Posted on 02/14/2017 10:42:07 AM PST by Gamecock
In spite of the original date, this was an excerpt on The Aquila Report today, assuming because it is about to be released as a movie.
_______________________________________________
The publishing world sees very few books reach blockbuster status, but William Paul Young’s The Shack has now exceeded even that. The book, originally self-published by Young and two friends, has now sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into over thirty languages. It is now one of the best-selling paperback books of all time, and its readers are enthusiastic. According to Young, the book was originally written for his own children. In essence, it can be described as a narrative theodicy — an attempt to answer the question of evil and the character of God by means of a story. In this story, the main character is grieving the brutal kidnapping and murder of his seven-year-old daughter when he receives what turns out to be a summons from God to meet him in the very shack where the man’s daughter had been murdered.
In the shack, “Mack” meets the divine Trinity as “Papa,” an African-American woman; Jesus, a Jewish carpenter; and “Sarayu,” an Asian woman who is revealed to be the Holy Spirit. The book is mainly a series of dialogues between Mack, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. Those conversations reveal God to be very different than the God of the Bible. “Papa” is absolutely non-judgmental, and seems most determined to affirm that all humanity is already redeemed.
The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects. While the literary device of an unconventional “trinity” of divine persons is itself sub-biblical and dangerous, the theological explanations are worse. “Papa” tells Mack of the time when the three persons of the Trinity “spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God.” Nowhere in the Bible is the Father or the Spirit described as taking on human existence. The Christology of the book is likewise confused. “Papa” tells Mack that, though Jesus is fully God, “he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being.” When Jesus healed the blind, “He did so only 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.”
While there is ample theological confusion to unpack there, suffice it to say that the Christian church has struggled for centuries to come to a faithful understanding of the Trinity in order to avoid just this kind of confusion — understanding that the Christian faith is itself at stake.
Jesus tells Mack that he is “the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” Not the only way, but merely the best way.
In another chapter, “Papa” corrects Mack’s theology by asserting, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Without doubt, God’s joy is in the atonement accomplished by the Son. Nevertheless, the Bible consistently reveals God to be the holy and righteous Judge, who will indeed punish sinners. The idea that sin is merely “its own punishment” fits the Eastern concept of karma, but not the Christian Gospel.
The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity. “Papa” explains that “we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity.” In one of the most bizarre paragraphs of the book, Jesus tells Mack: “Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”
The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being — or to all human beings — is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous.
The most controversial aspects of The Shack‘s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “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, my Beloved.” Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”
Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young’s meaning. “Papa” chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world, Mack.” Put together, all this implies something very close to the doctrine of reconciliation proposed by Karl Barth. And, even as Young’s collaborator Wayne Jacobson has lamented the “self-appointed doctrine police” who have charged the book with teaching ultimate reconciliation, he acknowledges that the first editions of the manuscript were unduly influenced by Young’s “partiality at the time” to ultimate reconciliation — the belief that the cross and resurrection of Christ accomplished then and there a unilateral reconciliation of all sinners (and even all creation) to God.
James B. DeYoung of Western Theological Seminary, a New Testament scholar who has known William Young for years, documents Young’s embrace of a form of “Christian universalism.” The Shack, he concludes, “rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation.”
Even as Wayne Jacobson and others complain of those who identify heresy within The Shack, the fact is that the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that — heresy. The obvious question is this: How is it that so many evangelical Christians seem to be drawn not only to this story, but to the theology presented in the narrative — a theology at so many points in conflict with evangelical convictions?
Evangelical observers have not been alone in asking this question. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Timothy Beal of Case Western University argues that the popularity of The Shack suggests that evangelicals might be shifting their theology. He cites the “nonbiblical metaphorical models of God” in the book, as well as its “nonhierarchical” model of the Trinity and, most importantly, “its theology of universal salvation.”
Beal asserts that none of this theology is part of “mainstream evangelical theology,” then explains: “In fact, all three are rooted in liberal and radical academic theological discourse from the 1970s and 80s — work that has profoundly influenced contemporary feminist and liberation theology but, until now, had very little impact on the theological imaginations of nonacademics, especially within the religious mainstream.”
He then asks: “What are these progressive theological ideas doing in this evangelical pulp-fiction phenomenon?” He answers: “Unbeknownst to most of us, they have been present on the liberal margins of evangelical thought for decades.” Now, he explains, The Shack has introduced and popularized these liberal concepts even among mainstream evangelicals. Timothy Beal cannot be dismissed as a conservative “heresy-hunter.” He is thrilled that these “progressive theological ideas” are now “trickling into popular culture by way of The Shack.”
Similarly, writing at Books & Culture, Katherine Jeffrey concludes that The Shack “offers a postmodern, post-biblical theodicy.” While her main concern is the book’s place “in a Christian literary landscape,” she cannot avoid dealing with its theological message.
In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied. Any number of notable novels and works of literature have contained aberrant theology, and even heresy. The crucial question is whether the aberrant doctrines are features of the story or the message of the work. When it comes to The Shack, the really troubling fact is that so many readers are drawn to the theological message of the book, and fail to see how it conflicts with the Bible at so many crucial points. All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals — and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe.
