I was asked this week about a book called “The Shack,” by William P. Young. According to some, the book is flying off Christian Bookstore shelves and is sweeping through the Church. This means it is only a matter of time before someone asks if you have read it.
Even though it is being enthusiastically endorsed by Eugene Peterson, a high profile Christian leader and author of the “The Message.” I thought it necessary to send out a warning by posting a critique by Tim Challies. He is the author of, ”The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.” Mark Dever, Al Mohler and John MacAuthur recommend Tim’s new book. His discerning mind not only critques but exposes the idolatrous implications of this fictional work. While the article is a bit lengthy, we all will be well served by acquainting ourselves with the aberrant theology and doctrinal heresy exposed in the pages of the book. These include allusions to Universalism, Open Source Theology, Feminist worship of Sophia, deconstructing the nature of the Triune Godhead as articulated in the historic creeds, and a full frontal assault of orthodox Christology. All of which is propagated by post-modernism’s biblical anarchy! So don’t read the book, read those who have. I recommend you visit Tim’s site for even more insightful articles: www.challies.com [RGH]
”TIM’S REVIEW”
I am certain that there is no other book I’ve been asked to review more times than William P. Young’s The Shack, a book that is currently well within the top-100 best-selling titles at Amazon. The book, it seems, is becoming a hit and especially so among students and among those who are part of the Emergent Church. In the past few weeks many concerned readers have written to ask if I would be willing to read it and to provide a review. Because I am always interested in books that are popular among Christians, I was glad to comply.
The Amazon reader reviews for The Shack are remarkable. With 102 reviews already posted, it is maintaining a five-star rating with fully ninety three of the reviewers awarding five stars. Only two have offered one star. A search of blogs and websites turns up near-unanimous enthusiastic (and almost unbridled) praise for the book. “This book is a life-changer, a transformer.” “[The Shack] has become a favorite book OF ALL TIME.” “I am changed. I pray indelibly. My oh my!” This book, which was released in May but which has already gone into its fourth printing, is making a major impact. It has obviously struck a chord with Christians.
I’ll warn in advance that this review is going to be long. My major focus will be the book’s content though I’ll pause to glance fleetingly at the book’s style as well. Because I’ve received so many questions and because the author covers so much ground in the book (and sometimes in a way that is somewhat unclear) I am going to proceed carefully and with many quotes.
There are two things I would like to note about this type of book—theological fiction. First, because of the limitations of the genre, it is sometimes difficult to really know what an author means by what he says. There is often some question as to what comes from the author and what comes from the characters. The author cannot always adequately explain himself; nor can he provide footnotes or references to Scripture. It can be challenging, then, to turn to the Bible to ensure that what he teaches is true. This makes the task of discernment doubly difficult, for one must first interpret the fiction to understand what is being said and then seek to compare that to the Bible. We will do well to keep this in mind as we proceed.
Second, we must also realize that, because of the emotional impact of reading good fiction, it can be easy to allow it to become manipulative and to allow the emotion of a moment to bypass our ability to discern what is true and what is not. This is another thing the reader must keep in mind. We cannot trust our laughter or our tears but must allow our powers of discernment to be trained to distinguish good from evil (see Hebrews 5:14). Discernment is primarily a Spirit-empowered discipline of the mind rather than an emotional response.
So let’s look at this book together, doing the task God requires of us when he tells us to be men and women of discernment—Christians who heed God’s admonition to “test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” We’ll simply compare what Young teaches to the Bible.
The Book as a Book
First, a word about the book as it is written. William Young shows himself to be a capable writer, though I would not have believed it through the first couple of chapters. The book began with far too many awkward sentences and awkward sentence constructs (e.g. “One can almost hear a unified sigh rise from the nearby city and surrounding countryside where Nature has intervened to give respite to the weary humans slogging it out within her purview”). But as it went on and as the story took over the book became easier to read. The story itself is interesting enough, though certainly it lacks originality. The last chapter should have been left on the editing room floor and the final paragraph (before the “After Words”) was a ridiculously terse attempt to provide closure to remaining plot lines. But on the whole the book is readable and enjoyable. Never does it become boring, even after long pages of nothing but dialog.
But Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains. The book’s reviews focus not on the quality of the story but on its spiritual or emotional impact. Eugene Peterson grasps this, saying in his glowing endorsement, “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of “The Shack.” This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good!” Could it really be that good? Is it good enough to warrant positive comparison to the English-language book that has been read more widely than any other save the Bible? Let’s turn to the book’s content and find out.
What Is The Shack?
The Shack revolves around Mack (Mackenzie) Philips. Four years before this story begins, Mack’s young daughter, Missy, was abducted during a family vacation. Though her body was never found, the police did find evidence in an abandoned shack to prove that she had been brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer who preyed on young girls. As the story begins, Mack, who has been living in the shadow of his Great Sadness, receives a strange note that is apparently from God. God invites Mack to return to this shack for a get together. Though uncertain, Mack visits the scene of the crime and there has a weekend-long encounter with God, or, more properly, with the godhead.
What should you do when you come to the door of a house, or cabin in this case, where God might be? Should you knock? Presumably God already knew that Mack was there. Maybe he ought to simply walk in and introduce himself, but that seemed equally absurd. And how should he address him? Should he call him Father, or Almighty One, or perhaps Mr. God, and would it be best if he fell down and worshipped, not that he was really in the mood.
