Give therefore thy servant an
understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between
good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? - I Kings 3:9
I
like Paul Young. Having heard him speak about his life and book three
times at his
alma mater (Warner
Pacific College), in Portland, Oregon, in
the fall of 2008, I found him to be passionate, witty and funny. While
attending those meetings I was
able to spend a few moments with him privately, during which time I asked
him to respond personally to several criticisms and concerns that I and
other Christians had raised about the theological content of his book.
I wish I could report that he allayed my apprehensions, but instead I
went away convinced that The Shack is more than just a little
offbeat but is, as Dr. Albert Mohler pegged it during his May 26, 2008, radio
broadcast,
"blatant heresy."
Yes, The Shack is indeed a novel. And many will wonder what could
be wrong, since it is identified as a Christian book and authored by a
man who claims to be a Christian. After all, The Shack is
heralded by many seasoned Christian leaders. Pastors are preaching from
it. Sunday School classes and small groups are reading and discussing
it. Many Christians are buying it by the case to give as gifts. Some
Christian schools are even sanctioning and encouraging the reading of
the book. Now, in March, 2017, a whole new array of materials are being
offered to coincide with the motion picture release. But this is not just a benign story of man overcoming life's
challenges. Make no mistake, the book presents Paul Young's erroneous doctrine throughout its
clever and gripping story - something the author clearly intended to do.
Therein lies the problem.
Trading the Kingdom
for a Shack
For those unaware of
the book's storyline, here is the description of
The Shack from
Amazon.com:
"Mackenzie Allen
Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family
vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found
in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.
Four years later
in the midst of what he refers to as 'The Great Sadness,' Mack receives
a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack
for a weekend.
Against his better
judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back
into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world
forever.
In a world where
religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant 'The Shack' wrestles with
the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with
unspeakable pain?"
The Shack
is a publishing phenomenon, but you may ask, "Is it
really any big deal?" This self-published book has sold nearly
twelve million
copies since its May 2007 release. It debuted at #1 on The New York
Times Bestseller List and remained at either #1 or #2 for an
astounding 87 weeks. It has also held the #1 position on many other
bestseller lists, including Amazon.com, USA Today's
Top 150 Books,
Barnes and Noble and Borders Books and was the #1 book of 2008 at ChristianBook.com.
According to the author, in late 2008 the book was selling at a rate of
87,000 copies a week in the secular book stores alone. As I
update this piece in 2017 we're told that The Shack has also
become one of the 40 biggest selling books in history. All of
this has allowed Young and his two publishing partners the luxury of
holding out for just the right major motion picture deal as well. But
there is a reason why several dozen publishers turned this book down.
Here are a few of my observations - and objections.
The
Shack's
Trinity
Several chapters into the book, a most unorthodox version of the Holy
Trinity is revealed. Young's tale diminishes Almighty God from His
rightful position as a supernatural being. Instead of speaking by His
Word and His Spirit, He is morphed into a feminine figure,
reduced to passing notes to those with whom she wants to
communicate.
God
is portrayed in The Shack as a large African-American woman named
"Papa," also called "Elousia." (Talk about gender confusion!) Jesus is a
Jewish carpenter complete with a tool belt, and the Holy Spirit is
depicted as an Asian woman named after "Sarayu," a mystical river in
ancient India related to the Hindu deity Kali. Clearly, there is a
trinity in The Shack but it is absolutely not the
Trinity.
From my first glance at The Shack, it struck me that the idea of
God in human form, even in the pages of a novel, is more than just
theologically questionable. It is forbidden by several passages from
both the Old and New Testaments, not the least of which is the Second
Commandment (Exodus 20: 4-5). The Apostle Paul proclaims, "Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man..." (Romans 1:21-23a)
Of
The Shack, BreakPoint's contributing editor Travis
McSherley wrote, "This is the root of the book's problems. In the
course of the biblical narrative, God the Father never reveals Himself
in the form of a human. In fact, Christ rebukes His disciples for even
suggesting it. (See John 14:5-10)
"The Shack would not dispute these limits of understanding
- it dedicates many pages to chastising believers who cling too tightly
to traditional views of God's nature. Yet, instead of expanding our
thinking and our appreciation for divine mysteries, the book shrinks
them quite dramatically by creating a deity so clearly influenced by
human expectations of what God should be."
Sin, Hell, Judgment, Salvation, the
Incarnation,
Hierarchy and Authority in the Godhead, a Polynesian
Goddess and other assorted problems
Here are just a few of the many issues raised by The Shack:
-
Young's "Papa" character insists that sin is its own punishment. This
distorts the reality of Hell and discounts eternal retribution for sin.
-
Readers of The Shack are told that Jesus is only the best
way to know God – not the only way.
