.”  Pg. 10

This is provided by Young to develop the historical background of Mack.  Here we can see why someone in this situation like Mack would have a disdain for the Bible.  If this is Young’s experience personally, then we can gain some insight into Young and perhaps understand how that experience might influence his thoughts of the Bible.

I place this quote in the ‘deconstruction’ portion of The Shack (see Chapter 3 of my critique).  I wonder what Young’s motivation is in placing the Holy Scriptures in an unholy situation like this, if this is not a true aspect of Young’s life. 

Not much more to say here.

Statement 2

Try as he might Mack could not escape the desperate possibility that the note might just be from God after all, even if the thought of God’s passing notes did not fit well with his theological training.  “In seminary he 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.  God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects.  It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients or uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.  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?”  Page 67-68.

This I have placed in the ‘deconstruction’ portion of this critique; the author is attempting to tear down traditional or ‘preconceived’ views of God by his own admission (see chapter 3) of this critique.  In this case, the deconstruction is aimed at the seminary teaching where apparently they taught the doctrine of Scripture alone to Mack, or was that to Young?  In terms of the teaching of Scripture alone, it is inaccurate to represent that this means God is not communicating anymore to ‘moderns’. Young says, “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture.” The point of the doctrine of Scripture Alone is that God is absolutely communicating to us.  He is communicating to us through the Scripture with the help of the Spirit illuminating its meaning to us.  God is communicating through the Scriptures alone.  He is not communicating through any other means. 

We all understand that not all seminaries are beneficial.  Evangelicals do not look favorably upon seminaries that deny the Bible is the Word of God, and there are many.   Genuinely Evangelical seminaries, however, are still excellent places to train our pastors and prepare them for the valid and essential ministry of being pastor of the local church and preaching the Word of God. 

 In statement 2, we see here this tension being set up in relation to how God Speaks.  We, as the reader, come to understand that within the story of The Shack, that God did actually send the note.  As a result, we are forced to conclude, based on the fictional facts, that what the seminary taught Mack is obviously wrong.  The seminary said God does not speak that way, and yet He is doing so; who is right God or the Seminary?  We are kind forced into siding against the theology of the seminary and siding with The Shack in relation to how God speaks. I find this very sly and subtle. Young has now brought the undiscerning reader one step closer (in one of many steps) to forsaking his or her accepted views; that is, if those views coincide with what the seminary taught. 

We see this statement:

“It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients or uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia.”

I think Young is saying revelation (“direct communication with God”) is not just through the Bible in which only the seminary trained or intelligent can understand.  When we look at the next statement, I think this understanding is confirmed.  He says, “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?”

It is as if Young is saying, “You don’t want a God that can fit into a box; so why would you want a God that can fit into a book, especially one that makes you feel guilty.”  Young is very sly here and we need to be careful.  I don’t think any of us like the idea of worshiping a god that can fit into a box.  But he then takes it one step farther and adds, “Oh, by the way, that box that I am referring to is the Bible.”

 This sounds reasonable right?  We don’t want to reduce God to a bunch of words and doctrines.  But to conclude that the Bible does put God is a box is a rather large jump and a dangerous jump spiritually.  If we follow Young here, we are leaving the authority of the Bible behind, and Young will seek to replace it with some other authority.  

I am afraid that many ‘Evangelicals’ are not holding close enough to their Bibles to understand what the Scriptures actually say about God.  What the Bible does say about God far exceeds anything we or Young could imagine or even dream up.  The Bible is far from a restrictive box that God is stuffed into; it is actually God’s means of revealing Himself to us as the Spirit works in us.  If Young does not think so, we are free to ignore him and move on and stand with our evangelical history in affirming indeed the Bible is “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”[24]

So catch this: whose god is in a box?  Young, in his book, reveals to us his god.  Where do we learn about this god?  The Shack, is, you guessed it, a book!  So Young is unable logically to get away from what he perceives as limitations of written revelation; we find even him seeking to use it. 

Briefly, let’s compare books.  The Shack’s revelation of this new god occurs over a weekend, the revelation of God found in the Bible occurs over 1500 years of writing.  The Bible has multiple different authors from varied status, cultures, education levels, locations and time periods.  The Shack is written by one author with limited diversity.  Does Young really think he is that good, or has that much new revelation for us?  You decide whose god is in a box! 

• Can The Shack claim this?  “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ¹³ And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”   Heb 4:12-13 (ESV)
•  Or this? “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”   Romans 15:4 (ESV)

Contrary to Young’s view that the Bible is full of ‘guilty edges,’ the Bible is essential to a fruitful life of freedom from sin and guilt.  One of the signs that someone is truly born-again is that they love God’s Word.  Since Young has such a low view of it, this may be evidence that Young is not born-again. 

  Statement 3

“This is ridiculous!  I’m such an idiot!  To think that I hoped God might actually care enough to send me a note!” pg 82

Young has created a character toward which we immediately feel sympathy.  A character such as Mack, who thinks God has no interest in him, we desire to help; so we are all rooting for Mack to be receiving of a direct ‘note’ from God.  But hold on; hasn’t God already sent all His ‘notes’ to His people?  Doesn’t this need for an ‘additional note’ beyond the Bible, imply that the Bible is insufficient?  Mack has a Bible in his house, presumably, and yet that is not enough; he needs a ‘note’ from God in order to be assured that God loves him.  This is subtle, but I think it is there. 

I realize that Young’s use of the ‘note’ in and of itself is not evidence Young literally thinks God goes around handing out notes. On the other hand, I see no evidence that Young is trying to imply the note is a figure for the Bible.  We have already seen Young’s denial that God communicates through a restrictive book only.  We all want a personal note from God, but the point I am making is that God has already sent it.  Consider these words from one of my favorite hymns:

•  How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
• Is laid for your faith in his excellent Word!
• What more can He say than to you he hath said,
• You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

My brothers and sisters, what more can He say?  Apparently for Young, God has not said enough, and what He has said is not good enough.

• “But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. Heb 1:2 (ESV)

There is one thing for sure that we can gather from this verse in Hebrews, God has not spoken through Young or anyone else in these last days but Jesus.  He has spoken through Jesus, the Word, and the Word of God in the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit, God Himself. 

  Statement 4

 “To his amusement he also found a Gideon’s Bible in the night stand.  He opened the window wide to let the outside night flow freely in, something that Nan never tolerated at home because of her fear of spiders and anything else crawly and creepy.  Snuggling like a small child deep inside a heavy down comforter, he made it through only a couple of verses before the Bible somehow left his hand, the light somehow turned off, someone kissed him on the cheek, and he was lifting gently off the ground in a flying dream.”  Page 117 

Mack is amused that after speaking to the trinity directly and getting direct revelation from them, that there is still a Bible in the night stand.  It seems amusing to us as well as we get into the story line of the book; after all, who needs the Bible when you are staying in a cabin with the real deal. This creates, potentially, a false dichotomy between the Bible and the One True God; as if there is a difference between what God would tell us Himself if we met Him face to face, and what He told us in His Word.  If God is unchangeable, then we expect complete consistency in who God is and who He has revealed Himself to be in the Scriptures.

What is interesting throughout the dialog with Mack and this trinity is that the trinity never quotes from the Bible, nor is any reference to the Bible given.  This leaves you with the distinct impression that the Scriptures are not very important to this godhead; if this is so, they certainly would not be very important to us either. 

 Let’s compare this to the Father, to our Lord Jesus, and to the Spirit Himself. 

We see the Father often referring Israel back to words that He previously said to them; we see Jesus, the true Messiah, quoting Scripture to affirm its infallibility, in eternality, and its authority; he uses it to overcome temptation and the list could be extended.  The affirmation of the Bible and its use by Jesus during His earthly ministry is clearly an indicator to us of how important the Bible is supposed to be to us.  We see one of the Holy Spirit’s ministries is to bring to remembrance the things that Jesus said to the disciples.  God’s word never fades.

So why does Young’s god refuse to refer back to previously said things in the Bible? Is it perhaps because Young’s god is not truly the God revealed in the Scriptures?  There is no continuity there.  It seems it is all new business for the god revealed in The Shack.  No reference is made in The Shack to her/his past workings with man, no mention of covenants, no reference to the new covenant; The Shack is spiritually bankrupt if we judge a book by its absence of Scripture.  In Matthew 4:4 Jesus said, “It is written,” ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’ (ESV).  I do not think there is one single Scripture citation in the entire book (I have found one allusion), and when we supposedly have the words of the true godhead revealed in The Shack, this absence is a very significant indicator of a real problem. 

Someone might object by saying, “This is a fictional allegorical book, not a theological treatise.”  To that I ask, “Are you sure?”  As I have addressed earlier (see the author’s purpose), Young has made it clear that his main objective is theology in this book not a novel.  So we are perfectly on track to evaluate Young’s statements and expect him to support them by the Bible. Especially if his views vary from Evangelicalism, which they indeed do.   If Young has a theology to present that is outside of historic evangelical parameters, and he does not or cannot support these aberrant doctrines from the Word of God, then I really don’t understand what any evangelical hopes to obtain from this theological novel? 

 Statement 5

 “Will I always be able to see you or hear you like I do now, even if I’m back home?” 

Sarayu smiled.  “Mackenzie, you can always talk to me and I will always be with you, whether you sense my presence or not.”

“I know that now, but how will I hear you?”

“You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours, Mackenzie,” she reassured him.

“Will it be clear?”  What if I confuse you with another voice?  What if I make mistakes?”

Sarayu laughed, the sound like tumbling water, only set to music.  “Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow in relationship.”

“I don’t want to make mistakes,” Mack grunted.

“Oh, Mackenzie,” responded Sarayu, “mistakes are a part of life, and Papa works her purpose in them too.”  She was amused and Mack couldn’t help but grin back.  He could see her point well enough.

“This is so different from everything I’ve known, Sarayu.  Don’t get me wrong—I love what you all have given me this weekend.  But I have no idea how to go back to my life.  Somehow it seemed easier to live with God when I thought of him as the demanding taskmaster, or even to cope with the loneliness of The Great Sadness.” Pg 197-198.

The meeting at The Shack, is beginning to come to an end as we see this quote, and the book is moving towards the application stage I referred to earlier in the critique.  So Mack is trying to determine what he will do with this new revelation when he gets back to real life. 

 As we are reading and getting to this portion of the book, we are cued up and ready for Young’s version of the holy spirit to answer an important question that Mack has asked.  Mack asks essentially how he will hear Sarayu when he returns back to his life.  We need to pay attention here, because we are going to find out what Young thinks in terms of his source for revelation.

 Here is her answer: “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours.”  Mack then asks three very important follow up questions:

1. “Will it be clear?”
2. “What if I confuse you with another voice?”
3. “What if I make mistakes?”

 Young’s ‘holy spirit’ does not answer the first two questions directly, but only indirectly by her direct answer to Mack’s third question.  Here is the answer to that third question: “Of course you will make mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow in relationship.”

 So here is how these questions are answered:

1.  “Will it be clear?” Answer:  No, it will not be clear enough to understand without mistakes because her voice is not clear (at least initially).
2. “What if I confuse you with another voice?” Answer: You will make mistakes; in other words, you may confuse it with other voices.
3. “What if I make mistakes?” Answer:  You will make mistakes because my voice will not be clear enough to avoid those mistakes; and after growing in relationship you will misunderstand my voice less and less.

So let’s analyze this a little bit. 

“You will hear my thoughts in yours [thoughts].’ 

 Three thoughts about this:

 1. To begin with, this is certainly not a very clear way to hear from this Sarayu spirit.  This is subjective at best and delusional at worst.  So, yes, we can see why Mack will be making mistakes, and apparently this is no big deal to Young’s spirit.  This attitude is basically a “No worries, it’s all good” approach to the serious business of one’s spiritual life. 

 2. I am glad my God has made Himself clear in the Scriptures, which are in writing.  I don’t have to sort out ‘my thoughts’ from my ‘God’s thoughts.’  God’s thoughts are separate from mine, and in fact, when I want to know God’s words (not mere thoughts), then I go to an external source, the Bible, to read God’s words.  True the internal work of the Holy Spirit illuminates the Bible’s meaning in conjunction with careful study what God’s words mean, but I am not reliant on some mystical revelation as to what God is saying.  My thoughts are corrupt and affected by sin, so to hope to hear God’s thoughts in mine, would be an effort with uncertain results.  This reminds me of what God says about us hearing Him in our thoughts: 

• “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV

Biblically speaking, we are not to look for the Word of God to come to us in our thoughts.   We are to go to the Word of God directly.  That is why it is called ‘the Word of God.”  Please keep in mind that the Spirit and the Word of God are not to be separated.  The Spirit breathed the Scriptures, so part of His work in the Scriptures is to help us understand what He wrote by illumination as opposed to new or fresh revelation, after which some folks clamor.  So to put such an emphasis on the Word of God is not to remove the work of the Spirit in our lives at all; it is in fact honoring to the Holy Spirit to treat with great care and respect what He has written for us in the Bible.  To do otherwise, may very well grieve the Spirit in our lives.

 3.  Now we perhaps better see how Young ‘came up’ with this ‘Papa’ god, and his ‘Sarayu’ god-spirit, and even this ‘Jesus’ of his as found in The Shack.  They came from his thoughts.  It is likely that Young assumes his thoughts were God’s thoughts and so gives them authority in his mind, but in reality, Young made up this god from his own thoughts.  Without relying wholly on the Bible to inform us about God and His words, our wicked, deceitful heart, mind and spirit will always come up short and wrong about who God truly is.  One will end up doing what Young is doing:

• “They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.”  Jeremiah 14:14b (ESV)

As I said previously in this chapter, I am sure at this juncture some might say, “Look, you are taking Young too literally.  Remember it is a book of fiction and allegory, and Young’s purpose is not to actually make us worship ‘a black gender confused goddess’ named Papa, or listen to Sarayu, a see-through female deity.  These are only there to help remove ‘stereo-types’ that folks have about God.  Has Young not made that point clear to his readers?”  I understand that, but it is ineffective and counter-productive to use false views of God, to induce true views of God.  It also is unbiblical and morally wrong according to the second commandment. Only the truth of who God actually is, will remove false preconceived ideas about God, and only the Word of God is capable of doing this with the Spirit’s regenerative work in a heart.  