As he tried to establish some inner mental balance, the anger that he thought had so recently died inside him began to emerge. No longer concerned or caring about what to call God and energized by his ire, he walked up to the door. Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman.
This large and oh-so-stereotypical matronly African-American woman is God (or at least an anthropomorphism of God she chose to take on in order to communicate with Mack). Throughout the story she is known as Papa. Near the end, because Mack requires a father figure, she turns into a pony-tailed, grey-haired man, but otherwise God is this woman. Jesus is a young to middle-aged man of Middle-Eastern (i.e. Jewish) descent with a big nose and rather plain looks while the Holy Spirit is played by Sarayu, a small, delicate and eclectic woman of Asian descent. By this point many people will choose to close the book and be done with it. But for the purposes of this review, let’s just assume you are able to get past seeing God and the Holy Spirit portrayed in this way and let’s press on.
There is very little action in The Shack and the bulk of the book is dialog, mostly as the members of the Trinity communicate with Mack, though occasionally we see glimpses into their relationship with one another. The banter between the members of the Trinity, most of which is geared towards helping us understand the love that exists between them, leads to some rather bizarre dialog. Take this as a typical example:
Mack was shocked at the scene in front of him. It appeared that Jesus had dropped a large bowl of some sort of batter or sauce on the floor, and it was everywhere. It must have landed close to Papa because the lower portion of her skirt and bare feet were covered in the gooey mess. All three were laughing so hard that Mack didn’t think they were breathing. Sarayu said something about humans being clumsy and all three started roaring again. Finally, Jesus brushed past Mack and returned a minute later with a large basin of water and towels. Sarayu had already started wiping the goop from the floor and cupboards, but Jesus went straight to Papa and, kneeling at her feet, began to wipe off the front of her clothes. He worked down to her feet and gently lifted one foot at a time, which he directed into the basin where he cleaned and massaged it.
“Ooooh, that feels soooo good!” exclaimed Papa, as she continued her tasks at the counter.
Young covers a wide variety of theological topics in this book, each of which is relevant to the theme of Mack’s suffering and his inability to trust in a God who could let his daughter be treated in such a horrifying way. The author is unafraid to tackle subjects of deep theological import—a courageous thing to do in so difficult a genre as fiction. The reader will find himself diving into deep waters as he reads this book.
Much of what Young writes is good and even helpful (again, assuming that the reader can see past the human personifications of God). He affirms the absolute nature of what is good and teaches that evil exists only in relation to what is good; he challenges the reader to understand that God is inherently good and that we can only truly trust God if we believe Him to be good; he acknowledges the human tendency to create our image of God by looking at human qualities and assuming that God is simply the same but more so; he attempts to portray the loving relationships within the Trinity; and so on. For these areas I am grateful as they provided helpful correctives to many false understandings of God.
But the book also raised several concerns. Young covers many topics and time would fail me to discuss each of them. Instead, I will look at concerns with some of the book’s broader themes and will do so under several theological headings.
The Trinity
Young teaches that the Trinity exists entirely without hierarchy and that any kind of hierarchy is the result of sin. The Trinity, he says, “are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’… Hierarchy would make no sense among us.” Now it’s possible that he is referring to a kind of dominance or grade or command structure that may well be foreign to the godhead. But a reading of the Bible will prove that hierarchy does, indeed, exist even where there is no sin. After all, the angels exist in a hierarchy and have done so since before the Fall. Also, in heaven there will be degrees of reward and there will be some who are appointed to special positions (such as the Apostles). And the Bible makes it clear that there is some kind of hierarchy even within the Trinity. The Spirit and the Son have submitted themselves to the Father. The task of the Spirit is to lead people to the Son who in turn brings glory to the Father. Never do we find the Father submitting to the Spirit or to the Son. Their hierarchy is perfect—without anger or malice or envy, but it is a hierarchy nonetheless.
There are other teachings about the Trinity that concerned me. For example, Papa says “I am truly human, in Jesus.” This simply cannot be true. God [the Father—a term that the author avoids] is not fully human in Jesus. This melds the two persons of God in a way that is simply unbiblical. Some of what Young teaches is novel and even possible, but without Scriptural support. For example, he teaches that the triune nature of God was an absolute necessity since without it God would be incapable of love. His reasoning is not perfectly clear but seems to be that if God did not have such a relationship “within himself” he would be unable to love. But this is not taught in the Bible.
Overall, I had to conclude that Young has an inadequate and often-unbiblical understanding of the Trinity. While granting that the Trinity is a very difficult topic to understand and one that we cannot know fully, there are several indications that he often blurs the distinct persons of the Trinity along with their roles and their unique attributes. Combined with his novel but unsupported conjectures, this is a serious concern.
Submission
Young uses the discussion about the Trinity as a bridge to a the subject of submission. Here he teaches that each member of the Trinity submits to the other. Jesus says, “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 will always 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 obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” Why would the God of the universe seek to be submitted to mere humans? “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship.” Genuine relationships, according to the author, must be marked by mutual submission. “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.” Submission, according to this book, must be mutual, so that husbands submit to wives while wives submit to husbands, and parents submit to children while children submit to parents. While the Bible does teach that we are to submit to one another, it also teaches that God has ordained some kinds of hierarchy. While a husband is to submit his desires to his wife, even to the point of sacrificing his life for her, he is never called to submit to her in an authoritative sense. Wives, though, are commanded to submit to their husbands, acknowledging that the husband is the head of the family. Similarly, all people are to submit to the God-given authorities and every person is responsible to submit to God.
