The Shack Author is Christian Universalist

[Marcia]

I am not putting this in the book thread because that is a fellowship thread and this would be seen as stirring things up. I posted a link there several weeks ago to my article on The Shack but couldn't really discuss it. (The thread is gone now).

Here is an article by James B. De Young, someone who has known William P. Young, the author of The Shack, for over 12 years, and he says that Young became a Universalist about 4 yrs. ago. Young does believe you need Christ to get into heaven but he believes eventually everyone will be reconciled and believe. The author calls this Chrisitan Universalism. (Don't get De Young and Young mixed up! The names are so close).

http://theshackreview.com/content/TheShackShorterReview.pdf

This can be seen in a subtle way in the book, which was something that bothered me (among other things).

De Young says that more universalism was originally in the book but that the editors took it out. The book was rejected by quite a few publishers at first (perhaps because of this?).

I have not finished reading the article yet but it's good so far.

 

[Marcia]

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

 

[mcdirector]

This is a book I decided not to read after reading/listening to the various reviews. I am surprised it's as popular as it is among groups that I would consider fundamental (or at least conservative). Of course, there are as many good reviews as bad ones.

Based on what I'd read about the book, I'm not surprised about the universalism.

 

[Marcia]

This is a book I decided not to read after reading/listening to the various reviews. I am surprised it's as popular as it is among groups that I would consider fundamental (or at least conservative). Of course, there are as many good reviews as bad ones.

Based on what I'd read about the book, I'm not surprised about the universalism.

After so many wrote on the BB Books thread that they read this and liked it, I was hoping they would come to this forum and at least learn this about the author.

I'm surprised no one has criticized me for putting this up, but maybe it's too soon. There are some really strong defenders of this book.

Betsy, you made a good decision not to read this book. You don't want the images of God he has in the book in your head. It's not just the universalism, but the flawed view of God's nature and of the Trinity that are disturbing.

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

I know a few who have read this book, they have generally seemed positive or neutral. What are the main problems with the view of God in the book? I have not read it and therefore have no particular opinion.

 

[annsni]

I know a few who have read this book, they have generally seemed positive or neutral. What are the main problems with the view of God in the book? I have not read it and therefore have no particular opinion.

Here's a review that I think is good by a man I respect:

http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php

It's a PDF.

Here's Mark Driscoll's view on The Shack and the Trinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y

 

[Matt Black]

Is he a Calvinist Universalist? Whilst I disagree with that soteriology, I can kind of understand how those who hold to TULIP Calvinism and struggle to reconcile that with a loving merciful God can end up going Universalist. Not saying I agree with then logic, but I can understand it.

 

[annsni]

Is he a Calvinist Universalist? Whilst I disagree with that soteriology, I can kind of understand how those who hold to TULIP Calvinism and struggle to reconcile that with a loving merciful God can end up going Universalist. Not saying I agree with then logic, but I can understand it.

I've never heard of a Calvinist universalist. Is there such a thing? I don't think that fits with the Calvinist viewpoint.

 

[Matt Black]

I know quite a few. They're Christians who want to believe in an omnipotent, but all-loving God. As I said, I can see the attraction, even if I believe they're mistaken. There seem to be three main types of Reformed Christians:

1. Predestinarian with Particular Atonement: ie: God can save everyone but wills that some are saved (with the implication that He wills some to be damned)

2. Universalist: ie: God can save everyone and indeed wills that all are saved. Tends to be held by those at the liberal end of the Reformed spectrum

3. Agnostic (as to who is saved): ie: God is omnipotent, but God is also love; the soteriology flowing from this is a bit of a mystery. Generally held by Reformed in academia

 

[donnA]

After so many wrote on the BB Books thread that they read this and liked it, I was hoping they would come to this forum and at least learn this about the author.

I'm surprised no one has criticized me for putting this up, but maybe it's too soon. There are some really strong defenders of this book.

Betsy, you made a good decision not to read this book. You don't want the images of God he has in the book in your head. It's not just the universalism, but the flawed view of God's nature and of the Trinity that are disturbing.