But are Young’s aims all that noble?  Is it just a matter of Young’s methods, and not really his theology that is in error?  Young never seems to come out and say he wants to remove preconceived ideas about God that are ‘unbiblical.’  It seems any view of God, whether Biblical or not, is a preconceived notion of God to Young.  Apparently, Young is immune to these horrible preconceived ideas himself and it is only the rest of us that are fraught with false preconceptions.  It seems Young is here to straighten the rest of us out.  This is arrogance at a frightening level.

Statement 6

Sarayu is speaking:

“Just because you believe something firmly doesn’t make it true.  Be willing to reexamine what you believe.  The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly.  But even then, you don’t want to trust them more than me.”

 Mack allowed his oar to turn in his hands as he let it play in the water’s movements.  “It feels like living out a relationship—you know, trusting and talking to you—is a bit more complicated than just following the rules.”

“What rules are those, Mackaenzie?”

“You know, all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do.”

“Okay…” she said with some hesitation.  “And what might those be?”

“You know,” he answered sarcastically.  “About doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying and going to church.  Things like that.”

“I see.  And how is that working for you?”

He laughed.  “Well, I’ve never done it very well.  I have moments that aren’t too bad, but there is always something I’m struggling with or feel guilty about.  I just figured I needed to try harder, but I find it difficult to sustain that motivation.”

“Mackenzie!” she chided, her words flowing with affections. “The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules.  It is a picture of Jesus.  While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own.  Life and living are in him and in no other.  My goodness, you didn’t think you could live the righteousness of God on your own did you?”

“Well, I thought so, sorta…” he said sheepishly.  “But you gotta admit, rules and principles are simpler than relationships.”

“It is true that relationships are a whole lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart, and they will never love you.”

Dipping his hands in the water, he played, watching the patterns his movements made.  “I’m realizing how few answers I have…to anything.  You know, you’ve turned me upside down or inside out or something.”

“Mackenzie, religion is about having the right answers, and some of its answers are right.  But I am about the process that takes you to the living answer, and once you get to him, he will change you from the inside.  There are a lot of smart people who are able to say a lot of right things from their brains because they have been told what the right answers are, but they don’t know me at all.  So really, how can their answers be right even if they are right, if you understand my drift?”  She smiled at her pun.  “So even though they might be right, they are still wrong.”

“I understand what you are saying.  I did that for years after seminary.  I had the right answers sometimes, but I didn’t know you.  This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.”  They continued to move lazily with a current.

“So, will I see you again?”  he asked hesitatingly.

“Of course.  You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in creation, or in your joy and sorrow.  My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love.  And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways.  Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”  Page 199

So let’s break down that section:

“Just because you believe something firmly doesn’t make it true.  Be willing to reexamine what you believe.” 

Does this statement apply to Young’s readers, or also to Young himself?  Young may believe firmly in his views, but does that make him right?

“The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly.  But even then, you don’t want to trust them more than me.”

Where in the entire Bible do we see emotions an instrument to perceive truth?  Clearly, the Bible refers to our minds or hearts as the instrument to understand or perceive truth, never to our emotions. 

•  Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2 (ESV)

The fruit of perceiving truth with your emotions is exactly what we see in The Shack.  This approach Young takes leaves him susceptible to such delusion as is set forth in this book.  Perhaps, Young is reacting to an over reliance on rationalism which excluded the use of the emotions; that may be possible.  Emotions have their place.  To suppress them is not necessarily healthy either.  But emotions don’t lead the way, they follow. 

Young ‘feels’ he has the truth about God; he feels good in embracing a non-judgmental god who just loves and never condemns.  I understand, and that would be a ‘feel-good’ religion, but that ‘feel-goodness’ does not make it true.  I ‘feel good’ when I read the Chronicles of Narnia, but that does not mean Narnia really exists; sorry to break that you, Narnia fans.  Just because the concept of a god like this makes you feel good, does not mean that god really exists.  It is a fantasy. 

I saw an advertisement recently in a magazine that said this as a part of its motto: “What I feel, is what is real.”  I have news for you, you might feel like you can jump off a cliff and fly, but what is real is what you feel when you hit the bottom! 

Judgment Day is real and no amount of fancy rhetoric or imagination will dream it away.  It is a real event, and I suggest Young snap out of it and prepare for this real event.  He, as with all, can only be prepared on that great and terrible day, by repenting of our sins and believing on Christ (as revealed in the Bible) for salvation. Judgment Day is real and no amount of fancy rhetoric or imagination will dream it away. 

 Continuing to break down statement 6

“It feels like living out a relationship—you know, trusting and talking to you—is a bit more complicated than just following the rules.”

“What rules are those, Mackaenzie?”

“You know, all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do.”

“Okay…” she said with some hesitation.  “And what might those be?”

“You know,” he answered sarcastically.  “About doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying and going to church.  Things like that.”

“I see.  And how is that working for you?”

 Mack says, “It feels like living out a relationship.”  We see that word ‘feel’ again.

I will address this comment about ‘rules’ under the chapter on  The Law in a later post.  But does not this seem unlikely that a holy God, whose Law is a reflection of His holy character, would say: “I see.  And how is that working for you?”  How irreverent to represent God communicating like that.  Keep in mind “reading your Bible” is apparently one of those ‘rules’.  Again, love for God’s word is one of those things that distinguished those God has caused to be born from above.

In the above statement Young wrote that the Bible is “a picture of Jesus.”  Is the Bible a ‘picture of Jesus’?  Honestly, I am not real clear what this means.   The Jesus of the Bible (not Young’s “Jesus”) permeates the entire Bible certainly, but He is explained in words, and is the Word, and is not a picture.  This seems like it move aways from the precision of Christ and other topics in the Bible as explained with words.  Since I am not real clear on what he is saying, it would be best to say no more.

“Of course.  You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in creation, or in your joy and sorrow.  My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love.  And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways.  Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”  

Here we see Sarayu telling Mack that he will not only hear god in his thoughts, but also through such things as art, music, silence, people, nature, joy and sorrow.  I think we are safe to assume this is not Young’s complete list of additional ways to hear from god.  Are any of these listed items forms of revelation?  You may remember we talked at the beginning of this chapter about general revelation.  I would agree that only one of these, creation, is a clear form of general revelation, as defined earlier in the chapter.  There is no special revelation available through creation in any way, but as far as general revelation, it might be arguable that since man is part of creation that general revelation can be seen through his works such as art and music.  But these things are tainted by mankind’s corruption and are therefore very muted forms of general revelation.  Perhaps general revelation really only comes through these when the artist is just reiterating what creation already reveals, such as in a painting of nature.  But what about these other areas: silence, people, nature, joy and sorrow.

Any general revelation that could possibly come from silence, people, nature, joy and sorrow is doubtful to me.  Even if it were possible, it could not say very much.  These last items are very much tainted by mankind’s corruption and we can’t expect any thing clear from that corruption at all.  Can we experience a sense of joy, happiness, other emotions and even an elevated appreciation for God through some of these things such as art and music?  Yes we can, but these emotions are not to be confused with revelation.  I think Young makes that mistake and confuses emotions for revelation.  As far as Young is concerned though, general and special revelation are very much possible in all these things.  For the Evangelical Christian, he rejects these things as sources of special revelation, and looks to Scripture alone for special revelation. 

“My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love.”

We all agree God is infinite, but that does not mean the way he communicates to finite creatures is done in a ”limitless” or infinite way.  God has spoken through his Prophets and Apostles and in a final and complete way through Christ.  That is not ‘limitless’ as Sarayu states.  As we have already established, the Scriptures are our sole authority in this current age, and what Young is saying is quite the opposite.  Young acknowledges the Bible as one of many sources for special revelation.  This should cause us to take pause and realize the ramifications of this.  If God is speaking in all these forms of media (conduits or channels of communication from God to us), how can we make any precise distinctions in our own beliefs?  We could not.  We would be forced to take in, as authoritative, all the revelation that these listed forms of media offer.  

 To this we say, “No!”  It is to the authority of Scripture alone that we cling.  For to accept the authority of Scripture alone, is to accept the authority of God alone.  And as we see in the very next sentence (as we work throught statement 6), Young is including the Bible as a source of revelation (one of among many), but only in a limited way.

“And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways.  Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”  

It has been said, wrongly, that the Bible contains the Word of God.  No, it is the Word of God.  What is the difference?  The first phrase has been referred to as Neo-orthodoxy.  This view is that God is only speaking from the Bible when we receive something from it.  That “something” we get from the Bible, then becomes the Word of God to us.  But the Evangelical view is that every word of the Bible is the Word of God, whether you personally receive something fom it or not.  Young’s statement almost seems to have a sense of  Neo-orthodoxy about it.  

It is very ironic and also telling, that although Young has acknowledged that the Bible has some use, he does not actually usethe Bible to dispel our “preconceived” ideas about God.  Since he just acknowledged we would “hear” and “see” God in fresh ways from the Bible, wouldn’t we expect somewhere in the The Shack for him to actually use the Bible.  It appears mere lip service to acknowledge the Bible as “a” source for special revelation, and yet not to use it even once to support his views.  This shows how relevant Young thinks the Bible is;  this shows the low view Young has of the Bible.  Even the “Christian” cults try to use the Bible to support their views.  Of course they misuse the Bible in doing so, but Young does not even use it!     

Now that Young has acknowledged the Bible as a source of revelation, he quickly qualifies it or limits it.  Remember when Young said: “The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules.  It is a picture of Jesus.”  Now he states: “Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”  Do we see a pattern?  We see the anti-law (also known as antinomian) views coming from Young over an over, and we have barely seen anything yet.  In the Bible, Young says, we will “hear and see” God in fresh ways, but don’t let the Bible tell you or show you any ‘rules’ or ‘principles’.   Only let the Bible tell you and show you “a way of coming to be with us.”  Again, in the chapter dealing with God’s Law I will address this anti-lawism of Young’s, but is it really true that we should not look for  “rules” or “principles” in the Bible?  This completely unbiblical, and this is one of the areas where we see Young’s false teaching come through loud and clear.  Do you realize how much of the Bible speaks about laws, “rules” if you will, and “principles”? 

God saves the Christian for the purpose of being holy (Ephesians 1:4), and the way we measure holiness is by the standard God’s Moral Law (do not murder, do not commit adultery, love one another, etc).  We will not obey perfectly, but we will sin less and less as we grow more and more.  This is called sanctification.   

Let’s begin to wrap up this chapter.  There is a reason that God gave the church the written Word of God. Here is what the 1689 Confession states in Chapter 1, section 1:

“Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.”

What this means is that by God committing to writing what he has revealed of himself and declared of his will to his people throughout redemptive history (and ceasing the former ways he communicated), the Church is better preserved, better promotes the truth, and is better preserved from the corruption of the flesh, the malice of Satan, and the malice of the world.  For these above reasons, it makes the Holy Scriptures most necessary.  Can any Evangelical disagree that this is the case.  Let’s get back to the Word of God for our sole source of revelation.

The most important thing we take away from these quotes of The Shack is Young’s low view of Scripture, his high view of himself and his ability to receive these revelations of what God is like.  Young is so confident that he has heard ‘God’s thoughts in his thoughts’, and God’s words from many other sources (art, music, people, sorrow, etc) that he is willing to place himself over Scripture rather than under it, and to encourage others to do the same by accepting his book as an authority for truth and not the Bible’s alone, or perhaps not the Bible’s authority at all.  As well, he seems to think that the revelation of the Bible puts God in a book-box, and yet we are supposed to accept what he says about his god in The Shack, also a book, as the truth. This is inconsistent at best, and arrogant at worse.  Does Young’s sword only cut one way?

If you can accept that standard as truth, then to be consistent you have to accept almost anything anybody thinks is revelation from God.  If that is your authority and standard for truth, then you will be tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine.  

• “So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” Ephesian 4:14 (ESV)

The Bible is God’s truth, and God’s word will not come back void for God’s purposes.  My Evangelical friend, if anything Young says sways you, please return to the Bible as your sole and only authority for truth.  Young instructs us by using his book, not from the Scriptures; he never appeals to the Bible and never even once quotes it (except perhaps one possible allusion).  Do not listen not to the false prophet!  Let no man steal your crown!  Return to the firm foundation of the Word of God, and let all other voices and thoughts be rejected except for that which is found only in the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

• “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ ³ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. Deut 13:1-4 (ESV) 
•  And the Lord said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. ¹⁵ Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name although I did not send them, and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not come upon this land’: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed. ¹⁶ And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem, victims of famine and sword, with none to bury them—them, their wives, their sons, and their daughters. For I will pour out their evil upon them.  Jer. 14:14-16 (ESV) 
•  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9 (ESV) 

 So with this firm foundation of the Word of God alone as our sole authority, let’s continue to evaluate Young’s statements in light of the Scriptures in the following sections.

 A Critique of The Shack: Chapter 6

 

Of The Godhead

Anytime we study the area of the Godhead, we come to a topic that must be entered into with great care and deep reverence.  When it comes to the topic of God and what he is like, it is imperative that the language used be precise and accurate in its reflection of what the Scriptures tell us about God.  If we get the wording wrong, we get God wrong; words have meaning.  To misunderstand God is to worship a likeness of God that is untrue; to worship an untrue god is to worship an idol.  To worship an idol is to commit idolatry, thus breaking the first three commandments.  To break God’s law, will invoke a response on God’s part of his just wrath (Exodus 20:1-5).  So getting our understanding of God right, through the Scriptures, is not optional nor just a mere hobby for the armchair theologian.