This understanding of absolute equality not just in value (which the Bible affirms) but also in role and function (which the Bible does not affirm), leads to a strange idea about why God created Eve out of Adam. He teaches that it was crucial for man be created before woman, but with woman hidden inside man. Had this not happened, there could not have been a proper circle of relationship since otherwise man would always come from woman (through childbirth), allowing her to claim a dominant position. She came out of him and now all men come out of her. This allows total, absolute equality, says Young. I can think of absolutely no biblical proof for this and neither does the author offer any.
And so we see that Young uses The Shackto teach an unbiblical understanding of submission. And he uses this topic to bridge to another.
Free Will
Young’s understanding of free will seems to follow from submission. “I don’t want slaves to do my will,” says Jesus. “I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” Speaking in veiled terms about conversion or something like it, Jesus says, “We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union with you. If you want to do your thing, have at it. Time is on our side.” God, it seems, has already forgiven all humans for their sin and has willingly submitted himself to them, though only some people will choose relationship. He is fully reconciled to all human beings and simply waits for them to do their part. Never does Young clearly discuss the consequences that will face those who refuse to accept this offer of union.
Overall, Young presents a God who is unable or unwilling to break into history in any consequential way. He is sovereign at times, but certainly not so in conversion (a topic that receives only scant attention) and is limited by the free will choices of human beings. Scant attention is paid to God’s fore-ordination, the understanding that nothing happens without it somehow being part of His decree (even while God cannot be accused of being the author of evil). Papa explains to Mack, “There was no way to create freedom without a cost.” But nowhere in the Bible do we find that God is somehow made captive by human free will and that He has to allow things to proceed in order to maintain His own integrity as Creator. Always God is sovereign, even over the free will choices of men. Our inability to understand how this can be does not preclude us from the responsibility of believing it.
Forgiveness
Much of the story focuses on forgiveness. Mack has to learn to forgive first God (or at least to come to an intellectual understanding of why God was unable to intervene to save Missy) and then, at the book’s culmination, to forgive the murderer. I am adamantly opposed to the idea that we would ever need to forgive God for anything. However, because this teaching is seen only vaguely in the novel, I will pass over it for now and turn to another area of forgiveness—that of unconditional forgiveness.
Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness. This is true of God’s offer of forgiveness to us and, as we are to model this in our human relationships, must be true of how we offer forgiveness to others. So when, at the book’s climax, Mack cries out “I forgive you” to the murderer (who is not present and has not sought forgiveness) he cannot offer true forgiveness. Neither can true forgiveness exist where Mack is unable to pursue reconciliation with this man. Forgiveness makes no sense and means nothing if we require it in this way. It may make a person feel better about himself, but it cannot bring about true forgiveness and true reconciliation. And so Young teaches a therapeutic, inadequate and unbiblical understanding of forgiveness.
Scripture and Revelation
There are few doctrines more important to Christian living than this one—understanding how it is that God chooses to communicate with human beings. Though the Bible teaches that Scripture is the “norming norm,” many Christians give precedence to other supposed forms of revelation, and particularly promptings, leadings and “still, small voices.” Sure enough, such an emphasis is seen clearly in The Shack. How will we hear from God in day-to-day life (away from the miraculous shack)? “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours,” says Sarayu. “Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow our relationship.” And where will we find the Spirit? “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.”
Beyond looking for new revelation, The Shack says little about how God has communicated or will continue to communicate with us in Scripture. There are a couple of times that it mentions the Bible, but never does it point to Scripture as a real authority or as the sufficient Word of God. “In seminary [Mac] 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 the proper authorities and intellects… 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?” Here we see Young pointing awayfrom Scripture rather than towards it. Through Mack he scoffs at the idea that God has spoken authoritatively and sufficiently through the Bible. And if he points away from Scripture he points towards subjective promptings and leadings.
Though common, such teaching is dangerous and directly detracts from the sufficiency of Scripture. When we admit that God has not, in the Bible, said all that He needs to say to us, we open the doors for all manner of new revelation, much of which may contradict the Bible. What authority is there if not the Bible? Ultimately the issue of revelation is an issue of authority and too many Christians are willing to trust their own authority over the Bible’s. What authority does Young rely on as he brings teaching here in The Shack? Does he look to a higher authority or does he look mostly to himself? The reader can have no confidence that Young loves and respects God’s Word has He chose to give it to us in Scripture.
Salvation
The book contains surprisingly little teaching about salvation. When Young does discuss conversion, he places it firmly in the camp of relationship but also uses the stereotypical phrases such as “this is not a religion” and “Jesus isn’t a Christian.” Jesus apparently loves all people in exactly the same way, having judged them worthy of his love. Young also wades dangerously close to universalism saying that Jesus has no interest in making people into Christians. Rather, no matter what faith they come from, he wishes to “join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa.” He denies that all roads lead to him (since most roads lead nowhere) but says instead, “I will travel any road to find you.” Whether Young holds to universalism or not, and whether he believes that all faiths can lead a person to God, the book neither affirms nor refutes.
Conclusion
Many other topics receive less attention but also raise concerns. For example, Jesus comments on religion, politics and economics saying “They are the man-created trinity of errors that ravage the earth and deceives those I care about.” But Young offers no biblical proof that this is something Jesus would teach. In other places God seems to gloss over sin, judging certain sins almost inconsequential. And so it goes.
