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.
He identifies himself as a male, not a trans.
While I will hardly waste a minute on reading novels, God did use parables, which could have been about real people (such as the ‘Good Samaritan’).
It has been decades since I read Pilgrims Progress. But while reading it I became convinced that the writer of ‘the wizard of oz’ (only saw the movie with the family when just a kid) had used PP as a guide to make a similar book. The really big difference being that TWOO boils down to humanism. Dorothy was told that she had the ability deep down inside (without any mention of God). Same for the three sidekicks.
Also, as is the devil’s common behavior, TWOO shows almost a mockery of faith, hope, and charity, in the three bumbling fellows that abides with Dorothy.
Faith takes a brain
Hope takes courage
Charity takes a heart
Really? Are you reading the Greek version or the original Hebrew, perhaps Aramaic?
It's all besides the point. We humans use He or Him because calling him an "It" removes the spiritual aspect completely out.
It's the language we use to transmit a idea or concept. How you you have a trans if you don't have gender?
Gender is totally his concept.
Further, when we look at Him as a human, we completely miss that he is not like us. He is above gender, above time outside of any reference we may have.
That's the box we put him in.
What gender was the burning bush? Isn't that a ridiculous question?
How he chooses to reveal himself is petty compared to the fact that he does! The rest is how we describe that encounter. How would you describe something that is deeply spiritual to someone else? You're wasting you time and focus on the "gender" and limiting yourself to scripture.
The apostles wrote that there were many, many more experiences to write down all of them but they saved the ones that spoke the most to them in their own way.
Take a look at the gospels and how they were chosen amongst the myriad of books written at that time. They threw out quite a few for various reasons. Not the least of those reasons being it doesn't reflect the pope's idea of what God is.
The real fact is if you have a relationship with Him, none of this matters. To verify that it is, in fact Him, compare what you receive with scriptures and you will find they match.
God is alive not dead to the scriptures of old. He is doing new things all the time. If you hold on to the past, you'l miss what's going on in the present.
the message of redemption is the same but the media and method changes.
Jesus referred to God as Father.
That is good enough for me. I’m not going to play gender bending word games.
Michael Youssef of Leading The Way radio show felt the need to preach an entire sermon responding to this book.
What gender is the Holy Spirit?
Does it even have one?
Does it need one?
Since it presents itself in an infinite variety of ways, can we even define it?
In John 14:26, Jesus said:
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26, NASB)
English translated version.
(John 14:26, NASB)
-NASB
“Traditionally, he and him were used to refer to both genders in formal writing:
‘If anyone has any evidence to oppose this view, let him inform the police immediately.’
“Nowadays, we often see gender neutral forms (e.g. he or she, he/she, s/he, (s)he, they and him or her, him/her, them) when we do not know if the person referred to is male or female.”
It is a language convention not a gender assignment.
Greek is the same, as is Aramaic.
Most languages use the male pronoun when gender is unknown or ambiguous.
Better than what you have read, what is your personal experience with the Holy Spirit?
The scripture puts the Holy Spirit in the present tense, so you should have some direct experience.
What does your own spirit testify to you?
If you have no experience other than quoting scriptures, then you will not know.
Deeper than sounds are words.
Deeper than words is language.
Deeper than language is meaning.
Deeper than meaning is understanding.
Deeper than understanding is thought.
Deeper than thought is idea.
Deeper than idea is intent.
Deeper than intent is purpose.
Deeper than purpose is Spirit.
If you are hung up on the language, your are not even scratching the surface and the entire message and therefore the connection is lost.
Only if you are talking about a generic individual, not a specific person.
It is a language convention not a gender assignment. Greek is the same, as is Aramaic. Most languages use the male pronoun when gender is unknown or ambiguous.
Are you saying that Jesus doesn't know the proper gender to use when talking about the Father or the Holy Spirit?
Better than what you have read, what is your personal experience with the Holy Spirit?
If anyone has an experience that deviates from scripture, then it false. If God wanted us to see the Holy Spirit as feminine or neutral, and not masculine, then He would have explicitly expressed Himself that way.
What does your own spirit testify to you?
That the God in Three Persons is so ultimately male that he refers to us as His bride.
So he doesn't know my gender?
(He designed me, I think he knows.)
The father is not just a gender it is also a role.
Same with the bride/groom analogy he uses.
I am not going to limit God in any way.
If he wants to present himself as a female or a burning bush or a hobbit, that's fine with me.
My experience is in a spirit that has no physical form most of the time. Some times it has been what appeared to be a person but disappeared after we spoke.
He chooses his form, if any, and if a female form speaks to someone and brings them closer to him, I am at no point to say it cannot be him because it does not conform to what I expect nor accept.
Any form is acceptable from the entity that created all forms and even the concept of form.
No boxes of preconceived ideas of what he can or cannot do. ALL things are possible!
The current culture we live in has no understanding of biblical authority as they have not lived with it their entire lives or if they have, religious figures have a negative experience.
In order to transfer some understanding they need to have an experience that they can understand.
My prayer is for God to make his presence obvious and express the love he has for them even in a unusual way. An experience with Christ has not been a part of their lives.
When it happens, it is indeed impressive and I love to hear those stories.
There have been quite a few terrorists that have been converted because of dreams and visions. I have not heard of any two being alike.
Obviously, not. Otherwise, you would not plainly torture the obvious expressions of His masculinity.
Since we have limited understanding of God, God, in His word, plainly self-identifies as masculine. When He became incarnate, He came as a man, not woman.
He chooses his form, if any, and if a female form speaks to someone and brings them closer to him, I am at no point to say it cannot be him because it does not conform to what I expect nor accept.
Where, in all the Theophanies shown in the Bible, do you see God as anything but masculine, or inapproachable light?
He does what he is going to do regardless of my or anybody else's preference.
Where, in all the Theophanies shown in the Bible, do you see God as anything but masculine, or inapproachable light?
You mean like the burning bush? Since Jesus us the bridge between us, I don't see him as inapproachable at all. The woman at the well did not see him as inapproachable. Nor did the woman who was healed by her faith by touching his garment. As a matter of fact, everybody he healed and those who healed in His name were all approachable.
Isn't that one of his points for being born in a carpenter's family? Isn't that why he went around Judea teaching, telling and showing people what he is like. And then to be crucified on a thieve's cross.
He was certainly was not revealed in a way the Hebrews of his day expected him to be. Why should that change? That aspect of his personality is still alive and well today.
If you are going to reach others out of your experience, an open mind is needed about what He does and can do.
Remember, at one point, he had never before or since (that we know) revealed himself as a burning bush. At some point it was new and there are new things happening all over. That's another pattern of his.
There is a real problem with the traditional church and why members are dying off and the churches are empty and becoming museums about what once was. Expectations have become more important than the experiences of the followers.
Some call it "The Third Generation Effect":
http://www.crivoice.org/thirdgen.html
The first generation is connected to their experiences in God and experiences growth.
Second generation is entrenchment and they hold onto the experiences of the first generation as they are trusting of the first generation and want to protect those beliefs.
Third generation has only heard stories from somebody else they don't know and dismiss them as just stories and with ignorance, create their own identity outside of the stories they have only heard and no experienced.
That link also has a solution to this problem.
As long as we are not able to see His hand in motion or even believe he is approachable to us, we'll always be stuck without a recent touch. Living off of somebody else's experiences and stories with no testimony of our own.
We need a revival to see for ourselves what is can do and start a whole new first generation. Maybe we can stop the cycle and allow the following generations their own experience with Him so the faith can continue on.
Pray for a revival and expect it to be something that has never happened before.
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.