 The beliefs that we have about God really matter.  Theology (the study of God) matters.  The only way to understand what God is like is to base that understanding upon the revelation he gave to us; that revelation is recorded infallibly and without error in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.  Let me say it again, this revelation is given to us infallibly and without error.  Let’s not gloss over that because we have heard it so many times.  

 Assuming that we have resolved the infallibility of the Scriptures in the affirmative, we then need to resolve whether there is any other additional source of revelation that is infallible and without error.  If there is only one source for infallible revelation, then there is obviously only one authoritative source for us to submit to.  So we need to resolve whether there is another infallible inerrant source. Until this second question is resolved, you are somewhat stuck in the mud in terms of how you are going to form a true and accurate view of what God is like. In terms of special revelation, it is the case that the Old Testament and New Testament church through the ages has only held to only one source, namely, the word of God found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.    

If you are not clear that the Bible alone is the only source for authoritative claims to truth about God, than you are vulnerable to any person that claims to have revelation about God. So resolve this now.   

There are plenty around who claim they have the word of the Lord (albeit usually as an addition to the Biblical revelation, not in its place).  These folks always seem to have a “fresh word” from the Lord, a new principle, a new formula, or some new novel insight that only they are privy to since the Lord told them only.  If it is a pastor of a church, then this means that you can only hear that particular “insight” at that church; you cannot hear it anywhere else.  So if you have to move, or of you leave that church, you will no longer be privy to his special word from God.  God intends all of his children to always have access to all of His words; that is why he gave the Bible to the church as a whole, not just revelation given to the privileged few. 

 Sometimes in churches, even though the Scriptures are sighted as the source for the sermon, in reality the source is their non-historical, non-grammatical, innovative interpretation of the Bible passage not necessarily the actual meaning of the Bible.[1]  Remember, the Bible is infallible and without error in what it actually states, not what we think it teaches.  Sometimes there is a difference between the two.

 The kind of teaching that is personal revelation driven makes for an immature and unstable Christian walk.  If this is your source of instruction in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints then you are likely to be affected by every wind of doctrine, new fad, and movement.  Will you be swayed, and not stayed?  If you settle the matter that authoritative claims for truth about God come from the Bible alone, then you don’t have to live swayed, but rather you can live stayed.  You won’t submit yourself to a teacher that relies on personal revelation from God for his message or relies on personal revelation to get the meaning of a Bible passage.    

Evangelical’s have historically affirmed the Bible as the only source for special revelation.  If you hesitate on this point, or are tentative here, may I suggest you do not have an adequate foundation to truly know what God is like, or to live a God pleasing Christian walk.  If there is another source, in addition to the Bible from which we can receive special revelation, then the Bible is no longer the “only sufficient rule, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”[2]  And if that is so, then Christianity will need to open up its narrow strict views of God based on the Bible alone.  However, if Christianity would so open up, as many today would desire, Christianity would be a different religion altogether. 

If I may be so bold, since Young’s faith or doctrine is different from the Bible’s, then Young is teaching and promoting another religion, not Christianity.  The one and only true Triune God is the very core and foundation of Christianity, and if you change that core and/or undermine its foundation, then you no longer have orthodox historical Christianity; you have something else. 

 One of the challenges in critiquing The Shack, is there are many different non-biblical views placed into Young’s somewhat disorganized attempt at theology.  Make no mistake, The Shack, is a theology book that has employed the literary genre fiction and allegory to help put forth the theology.  But The Shack is theology first and foremost. 

 One thing has emerged in reading The Shack, and that is that one overriding doctrine drives Young’s innovative approaches to God.  It is his belief in the unbiblical doctrine of universal reconciliation.  This is confirmed by the personal details of William Paul Young’s history given to us in De Young’s book.[3]

 What to Say?

 I have had to make a decision here as to how many statements from The Shack that I will critique in relation to the subject of the Godhead.  This subject that Young takes up is by far the most important area in which a critique of The Shack can be applied. By far this subject covers the most touched upon topic throughout the book.  The challenge is that there are at least 35 statements in The Shack about God that stood out to me as being especially in error.  I then narrowed those down to 19 that I wanted to critique.  But, I doubt though that any reader will have the patience to read my critique of all 19 of these statements. 

 I have settled on critiquing four statements about the Godhead in The Shack, but these four are by no means the only four statements in error, nor necessarily the most critical of the errors.  The critique of just four statements I hope will be sufficient enough to cause a thoughtful person to see that Young’s teaching is unbiblical in at least these four statements, and if that is the case, then Young is likely to be in error on other statements about God.  I hope this sampling material from The Shack on the subject of the Godhead will be sufficient enough to cause the discerning reader to scrutinize the rest of The Shack. 

 I will list the remaining 15 statements in the endnotes of this chapter.  See if you can detect any problems with them by the standard of God’s Word.

 If as you read this you find yourself having missed important errors and false statements about God, first of all repent, seek God’s forgiveness for your idolatry, and be much more careful what you believe about God in the future.  It may be that you need to go back to some fundamentals of the Christian faith, and study the Bible to learn what it says about God.  All of us need to be reviewing what we have learned, to date from the Scriptures, and add to that by careful reading and studying.  You are not immune to being deceived by false teachers, nor am I.  If you or I missed errors in The Shack, this shows us that we were already deceived.  “Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent…” Rev 3:3a (ESV).  There is much space taken up in the Bible devoted to the exhortation to not be deceived by false teachers?  The cure against false teachers is to: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15 (ESV)

Our almighty and holy God is not just a product of our imagination, nor is He subject to our imagination; the One True God is the great I AM.  He is who He is.  He is objective in his essence, nature and being; He does not change to meet our understanding of who He is; He is immutable; we are the ones who constantly change.  Our changing, in the area of understanding God, should be the lifting up our eyes to see a higher view of God that results from a careful and thorough the study of Scriptures. 

God is a jealous God, and He will not tolerate misrepresentation, false images and likenesses of Himself (Exodus 20:1-7); he will hold the guilty accountable; this includes you and I, for the false images whether physical or mental that we have of him.

 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. ²⁶ At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” ²⁷ This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. ²⁸ Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, ²⁹ for our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:25-29 (ESV)

 To worship God merely as “we understand Him”, and for that “understanding” to be in error, is to NOT worship God in an acceptable manner as we are commanded; it is to show irreverence and unworthy worship of God; perhaps even false worship.  Our God is a consuming fire; we should be cautious as we approach God.  Just any view about God will not do.

•  “The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him.”[4]  A.W. Tozer
•  Little children, keep yourselves from idols. 1 John 5:21 (ESV)
•  The Baptist Shorter Catechism
• Q8: Are there more Gods than one?
• A8: There is but one only, the living and true God.

 Let us also remember, as I have attempted to establish in chapter 1, that Young’s primary goal of this book is to educate us as to his view of God.  His view of God, as one who holds to universal reconciliation, so emphasizes the love of God that it neglects God’s justice and holiness.  God’s inflexible justice is unacceptable to the universal reconcilationists; however, in the end it will be the universal reconciliationist who is unacceptable to God.  This is so because he did not love the truth, believed a lie, promoted the lie to others, and trampled under foot as unholy the Son of God.

• Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.  Heb 10:28-31 (ESV)

Since just any view of God will not do, we need to read Young with caution and use the utmost discernment.  We need to ask at every juncture, “How does his view measure up to the Word of God?” 

Here are some helpful statements from some of our fathers of the faith that will help us to elevate our thoughts about God before we embark on this important subject:

•  “God communicates knowledge of himself to Man. Kuyper calls attention to the fact that theology as the knowledge of God differs in an important point from all other knowledge.  In the study of all other sciences man places himself above the object of his investigation and actively elicits from it from his knowledge by whatever method may seem appropriate. But in theology he does not stand above but rather under the object of his knowledge.  In other words, man can know God only in so far as the latter actively makes Himself known.”[5]Louis Berkhof

  A.W. Tozer states:

• “If we insist upon trying to imagine Him, we end up with an idol, made not with hand but with thoughts; and an idol of the mind is as offensive to God as an idol of the hand.”[6]

 With these statements in mind, let’s proceed:

 Do you recall the primary persons that Young uses to characterize the trinity?[7]  Let’s review them:

• Papa, A heavy black woman represents Young’s views of god, the father.  Although at one point Papa changes into a man.
• Jesus: A Jewish man represents Young’s views of Jesus.
• Sayaru, An Asian, somewhat transparent, woman represents Young’s views of the holy spirit.

To be reasonable and fair, I am not saying that every single thing Young said about his god, does not bear any resemblance to the true God; certainly there are a few overlapping similarities, but Young has so distorted the One True God (that he is supposedly representing) that I am not even willing to say that he is teaching about the One True God at all.  The One True God has no shifting of shadows, and so if Young’s god has things that are not true about the true God, then Young cannot possibly be talking about the One True God.  Just because Young’s god has a few resemblances to the One True God in some areas, does not mean it is the same God.  There is only one God, and that is the true God, all others are false gods, and are not living, nor have existence (See Diagram below of The Bible versus The Shack).

If Young were off in just a few areas I might not make such a big deal about separating Young’s god from the God of the Bible.  I believe in the God of the Bible, but I do not claim that every single view I have corresponds perfectly to the teaching of the Bible.  I desire it to be so, but in reality it may not; I have much to learn.  But since there are so many untrue things said about what Young is trying to represent as the One True God, the difference must be seen.  In reality what we are dealing with here are two different gods (of course there is only one God).  We have the One True God as revealed in the Bible, and then in contrast, we have Young’s false god found in The Shack.

A way to illustrate this might be to compare two separate circles.  Circle A represents the Biblical God, and circle B represents Young’s god as revealed in The Shack.  How much of the two circles need to overlap with the same information before we see them as the same circle? 

 

 Perhaps I am being generous in this graphic to indicate where the Bible and The Shack share truth (the overlapping portions of the circle), but it is not nearly enough to suggest the God of the Bible and the god of The Shack are the same.

 I realize all who read this may not think in these terms, but after we look at Young’s theological statements about his god ask, “Is this the One True God spoken of in the Bible?”  And if Young’s god does not measure up, may I say what Elijah said: “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” 1 Kings 18:21 (ESV)

 Let’s begin critiquing four sections in The Shack that address the Godhead:

Statement 1:

 “I think it’d be easier to have this conversation if you weren’t wearing a dress,” he [Mack] suggested and attempted a smile, as weak as it was.

 “If it were easier, then I wouldn’t be,” she said with a slight giggle.  “I’m not trying to make this harder for either of us.  But this is a good place to start.  I often find that getting head issues out of the way first makes heart stuff easier to work on later…when you’re ready.”

 She again picked up the wooden spoon, which was dripping with some sort of batter.  “Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders were 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 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 be to reinforce your religious stereo-types, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereo-types.”

Mack almost laughed out loud and wanted to say, “You think?  I’m over here barely believing that I’m not stark raving mad!”  Instead he focused on what she had just said and regained his composure.  He believed, in his head at least, that God was Spirit, neither male nor female, but inspite of that, he was embarrassed to admit to himself that all his visuals for God were very white and very male.”  Page 95

 Let me try and be as thoughtful and fair as I can about what Young is saying here.  First of all, I understand that Papa, a fictional character, is Young’s literary device (a metaphor) for God the Father.  I understand Young is using this Papa metaphor to challenge his reader’s “religious conditioning.”  I get that, but I disagree with this methodology of using a mixed woman-man metaphor to represent God.  I think, at minimum, it is irreverent.  There is another modern author who used a metaphor for God, and that is C.S. Lewis.  Lewis’ metaphor, Aslan a lion, was respectful and did no violence to God.  Young’s metaphor is to bring God down; Lewis’ metaphor did not bring God down.  Let’s be clear, no one can bring God down; He is who he is, but we can contribute to men’s idolatry or men’s proper worship in the way we portray God. 

Since The Shack is an allegorical book, I will need to be referring to Young’s use of metaphors often.  It will serve us well to be clear on the terminology.    

• Metaphor: “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used of something to which it does not literally apply (e.g. the long arm of the law). 2. A thing seen as symbolic of something else.”[8]  So in The Shack, Mack is told by Papa that “For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me ‘Papa’ is simply to mix metaphors…”  So Young is stating that the appearance to Mack as a woman is merely a metaphor and Papa is not a woman.  Indeed, Young denies Papa is male or female.  So, lest I be perceived as reactionary, I acknowledge the metaphorical use.  Unfortunately, we are left wondering what Papa actually is, since he appears as male and female in The Shack. 
•  Anthropomorphism would be a more precise term than metaphor to use here.  To use anthropomorphism is “to treat a god, animal, or object as if they were human.”[9]  “It designates the view which conceives of God as having human form,” and is “derived from Greek anthropos, man and morphe, form).[10]

For example, Aslan is a character that employs the use anthropomorphism.  Aslan, an animal, talks and has human-like characteristics.  Papa, in The Shack is a god character who uses human gender to help Mack understand what it is like. The Bible makes us of anthropomorphism.  For example, “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones” (Ezek 37:1 ESV).  God does not actually have a physical hand, but using this literary device helps the reader understand that God was heavily working in the life of the prophet.  We use this kind of literary device for God all the time. 

There are those who hold to a heresy called Anthropomorphism; they believe God has a body based upon the use of anthropomorphisms in the Bible.  They are called Anthropomorphites.[11]  Mormons hold to this heresy.  Those who hold to this heresy take a literalistic approach to metaphors, failing to recognize that a literary device is being employed. 

This literary device is used so often that at times it can be difficult to immediately recognize it.  Sometimes it is a challenge to recognize the difference between the anthropomorphism and the literal thing that the device merely represents.  If we can try and keep the distinctions in mind between the literal and the figurative, the metaphorical and anthropomorphic from the actual, we will be better able to discern the meaning of Scripture and literature in general, including The Shack.