So where does all of this leave us? It is clear to me that The Shack is a mix of good and bad. Young teaches much that is of value and he teaches it in a slick and effective way. Sadly, though, there is much bad mixed in with the good. As we pursue his major theological thrusts we see that many of them wander away, by varying degrees, from what God tells us in Scripture.
Despite the great amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodoxy Christianity. For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, “I understand what you’re 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.”
Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young’s readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: “Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It’s a gift. ‘Discipleship’ will never be lessons again.” Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their “modern” mindsets. “If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening.” Still another says “This book was so shocking to my “staid” Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is.” At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity—to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology—and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.
Eugene Peterson says this book is as good and as important as The Pilgrim’s Progress. Well, it really is not. It is neither as good nor as original a story and it lacks the theological precision of Bunyan’s work. But really, this is a bit of a facile comparison. The Pilgrim’s Progress, after all, is allegory—a story that has a second distinct meaning that is partially hidden behind its literal meaning. The Shack is not meant to be allegory. Nor can The Shack quite be equated with a story like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where C.S. Lewis simply asked (and answered) this kind of question: “What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?” The Shack is in a different category than these more notable Christian works. It seeks to represent the members of the Trinity as they are (or as they could be) and to suggest through them what they might teach were they to appear to us in a similar situation. There is a sense of attempted or perceived reality in this story that is missing in the others. This story is meant to teach theology that Young really believes to be true. The story is a wrapper for the theology. In theory this is well and good; in practice the book is only as good as its theology. And in this case, the theology just is not good enough.
Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology.
Comments (72) »
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php
23 responses so far ↓
1 Bill Vanderbush // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:55 am
Good review. I’m still chewing on the book attempting to separate the meat from the fat so to speak and I appreciate this review for having done some of that quite well.
I feel the need though to bring to attention the portion Tim wrote about forgiveness. He says, “Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness. This is true of God’s offer of forgiveness to us and, as we are to model this in our human relationships, must be true of how we offer forgiveness to others.”
Perhaps Tim’s struggling with some issues in this odd utterance and if so, may God help him to work through them. But one must really have done their homework to declare an absolute such as ‘nowhere in Scripture…” especially when such examples are hidden in plain sight. While hanging on the cross, Jesus says, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” No repentance preceded the offering of forgiveness that we can see. The same was true for the thief who simply says, remember me. In Mark 2, when the man with palsy was let down through the roof, it’s said that when Jesus saw the faith OF HIS FRIENDS, he said to the young man, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” (That’ll mess with some theology.) Again, no repentance preceded the offering. In John 20:23 the disciples are given the authority to forgive sin when Jesus tells them, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven…” I know the theology of repentance preceding forgiveness probably should have been inserted in there for clarity. He just didn’t say that. He also never gave us the “sinners prayer” or create a formula that would enable us to operate apart from a place of relationship with Him.
The birthplace of bad theology is when we are forced to explain things God doesn’t address to bring a measure of comfort to people.
Both the book in question, and this review of the book accomplish just that. Some of these mysteries need no explanation. Heb 11:3 says, “by faith we understand…” Faith precedes understanding, or to put it better, we don’t have faith because we understand. We understand because we have faith.
2 RG Hanner // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:31 am
Greetings Bill,
Thanks for investing the time to read and respond to the post. I appreciate your thoughts and especially the way you reasoned from biblical theology. Here are some thoughts that I recently presented to a friend who did a blog on the topic of “unforgiveness.” Any thoughts?
-Do christians have to forgive everytime, even when there is no repentance?
-Does God always and everytime, forgive without repentance? What is the biblical norm? Do biblical exceptions nullify the norm?
-Are there times when withholding forgiveness should be considered a virtue?
God will never forgive Blasphemy of the H/S
God will never forgive Satan
God will never forgive Demons
God will never forgive fallen Angels
[These illustrate that it isn’t against God’s character to withhold forgiveness]
Also, the biblical norm for presenting the gospel includes the imperative for sinners to repent as expressed throughout the scripture. So we could say it is normative for God to withhold forgiveness to unrepentant sinners.
-Can a rush to forgiveness often preclude the enforcement of healthy consequences for the unrepentant?
-Should we warn about cheap avoidance of justice if it is being whitewashed in the name of sentimental forgiveness that violates God’s charactered law-word?
These questions are wrapped around daily life issues for many today [rape victims, sexually abused, family of murdered victims] and to mandate them to forgive without repentance from the one committing the crime often is more sentimentally driven than word based as well as failure to take into consideration the character of God, imitation of His ways, or the full scope of what He had said on the subject.
Thanks for your kind consideration!
RGH
3 Bill Vanderbush // Mar 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
Thanks Richard. Tonight I’m spending the night in the hospital with my dad who recently suffered a stroke so I have rare time to type some thoughts so this may be long. As always, rather than sew up the loose ends neatly, you expand the boundaries of the mystery and challenge the mind to a deeper state of renewal and by that, I’m continually transformed by learning to see reality from Divine perspective. I appreciate you so much for that and have for years. But enough about the process. Some thoughts on your questions.
—Do christians have to forgive everytime, even when there is no repentance?
Mark 11:25, 26 seems to indicate that unforgiveness carries a consequence and leaves the trespass unqualified. I wouldn’t count on this Scripture not being true.
