Reply to
CJaKfOrEsT:
Iron sharpens Iron. If IM wrong in my assessment may God grant me the grace to be humble enough as to allow someone to speak into my life as to make me more Christ Like. Lets keep in the spirit of Grace and humality, towards each other,
I hope I become someday a great communicator to be able to convey my thoughts in such a way as to not let anyone feel that they are being attacked or their intelligence being maligned.
So anyway here we go.
I am going to attach my paper here below, but I am not going to post all 50 statements which were actually 65 on one reading. Due to the fact, for every statement that I post someone could jump on every statement and I would have to defend each one, supporting every position.
I would suppose that even the prophets of old dealt with the same thing while trying to warn of the comming judgment of God.
I am not a very good writer, and my inflection on paper always comes across as harsh or unfeeling, or unloving, but I am a loving and feeling person who cares very much for people and I try to warn but often the messenger is shot in the process. in my case stabbed in the back... often. such is life though.
CJaKfOrEsT:
In all due respect, you are making assumptions to my statements, and comming to conclusions that I have not made; or--- I may not be communicating myself well enough to get my thoughts out correctly. If that be the case IM sorry, I'll try and get better at this blog stuff.
I never justify hurting a child and at the same time demanding respect from them.
The child who is mistreated will stand before God and give account for His or Her lack of respect toward their parents, and at the same time the parents will stand before God and give account also.. but The Shack is Humanist, and God is not a Humanist and doe's demand righteousness from us, and obedience from us, God is not just waiting to judge us, but judgment IS going to come to HIS adversary's,
we can philosophize away his judgment, but it is still comming, no matter our parental raising, or circumstances.
The word says the Lord chastens those he Loves.
The shack puts it in a way as to get us to agree with the fact that God doesnt gleefully wait to bring judgment down on the disobedient.
You dont have to be a theologian to know that God does and will, and If you are a child of God then you too will be chastened because he Loves us and wants us to be a bride without spot or blemish.
the shack wrongly portrays God on the whole chapters diatribe to how God deals with HIS children. titled "here come da judge"
Anyway here is my paper.
THE SHACK
After reading “The Shack” I have thought hard about what to really say about it.
I do have a lot to say but for the sake of time and effort on my part I will be as brief as possible, limiting my opinions to a basic opinion and then a limited number of theological points that I could not ignore or for that matter any Christ loving individual who contends for the faith would need to mention.
First, I found that the story in itself was gripping and a page turner.
You just wanted to know what was going to happen next.
To be honest who wouldn’t want to speak to God face to face, especially since someone like Mack had a lot of questions to ask.
The story was written in such a way as to draw you into the emotions of a parent losing a child and the situation was invented to make sure you couldn’t bring judgment on Mack for leaving his daughter alone at the picnic table; he was busy saving the life of another child.
His healing process in the book was good, especially his needing to forgive his daughters killer, and putting upon himself Christ’s nature in doing so. Yet it was threaded with things that aren’t good, like on page 227 God says. “Just say it out loud. “There is power in what my children declare.” What? Is he WOF?
Another good statement was found on page 97: “I am God. I am who I am. And unlike you, my wings can’t be clipped.”
Unfortunately this statement doesn’t hold true in the book, he makes a statement then proceeds to bring God down to a human level, of which I will give an example shortly.
During my reading of this book I found at my first attempt more than 50 statements that either misrepresent who God is, or misrepresent his word by twisting meanings of conceptual teachings found in the bible or even blatant lies about who God is, or His character and nature.
I am going to give my 5 top reasons why I believe that “The Shack” is a heretical book.
Reason #1. This will be pertaining to my previous statement about Page 97 stating God being who he is.
The statement is good, but then in the entirety of the book, God is represented other than he really is. For example: Chapter 11 titled “Here come Da Judge”
Mack is put through an emotional roller coaster, then ultimately we, by Paul Young’s writing prowess, on pages 162- 163 Mack is forced to choose two of his children that he must judge to hell, thus putting us in the same position concerning our own children, and in the place of God. Ultimately Mack refuses to do it, bringing home the point that of course he couldn’t, because he loves his children too much to do such a horrendous thing, and is willing to take their place thus implying that Jesus did the same for us. And causing us to assume the same for God that he loves us so much as to never send any of his children to hell. Thus bring God down to our level, and in another part of the book he implies that God limits himself, for whatever reason, but in a statement in the book Mack is told that God likes surprises, which is also a human trait not a God trait.