 So my use of these two terms will be as follows.  When referring to a figure of speech that is generally used to represent something literal, I will use the term metaphor.  If the figure of speech, typically Papa, is specifically referring to a human characteristic (such as male or female), then I will use the term anthropomorphic.  Sometimes I will refer to the use of anthropomorphic metaphors to help clarify that what Young refers to as a metaphor, is more specifically an anthropomorphic metaphor.  Strictly speaking, these two terms together are redundant.

 Religious Conditioning

What is Young pointing out in this above statement?  Let’s try to deal with the key points.  Let’s talk about Young’s use of the phrase “religious conditioning”?  What does this phrase lead you to think of?  Doesn’t it sound cold, sterile, dry, and lifeless?  It also sounds like something people are victims of, rather than participants in.  It sounds like something used on the masses with a malicious intent of controlling their minds.  It sounds like something that comes out of a dead institution, or a lifeless church?

Young is painting a mental and emotional picture here of something we all dislike. Really, what good could come from anything that proceeds from religious conditioning? Who would want to be religiously conditioned?  I don’t think I would. If we unthinkingly follow Young here, I think we may, on an emotional level at least, reject whatever comes from such a miserable phrase, whether good or bad.   But what is he really talking about, and is it bad?

 Religious conditioning could be any sort of teaching about religion.  It presupposes that one is helplessly subject continuously like a child might be who has no point of reference by which to judge the validity of the teaching or conditioning he is receiving.   This religious conditioning could come from Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, or even the Christian Church.  The problem is that Young seems to paint all religions with the same brush without specifying which religion he means, or what the content of the conditioning might be.  Those distinctions are critical to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

From the point of view of secularism, all religious conditioning is bad.  But that is because they have a naturalistic world-view; the naturalistic world-view is atheistic.  But what if religious conditioning were to come from Christianity, and more specifically from a proper interpretation of what the Bible teaches?  Would it still be bad according to Young? 

 Does Young intend to slam all religious conditioning including Christian pulpit preaching, Christian Sunday school, and Christian mid-week Bible studies?  Young seems to presume his readers are monotheistic.  I think we can conclude this based upon his mention of the Gandalf type image of God.  Certainly, in the story Mack is from a monotheistic background.  If he is including Christian instruction in religious conditioning should we respond negatively to the phrase?  Should we reject Christian religious training?  Should we reject discipleship?  Should we bring our children up in the fear of the Lord?  After all, our children do not get to choose whether we teach them about God the Father, nor do they get to choose what we teach them about God the Father. 

 In reality, religious conditioning as I see it is simply to instruct about religion.  I think this removes the emotional language behind the word.  We all agree that religious instruction should be done according to the teaching of the Bible, in terms of the content of the instruction, and the methodology used.  As Christians, we are to instruct people in a respectful and gentle manner.  We are not to demand that people blindly accept what we say.  We should encourage the use of reason along with a submission to the Word of God.  But assuming the content and methodology is according to Scripture, then religious conditioning, when we get down to it, is simply religious instruction.

 Isn’t this what Young doing in The Shack?  Is not The Shack Young’s attempt to religiously condition?  The answer is yes.  So again we see his arrogance in stating that others religiously condition while he does not.  Apparently, Young is not religiously conditioning because he is right and everyone else is wrong.  If Young had some authority in which to base his being right that would be one thing, but he has nothing.

 Religious Stereo-types

 Young is pointing out that religious conditioning leads to religious stereo-types.  Young is using the term religious stereo-types as a tool in the same way that he used religious conditioning.  We have been taught in our culture that stereo-typing is bad.  Typically stereo-typing is done by a person who has a certain view of a particular ethnic group.  To say that such and such race is lazy or are bad drivers is to over generalize and to stereo-type.  Just because you knew someone from a particular country who was lazy, does not mean in any sense that all of the people from that country are lazy.  This is silly, but we tend to get these ideas about people that do not accurately reflect the facts.  Young is saying that we should not stereo-type God.  Young’s use of stereo-type in relation to God, rather than races or certain human groups, seems a little out of place to me, but I guess it makes his point. 

So again we have to make distinctions that Young is not making for us.  Is all stereo-typing bad?  Is all stereo-typing of God bad?  If your understanding of God is founded upon the Scriptures, then aligning your understanding of God with the Scriptures is not to stereo-type God.  If, according to Young, this is still stereo-typing then this stereo-typing is good. 

 If you have been taught that God is Triune, and that God is Spirit, invisible and immortal you are not going to think of God as the “stereo-typical” Gandalf, because Gandalf has a body and is not infinite, invisible and so on.  If you have no Scriptural training and are relying on Michael Angelo to form your image of God, then I suppose that you could be stereo-typing God.  What I really wonder is if Young is saying that the historic Christian view of God, including his being masculine, is stereo-typical.  It seems that is where he is headed.  However, if the Bible reveals God as masculine, then for me to view God as masculine is not to stereo-type, at least in a bad way, because it is true.  

 So what is the specific religious conditioning or stereo-typing that Young addresses here?  Young states through Papa, “For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me ‘Papa’ is simply to mix metaphors, to help you from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”  And again Papa states, “To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply be to reinforce your religious stereo-types, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereo-types.”  And we have the narrator telling us, “He [Mack] believed, in his head at least, that God was Spirit, neither male nor female, but inspite of that, he was embarrassed to admit to himself that all his visuals for God were very white and very male.”[12]  

 Using the words of Young’s statement, we see several stereo-types about God coming forth from religious conditioning:

• God being very male
• God being like Gandalf
• God being like a grandfather
• God being white

No doubt, people do have these incorrect views of God, but do they really come from religious conditioning?  I would say these images would typically come from non-religious conditioning.  They could come from religions that are non-Christian as well.  Ultimately these images come from our sinful nature.  John Calvin said that the human heart is an idol factory.  True, culture can play a role in our visuals of God, but ultimately our sinful nature is the source for all idols. 

But, it appears that Young is referring specifically to the religious conditioning that Mack (actually Young in allegory) received.  The training came from seminary, church or from the God in a box book with guilty edges (the Bible).  But what seminary or church actually teaches that God is male, white and grandfatherly like Gandalf?  We need to stop and think about what Young is saying here.  Papa is telling Mack that his religious conditioning from seminary, church, and even the Bible, since Papa would know this was Mack’s source of religious conditioning, is unreliable and false.  There is one other source for Mack of religious conditioning, and that is the training Mack may have received from his abusive father.  But Young makes no distinction and seems to lump them altogether, so it seems reasonable to conclude that religious conditioning in Young’s mind is all these sources.  It is the church and seminary that are actually cited in The Shack as sources of false teaching about so many things. 

Young has a way of taking naïve evangelicals down a path that I don’t think they want to go, and then slamming the gate behind them.  He uses phrases and concepts that are “button-pushers” mentally and emotionally, and then uses the button-pushers to make his otherwise offensive point more palatable.

We gather from this conversation with Papa and Mack that God is not any of these above choices.  And we all agree, I hope, God the Father is none of these.  He is not male, female, man, woman, grandfather, or Gandalf.  But doesn’t this beg the question that if God is not any of these, then what is he?  If God is not any of these, and only reveals himself in anthropomorphisms, rather than the actual and literal, then we still do not know what he is.  This must all be confusing to Mack as all these misunderstandings are taken away by Papa and nothing concrete is given to take its place. 

I am left with the distinct impression that this is exactly Young’s point.  It seems as if Young is saying that we can only know God as an anthropomorphic metaphor, and cannot know what he actually is.  Young loves to dwell in ambiguity.  Many false teachers love to dwell in this ambiguity, especially when under scrutiny.  It is easier to duck and cover that way.  You can get out of tight places if your words have not hemmed you into a certain position.  Using an anthropomorphic metaphor, without giving us the literal meaning of it, leaves us with nothing.  Metaphors are generally used to help clarify the actual, but Young is not clarifying; he is not giving us anything, he is only taking from us. 

 The Masculinity of God

Does Young believe God is masculine or feminine?  I would say the answer is neither.  It appears to me that we have three options here.  One option is that Young is denying God’s masculinity by denying that God is male.  The second option is that Young is just not telling us if God is masculine or feminine.  But option three is that Young does not think God is masculine. I think this is the best option based on what Young says. But neither does that mean by default that Young thinks God is feminine.

If we go with option three, then we have to answer the question asked above by answering that Young does not believe God is masculine.  Young is denying God is masculine, but he is also not then committing to God being feminine either.  Some might say Young has taken the high road here, but actually he has taken the low road.  Why do I say that?  Because he ignores what the Bible tells us in this regard, and because he does not venture to tell us what God is in terms of his personality. 

The Bible tells us that God is masculine, but that should not be confused with God being male (a human gender).  I think this is where some people get hung up.  And though God is Spirit, he is still personal.  God is a person, has personality and is personal.  It is also important to point out that God’s revealed masculinity is not a metaphor. 

If God had not revealed himself as masculine, by the special revelation of Scripture, it would perhaps be plausible to deny masculinity on God’s part, citing his transcendence, but it is so overwhelmingly revealed that he is masculine, that it is undeniable.

 Genderless Culture

One of the problems we have with this whole issue is that when the Bible was written, I do not think there was any thought given by the writers that a culture would question that God is masculine.  Now we have a culture in which this is important that God is gender neutral.  The gender neutrality culture that has been part of America for the last years has made its way into the church, as culture inevitably does.  Because of this there was the move by some more liberal elements of the church to retranslate the Bible to gender neutral language or dual gender language. 

But the Bible’s personal pronouns were not translated masculine (he, his, and himself) because the translation committee was made up of males, but because an accurate translation of the original languages dictates that they are translated masculine.  Context and actual masculine pronouns to match their antecedent is why the pronouns are translated in the masculine for the most part.  But it is much more than personal pronouns upon which we claim that God has revealed himself as masculine.

Since Young seems to undermine God’s masculinity, let me see if I can defend the position scripturally.  I have no desire to lift the male of the human race above the woman by identifying God as masculine.  I hope by making the distinction between male (human) and masculine, it can be seen that I do not view God’s masculinity as somehow showing the human male masculinity is especially favored by God.  God is not a man and there is no comparison in terms of God’s masculinity and a male’s masculinity.  I only seek to be faithful to the Scripture, regardless of cultural gender equality issues so important to our society today.   

 God is Not Male

I want expand on this human male versus divine masculine issue.  I have said there is a difference, but only if I can show this from Scripture should you accept what I say.  Young claims that God is not male.  In the sense that a human male is not synonymous with divine masculinity, the Bible agrees with that claim.  The Bible agrees that God is not a man; God is not human.  “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19 ESV). The point of this verse is that God is not like man who tends to lie, change his mind, and does not keep his word; God in contrast to man’s unreliability, is reliable and keeps his word.  The verse is no way denies God’s masculinity, but it does deny he is a man.  We also see, “I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath” Hosea 11:9 ESV).

 Mixed Metaphor? A Female Father?

 Young writes: “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 from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”[13]  

 This is more like a mixed up metaphor.  For Young to choose this metaphorical character, Papa, to represent God is one thing, but this character is a woman with a male title.  So we have this tension that Young has intentionally created so that we cannot fit Papa into any categories. 

 This woman-father usage is similar in my mind to a double negative in grammar.  It is like saying, “I am going to not not go to the store.”  My kids try and playfully employ this language on occasion when I ask them to do something.  They say, “Dad, I will not not do what you asked.”  This means in reality that they will do it.  To not not do something is to do it. Two “nots” (a double negative) cancel out each other.  This is what Young seems to be doing by his employment of a woman father.  It is impossible; it is irrational to our human experience.  I am sure this is Young point. 

 Apparently this is his way to avoid his readers fitting God into any religiously conditioned stereo-types.  Young does not want us to think of Papa as either male or female, or as masculine for that matter.  Young is trying to cause our understanding of God to be tentative. 

 I find the use of Papa as a metaphor for God rather tricky, because you have to keep reality in mind, namely what God is really like, and not what this literary device named Papa, a metaphorical anthropomorphic gender confused deity is like.    

 It’s Just Fiction

 With all this fiction, allegory, and metaphorical use, it is really easy for the author (or his readers) to duck for cover when theological criticisms come.  They say, “Well, it is not literal, it’s fiction, it’s allegory, and metaphorical,” as if there is not actual literal meaning behind these. 

 Many folks are saying how The Shack has helped them to understand God as nothing else has, but often when confronted about the unbiblical views from the book, they quickly duck and cover saying basically, “The Shack is just fiction, so lighten up and get off my case.”  But be honest.  What you are really saying is that The Shack made you “feel” closer to God, but when someone with a Bible in their hand pin points that God is actually not like The Shack represents him to be, you admit, in so many words, that the god of The Shack is just pretend.  You do so by using the cover that “The Shack is just fiction.”

 So is that what it comes down to?  The Shack presents a pretend god that you fantasize about being real?  You pretend he is real, until cornered by the Word of God?  I hope not, but it almost seems that is what we have with some folks.  Be consistent at least.  Why don’t you just say upfront that you wish God was like The Shack presents him, or say that if God was like that then you would have more love for him?  The other choice is for you to stand up and defend the god you have grown to love as revealed in The Shack.  But to say you love this god in The Shack, to say that you crave the presence of this god in The Shack, and then when cornered by the truth to merely give up your god, admitting the book is just fiction, is to deny this new god you love. 

 Here is the problem for many Evangelicals.  The Shack is like pornography.  It presents a god that enthralls them, but they know deep down in their heart and mind that this enthralling god is only a fantasy.  This god has captured their desire, but in the end it is only an illusion, it is only spiritual pornography.  The ecstatic feeling you got from reading The Shack is unsustainable, because the god it presents is fake.  It may be hard for them to hear it, but they need to snap out of the lustful spell and get back to the business of the relationship with your first love, your true love, your first husband, and realize He is truly worthy of love, devotion and faithfulness; the synthetic fake god you have committed adultery with is not worthy of your love. 

