William Young has accomplished in the reader what I fear the most with such books, that is, young impressionable Christians, who cannot see the bigger picture of what he is saying about the character and nature of God and about Christianity in particular, are caught up in the sensationalism. We love it when Christian authors are successful and rightly so. We then refer our friends to the “new book that has changed my life.” Let me be specific. A few years ago many raided the Christian book stores to buy “This Present Darkness,” a fictional story of demonism. The problem was that many believers then developed their demonology out of what Peritti wrote rather than what the scriptures teach on this critical subject. We did the same thing with the “Prayer of Jabez” phenomenon by developing a theology of prayer out of a terrible misinterpretation of one verse of scripture - and, what about the “Left Behind” series of books and movies that are rooted in false eschatology? And do you remember the book written by a Mormon woman who claimed to have an out of the body experience and visited heaven? I could go on and on.

In the writing of The Shack, William Young writes his own foreword (a place where credibility is usually established) to introduce and give credibility to the main character of his story, going so far as to explain why he himself is part of the story. This is a clever tactic to engage the reader into what they think is a real story about real people, a sort of historical novel with fictional (but not really) characters. This is why this book is having such a deep spiritual impact on its readers and why Michael W. Smith says in the puffs that “The Shack is the most wonderful absorbing work of fiction I’ve read in many years. My wife and I laughed, cried, and repented of our own lack of faith along the way. The Shack will leave you craving for more of the presence of God.” But I say, “Does this God who Young novelizes square with the revelation of God given in the Word? I insist it does not. And novel doctrines should never be threatened or offended when questioned by the truth.

It is not his fictional representations of the trinity that I am most against. Nor am I critical that he dares to invite the reader to reassess their understanding of the character and nature of God. I say this even though God the Father is called God the Father for a reason and not a woman as portrayed by Young. This is the veiled feminization of the Gospel that has been going on for decades. He is not a woman and should not be represented as one. Some may argue that the symbolic characters in The Shack are no different than those in C. S. Lewis’s Narnia. I disagree for one very good reason – the symbols in Narnia are accurate in their representations of the character and nature of God. The Shack is not even close to doing the same. Young is not some naïve scholar who doesn’t know any better. His representations of the character and nature of God are filled with post-modern and new age leaning biases that cannot be overlooked. That is why no respectable Christian book publisher would publish the book and Young Had to self-publish.

Here are some of my theological reasons for rebuffing this book. You tell me if I am overreacting.

o Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims.... 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.”  --The Shack's "Jesus."  P.182. This is universalism at its worse.

o The Shack's female "God" says, "For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning." P.93 The feminization of God is as old as the goddess Sophia. The Apostolic Fathers would turn over in their graves and so would the reformers and the greatest of the martyrs. Is that how Mr. Young views Biblical Christianity? Is that what sent millions into martyrdom - religious conditioning?
 
o The Shack is all about experiences and feelings as Mack is flown through a world of revelations and sensations. But we are called to faith in His word. Papa also teaches Mack that she does not require anything of him other than a relationship. She has no intentions of turning any one into a Christian. Having no expectations and responsibilities are only part of a dead relationship …be it between you and God or in a marriage relationship. I doubt my wife would appreciate it if I were to say to her that our marriage is to be free of expectations or responsibilities? Should she not expect certain things from me and vice versa? Should we not expect love, caring, loyalty, faithfulness, and friendship?  Where love is strong, expectations and responsibilities are fulfilled with joy!

“You are my friends, IF you do whatsoever I command you!” (John 15:14)

“He that says, I know Him, and keeps not His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in Him." (I John 2:4)

o The Shack condemns those of us who refuse to accept universal oneness with "God" and man. The Shack wants all of us to be unhindered by Biblical guidelines and holds to no standard for right or wrong. Thus, there is no real need for Biblical repentance. The universalism is such that no one is sent to hell. The god of The Shack winks at sin and the consequences of sin, reassuring Mack that there is not one child of hers that she will send to hell…but all will be brought into relationship with her in the end. And then she shows Mack that even his abusive, cruel father who died in a drunken stupor after drinking his poisoned liquor -- is indeed in heaven.

o It fits right into the popular vision (a new age far eastern mysticism) of a unifying, non-judgmental church. Consider this: 