This emotional story gets your mind to misrepresent who God is and how the atonement is supposed to work. The Gospel is misrepresented in this story and how God feels about sin and judgment.
Psalm 50:21 these things you have done and I kept silent, you thought I was all together like you but I will rebuke you and set them in order before your eyes.
Reason #2. Page 169 God speaking “Mackenzie, judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right.”
Why do I have a problem about this statement?, because in another statement in the book on pages 205-207 were forced to bring our minds to believe in a concept of expectations versus a relationship, changing who the God of the bible is, and what he requires of us.
On page 206 it states: “the idea behind expectations requires that someone does not know the future or outcome and is trying to control behavior to get the desired result. Humans try to control behavior largely through expectations. I know you and everything about you. Why would I have an expectation other than what I already know? That would be foolish. And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me”.
First, he is calling God a fool in this statement, because for example, God does know the future, and did have expectations for his people, King Saul’s example, was “God” not grieved about Saul, yet he already knew Saul’s disobedience would take place, and regretted making Saul King over Israel.
Was not God grieved about the human race and had Noah build an Ark, or grieved with Israel to the point to giving Moses the opportunity to become the father of the nations, of which Moses interceded for them. Does not God have requirements and expectations from all of us? Including his Son Jesus, who when after getting baptized God in a audible voice this is my son whom I am greatly pleased. How can God be pleased about something unless he had an expectation based on an act of obedience? Thus, the statement made to John the Baptist stating that he had to do this thing to fulfill the law.
Rule of first mention. Genesis 4:7 if you do well will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well sin lies at the door and its desire if for you but you should rule over it.
Notice that here the scripture is clear about expectations, yet in “The Shack” we’re forced to think of a God who knows everything which is true but apply it to expectations which is an incorrect thinking pattern.
The bible is full of IF’s would imply an expectation on God’s part from HIS servants.
Side note; God refers to himself as Mack’s servant. That is a big problem, read Isaiah 6 or consider the bema seat of Christ, who is serving who anyway?
Reason #3. Pages 118-120.
This is probably one of the grossest misconceptions of how God feels about sin.
But on page 120 is says this: “I’m not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it: it’s my joy to cure it.”
Ok, this statement has only a fragment of truth in it, that is, it’s not my purpose to punish it. Meaning sin. True, God’s purpose is not to punish sin, but to punish sin is in his character. And is backed up in His word.
Also, to imply to “cure it” gives the reader the impression that sin is a sickness that we have no responsibility for, like getting cancer. Aren’t we called to repentance, and then he will heal our land.
It would require an entire ream of paper to write down every scripture and conceptual thought gleaned from scripture to show how God feels about sin and his righteous requirements set before His people who are called by His name.
Mack uses statements like this: “weren’t you always running around killing people in the Bible? You just don’t seem to fit the bill.”
Then God says: “I am what I am. I’m not trying to fit anyone’s bill.”
I’m not asking you to believe anything, but I will tell you that you’re going to find this day a lot easier if you simply accept what is, instead of trying to fit in into your preconceived notions.”
“But if you are God, aren’t you the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?
Now this next statement is what throws the reader into a mind set to get the desired result when he “the writer” is trying to bring his point home.
“Honestly, don’t you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?
Then God’s statement: “I’m not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it: it’s my joy to cure it.”
Now if you’re a humanist these statements would make you feel good about who God is, unfortunately for unrepentant sinners, God is not a humanist and He is going to judge sin and cast into the lake of fire all his adversaries.
Jesus said himself that the Holy Spirit was going to come and bring to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
It’s not a sickness but a behavior problem, it’s an obedience problem.
By his statements “I’m not who you think I am, or, I am what I am, I’m not trying to fit anyone’s bill”
These statements if your mind is unguarded will allow you to begin to doubt God’s written word, since earlier in the book by Mack’s own admission, his thoughts and perceptions of God were based on bible school, and the bible.
Reason #4: Page 182; Jesus speaking, “Who said anything about being a
Christian? I’m not a Christian.”