 Why Must You Confusticate us?

 So what can we determine Young means to teach about God by the uses of the anthropomorphisms of human genders?  After all, we want to know what Young’s literal point is in all of this. 

The reason, Young confusticates us, to use J.R. Tolkien’s word in The Hobbit, by stating Papa is a woman father is stated by Young: “to help you from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”[14]  It seems that Young would rather have us dwell in the land of ambiguity as to God’s personhood, rather than dwell in the land of religious conditioning.  So where do we go from here?  Has God revealed Himself in mere anthropomorphisms with no actual literal meaning behind the alleged metaphors?  Are we left to spiritual mysteries with no revelation?  I guess Young’s point is that God is humanly genderless, but does that imply that God is not masculine?

 God is Never Revealed to be a Mother

 God is never revealed as a mother, but what about the feminine metaphors?  There are many passages where God compares an aspect of his action to a mother, but none I am aware of, directly compare God to a mother.  In addition, we must remember figurative language is not the thing itself, but a representation, to help make the literal more clear.  It is not the case that all mother metaphors, are to emphasis God care, although that is the case in some of the passages.

 Let’s look at some of these usages:

•  “But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me. Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” Isaiah 49:14-15 (ESV). 

Here God, in response to Zion’s claim that God has forgotten her, asks if a nursing woman could forget her child.  The answer is no.  God then states that even if they did, He would not forget his people. 

This verse does not have the typical literary device profile of a metaphor.  We do not see the typical clues such the word “as” or “like” to clue us into a metaphor.  It seems that rather this is a simple comparison of the care and attentiveness that a woman gives to her infant, to the care that God provides to his children.  So this verse is not strictly an anthropomorphism describing God as having feminine qualities. 

 God cares for his people, tenderly at that, but that is not to say God is feminine.  God is love, and masculinity is capable of love just as femininity is.  But in saying that, there is no need to deny that God does not compare himself with a father of a new born; he compares himself to a new mother.  We know that there is a huge difference in a mother’s care and a father’s care.  And so this verse encourages Zion, and us, that his care is very tender. 

•  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (Matt 23:37 ESV) 

Matthew’s reference is a metaphor, but it is not comparing Christ to a mother hen in a one to one correlation, but rather it is comparing his desire to gather Jerusalem’s children under his care to the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wing.  Christ’s desire to gather the children of Jerusalem is especially clarified by this metaphor, but it is not making a statement that Jesus has a “feminine side.”  Christ is a man, and masculine; there is no denying that.  We cannot try and strain the text to fit our cultural preferences.

• The Lord will go forth like a warrior,
• He will rouse His zeal like a man of war.
• He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry.
• He will prevail against His enemies.
• I have kept silent for a long time,
• I have kept still and restrained Myself.
• Now like a woman in labor I will groan,
• I will both gasp and pant.  Isaiah 42:13-14 ESV).

We see three anthropomorphisms in this passage:

• 1. The Lord will go forth like a warrior,
• 2. He will rouse His zeal like a man of war.
• 3. Now like a woman in labor I will groan

We see the word “like” to clue us into the use of a metaphor.  In this case, the metaphor is specifically anthropomorphism.  The first states God is like a warrior.  God is not a human warrior, but is like one.  In what way is God like a warrior?  In that like a warrior, God will rouse his zeal, will raise a war cry and will prevail against his enemies. 

The second indicates God is like a man of war.  How so?  The same as the warrior, by rousing his zeal, raising a war cry and prevailing against his enemies.  So warrior and man of war are very similar.   The third anthropomorphism compares God to the cry of a woman in labor.  She restrains and is quiet during labor for as long as possible, but when the labor is in full, she groans.  So God, who has remained quit up until now, will cry out and groan as his zeal prevails against his enemies.  In all of this, the anthropomorphisms are just that, and though compared to a woman in labor, God is not revealed to be a woman, or to be feminine.  The anthropomorphism is pointing to God’s wrath, not his gender.

•  “Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from before your birth, carried from the womb; ⁴  even to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save. ⁵”To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike? Isaiah 46:3-5 (ESV). 

This is anthropomorphism and compares God’s care for the house of Jacob to that of a mother who carried her child in her womb and then bore the child.  The literal point of the comparison is to show God is the one who brought the house of Jacob into existence and cared for them through his providence, and will to the end, even in their old age.  The passage goes on to say, “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?”  So this anthropomorphism is qualified by indicating that the true God has no equal to compare Himself to.  This passage does not infer femininity on God’s part, but merely compares a mother’s carrying, birthing and post natal care to the way God cared and continues to care for the house of Jacob.  This is indeed tender language to show us the Father’s deep love. 

•  “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you” (Isaiah 66:13).  

Again anthropomorphism is employed, indicated by use of the word “as,” to mean literally that God’s care is compared to a mother’s, but the anthropomorphism is not the literal.  God is not literally a mother, but his Fatherly comfort is compared a human mother’s comfort. 

 Just because God the Father represents himself in places, using anthropomorphisms, to show his compassion can be compared to the care of a mother, does not mean God is revealing himself literally to be a mother.  When it comes to the literal thing, God always reveals himself as masculine, but it is divine masculinity, not human.  God is gentle, compassionate, caring and a warrior all at the same time.  A female is not the only gender that can be gentle and caring.  God put into males also the ability to be gentle and caring. 

 God is Literally the Father

I have presumed that masculinity is implied in the word “Father.”  To claim otherwise, is to go against all historical and cultural norm usage of the word father.  To deny the implied masculinity in the word father is to be irrational.  It is interesting to note Young’s irrationality in choosing the title Papa (Father) and yet having Papa be a woman.  I do not mean by “irrationality” that Young was thoughtless, quite the opposite, he is very intentional; I mean that a woman-father is irrational.  He has really done violence to the word father and for that matter to the word “woman.”  False teachers have no reverence for the cherished paths and the boundaries of their fathers, and license is taken with the use of words and their redefinitions.[15]

 God is revealed in the Bible as a Father.  Jesus himself said: “Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ⁹ Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” (Matt 6:8-9 ESV).  The use of Father by Jesus is not an anthropomorphism, but literal.  The use of Father throughout the Bible does not fit the profile of anthropomorphism.  We never see God is “like” a father, or that God is “as” as father.  It is always stated as literal.  What a comfort it is to know God is not like, as, or acting like, a Father, but he actually is our Father; that is if we are adopted by Him in Christ. 

Jesus prayed to the Father addressing him as such, and spoke of the Father; he did not indicate that this was figurative language.  It is clear that God as Father is not anthropomorphic language, but the real thing.  God is also almighty, creator, holy and transcendent, but these are not contradictory to being a Father.  Though He is not an earthly father, He is the heavenly Father.   

 God does use language to help with our weakness.  Often times this is done in the form of a metaphor, comparison, parable or anthropomorphism.  To be sure, these symbols or figures are used in such a way as to help us relate things we know, to things we do not know.  God does not have a hand, eyes, feet or any other body part even though he uses these as figures in Scripture; the figures are to help us understand God. 

Having acknowledged the figurative uses to help our weaknesses, it does not follow though that the Father reference are figurative.  Since Jesus came and showed us the Father and Jesus calls him Father, and never refers to the Father as the God who is ‘like’ a Father, or as a Father.  Jesus’ statements are always literal without a hint of figurative usage.  

 He gave us the revelation of who he is, and we must submit to it. We have no authority to decide that we do not like the revelation and so imagine that we can change it.  Let us not allow the present culture we live in to overcome the very Word of God. 

 Male and Female in Relation to God’s Image

 What does it mean for Mankind to be created in God’s image?  It refers to qualities that both genders have.  Mankind is spiritual, moral, intelligent, and personal.  It is in these ways, and perhaps more, that we are created in God’s image, not so much in our genders.  The way some people talk you would think that man is half of God’s image and the woman the other half, and if you put the two genders together then you get God’s image.  Let’s remember: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9 ESV).

 Young’s view is that God is using metaphor or anthropomorphism when He reveals Himself as masculine and as a Father, and therefore, we can’t accept those things as literal.  Young may think that since God is transcendent and holy, then He must be using human language to help our weakness.  God does use figurative language to help us, but that does not mean that God being a Father to his children is also metaphorical.  Certainly God is not just a Father, but Jesus understood God in this way, and certainly He would know if God were a Father. 

 Statement 2

 Mackenzie, I am what some would say ‘holy, and wholly other than you.’  The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn’t much, and then calling that God.  And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am.  I’m not merely the best version of you that you can think of.  I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think.” Page 100

 There seems to be a Bible text being used at the very end of the statement here, one of the few times even a passing reference is made to a text of Scripture in The Shack.  Unfortunately it is used improperly?  Papa states: “I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think.”  Ephesians 3:20 states: “Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us.”  However, this verse is not directly about God’s greatness, but about what he is able to do within us through the power of his sanctifying work. Although not accurately used, Young’s usage is not fatal, at least Young appears to possibly be giving some reference to the Bible; but since he does not give credit to the Bible for this citation, we do not know his intention. 

 I can deal with Young’s usage here, but I can’t deal with Papa’s imprecision.  It is an enormous problem that Young’s god misuses the Scripture?  I know Papa is metaphorical, but still Young is putting words, at least as he imagines, in his god’s mouth.  Papa should get it right if he ultimately authored the Bible.  Here is what the one true and living God says: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. ⁹ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)

 I am, in the words of Bilbo Baggins, absolutely ‘flummoxed’ (and again ‘confusticated’) by statement 2.  Why?  Because, although there is some truth here in this statement, Young has completely failed entirely to follow his own advice, or should I say Papa’s advice.  And the other amazing thing is this: Does Young actually think the god he has made is real?  Does he think he has avoided this error of making a god in his image?  Does he honestly think he has this god figured out based on his intuition, experience, and sense of relief and healing this god gives him?  This god appears to have helped him with his past abuse received and given (read De Young’s book).  But none of his views match reality; this is delusion and arrogance at the highest level.

 The Shack teaches us information straight from Young’s personal beliefs.  Grant it, some of his errors are no doubt adopted from other false teachers, and after all there is nothing new under the sun.  But Young gives no credit to any external source for his special knowledge of God that he seems so confidently to possess.  He seems to deride biblical sources?  I suspect that Young is taking the best he can imagine about God, and projecting that onto what he thinks God is like.  It appears almost the entire book is “taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn’t much, and then calling that God.”  Young is exactly guilty of this himself.  We understand that Young’s motivations may simply be to try to fit God into a universal reconciliation box, which he did not invent.  But in fitting all his theology into that box, he fails to take the advice given by Papa.  Young, in reality, teaches (despite his denial of it) that his god is just like us, but a little better.     

 The only way any of us, including Young, can avoid this mistake of merely super humanizing God, is to rely solely on the revelation given us in the Bible.   “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Heb 2:1 ESV).  I think too many of us think we have this Christian and Bible thing down; frankly, many seem bored with the Bible, and feel they need something new or at least something else to shed ‘new light’ on God.  I am afraid that The Shack is not shedding any new light, but rather old darkness.  Some seem to think Young insightful, but he is just repackaging God to his and his readers liking; to do so is neither insightful nor wise.   

 Trouble in River City

 Look, we in Evangelicalism have a real serious problem, as evidenced partly by the popularity of a book like The Shack among Evangelicals.  Part of the problem is that most preachers are not teaching the Bible expositorily.  They are using the Bible, but the problem is the Bible is not using them.

 Most sermons, though entertaining, just do not give us a vision of a holy transcendent God like the prophet saw in chapter 6 of Isaiah.  The vision of God that most evangelical preachers give us does not leave us undone.  Don’t get me wrong, they make us feel good, but that is not what we need.  When we get a vision of God like Isaiah did we are not bored!  A Biblical vision of God would ruin us for such books like The Shack.  Studying the Word of God is where we should start, but there are many helpful tools as well.  There are the ancient and reformed creeds to serve as a map to the Word of God.  There are books, and as we go back to the period from the 1600’s to the early 1900′s, there are so many solid books of depth about God and the things of God, but mining for gold is hard work and spiritual lethargy abounds.  There are some books authored in modern times that are worthy of mention, but in the main, they are sorely lacking.

 Most people are turned off by even the word ‘Puritan’.  But there is a gold mine of treasure from the writings of the Puritans.  These are solid books, because these Puritan’s knew their Bibles.  We see men like John Bunyan of whom it was said “bled Bibleen” because he was so saturated in the Word of God.  Does anyone remember Charles Spurgeon?  We are starving to death today, but there are so many books of old that have been republished by publishers like Solid Ground Books, The Banner of Truth Trust and Soli Deo Gloria, that malnourishment need not exist. 

 Are we just ignorant of these treasures, just lacking the appetite, or are we just plain resistant to them?  I am not sure which it is.  But when books such as The Shack are “deep”, it means either that we are severely shallow to the point of spiritual bankruptcy, or severely starved to the point that crumbs off the table are a feast.  This is not God’s will.

• Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? ⁷ Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you. Deut 32:6-7 (ESV)

 Statement 3

His gaze followed hers [Papa] and for the first time Mack noticed the scars on her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his.  She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of deep piercing, and finally looked up again into her eyes.  Tears were slowly making there way down her face, little pathways through the flour that dusted her cheeks. 

“Don’t ever think that 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.”

“Mack was surprised.  “At the cross?  Now wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me.’”  It was a Scripture that had often haunted Mack in The Great Sadness.

