by James Smith …continued from Issue 71
In The Shack, Young portrays all three members of the Trinity in human form. This confuses the doctrine of the incarnation, because Scripture teaches that only Jesus takes on human form. Exactly why Young does this is of course explained by his heretical belief in modalism mentioned earlier.
Young’s Trinity can simply choose whichever mode or “persona” through which to reveal itself to humanity. On page 112, Papa explains to Mack:
“It is quite simple really. Being always transcends appearance – that which only seems to be. Once you begin to know the being behind the very pretty or very ugly face, as determined by your bias, the surface appearances fade away until they simply no longer matter.”
What Papa is claiming is that the world we perceive is merely a construct, very similar to the way it is described in The Matrix (remember the Amazon book review of The Shack I quoted in issue 71), which is saturated in gnostic and New Age concepts.
So what is reality beyond the construct we see as far as Young is concerned? Sarayu gives the answer on page 214:
“…if you had eyes to see the greater reality, here is what you would witness: As you continued your current conversation, a unique combination of color and light would leave you and wrap itself around the one you had just entered, representing you in another form of loving and greeting that one.”
Just how New Age does The Shack have to get before Christians smell the heresy?
But this is the consequence of having already bought into Young’s perverse portrayal of the Holy Trinity. Once Young’s version of God has been accepted by the reader, it is much easier for Young to introduce further heresy.
Young has the Holy Spirit – the third person of the Holy Trinity – explain to Mack that true reality is that we are all beings of light with varying patterns of colour defining our uniqueness! Mack was not able to see true “reality” until Sarayu healed his eyes so he could see reality (page 208). This is no different to The Matrix where Morpheus gives Neo the red pill to wake him from his unreality and open his eyes to true reality.
Once Mack’s eyes had been opened, he could see the “reality” that everything was comprised of light, and how we are all expressed to each other through our senses is really a matter of changing patterns of unique colours.
The “greater reality” described by Sarayu of “colour and light” is the New Age philosophy of auras. Auras are believed to be fields of light emanating from human beings, as well as all living things, surrounding them like a bubble. It is claimed that the human aura indicates the true spiritual, physical, and emotional state of a person via the colour, depth, and strength of the aura.
Within the New Age Movement it is taught that people have either an innate supernatural or psychic ability to see auras, or the ability can be developed through New Age meditation techniques, clairvoyance and other paranormal activity. Belief in auras is not only an integral part of New Age teaching, but also the occult and witchcraft.
How does the Word of God compare to this Gnostic and New Age view of reality?
It is clear that the concept of auras cannot be found in the Bible, and the occult practices used in order to see auras are wholly condemned by God as being abhorrent (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13).
Genesis 2:7 tells us:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
The Bible does not say our bodies are merely “appearances”; they are not really light. As a matter of fact, the physical resurrection of our bodies is a vital part of Christian doctrine and by teaching otherwise through a smooth-talking character in his book, Young is very cleverly trying to destroy a foundation of orthodox Biblical Christianity. In the same way Jesus Christ was resurrected in physical form (described as a “glorious body” in Philippians 3:21), so too our bodies will be transformed at our resurrection. Portraying a reality where we are not transformed in physical bodies when in heaven is not only a denial of our bodily resurrection, but also a denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. (1 Corinthians 15:12- 19)
On page 122, Papa explains to Mack:
God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things – ultimately emerging as the real – and any appearances that mask that reality will fall away.
Young’s Trinity is simply modes or “personas” of a being that dwells in all things. This is the heretical New Age doctrine of God being transcendent and immanent. It is the pantheistic belief that God is all and in all. Pantheism derives from the Greek words pan, meaning “all” and theos, meaning “god”.
The true Biblical understanding of God’s transcendence and immanence is that He is present in all His creation, while remaining separate and distinct from it. In other words, as God is omnipresent, there is no place where He is not present; God is transcendent in the sense that He exists outside of time and space, and immanent in the sense that he is present within time and space.
The New Age pantheistic view of God dwelling in all things spoken of by Papa in The Shack naturally leads to the conclusion that God dwells within all people, and this is a heresy that has been increasingly infiltrating the church for many decades and not just through dangerous books like The Shack. For example, in his 1969 book, Self-Love, Robert Schuller declared, “God lives in people” (page 43), and in his Possibilities magazine (Summer 1986) he declared:
The Christ spirit dwells in every human being, whether the person knows it or not.