Someone at church gave me this book, they were undecided about it but over all liked it. I read about 3/4 of it, it's still sitting by the bed, probably won't be completed, unless I find time. I did not like it, but didn't know why. I can't buy God is a big fat black woman for one, God the mother? Jesus called God Father, He is called HE in the bible. This is a distorted view of God, it opens the door to view or call God by assorted nonbiblical names or representations. You can not change God to suit flawed human understanding.

 

[Marcia]

I know a few who have read this book, they have generally seemed positive or neutral. What are the main problems with the view of God in the book? I have not read it and therefore have no particular opinion.

Please read my article - the link is here
http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_TheShack.html

Here are the main problems as I list at the end of my article:
Portrays God the Father and the Holy Spirit in human form

Portrays God the Father and the Holy Spirit as female

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"

Sophia presented as a real person with divine powers

Statements reflecting problematic views of Paul Tillich

Implications of inclusivism_________End excerpt from Marcia's article

Of course, now I see the inclusivism is really his universalism.

It also explains some of the other problems, such as a lack of God's judgment & wrath on sin.

 

[Marcia]

Is he a Calvinist Universalist? Whilst I disagree with that soteriology, I can kind of understand how those who hold to TULIP Calvinism and struggle to reconcile that with a loving merciful God can end up going Universalist. Not saying I agree with then logic, but I can understand it.

I don't know. I am still reading the article by De Young but so far he does not say that Young is a calvinist universalist. Someone PM'd me and said this view of Young's is also called Universal Reconciliation.

 

[Marcia]

Here's an excellent article on the book by Norman Geisler (on someone's blog):
http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/934

 

[Matt Black]

Folks, we have to remember that it is just an allegory, not sound theology. I remember similar problems the best part of 20 years ago with Frank Peretti's books; many Christians found them inspiring but problems arose when some started treating them as the source of part at least of their theology.

 

[Marcia]

Folks, we have to remember that it is just an allegory, not sound theology. I remember similar problems the best part of 20 years ago with Frank Peretti's books; many Christians found them inspiring but problems arose when some started treating them as the source of part at least of their theology.

But Matt, the story is about God! The purpose of the story is not just to tell a good story but to communicate beliefs about God and other things to do with God. Therefore, what he says about God counts very much.

Here is what I wrote at the beginning of my article:

Note: Many will say this is fiction and therefore criticisms of Young's theology in this book are off-limits or irrelevant. But Young is a Christian who places God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as central characters in his book, The Shack. Why insert obvious lessons that Mack, the main character, is learning about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit if we are to assume that God in this book is fantasy or fiction? The characters who represent God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make speeches and give spiritual information and advice. Without this, there would not be a story. The fact this book has been a bestseller renders its views of God even more significant. No book presenting religious themes and characters should be immune from examination and, if necessary, criticism. Any reader is perfectly warranted by the book itself to critique any problematic theological content.

 

[Marcia]

Here's another good review of The Shack by an Australian named Paul Grimmond:

http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5395/

Just like Adam and Eve in the garden, we have thrown God away. As we have done so, it has become necessary to make our own decisions about right and wrong. What is the only basis that we have for making such decisions? It is the presence or absence of pain. So the existence of pain has become the problem that God must solve in order to be credible in the eyes of judgemental humanity. A key to The Shack's Christian appeal is that many of us now think this way too.

 

[LadyEagle]

I agree with you, Marcia. I was going to read the book because I had heard it was so wonderful but after hearing how God was portrayed in it, I decided not to waste the time or the money. I do not want false, anti-Biblical thoughts in my head about God. He is not a woman.

 

[Marcia]

I agree with you, Marcia. I was going to read the book because I had heard it was so wonderful but after hearing how God was portrayed in it, I decided not to waste the time or the money. I do not want false, anti-Biblical thoughts in my head about God. He is not a woman.

Good decision! :thumbs: I am still working on getting those images out of my head.

 

[donnA]

I agree with you also Marcia, and it does matter, it matters a lot.

 

[billwald]

What good is gender to a spirit?