“You misunderstand the mystery there.  Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.”   Page 97-98

Young indicates that Papa has scars on his hands; the same ones that Mack assumes Jesus has.  At first, we may try and dismiss this statement as figurative.  After all, Papa is figurative.  But is Young getting at a literal meaning?  If Papa represents God the Father, then it would seem Young is trying to indicate the Father was crucified with Jesus.  So this, in addition to the Father allegedly becoming human in Jesus, might indicate Young thinks the Father has literal scars.  But even if Young were to deny the Father has literal scars, Young still states that the Father was with Christ on the cross.

 We see this on page 101 to further prove my point: Papa says:  “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.  We also chose to embrace all the limitations this entailed.  Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood.”  And again: Mack struggled for the words to tell her what was in his heart.  “I’m so sorry that you, that Jesus, had to die.” 

 So let me ask you, does a triple incarnation cause any red flags to rise over the error department of your theology?  Does the Father suffering on the cross with Jesus strike you as heretical?

 It is my suspicion that the reason Young teaches a “triple incarnation” is that Young cannot accept, based upon his theological commitments to universal reconciliation, that the Father poured out His wrath on His own Son.  Young writes: “Mack was surprised.  “At the cross?  Now wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me.’”  It was a Scripture that had often haunted Mack in The Great Sadness.  “You misunderstand the mystery there.  Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.”   Shortly before this Papa states “we were together,” meaning at the cross.  Immediately after Young makes that statement (they were together at the cross), Young makes the application that the Father never did leave Jesus at the cross.  Jesus may have felt the Father left Him, but actually Jesus was mistaken. 

 There are two problems here:

• First, if the Father was with Christ on the cross, then the Father did not pour out his wrath on Jesus.  The second problem is simply that Jesus is never mistaken.  I will elaborate below on these two very critical errors Young is making.

Again, Young’s need to fit all theology, including the incarnation and the Godhead, into the universal reconciliation box, causes him to really go all out.  Why else would he make such contortions to deal with the incarnation and what happened between the Father and Jesus at the cross?  The biblical view of the atonement, a substitutionary atonement, does not work with a universal reconciliation view.  So rather than Young adjusting his doctrine to fit the Bible, he goes the other direction and makes the Bible fit his doctrine.  Those who love the truth do not do this.

Young goes about this not expositorily, but emotionally.  Young gets us sentimentally involved with the Father’s love for the Son in this statement, and then with our emotions charged, he tries to get us to accept that the Father must not have actually forsaken the Son.  After all, what kind of a father would do that to his son?  Certainly a loving father would not do that to his son, right?  We are led, emotionally as it were, to accept a view that Jesus was not actually forsaken of the Father at the cross, but that Jesus merely felt as if the Father had forsaken him.  But if we accept this sentimental view, we lose more than we realize. 

The Heresy of Monarchianism

 As I mention above, the heresy Young is embracing seems to be what is termed as Monarchianism. 

• “This is the term usually applied to the natural concern in the early church to safeguard the unity (“Monarchy”) of the Godhead.  There is, of course, a legitimate monarchianism, for recognition of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that does not involve tritheism.  But over-emphasis on this aspect produced two forms of monarchianism which are mutually exclusive but both equally unacceptable.  The first is dynamic monarchianism, associated with Theodotus and perhaps Paul of Samosata.  Approaching the question from a Christological rather than a trinitarian angle, this teaches the inferiority of the Son as a man taken up into the Godhead (see Adoptionism).  The second is modal monarchianism, represented by Noetus, Praxeas and Sabellius (see Sabellianism).  This does not deny the full deity of Christ or the Spirit, but sees them merely as modes or functions of the one God, so that the Father may be said to suffer in the Son (see Patripassianism) and indwell us by the Spirit.  Hence the crushing remark of Tertullian that Praxeas put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.” [16]

 It may be beneficial to quote from this same Dictionary of Theology regarding Patripassianism. 

“Patripassianism.  A form of modalistic monarchianism (q.v.) propagated about A.D. 200 -50 by Noetus, Praxeas and Beryllus of Bostra and answered by Hippolytus, Tertullian[17], and Origen in that order.  Praxeas convinced Bishop Victor to outlaw Montanism and accept Patripassianism which caused Tertullian to say that Praxeas had “put to flight the Paraclete; and crucified the Father.”   Patripassianists (Latin pater, “father,” and passus, from patior, “to suffer”) with the modalists confused the person of the Trinity and denied the union of the two natures in one person of Christ.  Defending monotheism they held that since God was one essence there could not be three persons but instead three modes of manifestation.  Thus the Son was the Father appearing in human form.  Noetus taught that Christ was the Father and so the Father was born, suffered and died upon the cross, hence the name patripassian. [18]

Monarchianism and it varying forms have been rejected by Christians throughout history as heresy.  This area of study can be somewhat technical, but clearly Young’s view is not that of orthodox Christianity.  I think I would be neglectful if I did not give some affirmative statements in what the Bible teaches about the Trinity.  What follows are the headings of a section from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology which state very well the doctrine of the Trinity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• There is one the Divine Being but one indivisible essence.  In this One Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.  The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a definite order.  There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.  The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.[19]

 

 

 The Incarnation and Crucifixion of Christ Alone

 Hopefully, I have helped you see the heresy Young is holding to by his triple incarnation view that he presents in The Shack.  Now let’s try and make some sense biblically out of Young’s mess by showing why the Father could not have been crucified with Christ:

 1. The Scripture is clear that Christ suffered and not the Father.  You will not find one single reference in Scripture to the Father being crucified with Christ.  “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³ waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. ¹⁴ For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:12-14 ESV).   We could go on and on with Scripture texts that show Christ suffered; there is not one mention in all the many Scripture passages on the subject of Christ’s suffering that indicate the Father suffered with Christ on the cross.  Though all these affirmative statements that Christ suffered does not explicitly deny the Father was crucified with Christ, the absence of any statement indicating the Father also was crucified implicitly show the falseness of this teaching.  Young is unbiblical on this point, and is promoting serious heresy.  This heresy causes many other theological, doctrinal, logical and rational problems.  A double incarnation creates irrational and unbiblical doctrine. 

 

2.The Father has not a body in which to suffer crucifixion.   We must remember that Christ suffered physically, died physically, was raised physically; he physically ascended into heaven, and now physically sits at the right hand of the Father until the last day when he will physically return and physically bring back the dead and living to the final resurrection of judgment.  The elect will be reunited to their physical bodies which will be physically glorified, and the reprobate will be reunited with their physical bodies for physical (and spiritual included) judgment by fire in hell for eternity.  Christ,“being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.” [20] Christ is not temporarily fully a physical man; he will forever be man and God, in two natures and one person forever.  We must avoid the Gnostic heresy that mystifies the earthly ministry of Christ by denying its physical element.  All this to say that by placing the heavenly Father with the Son in the crucifixion confuses the physical nature of Christ and the Father being a Spirit without a body.  

Young tells us that all three members of his trinity became fully human.  Papa said this:  “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.” [21]   To be an alive human, is to have a body.  How do you have three human bodies in Jesus’ body?  Young has worked himself into a corner that he cannot get out of, all because he wants to make his personal doctrine work for him.  This is a real mess to say the least. 

4. Only Christ was provided a body in which to redeem his people.  We find this in Scripture: “Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me.” (Heb 10:5 ESV).  This body was prepared for Christ alone, not for the Father.

 5. The Father sent his Son into the world, not Himself.  The Father sent his Son into the world; the Father is distinct from the Son, though they are the same in substance and equal in power. There are numerous references in the Bible that tell us that the Father sent the Son.  If they were both going, then the Father would not be sending him, but they both would be going. 

•  “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (John 3:13 ESV).  Jesus descended to earth, not the Father.
•  “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24 ESV).  Again the Father sent the Son, but the Father did not accompany him.
•  “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him’” (Luke 20:13 ESV).  Although this is a parable, we know from elsewhere in Scripture, that the literal meaning is that the Father is the owner of the vineyard, and that the Father sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to the vineyard workers.   
• And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ for this is the will of my Father that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:39-40 (ESV)
• For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.  John 17:8 (ESV)

 These above verses are just some of the Scriptures that show that the Father sent his Son.  This does not explicitly state the Father was NOT crucified with the Son, but it does show if the Father sent his Son to die, why would the Father go also?  Add to this the Scriptures where Christ talks about returning to the Father.  If the Father were incarnate with the Son, then why would Jesus return to the Father; the Father would already be present with Christ.  Then they both would be returning to heaven, but not to the Father.

•  And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.  John 17:11 (ESV)
• But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.   John 17:13 (ESV)

 The creed that is accepted in almost all of the churches around the world[22] since the sixth century A.D. is the Nicene Creed.  We see again only the Son incarnate and crucified.  It states:

•  Nicene Creed:
• I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
• And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
• Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
• And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
• And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 We see that the incarnation was by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, but there is no mixing or modality of the Father and the Son and the Spirit becoming human and incarnate.  There is no conception in the orthodoxy of the Christian Church that the Father, who sent the Son, was also crucified with Christ physically, spiritually or in any other sense. 

 6. The Father was not incarnate in Christ since the Father spoke from heaven.  If the Father were sent with the Son to earth, became human with Christ, how could the Father have spoken from heaven at the baptism of Jesus: “And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11 ESV).  The Scripture specifically states the voice came from heaven, not from within Christ.  As well at the transfiguration: And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” Mark 9:7 (ESV).  The voice came from the cloud.  Clearly the Father is in heaven on his throne, speaking down to those on earth.

 7. Jesus never is mistaken.  Young states this:

•  “Don’t ever think that 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.”
• “Mack was surprised.  “At the cross?  Now wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me.’”  It was a Scripture that had often haunted Mack in The Great Sadness.  “You misunderstand the mystery there.  Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.” Page 97-98  

 According to Young, Christ just responded emotionally, when he cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”  According to Young, the Father actually did not forsake Christ at that time.  Young is denying that Jesus knows what he is saying.  There is such arrogance to presume that Christ merely “felt” that the Father forsook Him and to presume Christ was wrong?  Young has no problem denying the omniscience of Jesus merely for the sake of his own personal doctrine. 

 8. How could the Father’s wrath be poured out upon Christ if the Father was with Christ? How is it that the Father poured out his wrath on Christ for the sins of his people if the Father was also crucified?  Did the Father pour out wrath upon Himself and the Son? This is ridiculous and a heresy.  What Young is indicating is that the Father did not pour out his wrath on his Son.  I will discuss this more fully below.

 The Father pouring his wrath on Jesus at the cross was the focal point of the Father’s purpose in sending Jesus to the earth.  Young goes straight for the juggler vein of the gospel right here.  Young makes a decisive and direct assault on Christ’s work on the cross.  Christ’s death was atonement for sin.  There is no atonement for sin if Jesus did not receive the wrath of God on the cross.  That is what atonement is; it is a propitiation for sin; it is a satisfaction of divine justice.  The Father vent his full and entire wrath on Jesus for the sins of his people.  When Jesus said, “It is finished,” that is exactly what he meant.  “It is finished,” meant that the work Christ came to do on behalf of sinners was complete or finished.  The redemption was accomplished.

 We have this clear statement in Scripture about the reason Jesus came to earth.

• “For  I have come down from heaven, not to do  my own will but  the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me,  that I should lose nothing of  all that he has given me, but  raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who  looks on the Son and  believes in him  should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:38-40 ESV).

 Without Christ satisfying the inflexible justice of a holy God, and without the Father venting his perfect justice on Christ at the cross, there would be no possibility of anyone looking on the Son, believing in him, and having eternal life.  Young’s beliefs make salvation impossible.  This statement almost slips by us without our realizing the devastation to the foundation of Christianity, if believed. 

To continue to drive home the point, the issue at stake here is none other than the essential doctrine of the substitutionary atonement.  If the Father is the judge, as is indeed the case in substitutionary atonement, then Jesus is the wrath-bearer.  If the Father suffers along with Christ, how is it that the Judge dispenses his justice while receiving it at the same time?  There are many problems here, but let’s focus on the damage Young’s doctrine does to Christ’s perfect work on the cross.

A Demonstration of Love or Futility?

 Christ’s death is seen throughout The Shack as a demonstration of love, but not as a substitution of the sinless One for the sinful ones. The substitutionary atonement does indeed demonstrate both the Father’s love and Christ’s love for his people, but it does not follow that Christ’s death, without a substitutionary atonement, is a demonstration of love.  Why?  Christ’s death would have accomplished nothing unless it was a substitutionary atonement for sin. 

 Perhaps an illustration would help.  Let’s say that one day I read in the paper that John Doe needed a heart transplant and was in need of a heart donor.  Let’s say that I knew my son’s heart would be a perfect match, and so I had them remove my son’s heart (I know it borders on morbidity, but go with me on this), thus giving up my son’s life for John Doe.  That would be love beyond anything a human would be able to do.  But if I were willing to do this (which in real life I would not be), then I would have demonstrated great love for John Doe.

 But let’s say this story goes another way.  One day I am reading in the paper that John Doe needed a heart transplant, and was in need of a heart donor.  I knew my son’s heart would be a perfect match, and so I go to the hospital and shoot my son through the heart, thus killing him and rendering the heart that could have had use, useless.  Would that demonstrate love for John Doe?  Obviously it would not; it does not make any sense.  There is no benefit to John Doe or to my son.  It is senseless and morally reprehensible.

 Thus Young’s non substitutionary atonement death of Christ is similar to saying that if God the Father kills His Son for us all to see, then we will really know the Father loves us, and we will love him.  No! That will not be our response.  Our response will be gasps of horror and a deep sense of cruelty and injustice.  The only reason, we do not gasp in horror at the Father’s wrath being poured out upon Christ on the cross, but rather marvel, is because the Father had great purpose, effect and beneficial accomplishment in doing so.  The Father elected us and sent his Son to redeem his elect, and gave Christ the elect as his own bride.  Thus, the Father elected us, the Son redeemed us with his blood, and the Spirit applies that redemption to his people by working faith in them, thus uniting us to Christ in the Father’s effectual calling in us.