Then Mack states, “Does that mean that all roads will lead to you?”
“Jesus states, not at all but then says; “What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”
This apparently means Jesus will travel any road to join them in their self-transformation.
Dr. James B. DeYounge, ThD., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary, states: “I have known the author and Young and I and our families have interacted.. Paul (Young) and I belonged to a Christian “think tank” of sorts and we conversed about many theological issues. About 4 years ago Paul embraced Christian universalism and has defended this on several occasions.
This book promotes universal Reconciliation.
Also Christ states in the shack “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa/elousia and Sarayu.”
But is Jesus only the best way? The words best way are ever present, “the best way to eat pancakes is with maple syrup” Yet that is not the only way to eat them. “The best way to Oregon from California is the I-5 highway.” Yet it’s not the only way to Oregon.” This “best way” teaching is consistent with other inter-spirituality concepts in the book.
Reason #5: The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
Pages 65-66, in seminary he 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, It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated
westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially in expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?
Let’s tackle his statements;
The bible is God –breathed. Yes its true many men put pen to paper, but none the less The Holy Spirit infused their work with God’s words.
Men of God were writing God’s message from Genesis to Revelation.
Closing statements:
On his boat ride with sarayu, he knew he was in her presence because he could feel the tingling down his spine. Pg 195
In chapter 15 “the festival of friends” Pg 216
When he meets his father he feels euphoric.
“Suddenly to their right, from out of the darkness emerged Jesus, and Pandemonium broke out.
Bringing my thoughts to a close I must first tackle this word Pandemonium.
“a state of utter confusion and uproar, pandaemonium the name for the capital of hell coined by John Milton, its French/Greek ; pan meaning all, and daimon meaning demon.
“You could say all demons.”
Pandemonism: worship of demons, or genii, localized in all sorts of natural phenomena.
There are some pragmatic teachers including the likes of John Kilpatrick, who would claim the power of God’s presence by a feeling or a manifestation that can’t be verified by scripture.
During one of John’s church services he stated that we need more Pandemonium, we need more of God.
Now I can’t prove this but the author of this book probably has been practicing a spirituality that brings him to an altered state of consciousness, I would love to have a talk with him and discuss with him his methods of prayer, “Contemplative” which would include manifestations.
I think of the Kundalini awakening so named by the Hindu religion, but this technique is also practiced by New Age believers, The Occult and Contemplatives.
This is going to bring people to doubt God’s word by the mere presence of a manifestation, (read the beautiful side of evil) I have heard preachers who promote this stuff say things like, don’t put God in a box, or don’t limit God. When we start to doubt someone’s teachings aren’t we thinking of a scripture or thought gleaned right out of God’s word?
Don’t we always compare what people teach by scripture, to test, to judge, to reprove, to rebuke? Yet they know what they are about to say will not line up with God’s written word so they say before hand don’t put God in a box. Or worse yet they call those who use scripture as their plum line those old Pharisees. “No one wants to be a Pharisee, do they?”
The word says; Test the spirits, lest we be led astray. Simon the sorcerer was an example of someone who historically was reported to obtain secret knowledge. Most scholars will agree that was the beginning of Gnostic teachings that the disciples had to contend with.
A.W. Tozer said: “wrong ideas about God are not only the fountain from which the polluted waters of idolatry flow; they are themselves idolatrous. The idolater simply imagines things about God and acts as if they were true.”
“The Shack” is a book that promotes a Universal Reconciliation.
Pantheistic in nature and character, “the ground of all being” A God that does not judge sin and we should not judge sin either, even in ourselves.
Sin isn’t even called sin but disappointment.
The Jesus portrayed in the book is the best way compared to others, and no matter what path your on Jesus will meet you there, who is never disappointed in his people and never expects anything from us, just relationship, whatever that means.
Paul Young’s god is not the God of the bible.
Unless this book is used for teaching purposes, to teach about detecting heresy, or a class on discernment, I would never recommend this book to anybody, especially those who are not grounded in their faith and could be in danger of spiritual shipwreck.
Eph 4:11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
1Tim 1:18-20
18 This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to thee, that by them thou mayest war the good warfare;
19 holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith:
20 of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.
By Howard Radcliffe.