-
The Shack teaches that, when Jesus went to the cross, God Almighty
died there, too. This is a heresy known as patripassianism. (In our
private conversation I challenged Young about this, but to no avail.)
-
The Shack states that there is no structure or hierarchy within
the Trinity and that the three personages of God are all equally subject
to one another and to humans as well. I challenge fans of The
Shack to open a Bible and try to make that square with the
Scriptures!
-
Young's "Papa" character is suspiciously akin to a Polynesian/Hawaiian
goddess who also happens to be known as "Papa." When I quizzed Young on
this, he denied any knowledge of such a deity. However, the similarities
with The Shack's God character are stunning.
Now
let's move on to perhaps the biggest concern.
Is Paul Young
still a "Reconciling Universalist?"
I have noticed that in
nearly every electronic or print media interview, Paul Young volunteers
that he is "not a universalist" and does so without ever being asked
about it. But is he merely parsing words? Young is obviously nervous
about the Christian world becoming convinced of any such thing. That
said, it strikes me as odd that on a web page intended to answer critics
of the book, one of his editors, Wayne Jacobson, acknowledges that Young
had previously embraced a form of universalism known as "universal
reconciliation" and that this belief indeed appeared throughout the
original manuscript. (Jacobson refers to it as "ultimate reconciliation"
to avoid using the dreaded "U" word, "universal.")
Jacobson's website states:
"Does The Shack
promote Ultimate Reconciliation (UR)?
"It does not. While
some of that was in earlier versions because of the author's partiality
at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at
the outset that I didn't embrace UR as sound teaching and didn't want to
be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an
extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father's
love that has to be forced on the biblical text.
"Since I don't
believe in UR and wholeheartedly embrace the finished product, I think
those who see UR here, either positively or negatively are reading into
the text. To me that was the beauty of the collaboration." (See:
http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html)
It is obvious that
Young, Jacobson, and partner Brad Cummings all have a great deal to lose
by not doing their best to debunk The Shack's critics. They are very
aware of where Young was theologically when he wrote the book.
And
that is the point, isn't it? It is the content of the book (and
presumably that of the forthcoming motion picture) that is being
criticized here.
In the very beginning,
I began to smell universalism in The Shack by simply reading it.
These thoughts were more than confirmed through a very scholarly paper
critiquing The Shack written by Dr. James De Young. Other leaders
who have been critical of the book, including Dr. Michael Youssef, Janet
Parshall, Jan Markell, and Dr. Larry DeBruyn, have quoted Dr. De Young's
research - and for good reason.
Dr. De Young is an
author and conservative professor at Western Seminary in
Portland, Oregon. He is fluent in Greek and Hebrew and has taught
extensively on the early Church Fathers. He is well-equipped to expose
universalism from both biblical and historical perspectives. Perhaps
equally important to our discussion here is the fact that for several
years both Dr. De Young and Paul Young were members of a theological
discussion group, or "think tank," known as the M3 Forum. In response to
the bountiful amount of universalistic ideas found in The Shack,
Dr. De Young published a well-documented 32-page paper in 2008 which can be
accessed
here.
Both on our
website and his, you will also find
several shorter documents authored by Dr. De Young that relate directly
to the topic. Dr. De Young and I share a common interest in refuting
Paul Young's aberrant teaching that has gained stunning acceptance
across the Christian world. The comments left at various blogs online
sadly serve to illustrate the tremendous confusion and lack of biblical
thinking that abounds inside the Christian community today.
In my face to face meeting with Paul Young in 2008 I ask him
directly if he was a universalist. He emphatically replied that he was
not. I then asked him about the conclusions found in Dr. De Young's paper. He bristled at me
and made several accusations about Jim De Young which I now understand to be
unfounded. Paul Young did what so many do today. Having no answer for my
questions, he claimed he was being "persecuted." A month after the meeting with Paul Young, I had the
eye-opening opportunity to
meet personally with Dr. De Young for several hours.
In the November, 2008,
meeting Dr. De Young
shared with me parts of what eventually became his book, Burning Down
The Shack (WND Books, 2010). Due to Paul Young's rejection of what
he referred to as the
"evangelical paradigm" and his pronounced acceptance of universal reconciliation made
to the M3 Forum members in early 2004, Dr. De Young felt an obligation to write
about The Shack once it was published.
Having had no previous
indication that a staunch believer in universal reconciliation was in
their midst, Paul Young’s revelations came as a complete blindside to
the M3 Forum members. There was absolutely no doubt what Young believed
either. He presented the forum with a bold and detailed 103 page paper
that when comparing it to biblical orthodoxy, the contents are best
described as shocking. At their next meeting the group contested Young's
paper and ideas, with Dr. De Young giving a lengthy rebuttal to all of
Paul's points. Young understood his positions would be seen as heretical
by the forum members and ceased participating in the M3 Forum.