More recently, on page 88 of his bestselling book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren (a man heavily influenced by Schuller) states, “The Bible says, ‘He rules everything and is everywhere and is in everything’”. The Bible absolutely does not say that, unless of course your “Bible” of choice is The Message. Warren further teaches the New Age “immanence” of God within the Foundations course of his Saddleback Church. On page 46 of the Foundations Participants Guide, he states:
“He [God] is both transcendent (above and beyond his creation) and immanent (within and throughout his creation).”
Emergent leader Tony Campolo writes on page 192 in his highly influential book, A Reasonable Faith Responding to Secularism:
“I’m not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians… Jesus actually is present in each other person.”
Henri Nouwen, a man quoted extensively by both Rick and Kay Warren and called “one of the great Christians of our time” by Tony Campolo, wrote in his book, Here and Now:
“The God who dwells in our inner sanctuary is also the God who dwells in the inner sanctuary of each human being”(page 22).
However, the Bible makes very clear that God (in the form of the Holy Spirit) only dwells within those who have repented of their sins and acknowledged Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (John 7:37-39; Acts 2:38).
Young’s modalism causes a further inaccuracy in the way The Shack presents the relationship between the members of the Trinity. In the book, Jesus says:
“So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not… 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” (page 124).
Not only does Young teach that all three members of the Trinity do not relate in a hierarchical manner, but that God desires to be submitted to Mack! Even Mack is surprised by this and asks:
“How could that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?”
Jesus replies:
“Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.”
Is there anywhere in Scripture where God expresses a desire to be submitted to an individual human being?
Of course not.
Regarding the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead, the Bible teaches that all three members of the Trinity are equal in nature while there also exists an economy, or hierarchy, within the Trinity. It describes the relationship of the members of the Godhead with each other, and this relationship serves as a model for us. The Father is the head. This is demonstrated in that the Father sent the Son. The Son did not send the Father (John 6:44, 8:18, 10:36). The Son also is the one who sends the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Jesus came down from heaven, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father (John 6:38). The Father is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3). 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 speaks of creation being in subjection to Jesus, and then in verse 28, Jesus will be subjected to the Father. The Greek word for “will be subjected” is hupotagasetai, which is the future passive indicative, meaning it is a future event where Jesus will forever be subjected to the Father. These passages teach that there is indeed a hierarchy within the Trinity in which all three members are equal in nature, yet the principle of headship and submission is perfectly displayed in the Trinity. This critical theological principle is incorrectly taught and dangerously distorted in The Shack.
How does Young’s blasphemous description of the Holy Trinity provide anyone with a deeper understanding of the God of the Bible?
Young’s portrayal of God is so wide of the mark that it is no better than me trying to give someone a deeper understanding of my wife by describing (boxer) Frank Bruno!
No, using the picture of Frank Bruno would not give anyone a deeper understanding of my wife, but yes, my wife would be very offended by my portrayal. How do you think God feels about Young’s portrayal of Him?
Young is preaching “another Jesus” and “a different gospel”, and Paul warned and admonished the church at Corinth about accepting such things so readily:
For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Every Christian who claims The Shack has given them a deeper understanding of God would be admonished by Paul in exactly the same way.
Bearing in mind Young’s false teaching that there is no hierarchy within the Trinity, it is perhaps not surprising that Papa calls hierarchies in relationships, including marriage, “such a waste!” (page 122).
In The Shack, Young definitely tries to defend himself against the accusation of misrepresenting God by implying that having a relationship with God is far more important than having a correct doctrine about God. The importance of doctrine is without doubt subtly ridiculed and undermined by Young in The Shack; God’s Word is not treated as the standard of truth, but instead subjective experience of God is promoted as being all-important.
Jesus stated:
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:23-24)
It is not possible to have a relationship with God that is not based in truth. In order to have a meaningful relationship with God, one must understand the true nature and character of God. Truth is rooted in the very nature of God (John 14:6). A relationship with God comes through responding to the truths revealed in His Word. Thus, a believer must grow in his relationship with God through an intimate fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ as well as growing in our understanding of the Word of God.
An essential part of any fellowship with God involves the learning of Biblical and doctrinal truths about God. The Apostle Paul refers to this in Ephesians 4:13 when he says: …
till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
Simply knowing doctrine without the involvement of the heart leads to a cold faith, but a heart religion without knowledge of the truth as its guide is nothing more than an emotional response to an emotional faith. Our prayer for each other should echo what Paul prayed for the Philippians:
And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and discernment. (Philippians 1:9)
We must have both heart and mind. In fact, Jesus commanded Christians in Matthew 22:37 to “Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind”.
On page 136, God tells Mack:
“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 or death to describe the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence.”