   The Substitutionary Atonement is Effectual

 There was no guess work in the Godhead working in Triunity to redeem the elect.  Those elected will come through effectual grace.  Christ’s blood was not “spilled” as if it was an accident, but his blood was “poured” out, carefully, by the predetermined plan of God.  Now that is truly a demonstration of love!  Young can have his Papa god who had his son die for no reason, except to show us he loves us.  This proves nothing though.  How do we know he won’t do the same to us; kill us so others will know God loves them.  It seems as if Papa hopes by doing this act to his son that somehow, out of the goodness of our heart, we might decide that God can be our friend.   

 Young will likely argue that Christ’s death still had a benefit in that “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship.” Page 227 But just exactly how does that work?  Why does the Father need Jesus in order to forgive all humans if Jesus did not take their place in receiving God’s just wrath?  If all will be saved ultimately, as universal reconciliation teaches, some choosing relationship while on earth, others having to pay for there own sins in Young’s temporary purifying hell (presumably to satisfy God’s justice since apparently Jesus was not able to satisfy it), then really why did Jesus die?  Why did not God send all men to hell to purify there sins, and in theory eventually God’s justice would be satisfied.  This way, Jesus could avoid all that unnecessary suffering? 

A Temporary Hell

 The problem with a temporary hell for purging sins is that our sin is infinite because God’s holiness is infinite.  That is why the unrepentant sinner will spend eternity in hell.  That’s how severe our offenses against God are, and that is how holy our God is.  Justice will require an eternal hell.  That is what the Bible teaches.  I will provide the Bible references on that when we get to the subject of salvation in critiquing The Shack.

The Necessity of the Cross

If God could have saved man another way, besides pouring his wrath on his own Son, he most certainly would have.  The Father loves the Son.  But there was no other way. It was only by pouring out his wrath on his Son, who had infinite value by virtue of who he is—the perfect God-man offering, that the Father could be perfect in justice, while at the same time justly showing forgiveness and mercy for those who deserved eternal hell.  God did not overlook our sins to forgive us; he credited Christ’s obedience and death to our account.  “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” Romans 3:26 (ESV).  The atonement was a necessity, not an option, in order for the Father to justly redeem his elect.  This infinite sacrifice shows true great love in redeeming the elect from sin. 

 Young wants to claim that “God so loved the world,” but he does not want to deal with the justice of God.  Frankly, who wants to deal with God’s justice?  It is frightening and the cross is so ugly and bloody.  But “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22b ESV).  Without the crucifixion of Christ, the once and for all perfect atonement for sin, the sinless dying in the stead of the sinful, and thus the sinless One satisfying divine justice against the sinful one, there would be no possibility of forgiveness.  God’s love is great and at the same time His justice is inflexible. God is simple, and we cannot divide his essence.  God is not part holiness, part justice, and part love. He is all of those at the same time because God cannot be divided into parts.

 9. God’s Wrath was indeed actually poured upon Jesus alone.  And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered’ (Mark 14:27 ESV).  This passage tells us that God will strike Jesus (the shepherd) and the sheep (the disciples) will scatter.  We also see, “But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5 ESV).  This passage shows God is the one doing the wounding, crushing, chastisement, and stripes.  Let’s continue with this chapter of Isaiah, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (verse 6).  We see that “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.”  “By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people (Verse 9)?  We see he was “stricken by God for the transgressions of his people.”   We see in verse 10, “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”  It was the will of the Lord to crush him.  In verse 11: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”  At the end of the verse we see “he shall bear their iniquities.”  And lastly in verse 12: “Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”  The only reason for Jesus to bear the sin of his people was to satisfy divine justice.  What other reason would there be?  The Father, in heaven, poured wrath upon Jesus on earth, for the sole purpose to satisfy the Father’s justice.

10. If the Father was crucified while being fully human with Christ, then God the Father was also raised from the dead.  This assertion is untenable, and of the most ridiculous sort.  No where in Scripture is there a hint of this; if it were so, surely the Word of God would tell us.  Often the silence of Scripture says as much as if it had specifically denied something to be true. 

It is, in fact, the case that the Father sent His Son, so that at the hands of sinners by the predetermined plan of God, the Son would be crucified by sinners for sinners and judged by the Father on the behalf of the sinner.  The Father is the sender of Christ, the punisher of Christ, and the mercy giver to the redeemed, and finally the exalter and glorifier of his Son. 

 But what about John 14:10-11?

 Let’s deal with this passage that someone, such as Young, might use to make a case that the Father was crucified with Christ.  This is found in John 14:10-11: 

• Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” ⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. ¹¹ Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. John 14:8-11 (ESV)

 But what does this verse actually mean? I think Calvin handled this very well in Calvin’s Commentary:

• Verse 11. That I am in the Father, and the Father in me. I do not consider
• these words to refer to Christ’s Divine essence, but to the manner of
• the revelation; for Christ, so far as regards his hidden Divinity, is
• not better known to us than the Father. But he is said to be the lively
• Image, or Portrait, of God, because in him God has fully revealed
• himself, so far as God’s infinite goodness, wisdom, and power, are
• clearly manifested in him. And yet the ancient writers do not take an
• erroneous view of this passage, when they quote it as a proof for
• defending Christ’s Divinity; but as Christ does not simply inquire what
• he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, this
• description applies to his power rather than to his essence. The
• Father, therefore, is said to be in Christ, because full Divinity
• dwells in him, and displays its power; and Christ, on the other hand,
• is said to be in the Father, because by his Divine power he shows that
• he is one with the Father
•  
• The words which I speak to you. He proves from the effect that we ought
• not to seek God anywhere else than in him; for he maintains that his
• doctrine, being heavenly and truly Divine, is a proof and bright mirror
• of the presence of God. If it be objected, that all the Prophets ought
• to be accounted sons of God, because they speak divinely from the
• inspiration of the Spirit, and because God was the Author of their
• doctrine, the answer is easy. We ought to consider what their doctrine
• contains; for the Prophets send their disciples to another person, but
• Christ attaches them to himself. Besides, we ought to remember what the
• apostle declares, that now God speaketh from heaven (Hebrews 12:25) by
• the mouth of his Son, and that, when he spoke by Moses, he spoke, as it
• were, from the earth.[23]

 If we are satisfied with this explanation from probably the church’s greatest Bible expositor, then let’s move on with this solid interpretation of John 14:8-11.

 In summary, Young, who thinks the Father was crucified with Christ, is promoting something that is against what the Christian Church has believed for all time; it goes against the historical creeds; it goes against reason; it goes against what is revealed in the Scriptures.  One, who teaches false things, is called a false teacher, and we have been warned time and time again in the Bible, by Jesus, and by the Apostles to watch out for false teachers; if we ignore that counsel, we will suffer for it.  Young is a false teacher, beware.

Statement 4

•  “So does this mean that you were limited when Jesus was on earth?  I mean, did you limit yourself only to Jesus?”
• “Not at all!  Although I have only been limited in Jesus, I have never been limited in myself.”
• “There’s that whole Trinity thing, which is where I kind of get lost.”  Page 102

 Here we see Young getting himself in another mess, which is connected to a prior quagmire.  I do appreciate that Young attempts to deal with the mess he has created rather than just changing the subject, but unfortunately he does not deal with it biblically. 

 The cause of the mess stems from saying the Father was incarnate at the cross with Jesus.  The actual mess itself, part of it anyway, is seen in the very question Mack asks, “So does this mean that you were limited when Jesus was on earth?  I mean, did you limit yourself only to Jesus?”  So the error of viewing the Father as incarnate with Christ, leads Mack to ask if Papa was limited in Christ, which compounded with the presumption that Christ was limited while on earth, creates a quagmire.  As I tell my children, one lie tends to lead to another.  So here, one error tends to lead to another. 

 Hopefully, I have reasonably refuted the view that the Father was incarnate in Christ.  So let’s talk about the other error that Christ was limited.  Young believes Jesus was limited in his Divinity while on earth.  Is this biblical?  After all doesn’t Philippians 2:5-11 support this view?  Let me just answer it up front and then explain.  It is an unbiblical view that Christ was limited during his earthly ministry.  I think for many this error stems from a misunderstanding of Philippians 2:5-11.

• Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, ⁶  who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, ⁸ he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ⁹  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.   Phil 2:5-11 (ESV)



I think many interpret “but made himself nothing” from verse 7 to mean that Christ set aside his divinity or limited his divinity, (which actually is no longer divinity) during his earthly ministry, and was empowered by the Spirit alone to perform miracles. 

This is not what the verse means.  The very next part of the verse references what the phrase “made himself nothing” means.  It says, “taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”  This is how he “emptied himself” or “made himself nothing,” he was born in the likeness of man.”  Christ’s ministry from birth to death is referred to in the Baptist Shorter Catechism as his “state of humiliation.”[24]  But being in a humblestate is not the same as being in a limited state. 

I can be President and be humble, still keeping all of my authority.  Just because the President wants to come to my house and wash my dishes, does not mean that he has set aside his authority.  He can have full authority while being humble.  That is the point, with all of Christ’s Deity and the power that comes with that, and while maintaining that divinity, he humbled himself to become a man and to serve.  Certainly Philippians 2 is addressing Christ’s humble state, not a limited state. 

 Christ did exercise his divine power many times throughout his earthly ministry.  True he did not always show his divinity, but when he chose to, in keeping with the Father’s will, he did demonstrate his deity.  There are the signs and wonders; there is the transfiguration; there is the resurrection; these all evidence his deity without limitation while on earth.

 Christ could have done anything as he is God, but not just anything fit into his or his Father’s purposes.  It is important to note that what I am saying does not exclude the Father and the Holy Spirit’s involvement in Christ’s ministry, but the point is Christ was not limited. 

The next portion of the text in verse in 7b and 8 expands the point that Christ becoming nothing refers to his being born as a man: “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross.”  So though he made himself “nothing” by becoming a man, no where in this passage are we led to conclude that Jesus was limited.  The context of these verses deal with how we should treat each other.  Jesus is the example of humility, but not of limitation.  The main thrust of the passage should be the main lens through which we interpret these passages. 

 Again, Young here shows us his belief that Jesus was limited, not just humbled: 

• “Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can’t.  Jesus is fully human.  Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything” (Page 101).
• Further Young States:
• “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.”
• That came as a shock to Mack’s religious system. (Page 102)

Here is a helpful quote from R.C. Sproul:

• “Hymns and sermons are often heard that have God setting aside his deity when he became incarnate.  That is heretical.  The divine nature of Christ during the incarnation is fully divine.  Christ did not give up any divinity when he took upon himself a human nature.  All divine attributes are retained in the person of Christ.  And when the divine nature adds a human nature the human nature does not lack any of its humanity.  Christ’s human nature is fully human.” [25]

 The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith has been helpful to me in seeing the important distinctions in Christ’s two natures, while at the same time seeing that these two natures are in one Person not two.  Here is what it states:

1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator, Paragraph 2:

• 2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. ( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

Here is a graphic I made using the wording of the 1689 Confession.  You can see that the two whole and distinct natures represented as circles are within the one person circle, but also that the two natures are separate, and there is no mixture of the two natures. 

 

 This is why good confessions of faith are so helpful[26], because we are dealing with difficult things.  It takes reverence, care, thought, and the help of the Spirit to illuminate our understanding of the Word of God in these matters.  But some people are sloppy, impatient and lack the desire to hunker down and make sure that they understand the God that they worship that they may honor him with worthy worship.

 Much more could be said here on this topic, but let this cause us to dig deeper if we think of Jesus as being limited in his earthly state of humiliation. 

In summary of statement 4, both of these errors, the Father incarnate, and the limitation of Christ are unbiblical and fit into the category of heresy.  Young has accepted the heresy of universal reconciliation, and since that is his theological commitment, he seeks to fit all other doctrines into that box in order to make it all work. 

 Summary of Godhead in The Shack

 No one will deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is a difficult one to understand, and really cannot be fully comprehended.  What we need to rely on though is what has been revealed in Scripture, beyond that we dare not go.  Young does not rely on the Scriptures at all, but has denied that as his starting point; Young’s starting point is somewhere else that will not, rationally, allow him to accept the Bible’s teaching on many subjects including the Father’s justice, holiness, wrath, the incarnation of Jesus, and the Biblical Trinity.  None of these fit into the universal reconciliation box, and so Young alters these doctrines so as to force them to fit into a box that is too small.

Young never attempts to defend The Shack; he just makes truth claims without citing any authority source.  There is no authority that Young appeals to, and so I conclude his truth claims are based merely on his own opinions, experiences, or good senses of a natural unregenerate man.  That’s all folks!  There is no mystery, no secret knowledge, because it is all just what Young wishes God were like.  It is all just a fantasy god. 

 If we are Evangelicals, which means we hold to the sole authority of Scripture; and if we hold to that, we hold to all the Scriptures teach.  If one thinks The Shack is still fine, then it seems to me that perhaps that one is not an Evangelical.  If you call yourself a certain label, standing outside of what that label means, then you are not that label.  Be honest about what you believe, or else you are just fooling yourself.  You certainly are not fooling God.

 I hope I have made enough of a case that will lead one to dig deeper into the issues Young addresses, and that if your commitment is to Scripture alone, let the Scriptures say what they say and evaluate The Shack in that light

 It is time to bring this to an end.  I am currently at 37 pages in my word processor, and I have only addressed four out of 35 unbiblical statements; that only deals with the Godhead in The Shack. I doubt I can hold my audience’s interest too much longer, so I will call it quits under this theological category of the Godhead.  But lest you think that I can only make a case for four errors in The Shack about the Godhead, again I remind you that there are at least 35 errors that I have found on this topic alone, and of those I thought 19 were especially critical, although any error about God is critical. 