The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books — we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible’s teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers.
The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine.
Narnia is a clear metaphor.
The Shack ain’t.
A friend of mine who is a convert LOVED that book and decided it was for our Catholic book club. So glad I checked it out first. I let her know this wasn’t what we should be reading.
My very good friend, who is an evangelical, gave me this book. With all respect to him I tried to read it. I got about 7/8 of the way thru it & had to quit for all of the obvious reasons mention in this review.
I think I need that stamp as well.
From the article, posted below, it appears the author does not know the Bible. God DID come to earth in the form of man. And Jesus, that man, did nothing in His own power but all in God’s power and authority:
“Nowhere in the Bible is the Father or the Spirit described as taking on human existence. The Christology of the book is likewise confused. “Papa” tells Mack that, though Jesus is fully God, “he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being.” When Jesus healed the blind, “He did so only 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.” “
I’m with you. I couldn’t get past the list of characters .. I’d rather read what the Bible says .. !!!!
Yep!
Me Too! :-)
God tell us in Genesis that we (men and women) are made in His image.
I don’t claim the Shack is biblical truth through and through but it is more like a parabel; like Pilgrim’s Progress.
I do have an issue with anyone coming away with the idea that you can get to Eternity without Jesus Christ.
Jesus is referred to as a lion in the Bible also. However, the Holy Spirit in the Bible in not metaphorically charaterized as a wispy Asian lady.
“Narnia is a clear metaphor.
The Shack ain’t.”
In “The Brothers Karamazov”, there is a character who is an avowed atheist and Nihilist. However, he keeps a candle burning in front of an icon “just in case” LOL. It is a very cool depiction of the person’s character and adds much to the story.
However, Dostoevsky, in depicting this interesting character, was not recommending that this become our belief system.
“The Shack”, on the other hand, markets itself as a “Life changing” book. It claims that it “Challenges Christian Preconceptions” and is actually a tract disguised with narrative and dialogue. People who are secure in their faith are not going to be swayed by it, and recognize it for what it is: Propaganda. People who have either shaky faith or no faith, but burn a candle “just in case” are the ones who are most easily led astray by stuff like this.
Narnia is a clear metaphor.
The Shack ain’t.
I do not have much problem with people who consider what God can do. I have difficulty with people who attempt to put God in a box, and say what he cannot do.
God, in the Bible, never shows himself as a human (other than Jesus), as far as I recall. But he manifests in other forms (burning bush, Giant Hand, writing on wall). Could he manifest as a woman, or a set of three people? Could he do so in a vision?
I am unwilling to say that such would be impossible for God to do.
I had no idea what “The Shack” was about when it was chosen for my book club. Had I known, I wouldn’t have read it. As it was, I didn’t go to that month’s meeting. My daughter and only child died, so this book was very upsetting for me. I will not be going to the movie version.
I recommend that people NOT read it — pure trash.
Same thing happened with me. I passed out points of view from Catholic Culture and another source at the discussion of this book.
Jesus is also referred to as a lamb.
Lamb of God,...........have mercy on us.
Lamb of God,...........have mercy on us.
Lamb of God,...........grant us peace.
Oh, I am going to get me one of those stamps made!
Oh, I am going to get me one of those stamps made!
All of these examples show he can and does sometimes punishes.
But it still does not demonstrate his “currency”
He doesn’t normally deal in it, but he has to use it when there is nothing else.
Peace, Love, forgiveness and life is his currency.
Mostly LIFE! “I have come that You may have life. and have it more abundantly” -Jesus
When there is patience, forgiveness and true repentance, he can deal in his own currency.
Otherwise, he is forced to leave the wicked to their own sin and wages it brings - death.
Do you think He wants to punish?
Do you think it breaks His heart to go through that because of things we do?
Do you think He is waiting for the final judgment and return in order to save the last possible person before He returns?
Not in our time, His.
When he deals in our “currency” because it is what we understand, it is not usually a good thing.
David was punished and was still a “man of God’s own heart.”
Should we look forward to “The Snack” with Allah coming back as Michelle Obama?
Exactly the point of the book.
I think God's hobby is to shatter pre-conceived notions about him and his nature.
It is completely possible to present to us - humans any form he wants to and sometimes to shatter our illusions about what he should be or not.
Keep in mind:
He invented the whole concept of male and female. Do you think he can't control his representation to suit our needs?
He invented the entire concept of TIME/SPACE. Do you think he is not the master of it?
Not a single leaf falls in the woods without his hand. Even in space where there is literally nothing, he is there.
We can't even begin to imagine how he can present himself. Your imagination is not broad enough to fill that space.
He amazes me every day with his beauty and grace. Awesome power, patience with me and all of us. I wouldn't want to be in His judgment but since he died for me, I don't have to.
It was a gift given from need before we even knew we needed it.
God's currency is nothing like punishment or death. He deals in life and love. All is for us out of Love.
Even tough love. His heart is broken daily because of us.
He had a plan from the beginning, knowing we would screw things up. - Because he designed us that way!
Let that one sink in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.