This philosophy is pure humanism and has nothing to do with what the Word of God says. It is no better than describing cat as the absence of dogness! The Bible is emphatic in describing evil as a reality and not merely an absence of good. Proverbs 12:20 says:
Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil.
Based on the wisdom of the God of The Shack, Proverbs 12:20 means:
Deceit is in the heart of those who devise the absence of good!
Satan is the personification of evil, but Jesus says God is good (Luke 18:19). God is good by nature and we do not need evil to know what good is, because we have God’s perfect goodness to inform us.
In The Shack, Mack asks Jesus:
“Is that what it means to be a Christian?”
Jesus’ reply reveals Young’s universalist views very clearly:
“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian… They that love me come from every system that exists… Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, …I have no desire to make them Christians…”
It is no wonder that The Shack is incredibly popular with the Emergent Church when Young’s Jesus preaches a gospel message familiar to them. For example, in A Generous Orthodoxy, Emergent leader Brian McLaren expounds his views on preaching the true gospel:
“I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts” (page 293).
Mack then asks Jesus if that means all roads lead to him. The Jesus of The Shack denies this, but then replies:
“Not at all. . . . Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (page 182).
What a bizarre statement to make. The real Jesus of the Bible did not suggest “most roads don’t lead anywhere”. Quite the contrary. Jesus actually warned most roads lead to destruction:
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13- 14)
And what does the Jesus of The Shack mean when he says, “I will travel any road to find you”? He appears to imply that Jesus will reveal Himself to people irrespective of the road they are on or religion they follow. The Jesus of The Shack does not ask them to leave that road and follow the narrow path of salvation.
If the Jesus of The Shack was the Jesus of the Bible, He most certainly would desire to make everyone Christians, and to do so by following the narrow path of salvation, because based on His declaration that He is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6), He gave His disciples the Great Commission to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). This command to make disciples includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe Jesus is the archangel Michael. It includes Mormons, who believe Jesus is the spirit half-brother of Satan. It includes Muslims, who believe Jesus is not the Son of God and did not die on the cross for our sins. It includes Buddhists, who believe Jesus is not the Christ, but merely had the “Christ consciousness”. They all need to become Christians by being disciples of the One True Jesus; a Jesus very different to the one found in The Shack.
The truth about Jesus is repeated by one of His disciples, Peter:
...there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims and Buddhists do not believe in Peter’s declaration about Jesus, but they need to in order to be saved. Yet the Jesus of The Shack has “no desire to make them Christians”!
Young’s Jesus says in The Shack that he is the best way. This is very different to what the real Jesus declared about Himself in the Bible as being the only way. The declaration made by the Jesus of The Shack about being the best way implies there are other valid ways to consider. For example, when planning a long road trip many alternate routes could be mapped to get to the same destination, but you
may conclude that one particular way is the best way.
Before the term “Christian” was coined to describe the rst century followers of Jesus (in Acts 11:26), they were called followers of “the Way” (e.g. Acts 9:2). The claim of exclusivity by those following the Christian faith was known right from the beginning; it was not known as the best way; it was known as the Way; the only way.
In a conversation on the atoning work of Christ on the cross, Mack asks:
“What exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?”
Papa answers:
“Through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world” (page 191-192).
Mack is confused and asks if the whole world has been reconciled or only those who believe. Papa responds by saying reconciliation is not dependent upon faith in Christ: “The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two-way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way” (page 192).
Young appears to be saying all people are already reconciled to God. God is waiting on them to recognise it and enter into a relationship with Him. These dialogues expose Young’s universalist leanings. Although it is denied on page 182, the ideas presented by Young that Jesus is not interested in people becoming Christians, that Jesus will nd people on the many roads, and that the whole world is already reconciled to God, presents the gospel of universalism very clearly, a gospel Young has fully embraced. For example, James B. DeYoung knew William P. Young very well prior to publication of The Shack and personally witnessed his descent into universalism. In an interview with Christian News Network, DeYoung said:
In 2004, [Young] prepared and released a 103-page document for our M3 forum in which he rejected his ‘evangelical paradigm’ and embraced universal reconciliation. He has never renounced the particulars of universal reconciliation, [and] refuses to say that other world religions are in error in their assessment of Jesus as the unique Son of God.
On page 120 of The Shack Young’s Jesus states:
“I don’t need to judge peoples sin. Sin is its own punishment.”
He says further on page 225:
“When Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross they were no longer in his debt, nor mine. In my relationship with those men, I will never bring up what they did, or shame them, or embarrass them.”
