The Shack Author is Christian Universalist

[JGrubbs]

Does The Shack promote Ultimate Reconciliation (UR)?
It does not. While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father’s love that has to be forced on the biblical text.

Since I don’t believe in UR and wholeheartedly embrace the finished product, I think those who see UR here, either positively or negatively are reading into the text. To me that was the beauty of the collaboration. Three hearts weighed in on the theology to make it as true as we could muster. The process also helped shape our theologies in honest, protracted discussions. I think the author would say that some of that dialog significantly affected his views. This book represents growth in that area for all of us. Holding him to the conclusions he may have embraced years earlier would be unfair to the ongoing process of God in his life and theology.

That said, however, I’m not afraid to have that discussion with people I regard as brothers and sisters since many have held that view in the course of theological history. Also keep in mind that the heretic hunters lump many absurd notions into what they call UR, but when I actually talk to those people partial to some view of ultimate reconciliation they do not endorse all the absurdities ascribed to them. This is a heavily nuanced discussion with UR meaning a lot of different things to different people. For myself, I am convinced that Jesus is someone we have to accept through repentance and belief in this age to participate in his life.

Throughout The Shack Mack’s choices are in play, determining what he will let God do in his life through their encounter. He is no victim of God’s process. He is a willing participant at every juncture. And even though Papa says ‘He is reconciled to all men” he also notes that, “not all men are reconciled to me.”

Source: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html

 

[Marcia]

I have read the book a few times and have met and spoken with the author and the publisher. I have purchased many copies of this book for family and friends. I think it is a great book, and have found that the people who don't like it are either very legalistic in their religious views or hold on very tightly to their man-made religious doctrines over the relationship with the Father that Christ came to bring us.

I think it is unfair to cast the book's critics as legalistic or holding on "tightly to man-made religious doctrines." Biblical doctrine comes from God, and the book not only puts down the word of God but presents ideas in conflict with God's word.

The appeal of the book is primarily emotional. Because of that, fans don't like it criticized but God's word commands us to be discerning.

If caring about doctrine is legalistic, then your argument is with God since he had many NT writers tell us to hold on to sound doctrine.

 

[Marcia]

Does it distort or demean the Trinity?
One of the concerns expressed about The Shack is that it presents the Trinity outside of a hierarchy. In fact many religious traditions think they find their basis for hierarchical organizations in what they’ve assumed about the Trinity. To look at the Trinity as a relationship without the need for command and control is one of the intriguing parts of this story. If they walk in complete unity, why would a hierarchy be needed? They live in love and honor each other. While in the flesh Jesus did walk in obedience to the Father as our example, elsewhere Scripture speaks of their complete unity, love and glory in relating to each other. Different functions need not imply a different status.

This extends in other ways to look at how healed people can relate to each other inside their relationship with God that defines authority and submission in ways most are not used to, but that are far more consistent with what we see in the early believers and in the teaching of Scripture. It is also true of many believers around the world who are learning to experience the life of Father’s family without all the hierarchical maintenance and drama that has plagued followers of Christ since the third century.

People may see this differently and find this challenging, if only because it represents some thought they have not been exposed to before. Here we might be better off having a discussion instead of dragging out the ‘heretic’ label when it is unwarranted.

Source: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html

The problems in the book with the Trinity are several, one of which is that the god figure tells Mack that she was on the cross with Christ and also shows scars to Mack. Well, God is spirit and was not on the cross and did not incarnate.

In addition to an errant view of Scripture, The Shack has an unorthodox view of the Trinity. God appears as three separate persons (in three separate bodies) which seems to support Tritheism in spite of the fact that the author denies Tritheism (“We are not three gods”) and Modalism (“We are not talking about One God with three attitudes”—p. 100). Nonetheless, Young departs from the essential nature of God for a social relationship among the members of the Trinity. He wrongly stresses the plurality of God as three separate persons: God the Father appears as an “African American woman” (80); Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern worker (82). The Holy Spirit is represented as “a small, distinctively Asian woman” (82). And according to Young, the unity of God is not in one essence (nature), as the orthodox view holds. Rather, it is a social union of three separate persons. Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since “God is spirit”—Jn. 4:24), the members of the Trinity are not separate persons (as The Shack portrays them); they are only distinct persons in one divine nature. Just as a triangle has three distinct corners, yet is one triangle. It is not three separate corners (for then it would not be a triangle if the corners were separated from it), Even so, God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