—Does God always and everytime,forgive without repentance? What is the biblical norm? Do biblical exceptions nullify the norm?
I wasn’t making my response to Tim an absolute case, because the answer to the first question is no. For my response to Tim’s review, I stuck with a simple counterpoint. On the normative question, we could easily answer this if it weren’t for the radical and widely varied examples of forgiveness found in Jesus. His actions are anchored in a realm we’re painfully unfamiliar with. (John 3:12) He only operated under direction of the Father (Jn 5:19, 30). Since His example is to be re-presented in the life of every believer (Jn 14:12) our actions in all things must be tied to Presence before principle. Principles are what you have left when the Spirit’s gone. (Rev 2:5) I know I’m gonna get a SHOUT’n chewing out for this statement but here goes anyway. When we become more dependent upon a book (the New Testament) the early church didn’t have than on the Spirit they did have, we swing the pendulum toward anchoring in the dead letter and look at the death that has resulted when we can’t even figure out when, where, and how God (and His people) should forgive others. We just can’t quit trying to come up with a formula that eliminates the need to hear His voice. Believe me when I say that I absolutely love the inerrant Word of God so this is not meant to devalue the Scriptures, but devaluing the Spirit is a far too common error in the church and that’s what I’m against here. Unless the Spirit makes it alive, it’s the letter that kills. My ambition on this is really that the Holy Spirit is always true to the Word and you can trust Him, but our safety is not just in our comprehension of Scripture, but also in our recognition of His presence and His voice for only He can open the closed book. 2 Cor. 3:6 If I forgive, it must be by both Presence and Principle. Not just principle.
—Are there times when witholding forgiveness should be considered a virtue?
God will never forgive Blasphemy of the H/S
God will never forgive Satan
God will never forgive Demons
God will never forgive fallen Angels
[These illustrate that it isn’t against God’s character to withhold forgiveness]
Great points. Making me think some new thoughts here. I just don’t focus the accuser of the brethren all that much so I haven’t been taken here but I’ll linger a bit and chew on this awhile.
Also, the biblical norm for presenting the gospel includes the imperative for sinners to repent as expressed throughout the scripture. so we could say it
is normative for God to withhold forgiveness to unrepentant sinners.
If I consider Jesus to be the most normal Christian in the Bible and stand on the creed that Jesus Christ IS perfect theology, what then does that tell me about what is normative for God?
—Can a rush to forgiveness often preclude the enforcement of healthy consequences for the unrepentant?
Is it our job to bring people to a place of brokenness? 2 Cor 5:18
—Should we warn about cheap avoidance of justice if it is being whitewashed in the name of sentimental forgiveness that violates God’s charctered law-word?
I don’t disagree. While on one hand we’ve been given the ministry of reconciliation, on the other hand we have a question like this. Why did Peter not warn Saphira when she came in that her next words could be her last and show her what happened to her husband so as to give her the opportunity for repentance? Instead he set her up with the same questions her husband got and her life was taken. Did Peter err in not making the attempt to draw her to a place of brokenness and repentance in that moment?
—These questions are wrapped around daily life issues for many today [Rape victims,sexually abused,family of murdered victims] and to mandate them to forgive without repentance from the one committing the crime often is more sentimentally driven than word based as well as failure to take into consideration the character of God, imitation of his ways, or the full scope of what he had said on the subject.
In defining the character of God and imitation of His ways, I have quite a few thoughts. Tim obviously has a problem with progressive revelation because it is (and of this I agree) wildly dangerous. I understand that reformed theology is attractive in that it often claims that everything that can be known from the Scriptures has been found, understood, and explained and quite cleverly much of the time. Yet there are some things I simply cannot deny so with my can of worms in one hand and my can opener in the other, I proceed and ask you to consider the following.
If Jesus said anything of significance after He rose from the dead we would expect that it would be recorded and written down, right? In Acts 1 it’s mentioned that Jesus spend 40 days with His disciples talking about the Kingdom of God. A 40 day conference on the Kingdom, taught by the risen King in person, and nobody takes notes? It seems like someone dropped the ball here for future generations. Why would they fail to record this?
There’s only one reason I can come up with. The resurrection eliminated the need to preserve what was no longer in danger of being silenced by death. Whatever information He shared in those 40 days would always be and is eternally available to every believer who surrenders to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Who bends an ear to listen to the Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God by which we live. Jesus said that He came, not to bring peace, but a sword. Yet He is our peace and is the Prince of Peace. We release that peace which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. The sword He came to bring though is the power of His Word, alive and sharp. There’s a division that takes place when we encounter the living Word of God. Millions of people the world over are divided over the words of Christ in print before their eyes. In John 5 Jesus confronts the students of Scripture when He says, “you search the Scripture because you think in them is eternal life, but these are they which testify of Me and you’re unwilling to come to Me.” So any revelation we get from Scripture that doesn’t take us into an encounter with Jesus only serves to make us more religious. It was true then, it’s true today. It’s Pharisitical to misuse the Scriptures to confine Him rather than to manifest Him by exalting what God has said and ignoring what God is saying and in doing so, use the Scriptures to silence the voice of the risen Savior. Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that He adds to or takes away, rather, He clarifies what has been written and reveals what He’s hidden there for us and not from us. John 16:12, 13 “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now…”
I know this is way too much, but it’s late, the hospital room is quiet, and I have time. Thanks.
4 Alan Smith // Mar 18, 2008 at 12:05 am
Somebody’s been listening to some serious Bill Johnson. Quote after quote.