"So how do I become part of that church?" asks Mack. "It's simple," answers (the counterfeit) "Jesus." "It's all about relationships and simply sharing life... being open and available to others around us. My church is all about people, and life is all about relationships." P.178 In one fell swoop, The Shack throws out Jesus’ dialogue and conflict with the Pharisees who "searched the Scriptures" but refused to "come" to Him. This is nothing more than the sermon content of today's postmodern seekers who tear out of the Bible the pages that are distasteful in the name of tolerance. This leaves them with a Jesus who is “cool” and in tune with changing mores in their culture where they have created and defined a god who is not even remotely close to the God of the Bible.

o In The Shack, we run into necromancy or the calling up of the dead which the Bible bans (Deut. 18:11). He even practices astral travel -- what The Shack calls "flying." Ok, I get it. He is only novelizing!

o "Such a powerful ability, the imagination!" said The Shack's counterfeit Jesus. “That power alone makes you so like us." P.140 I do not even know where to start on this one. The very reason Jesus came to die is because we are so much unlike Him and cannot save ourselves. As fully man He remained sinless, especially in His thoughts and imaginations. Unlike man, His thoughts are pure and His imaginations shaped by His own glory and holiness.

o Independent thinkers are glorified. Why - because they, unlike the religiously conditioned, embrace this universal God.  This false Jesus would agree. When Mack asks him what it "means to be a Christian," he answers, “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian.” The idea struck Mack as odd and unexpected and he couldn’t keep himself from grinning. “No, I suppose you aren’t." (p.182). That is not the faith of the Bible. Since when does Jesus need to be called a Christian? That label in the New Testament is a direct reference to the followers of Jesus and not Jesus. And it was not used in a loving way. It was a derogatory term first employed in Antioch. And the Christian faith has always been a counter-cultural faith. When it has embraced the culture and tried to play the role of the cool and trendy it has always lost its way into irrelevance. The fact that the church is a counter-cultural organism has resulted in great pain and even martyrdom for the Christians because they refused to buy into Young’s view of God and the Christian faith. In death, they remained faithful and joyfully claimed Christ as the only way to God.

o Young proposes that we begin to look at an entirely new view of God and the Trinity. That is fine since no one can truly understand the Trinity. But is his view of the Godhead Biblical? Mack meets his supposed maker in the very shack where his daughter was brutally murdered 4 years earlier. The room has been totally transformed and as Mack enters he expects to find the murderer. He even has a gun just in case. Instead,

"...the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman. Instinctively he jumped back, but he was too slow. With speed that belied her size, she crossed the distance between them and engulfed him in her arms...." (p.82) 

"Just as she turned... a small, distinctly Asian woman merged from behind her....  He then glanced past her and notices that a third person had emerged... a man. He appeared Middle Eastern." (p.84)

"When they finally stopped giggling, the large woman... said, 'Okay, we know who you are, but we should probably introduce ourselves to you. ...you could call me what Nan [Mack's wife] does: Papa.'...“'And I,' interrupted the man, who looked to be about in his thirties.... 'I am Hebrew....' “Mack was suddenly staggered by his own realization. “Then, you are....” “'Jesus? Yes....' "Mack stood dumbfounded.... Just as he was about to crumple to his knees, the Asian woman stepped closer and deflected his attention. 'And I am Sarayu [the Holy Spirit, Creativity].' she said..."Thoughts tumbled over each other as Mack struggled to figure out what to do.... Since there were three of them, maybe this was a Trinity sort of thing.... 'Then,' Mack struggled to ask, 'which one of you is God?'” “'I am,’ said all three in unison.'" (pp.86-87)

The rest of the book is a silly series of dialogues that completely re-educate Mack on the character and nature of God away from what he had been taught all of his life. What is implied is that his misunderstanding of the Godhead is the reason he has struggled so much embracing the Christian faith. Now they must re-educate him and then he will see the light. As they do, they dismantle his previous understanding of God. For example, this new Jesus never ascended into heaven. Was there a real resurrection? Not according to the female "God":

“Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly [which he demonstrates in the book], he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded. That is why his name is Immanuel, God with us...." (pp.99-100)

But the glorification of Christ to heaven at the right hand of His Father is a critical ingredient in the true Gospel. That is the essence of the High Priestly prayer in John 17. He MUST return to the glory He left. That is the essence of the “kenosis” passage in Philippians 2. The word “kenosis” means to “empty oneself.” Jesus emptied Himself of His place at the right hand of His Father and the glory that emptying entailed. That glory must be restored. This is why Jesus must ascend BODY AND SOUL for that glory to be restored.  