And here was me thinking there had to be repentance to experience that sort of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. But then the God of The Shack (Papa) says to Mack:
“I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else” (page 206).
Really?
The Bible is full of what God expects from both the unregenerate and regenerate. For example, He expects the unregenerate to repent and believe on Him for salvation, and He expects the regenerate take up their cross, to be holy, as He is Holy, and to bear fruit; to love the Lord with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their mind. In reality, there is so much God expects that a whole article could be written on that subject alone.
God made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin, so that we might be made righteous in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus came to earth two thousand years ago to die in our place and take our punishment for our sin. Why did Jesus do this for us? Because God’s Law states there can be no remission from sin without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22), and the shedding of our own blood is insuf cient. Why? Because only innocent blood will do and all of us have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).
Jesus is coming again to judge and punish the sins of all who have refused His perfect sacri ce and gi of eternal life (see Matthew 16:27; John 5:22-23; Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Corinthians 5:10).
The Jesus of The Shack is openly denying the need for Him to go to the cross and pay the price for the sins of the world. The Jesus of The Shack is not the Jesus of the Bible. It should not take a theologian to spot that.
Whilst William P. Young is the of cial author of The Shack, his close friend and associate, Wayne Jacobsen was responsible for moulding Young’s material into its nal dra , and formed the company that was later to publish it. If someone is happy to jettison Biblical truth suf ciently enough to accept The Shack as being “Christian”, they are unlikely to be very bothered about who Jacobsen is, and what he believes. But nevertheless I think it is important to mention this. On Jacobson’s website, LifeStream, he provides a list of “favourite reading” that has shaped his doctrine and spiritual journey, the authors of which could be described as New Age in their leanings to say the least. The list includes both contemplative and Emergent Church authors. The Shack has proven to be extremely popular with the Emergent Church, because much of what Young teaches in his novel is an outworking of Emergent thought and doctrine.
The Shack has touched the hearts and emotions of millions of Christians. However, the emotionally charged story that William P. Young unfolds through the pages of The Shack is merely a Trojan horse in which he hides dreadful heresies that deny the very foundational doctrines of the Christian faith; the warm and cuddly emotional feeling Young is able to create from the story is in reality a deliberate and devilish way of getting the reader to disengage their God-given brains when discerning whether or not The Shack is truly a “Christian” book; and look at how successful he has been in doing that!
Whilst researching for this article I came across a review of The Shack on a very prominent and popular Christian website that concluded Young’s portrayal of the Trinity was perfectly reasonable because the Bible does not have anything to say about the gender of God. Another review on a different Christian website said:
“I found these [Young’s portrayal of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit] to be not only interesting artistic choices, but actually enlightening in a spiritual sense as well.”
I could not help but wonder if the authors of these reviews had ever even read a Bible; they certainly had no place writing for a Christian website. Christians who write for such websites should be both able and willing to do what is referred to in Titus 1:9:
...holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
In spite of the obvious unbiblical nature of both the ctional story and the message communicated in the story, there are millions of naïve and Biblically illiterate Christians who have been sucked into doing the very thing Peter managed to avoid:
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables. (2 Peter 1:16)
For the millions of Christians who believe The Shack has provided a deeper understanding of who God is, that is exactly what they have done: they have followed “cunningly devised fables”. How has William P. Young described God in a way that has given Christians a deeper understanding of who He is? How can he have achieved that by contradicting the Word of God and slandering His very nature?
The Shack should never have been sold in Christian bookstores, and the new film version will only extend to the unsaved masses the influence of The Shack’s heretical gospel, and further pollute the world’s understanding of the true Christian gospel; what hope do non-Christians have when The Shack has already seduced and deceived millions of Christians into thinking it has helped them gain a better understanding of God?!
Former friend and associate of William P. Young, James B. DeYoung stated:
“My word to the viewers of the movie The Shack is this: If they confess to be Christians, they should pay close attention to the statements made by the actors and ask themselves: Does this theology agree with the Bible and Christian doctrine? Or, is it more in line with the old distortions of the truth that Christians have identi ed [as universalism].”
John 1:14 declares:
And the Word became esh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (emphasis added)
The word used for “dwelt” in Greek means “tabernacle”; He came into the world and tabernacled with us. In The Shack, William P. Young has a distorted and blasphemous Trinity tabernacle with Mack, not to tell him Biblical truth, but to convince him (and the reader) of devilish and heretical lies; sugar-coated poison. The Shack is not the tabernacle of truth so many Christians claim. It is a derelict and hopeless hut of heresy that needs to be condemned and destroyed.
I will close with the words of Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky:
“The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity...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.”