5 Bill Vanderbush // Mar 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Actually, it’s some serious John G. Lake, who Bill Johnson has read and quoted extensively as well. I attended CFN in Dallas which RH has ties to as well, which introduced me to the radical writings of Lake and others. I don’t tend to drop Lake’s (or Johnson’s) name among the reformed though because of the simple fact that leanings outside the reformed camp of accepted theological gurus get rejected before they get digested. Unfortunate but true. There’s some good stuff out there and anyone willing to ask gets guided to the proper source for further study.
6 Alan Smith // Mar 19, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Bill,
That makes sense. I’ve read/listened to a good bit of Johnson but haven’t read much Lake. Clearly Johnson has though. I’m a cfni graduate myself - 1990. RGH was one of my favorite teachers. His Corinthian Letters class rocked my world.
alan
7 Bill Vanderbush // Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43 am
You’re not kidding. That class didn’t just rock my theological boat. It blew it out of the water! (In a good way.) Any tapes or cds that exist of that class would be a worthwhile investment. Especially the QnA sections where RGH would rip us ignorant students a new one, in love of course. Between Cor letters and John Garlock’s Homeletics class, I consider cfn time well spent.
8 RG Hanner // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Wow! Thanks guys. I had a hearty laugh when I read this comment about ripping a new one. I feel the esteem in this most unique statement.
It really was an honor to have been a part of your preparation for the battlefield of Kingdom endeavor. I can continue forward for many more days because of expressions like this [laughter].
RGH
9 Alan Smith // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I just finished the book. It was amazing. It’s a good read. Not theologically precise in some areas as pointed out above, but overall excellent. I especially like that God shows up as a large black woman. That’ll make the religious demons bristle.
alan
10 RG Hanner // Apr 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm
WOW!
Good read. Um…..If that is your true judgement then I am almost at a loss for words. Seems post-modernism’s “Open Source” theology runs even deeper than I thought. I guess essential doctrines aren’t so essential anymore. You might want to read some of Tony Campolo’s heresy. If you enjoyed “The Shack,” you will love his flagrant denial of the exclusivity of Christ. Muslem, Hindu, and Jew need not worry since they don’t have to repent and believe the Gospel. But then, that’s only one area he isn’t precise on. Ignore it and enjoy the rest.
Oh, where can I find the documentation for “religious demons?” All I have been able to locate are scriptures that talk about “demonic doctrine” or “doctrines of demons” advocated by false teachers and ministers like that propagated by the author in “The Shack.” Then again, a little demonic teaching never hurt anyone.
RGH
11 Alan Smith // Apr 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
Have you read the Shack?
12 Alan Smith // Apr 12, 2008 at 11:21 am
btw…regarding “religous spirits”. I’m not naming a specific classification of demon. I haven’t enough knowledge of demonology to do that accurately. I’m simply observing function. Clearly our enemy works at times through very religious folks. He would be a fool to always function as if the star of The Exorcist.
13 RG Hanner // Apr 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Great Question. I live by the conviction not to invest “time or finances” in those things completely unworthy of either. Simply a matter of wisdom and obedience.
Wisdom: The Exalted Christ has endowed the Church with reputable Eph 4:11 gifts who have proven themselves trustworthy in the sphere’s of scholarship, orthodxy, discernment and guardianship of the essentials of the faith. I study the scholarship of those I have learned to trust and refuse to duplicate their work.
Obedience: The Apostle John commanded us to neither bid godspeed or allow into our home anyone who does not advocate the doctrine of Christ. If we do, John says we partner with their evil. Since “The Shack” is a full frontal assault on Christology, advocates pluralism amd universalism thereby denying the Exclusivity of Christ, I thought it necessary to obey his directive [2 John 9-11].
What say ye?
rgh
14 Alan Smith // Apr 20, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Interesting. Having read the book myself, I found it to advocate neither pluralism or uniersalism. Quite the opposite actually.
I did feel that the presentation of the Trinity without hierarchy was speculative. On the other hand, compared to the modalism I have commonly seen in non-fictional theological works attempting to deal with the Trinity, I found this clear presentation of One God in Three Distinct Persons to actually be refreshing.
15 Marc Karasek // Sep 21, 2008 at 12:05 am
RGH,
It must be nice to have it all figured out. How can you live the Gospel and be a living testament to God’s love if you are holed up in your house all the time? You seem to have it all figured out and have put God in his box, to be pulled out when and if you need Him. The Pharisees thought they had the system figured out as well, until God turned that world view upside down.
Being a Christian is not about being safe and keeping yourself “pure”. It is the most dangerous and wonderful thing you will ever do.
As I often say, Be careful for what you pray for, because God might just give it too you. I think “The Shack” addresses this, that sense that being a Christian is a great adventure, one with both ups and downs at times. One that will (if you allow it) change you in ways you cannot even begin to imagine…
God Bless
Marc
16 K Bergen // Sep 21, 2008 at 12:45 am
I agree with Alan Smith. I find it amazing that people could trash the book without having read it. I loved the book. I did not see a frontal assault on anything, except for some of my own stereotypes and other cultural baggage. Yes, it is a refreshing work of fiction that has had an impact on the way I think, pray, work with people and look at pain, forgiveness, and yes, the mote in my own eye. If you don’t see those things as being important, I suppose you will not enjoy the book. I must admit that I loved it.