 I am placing the remaining 15 quotes (of the 19 I just mentioned) in the endnotes for this chapter so that you can see for yourself that they really exist, and that I am not trying to broad brush The Shack able only to find four erroneous statements about God.  I trust that the four statements that I have addressed at least make the point that the doctrines of The Shack are simply not based on the Bible, and in fact are contradictory to the Bible.   

 

---

 END NOTES 

---

Introduction

• [1] M3 is a Christian think tank forum that De Young and Young were apart of.  See page XIII of the Introduction: “The Story Behind The Story” in Burning Down The Shack, James B. De Young (WorldNetDaily, Washington DC: 2010).
• [2] I am not as certain as De Young that general universalism is completely rejected in The Shack.  For example we read this in The Shack, “Those who love me have come from every system that exists.  They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist or Muslims; some are Democrats, some Republicans and many don’t vote or are not apart 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.” This is from page 184.  One can try and argue that he is referring to conversion from “xyz” to Christianity, but Young seems to deny that they convert to Christianity.  Given what we know about Young’s universal reconciliation views, it is not too hard to see this as possibly even a general universalism statement.  I see no reason to give Young the benefit of the doubt; he has lost that privilege.
• [3] James B. De young, Burning Down The Shack:How the ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions (WorldNetDaily, Washington D.C.:2010), pg.XIII-XIV.

Chapter 1

• [1] I base this on his own statement of himself, and page 183 to 184 and other statements in the book which seems to show his disdain for any kind of label or formalized group.  In pages 183 to 184 Jesus says He is not a Christian.  Jesus states: “I have no desire to make them [Buddhists, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, etc.] Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers, into my Beloved.” Pg. 184. I’ll say more  on this statement later, as there is much to say.
• [2]CBN 700 Club interview found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA
• [3]CBN 700 Club interview found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA
•  [4]CBN 700 Club interview found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA
• [5]CBN 700 Club interview found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA
• [6] This is a reoccurring theme through the book and is italicized throughout the book for emphasis.
• [7] Wm. Paul Young, The Shack (Windblown Media, Newbury park, CA), Acknowledgements.
• [8] CBN 700 Club interview found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA

Chapter 2

•  [9] Source: http://mrbraiman.home.att.net/lit.htm
• [10] See page 10.
• [11] See page 10.
• [12] See Page 11
• [13]See page 12; the disdain Young has for church comes out loud and clear here; you can almost hear the derision.  Remember, the author has told us in an interview that Mack represent his own life.
• [14] See page 249
• [15] See page 250

Chapter 3

• [16] See page 9-12.
• [17] See page 12.
• [18] See page 68.
• [19] I find Young’s arrogance amazing.  He assumes that he has the truth (based upon his own inner light) and presumes that everyone else has an inadequate view of God because they do not line up with his.  Especially, if  the views are based upon a book, the Bible (box).  This sets up Young as a prophet who comes to us with a message from God to tell all of us what He is like.  Read Jeremiah where the “prophets” spoke things not from God, but from their own imaginings.  There is nothing new under the sun.
• [20] See page 250.  Notice Mack is hoping for a revolution, not a reformation.  This is something totally different from historic orthodox Christianity.  This should cause the red flag to start waving.  It is in fact a call to worship and a new god with only vague historic Christian resemblances.  This will be born out later as we analyze the book.  What does the Second Commandment tell us?  “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Ex 20:4-6 (ESV)  I am sorry, but you are not excused from making the Godhead out to be a mix of a male and female and therefore human, by saying The Shack is just an allegory.  It is allegory to make a point, and the point is just as wrong as the allegory.  God may make use of language in saying He is like a mother who comforts His children, but He never says He IS a mother or IS feminine.  The Scriptures reveal God as masculine.  But it is important to point out that God has not a gender like men or women; God is not a man or a woman; to be made in God’s image is not to say God has a body like men or women.  God is beyond gender, and we must rely on revelation from Scripture here not our own understandings. 
• [21] I make no claim that Young and his collaborators intentionally have this structure, but none the less it is there, intentional or not. 

Chapter 5

• [22] Michael Horton, The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Reformation Essentials A direct link to this article from which the quote came is located here: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=751&var3=searchresults&var4=Search&var5=Reformation_Essentials.   This article originally appeared in the Mar / Apr 1994 edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.
  [23]The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 1.
• [24]The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 1.

Chapter 6

• [1] The only way to avoid innovative, non-historical and non-grammatical interpretation is to study the Scripture texts, not intuitively or devotionally, but using exegetical methods.  In other words, he needs to use the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics (the interpreting process) rather than a “the Spirit told me” kind of approach.  If the Spirit illuminated the meaning of the passage to the preacher, great, but it is still his duty to prove that his understanding of the passage is indeed what the Spirit inspired when He originally used holy men moved along by the Spirit to write it.  He must prove his interpretation to the church by the hard work it takes to use the historical-grammatical method to interpret the passage.  Often times this method of interpretation will show that what we intuitively thought it meant, is not what it actually means.  Better to find this out in preparation for the sermon, than after you have taught a false meaning of the passage.  The kind of preaching that uses the historical-grammatical approach is called expository preaching.
• [2] 1689 Confession, Chapter 1, Section 1.
• [3] James B. De Young, Burning Down The Shack:How the ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions (WorldNetDaily, Washington D.C.:2010), pg. XIII-XIV.
•  [4]Knowledge of the Holy, The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life (San Francisco, Harper & Row), pg. 3.
• [5] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Erdmann’s), pg. 35
• [6] Ibid., pg. 8
• [7] As an aside: I hope you will understand why I place in lower case the ‘trinity’ that young teaches.  I do not believe Young’s representations of his trinity to be worthy of the true Trinity.  As a result, I will not place a false trinity in upper case.  This one small way I seek to honor the true and only Triune God.  As you have already noticed, I have put god in lower case when referencing Young’s teaching of his god, because his views are not worthy of the one true God.
•  [8]Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, Second Edition (Oxford University Press: 2009).
• [9] Ibid.
• [10]Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Baker House Publishing, Grand Rapids: 1883), pg. 45-46.
• [11]American Dictionary of the English Language: (Noah Webster: 1828). 
• [12] Page 95.
• [13] Page 95.
• [14] Page 95.
• [15] For example, read about Arius before the church council.
• [16]Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 13^th Edition (Baker Book house: Grand Rapids, 1983), pg. 361.
• [17] You can find Tertullian’s translated writings on this issue at:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.i.html.   Any direct source reading you can do is best.  It is slow going though, but rewarding to make your way through it.
• [18]Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 13^th Edition (Baker Book house: Grand Rapids, 1983), pg. 396-397.
• [19] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids), pg. 87-89.
• [20] Westminster Shorter Catechism question 21.
• [21] Page 100.
• [22] The Greek Orthodox Church rejects only three words of the Nicene Creed, “and the Son” related to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
• [23]Calvin’s Commentaries, John (Baker Books, Grand Rapids: reprinted 2009).
• [24]Q30: Wherein did Christ’s humiliation consist?A30: Christ’s humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time.
• [25] R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess, Volume I, The Triune God (New Jersey, P & R Publishing) pg. 244-245.
• [26] To see the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession I have it on my 1689 Confession commentary that I am working on at www.gmarble.wordpress.com.  Click on the 1689 Confession tab at the top to see the 1689 Confession, and the home page is the commentary.
•  Statement 5
• “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.  We also chose to embrace all the limitations this entailed.  Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood.”  It would be like this bird, whose nature it is to fly, choosing only to walk and remain grounded.  He does not stop being a bird, but it does alter his experience of life significantly.”  She paused to make sure Mack was still tracking.  While there was a definite cramp forming in his brain, he voiced an “Okay…?” inviting her to continue.“Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such.  While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded.  That is why his name is Immanuel, ‘God with us,’ or ‘God with you,’ to be more precise.”“But what about all the miracles?  The healings?  Raising people from the dead?  Don’t those prove that Jesus was God—you know, more than human?”No, it proves that Jesus is truly human.”“What?”“Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can’t.  Jesus is fully human.  Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything.  He has only lived out 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.”That came as a shock to Mack’s religious system.“Only as he rested in his relationship with me, and in our communion—our co-union—could he express my heart and will into any given circumstance.  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.  That’s how he lives and acts as a true human, how every human is designed to live—out of my life.  Page 101-102 
• Statement 6
• “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker.  I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely one.” Page 103
•  Statement 7
• …he [Mack] looked up and noticed again the scars on her wrists. 
• “Papa?”  Mack finally said in a way that felt very awkward, but he was trying.
• “Yes, honey?”
• Mack struggled for the words to tell her what was in his heart.  “I’m so sorry that you, that Jesus, had to die.”
•             She walked around the table and gave Mack another big hug.  “I know you are, and thank you.  But you need to know that we aren’t sorry at all.  It was worth it.  Isn’t that right, Son?”   Page 104-105
•  
• Statement 8
• “Incredible!” whispered Jesus, his head near Mack’s in the darkness.  “I never get tired of this.”
• “Even though you created it?” Mack asked.
• I created it as the Word, before the Word became flesh.  So even though I created this, I see it now as a human.  And I must say it is impressive!”  Page 111
•  
• Statement 9
• That is why Elousia is such a wonderful name.  God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things—ultimately emerging as the real—and any appearances that mask that reality will fall away.”   Page 114
•  
• Statement 10 
• “Well, I know you are one and all, and that there are three of you.  But you respond with such graciousness to each other.  Isn’t one of you more the boss than the other two?”
•             The three looked at one another as if they had never thought of such a question.
•             “I mean,” Mack hurried on, “I have always thought of God the Father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know, being obedient.  I’m not sure how the Holy Spirit fits in exactly.  He…I mean, she…uh…”  Mack tried not to look at Sarayu as he stumbled for words.  Whatever—the Spirit always seemed kind of…uh…”
•             “A free spirit?”  offered Papa.
•             “ Exactly—a free spirit, but still under the direction of the Father.  Does that make sense?”
• Jesus looked over at Papa, obviously trying with some difficulty to maintain the perception of a very serious exterior.  “Does that make sense to you, Abba?  Frankly, I haven’t a clue what this man is talking about.”
•             Papa scrunched up her face as if exerting great concentration.  “Nope, I have been trying to make head or tail out of it, but sorry, he’s got me lost.”
•             “You know what I am talking about.”  Mack was a little frustrated.  “ I am talking about who’s in charge.  Don’t you have a chain of command?
•             “Chain of command?  That sounds ghastly! Jesus said.
•             “At least binding,” Papa added as they both started laughing, and then Papa turned to Mack and sang, “Though chains be of gold, they are chains the same.”
•  
• ………………………………….[The section goes on, but I have left out some of it for brevity purposes; I do not believe this omission changes the thrust of my view that this section is unbiblical]
•  
• “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity.  We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it.  What you’re seeing her is relationship without any over-lay of power.  We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best.  Hierarchy would make no sense among us.  Actually, this is your problem, not ours.”  Page 123 to 124
•  
•  Statement 11 
• “Mackenzie, Jesus didn’t hold on to any rights.  He willingly became a servant and lives out of his relationship to Papa.  He gave up everything, so that by his dependent life he opened a door that would allow you to live free enough to give up your rights.”            Page 139
•  
• Statement 12 
• “To force my will on you,” Jesus replied, “is exactly what love does not do.  Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy.
• “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 to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her.  Submission is not about authority and it is not about 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 do my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” Page 147-148
•  
• Statement 13
• “But you came in the form of a man.  Doesn’t that say something?”
• “Yes, but not what many have assumed.  I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you”… Page 150
•  
• Statement 14
• “But I always liked Jesus better than you.  He seemed so gracious and you seemed so…”
• “Mean?”  Sad, isn’t it? He came to show people who I am and most folks believe the qualities he portrayed were unique to him.  They still play us off like good cop/bad cop most of the time, especially the religious folk.  When they want people to do what they think is right, they need a stern God.  When they need forgiveness, they run to Jesus.”
• “Exactly,” Mack said with a point of his finger.
• “But we were all in him.  He reflected my heart exactly.  I love you and invite you to love me.” Page 188
•  
•  Statement 15
• “Papa, can you help me understand something?”  What exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?”
• “She was still looking out into the forest.  “Oh”—she waved her hand—“nothing much.  Just the substance of everything that love purposed from before the foundations of creation,” Papa stated matter-of-factly, then turned and smiled.
• “Wow, that’s a pretty broad brush.  Could you bring it down a few notches?” asked Mack rather boldly, or so he thought after the words has left his mouth.
• Papa, instead of being upset, beamed at him.  “My, but aren’t you getting uppity an’ all?  Give a man an inch and he thinks he’s a ruler.”
• Mack returned the grin, but his mouth was full and didn’t say anything.
• “Like I said, everything is about him.  Creation and history are all about Jesus.  He is the very center of our purpose, and in him we are now fully human, so our purpose  and your destiny are forever linked.  You might say that we have put all our eggs in the one human basket.  There is no plan B.”
• “Seems pretty risky,” Mack surmised.
• “Maybe for you, but not for me.  There has never been a question that what I wanted from the beginning, I will get.”
• Papa sat forward and crossed her arms on the table.  “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross, so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.”
• “The whole world, Mack.  All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two-way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally.  It is not the nature of love to force a relationship, but it is the nature of love to open the way.” Page 193 -194
• Statement 16
• “Keep in mind, Mackenzie, that I am not a human being, not in my very nature, despite how we have chosen to be with you this weekend.  I am truly human in Jesus, but I am a totally separate other in my nature.” Page 203
•  
• Statement 17
• “Actually, only one succeeded—Jesus.  He not only obeyed the letter of the Law, but fulfilled the spirit of it completely.  But understand this, Mackenzie—to do that he had to rest fully and dependently upon me.”   Page 204
•  
• Statement 18
• “God, the servant.”  He chuckled but then felt a welling up again as the thought made him pause.  “It is more truly God, my servant.” Page 239