Philippians 2:5ff Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus did ascend to heaven after His crucifixion. Without this there is no Gospel. Further, never in scripture is the Holy Spirit or God the Father visible as a man. In fact, when Moses begged God for a glimpse of His glory he had to spend the next few months with a bag on his head so as not to blind the Jews. And, he only got to see the back side of God’s glory. "No one has seen God at any time," said the true Jesus. Yet, here we see all three in human form -- on earth! Follow this irreverent sequence and ask the question, “Where in scripture does it teach that the Father and the Spirit ever became human?”

"'By nature I am completely unlimited... I live in a state of perpetual satisfaction as my normal state of existence:’ she said, quite pleased. 'Just one of the perks of Me being Me.’ "That made Mack smile. This lady was fully enjoying herself... “We created you to share in that. But then Adam chose to go it on his own, as we knew he would, and everything got messed up. But instead of scrapping the whole Creation we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess—that’s what we have done in Jesus.... When we three spoke our self into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. ...flesh and blood." (pp.98-99)

o This false trinity exercises no authority over man. This is the new age message of the post-modern thinker, that is, if a sovereign God demands a moral standard He could cause division and threaten man’s self-image and self-worth. This is at the very heart of why I think Young’s portrayal of this kind of a God means that our God is not sovereign and you cannot trust Him. Try this montage on for size.

Mack is confused when he asks, "Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?" "Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationships," answers "Jesus." (p.145)

Together the "trinity" explains: "Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want....  We carefully respect your choices...." (p.123)

“Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?'..." “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” “You can't be serious! You're messing with me again,” moaned Mack. “Child,” interrupted papa, “you ain't heard nuthin' yet...." “...enforcing rules [says Sarayu] ...is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse.” (p.203)

Are you kidding me? Is the moral law a “a vain attempt to create certainty?" The moral law of God is forever binding. The law is good. Paul makes that clear in Romans 7 where his own struggle with the rules drives him to conclude

Romans 7:23-25 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. [24] What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Romans 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [2] because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, [4] in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

This is why Paul would say that “the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.“ Galatians 3:24

o For Young and his fictional character “Papa God” sin no longer separates unholy people from our holy God. And isn’t this exactly what modern man desires – a God who winks at sin, guilt, judgment, and any real need for heart wrenching repentance or a cross? In this kind of a God there is no need for grace since we really have no need.

Case in point – follow this non-sense: The Shack's false god says, "I'm not a bully, not some self-centered demanding little deity insisting on my own way. I am good, and I desire only what is best for you. You cannot find that through guilt or condemnation...." (p.126) "You don't need me at all to create your list of good and evil. But you do need me if you have any desire to stop such an insane lust for independence....  Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good, just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of Light. ...evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence." (p.136)

The truth is that sin defined is “hamartia” or “missing the mark.” God is holy and pure and demands of us the same. No sin can ever enter heaven. The characters is heaven proclaim “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty.” That is why sin must be dealt with. Our sins are either on the head of Jesus or they are on our heads. God promises to punish sin. Either He punishes sin on Christ or He punishes sin is us. There is a heaven to be gained but there is also a hell to be shunned, a truth “Papa” would likely disdain. This is why we need the cross. When Mack accuses Papa of deserting Jesus at the cross, Papa reassures Mack that this was not so. She insists that at no point did Papa ever turn away from Jesus on the cross but was there with Him the whole time. Really? What does William Young know that Jesus did not?

“My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is Jesus cry from the cross. (Matt.27:46)

While Jesus hung on that cross, the Father indeed turned His back on God the Son Who bore our sins. God could not even look at sin let alone flippantly dismiss it as does “Papa.” Consider the clear teaching of the Word:

"They are foolish; for they do not know the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God...." Jeremiah 5:4

"You thought I was altogether like you, but I will rebuke you..." Psalm 50:21

"...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.... Professing to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:18, 22

"Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people— the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not heeded My words...." Jeremiah 6:19