17 Lynd Lou // Sep 25, 2008 at 10:36 am
I thought the book was very good and such a lesson for us on our relationship with Christ and forgivness. I also was pondering why no mention of Satan and he being the one causing the pain and hurt in the world. It almost made it seem that all evil comes only from our disobedience with no mention of the fall of Lucifer and his work to try to destroy mankind??????
18 jeremiah johnson // Oct 10, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Thought that I would give my 2 cents.
I was a student at cfni as well. 95-97 and greatly enjoyed Hanner’s 1 Cor class, except the time he threw his chalk and nailed me in the head cause he thought I was sleeping. btw I wasn’t, i was taking notes with my head down, really.
Anyways, now I am an elder/pastor at a community church in Portland, I have read The Shack because people in the church were reading it and speaking very highly of it so I thought it was my responsability to check it out. As i read the book i was very disturbed, not because the author was not “reformed”, but because of the all of the shots at the historic christian faith. My heart was breaking for the little discernment and great lopsided endorsements of the book, how it is changing the way that people think about God. Anyways at our church family meeting I spoke on the need for discernment for all christians and I spole briefly on The Shack and the emerging church movement as examples of the current need for discernment.
About 3 weeks latter I met with the author in person and tried to explain my concerns and get some clarification first hand. I expressly asked him if there was any warrent or truth in the opinions expressed by those who have problems with the book, and in the light of any if he were to rewrite the book today if he would change anything in the book. He told me that he would change nothing. I brought up how in the bible when a person came into the presence of God, that there was some common themes of falling down as tho dead, seeing their own unworthiness, marvelled at the mercy of God, and because of that mercy asked God how they could serve Him. And in light of that I commented to Paul Young why that was absent from any of the character Mack in The Shack, in his encounter with the Lord in the book. Paul’s response was that Jesus imbodied the fullness of God and how Jesus interacted with everyday people in ordinary ways without the whole prostrate thing.
I then asked about the part in the book where the Father tells Mack that He did not forsake Jesus on the cross, and that when Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why has tho forsaken me?” that was just how Jesus felt not what really happened. Paul Young’s response was that in scripture 2 Cor 5 it says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Therefore since this reconcilliation happened at the cross the Father never left the Son. I disagreed with Young’s logic and he said that I believed an ancient Christian heresy and then pulled out a book from his book bag that was written by a bunch of theologians and said that her is a list of theologians that disagreed with me. I didn’t want to say that I could find a bigger list than his.
I walked away with some serious doubts as to whether or not Paul Young believes in penal substitution. And also have much more concern about the book than I did prior to our meeting.
2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
I fear that this book is a trogan horse with the appearances of innocent chrisian fiction, but has within itself destructive heresies. Penal substitution being slowly done away with, ultimate reconcilliation is making headway, the fear of God is growing old, and this is just the start.
Yes there is no frontal asult here, but an ambush that is trying to subversivly infultrate the church and christians are laping it up.
I could go on a little more but I hope that this will do for now. I have no agenda to put God in a box, but God has put Himself in one so to speak, the Word of God, not our emotions, imaginations, or our wounded souls.
19 RG Hanner // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:13 am
J.J.
Threw chalk at ya did I? Hmmm….Sorry about that.
Wow! Great insight and comments on The Shack.
Please continue to drop by and give your insightful perspective.
Hope all continues well as you faithfully steward “the sacred trust of ministry.”
Sure would like to hear more of the context you are serving in and the story of how the Exalted Christ has developed His will in guiding you there.
For The Kings Honor!
RGH
20 jeremiah johnson // Oct 15, 2008 at 12:18 am
Just also want to say that paul young was very cordial for the most part and he mentioned that he was glad that I saught him out to meet face to face and tlak about my concerns.
He did also say that since he grew up as a little guy he has learned to fight with words and I believe that it is true with The Shack that Paul Young is fighting the historic christian faith with words.
Regarding myself I am one of four elders of a shared leadership church, we have no head pastor the four of us pastor the church together. I feel the church is much healthier in this regard and I hopeto see more churches consider/pray about this.
I didn’t pursue any other higher education after CFNI but I just kept on reading good books, mostly puritans and dead theologians. I too would consider myself essentialy reformed/charismatic.
The former head pastor of the church I’m at now sought me ought about eldership about 3 1/2 years ago. I am married with 4 kids and on the way-next summer-for long term work in central asia.
21 jasonmichaeldavis.com » The Shack // Oct 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm
[…] that there were also some interesting parts. All in all i think that the following review (found at http://antagoniz.com/2008/03/06/what-do-you-think-of-the-shack/ embodies my feelings on the topic… Please feel free to read and […]
22 jeremiah johnson // Nov 24, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Out here in liberal portland I found a secular review of The Shack that exibits more discernment than 90% of the christians I know. This quote pretty much sums it up.
“The Shack is part old-time religion, part New Age spiritual healing. It’s profoundly Christian, but sharply critical of organized religion.”
Can anyone say syncritism?
Here is the whole article.
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/issues/archives/articles/1108-paul-young/2/
23 Brian Brown // Nov 30, 2008 at 9:27 am
Marc Karasek: No offense intended, but one doesn’t have to read, embrace, or remain silent about poor theology in order to have an adventure. One’s adventure in Christ need not consist of delving into things that the emergent church goes wild over. Don’t take my word for it, check scripture, because if you plan on living a true Christian life, you may want to double check your statement about being pure.