Reflecting upon my personal conversation with Young at Warner
Pacific in October, 2008, I wish I had asked specifically, "Are you now or
have you ever been an advocate of universal reconciliation?" (Note that
classical universalists believe that all religions are viable and lead to
a various peaceful conceptions of eternity, whereas those who hold to universal reconciliation believe that
all men [read that "ALL"] are already saved because
of Jesus' work on the cross.) This position purports that there is no
penalty for sin, no literal hell and no need to accept Christ and repent
of one's sins. I see this as a transposition of Jesus' act of
redemption, which was indeed made for all men, and the rejection
of biblical salvation which involves faith, the work of
the Holy Spirit, and free will. Obviously, the teaching of universal
reconciliation dramatically undermines the work of the Church,
evangelism, and the core teachings of the New Testament. It is a satanic
trap, denying essential beliefs taught by Jesus, the Apostles, and Bible
believers throughout the Church Age. But, it is also exactly
what Young believed in 2004. It is what he believed when he wrote The
Shack (reiterating his position in May-June 2007, after writing The
Shack) and, whether he believes it today or not, you can be fairly
certain that with millions of dollars at risk he is not about to re-edit
The Shack to try to make theological corrections - at least
not without an act of God. The fact is that he has doubled-down on this
and other theologies instead. Again, the real question is not how
skillfully Young may craft his words in denial of believing in
reconciling universalism or even what he may
actually believe today. It is the theological
content of The Shack that orthodox Christian critics are
concerned about. Besides, the facet of universalism is but one of the many glaringly
unbiblical aspects of the book.
The REAL Problem
The bottom line
concerning books, movies, television shows and other input like The
Shack is that, if our emotions rule and we fail to use scriptural
discernment, we can be taken captive by "evil imaginations."
Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit...
- Colossians 2:8
Knowing that the author
actually portrayed himself as both Shack characters Missy (the
violated-then-murdered six-year-old) and her father, Mack (the one
searching for God in a painful world), one's heart surely breaks for what
Paul Young has evidently endured in his lifetime. However, if readers
fail to think biblically and allow only The Shack's emotional
storyline to grip them, they chance becoming prey to the very thing that
I believe has duped many Christians into accepting and even endorsing
the book. Empathy towards the author or his characters, or becoming
enamored by what many testify to as the positive real-world outcome of
reading the book, cannot trump one's biblical analysis of
the work. Young plays upon emotions constantly in the book and also as
he lectures publicly, believing that, because hearts are allegedly being
touched, God must be giving approval to The Shack. When
speaking to me personally, he emphasized the concept that results are
all that matters. I responded that, just because people testify that the
book is somehow helping them, this does not necessarily mean it is
actually ordained by God. After all, God can use many means to reach
people. God regularly uses disasters, accidents and tragedy of all sorts
- even unorthodox or cultic books - for His glory. This, however, doesn't
mean that God somehow deems heresy or terrible events as somehow good or
positive in and of themselves.
The Nicest Heretic
I wrote in 2008 that
Paul Young is perhaps the nicest heretic I had ever dealt with personally. That may sound
flip but he is a very nice guy who is presenting and
defending some very dangerous, even seductive, heresies. As one who wears
his emotions on his sleeve and who found himself being swayed by the
heartbreaking storyline of The Shack, I must again caution. To
allow a gripping story to cloud our ability to detect the subtle and
not-so-subtle theological errors strewn throughout its pages is exactly what Dr.
Michael Youssef meant when he described The Shack as "a deep
ditch that's covered by beautiful landscape."
The disturbing truth is
that books like The Shack would never become bestsellers in the
Christian world if Christians were on guard, thinking biblically, and
were willing to follow the Scriptures! In these dangerous days, it is
paramount that we actively develop "eyes of understanding" that
constantly check everything by the Word of God - especially the stuff
that claims to be of God. The Scripture implores us to prove or test all
things (I Thessalonians 5:21-22) and this test can be accomplished only
one way - by knowing the Bible and then utilizing what we know from it.
Every believer needs to be alert to the reality that in these last days
deception is going to come at a rate never fathomed before. Mark my
words, as time passes Satan is preparing to use unheralded and brazen
trickery that will look and sound very spiritual, even Christian. The
only hope we have to avoid the traps successfully is by prayerful,
dedicated and aggressive study of God's unchangeable Word. Otherwise,
sooner or later we'll find ourselves amongst a growing number of people from
previously trustworthy evangelical circles that are heading straight for
apostasy.
Jesus warned us in
Matthew 24 that, if the end days were not shortened by His return, even
the very elect would be deceived. Can we not assume that many who
currently hang around the Church - and even some who preach or write
books now popularly accepted in Christian circles - may in reality
never endure to the end and are thus actually wolves in
sheep's clothing?
|