From Dr. Geisler's article on The Shack found at http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/934

 

[Revmitchell]

Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God

In addition to an errant view of Scripture, The Shack has an unorthodox view of the Trinity. God appears as three separate persons (in three separate bodies) which seems to support Tritheism in spite of the fact that the author denies Tritheism (“We are not three gods”) and Modalism (“We are not talking about One God with three attitudes”—p. 100). Nonetheless, Young departs from the essential nature of God for a social relationship among the members of the Trinity. He wrongly stresses the plurality of God as three separate persons: God the Father appears as an “African American woman” (80); Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern worker (82). The Holy Spirit is represented as “a small, distinctively Asian woman” (82). And according to Young, the unity of God is not in one essence (nature), as the orthodox view holds. Rather, it is a social union of three separate persons. Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since “God is spirit”—Jn. 4:24), the members of the Trinity are not separate persons (as The Shack portrays them); they are only distinct persons in one divine nature. Just as a triangle has three distinct corners, yet is one triangle. It is not three separate corners (for then it would not be a triangle if the corners were separated from it), Even so, God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html

 

[Revmitchell]

Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation

Another problem emerges in the message of The Shack. According to Young, Christ is just the “best” way to relate to the Father, not the only way (109). The “best” does not necessarily imply the only way, which then means that there may be other ways to relate to God. Such an assertion is contrary to Jesus’ claim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes unto the Father except through me” (John14:6). He added, “He who believes in Him [Christ] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18). Jesus is not merely the best way, but He is the only way to God. Paul declared: “There is one God and one mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html

 

[Revmitchell]

While The Shack falls short of the universalism (“All will be saved”) found in other emergent writings, it does have a wide-sweeping inclusivism whereby virtually anyone through virtually any religion can be saved apart from Christ. According to Young,, “Jesus [said]…. ‘Those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist, or Muslims,…and many who are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institution…. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa….’ ‘Does that mean…that all roads will lead to you?’ ‘Not at all…. Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you’” (184).


http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html

 

[JGrubbs]

Your two arguments contradict one another...

You say, "God is spirit and was not on the cross" and then quote Geisler saying "God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

I like what David Beck wrote on his blog about this:

The Trinity cannot come apart in the sense that two Persons (the Father and the Spirit) can separate from the other Person (the Son). On the cross, the separation was experientially real – Jesus experienced the Father as having abandoned him in his greatest moment of vulnerability. He was drinking of the cup of the wrath of God. However, the theological truth is that the Father was as close to Jesus in that moment as he ever was. Sometimes the presence of God feels to us like the absence of God. Jesus experienced this in full measure.

God didn't abandon Christ on the cross, Christ was still fully God and fully man, but because of the sin of the world that he was taking on himself for the first time in his life, he couldn't sense God's presence anymore, so he quoted David from the Old Testament who cried out, "Why have you forsaken me". But, even though he couldn't sense God's presence, God was still with him, and he still put his trust in the Father when he said, "Into your hands I commit my Spirit."

In 2 Corinthians 5:19 we are told "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"! A great book I highly recommend that has a chapter about "What Really Happened on the Cross" is He Loves Me by Wayne Jacobsen, which I read many years ago, before W. Paul Young ever wrote The Shack.

 

[JGrubbs]

While The Shack falls short of the universalism (“All will be saved”) found in other emergent writings, it does have a wide-sweeping inclusivism whereby virtually anyone through virtually any religion can be saved apart from Christ. According to Young,, “Jesus [said]…. ‘Those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist, or Muslims,…and many who are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institution…. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa….’ ‘Does that mean…that all roads will lead to you?’ ‘Not at all…. Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you’” (184).

That is one of my favorite quotes from the book!!

Like the publisher posted:

Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.

I think much of the offense taken towards the book is by VERY religious people, people who have devoted most of their life to studying and teaching religion. But, I don't believe Christ came to start a new religion called Christianity. I think Christ came to end religion and to create a way for the world to have a relationship with him, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Those who find Christ come from all backgrounds, religions and backgrounds, but when they find that real relationship with Christ, there's no turning back!

Being raised in a VERY legalistic fundamentalist independent baptist home and church, I have come to the conclusion that legalism is just as much a false religion as Buddhists or Mormons or Muslims. Now that I have found a real relationship with the loving Father, there is no way I would ever return to the bondage of the legalistic Christian religion that I was taught as a child.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is incorrect to say God was in Christ. God and Christ are the same. However, the Father did "forsake" the Son (Matt 27:46). How this happens is a question that cannot be answered this side of heaven. But taking scripture at its face value leaves for no other alternative.