RGH: Feel the love…
Aaaah, the Shellac, as I like to call it. Just a spoonful of leaven helps the medicine go down. Um, no wait, that’s not it…
Welcome to the lump of modern Churchianity, where a little leaven is not only welcome, it is actually sought after, candy coated, and thoughtlessly recommended to others.
The foundational elements of this book are biblical in nature and yet it is laced with enough subtle error (and some not so subtle) to entice the liberal believer into rethinking their concept of the character of God, assuming they had a proper view of Him to begin with.
In light of Ephesians 4:14, I found it amusingly ironic and yet sad when I discovered that the publisher of The Shack was aptly named Windblown Media. I imagine it’s founders meant it to be in reference to John 3:8 or Acts 2:2, but a close look reveals that neither of these verses talk about being “blown” by the wind like Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
For most of us here, The Shack is old news, but unfortunately, this book is still being ‘discovered’ and lauded by many as an insightful revelation of God’s character that is refreshing and freeing. As of today, Nov 30th, it is still #1 on the NYT bestseller list in it’s category.
In my many, many discussions with people regarding this book, there seems to be a standard bottom line defense to any challenge presented. The defense is not that the content of the book is biblically sound, but rather that it’s content is fiction and not theology. This may be true in intention, but in their reviews of this book, so many are praising it as refreshing, eye-opening, and claiming that it has freed them spiritually. Fiction doesn’t do that, unless the fiction affects your theology. People are excited that they’re learning things about God that they never knew before, not realizing that the reason they never knew such things is because these ‘insights’ and ‘revelations’ are strikingly absent from scripture.
You can believe what you like about fiction books versus those with intentionally instructional theological content, but I’ve seen first hand how this book directly affects and distorts people’s theology and can cause them to downplay and even deny many aspects of God’s character as set forth in His word.
Windblown Media, a company that was formed expressly to publish The Shack in May of 2007, has the following motto: “A Refreshing Breeze for the Spiritually Hungry.” The concept is great, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Satisfying hunger without using wisdom in both your choice of food and the way you acquire it has been shown biblically to be a cause for much anguish and shedding of tears.
If only we had fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic, anything but manna. In the book of Numbers, the Israelites grumbled against God regarding their food, they wailed for meat and got what they asked for. We are told that “while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.” In like manner, modern Churchianity wants and has grasped for nearly anything but the manna that is God’s word. I won’t get into the plague implications…
In another food related incident, Hebrews 12:17 talks about the ramifications Esau suffered for allowing his hunger to be satisfied in an undiscerning manner. It cost him a great deal.
If your hunger is for the true God of the universe as revealed in scripture, then your hunger will be satisfied as His word is revealed to you by His Spirit. However, if your hunger is for the god of your own imagination, a god that you have created in your heart and are comfortable with, a god that lives to give you all that you desire and make your life wonderful, your idolatrous hunger will often be satisfied by the wisdom of man. Enter the Shack.
I find Ezekiel 14:4 interesting in regards to this book & publisher as well as certain conferences and dubbed ‘revivals’ of late. It talks about folks who inquired of the Lord and received answers according to their idolatry. It seems similar to the strong delusion spoken of in 2 Thessalonians. When you simply refuse to believe what God’s word says about His character, He’ll help you believe strongly in the lies of man that paint a different picture of Him.
Itching ears will search until they find what they want to hear. Unfortunately, what they often hunger to hear is not sound doctrine, but something that will them make them feel better about themselves and their spiritual condition, something that will gratify their perceived needs and wants. Itching ears want encouragement without correction or rebuke, and if there is any discomfort in the journey, they’ll be moving on to find a place that is more uplifting or inspiring. They are positive thinkers who want to live their best life now. The largest fellowship in America understands this well, and the leadership there has stated clearly on multiple occasions that they simply want to encourage people, not bring them down.
Encouragement and comfort are very biblical for the saint, but if it is all we’re getting as food from the word of God, we’re missing a great deal of the sustenance offered by the scripture. Worse yet, if encouragement and comfort are all we’re giving the unsaved, then their blood may very well be on our hands. If God is the just Judge of the world and people are heading to hell if they don’t accept His generous offer of salvation in Christ, shouldn’t we tell them? What’s going to happen when those ‘best lives’ come to an end?
If you’ve ever done any amount of real evangelism, you’ve heard something similar to the following in response to the true gospel: “well, my god wouldn’t send people to hell; he’s a god of love.” As frightening as this may sound (to the true believer), they’re absolutely right, he wouldn’t. He can’t. Why? …because he doesn’t exist. He is not the God of the Bible, but rather an idolatrous imitation created in the mind of man.
It is this imaginary god that so many, even in church fellowships, are clamoring to hear from. Keep the wrath part of God, just give us His love and acceptance aspect. The consumer mentality of “have it your way” is a powerful force that drives man’s view of success, and it has invaded a great majority of fellowships. As a result, there are many who (some perhaps unwittingly) speak on behalf of an imaginary god from the pulpit.
Windblown Media also present this highly sought after god in their book, The Shack. Is it any wonder that it has been a best seller for so long? Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor for Publishers Weekly, said that “people are not necessarily concerned with how orthodox the theology is. People are into the story and how the book strikes them emotionally.” Welcome to modern Churchianity.
I would apologize if I were PC, but I’m not. It is good to be passionate about any argument or claim that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. They deserve to be demolished.
Leave a Comment