 

[Revmitchell]

That is one of my favorite quotes from the book!!

Like the publisher posted:

Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.

I think much of the offense taken towards the book is by VERY religious people, people who have devoted most of their life to studying and teaching religion. But, I don't believe Christ came to start a new religion called Christianity. I think Christ came to end religion and to create a way for the world to have a relationship with him, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Those who find Christ come from all backgrounds, religions and backgrounds, but when they find that real relationship with Christ, there's no turning back!

Being raised in a VERY legalistic fundamentalist independent baptist home and church, I have come to the conclusion that legalism is just as much a false religion as Buddhists or Mormons or Muslims. Now that I have found a real relationship with the loving Father, there is no way I would ever return to the bondage of the legalistic Christian religion that I was taught as a child.

It is quite clear you do not understand what legalism is.

 

[JGrubbs]

It is quite clear you do not understand what legalism is.

To substitute humanly devised laws for God's laws, as the Pharisees did, is a type of legalism. As a recovering Pharisee, here are some examples of some of the legalism I experience in the church growing up that created the "humanly devised laws" like:

Thou shalt not go to the movie theaters.
Thou shalt not listen to contemporary Christian music.
Thou shalt be at the church building whenever the doors are open.
Thou shalt not question any of the "sacred cows" of the baptist teachers.
Thou shalt only attend Independent Baptist churches, all others are wrong.
Thou shalt only use the King James Version of the Bible.
Thou shalt not associate with sinners except for "door to door" visitation.

 

[donnA]

what do you call it when someone substutites the God of the bible for some made up god thats in no way true?
then what do you call it when a christian endorses this made up god.
how about sticking to the topic.

 

[Revmitchell]

To substitute humanly devised laws for God's laws, as the Pharisees did, is a type of legalism. As a recovering Pharisee, here are some examples of some of the legalism I experience in the church growing up that created the "humanly devised laws" like:

Thou shalt not go to the movie theaters.
Thou shalt not listen to contemporary Christian music.
Thou shalt be at the church building whenever the doors are open.
Thou shalt not question any of the "sacred cows" of the baptist teachers.
Thou shalt only attend Independent Baptist churches, all others are wrong.
Thou shalt only use the King James Version of the Bible.
Thou shalt not associate with sinners except for "door to door" visitation.

First, none of your examples have anything to do with anything in this book. Second, legalism is doctrine having to do with the essentials of salvation. If someone suggested that those things in your list were essential for salvation that would then be legalism.

 

[Marcia]

That is one of my favorite quotes from the book!!

Like the publisher posted:

Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.

It also has Jesus saying he is the "best" way, not the only way.

I think much of the offense taken towards the book is by VERY religious people, people who have devoted most of their life to studying and teaching religion.

Not all critics come from this kind of background! How do you know they do? I don't. I didn't become a believer until late in life after being an astrologer and a New Ager.

Being raised in a VERY legalistic fundamentalist independent baptist home and church, I have come to the conclusion that legalism is just as much a false religion as Buddhists or Mormons or Muslims. Now that I have found a real relationship with the loving Father, there is no way I would ever return to the bondage of the legalistic Christian religion that I was taught as a child

I think that your background is partly why you like the book but that doesn't make the book valid. Not everyone sees Christianity through the lens of fundamentalistic legalism (and I am not saying all fundamentalists are legalists).

The book needs to be evaluated not through our backgrounds but through God's word, and on many points through the lens of God's word, it has big problems.

Here is my article on The Shack:
http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_TheShack.html


I had my pastor (who is not an independent fundamentalist btw) look it over and I got feedback from him (he had read the book). I am more critical of things like this than my pastor but he even suggested some problematic issues to add to the list I have at the end.

These are some of the problems I listed:

States that God the Father and the Holy Spirit incarnated as flesh and blood

States that God and the Holy Spirit became God the Son

A demeaning of God's majesty

Undermines sin and the price Christ paid on the cross

Undermines God's righteous wrath and justice

Undermines the Bible, the authority and written word of God

The book's Jesus character rejects the label "Christian" for those he will "join in their transformation"


The first 2 are heretical and completely contrary to God's word, not to fundamentalism, not to legalism -- but contrary to God's word.