I’ve had good friends tell me that I’m missing the point of the Shack. Maybe I am. But maybe, just maybe, they are. Maybe they are getting caught up in the emotion of a heart-wrenching story and are failing to notice the horrendous theology that under girds it. The authors claim that “at its core the book is one long Bible Study.” This isn’t an ordinary story book. It’s a book that seeks to transform people’s ideas about God. The fiction is merely a vehicle for the theology.
The Shack: “Honey, you asked me what Jesus did on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world” (192).
How do you get reconciled to God without the death of Jesus propitiating the wrath that should have been ours? This is a question I wish I would have pursued further with Paul Young. Since Paul denies that Christ died as a penalty for our sins, how can he believe in reconciliation? Romans 5:8-10 says,
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
How is it that the blood of Christ saves us from God’s wrath if he was not providing a Substitutionary atonement that bore wrath? We see in the text that we (Christians) were at one time, enemies of God. The universal declaration is that everyone is guilty at God’s court because of sin (Rom. 3:9). We are all sinners in need of forgiveness and a righteousness which we do not have (Romans 1:18-3:20). A person cannot be justified (declared righteous) by good works because no one can do them perfectly (Romans 3:20-21; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-11). When we were in the position of being objects of wrath, God brought about a reconciling work in His Son’s death (Rom 5:10). Because the death of Jesus was a sacrifice for sins (Rom. 3:24-24; 5:10; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:26; 10:12), those who believe in him are justified and reconciled to God (Rom. 3:22-26; 5:1; Gal. 3:24-26).
Because Paul Young denies the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, I don’t see how he can then claim reconciliation. No penal substitutionary atonement, no reconciliation. We (believers) have gone from being enemies to being in a reconciled relationship with God. This all based on the propitiatory death of Jesus the Messiah.
The Shack: Papa didn’t answer, only looked down at their hands. His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her. Tears were slowly making their way down her face, little pathways through the flour that dusted her cheeks.“Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark,” she stated softly and gently. “We were there together” (p95-96).
First, God the Father is invisible and has not been seen by anyone, except Jesus (John 6:46). Speaking hypothetically--If he were to take upon flesh we would not see scars in his wrist. The triune God did not take upon flesh, only the eternal Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, took upon himself a human nature which we call the incarnation (John 1:14). Paul has Papa saying, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood” (99). There are many who praise The Shack because they say they learn so much about the Trinity. Yet, this book will only cause more confusion because the book shows Papa having crucifixion scars. Would it be a problem for a pastor to pray Sunday morning in church, “Father, I thank you for being crucified on the cross for my sins”? It would be theologically wrong. The Father was not crucified. We could thank the Father for sending (John 5:23; Gal. 4:4-5) the Son to die on the cross for our sins (Rom. 5:6, 8; 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:3), that would be Biblical.
I plan on writing a series of articles on the controversial book, The Shack. I will be responding to the interview that I had with the author, Paul Young. You can listen to the interview locally (Burlington, Iowa) on KAYP at 89.9 FM airing 3-6-09 (6:00 am, 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm) and it will be archived here http://rock-life.com/KAYP.html .
Before I write a series of articles dealing with The Shack, I thought it would be helpful for you to see that not everyone is fond of the book. My responses will be largely a response to the interview that I had with the author, Paul Young.
My approach is that the book is a top-seller so we might as well be prepared to engage others with the truth of Scripture.
---REVIEWS---
One very insightful review of The Shack comes from a man that personally knows William P. Young. James B. DeYoung, is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary. Go to http://theshackreview.com/ click on the right hand side “Back of the Shack” or “Spurgeon Fellowship Journal Review”
Insight For Living (Chuck Swindoll) has posted a review written by Dr. Glenn R. Kreider. Dr. Glenn R. Kreider serves as a professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary where he received his Ph.D. in 2001. “But I cannot recommend this book. The reason is simple: the author’s portrayal of God is confusing at best and untrue at worst.” Kreider has two sections about, Confusion about Trinity and Confusion about Christ. He closes his article with, “This is a dangerous book. Its view of the Trinity is inadequate and its view of Christ is unorthodox. That is not good.” http://www.insight.org/site/PageServer?pagename=shack for more details http://www.insight.org/site/PageServer?pagename=shack_details#home
Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary has his own radion show (Albert Mohler Show). On 4-11-08 he addressed The Shack starting around 11.20 into the program. He states that, “This book includes undiluted heresy.” He also says, "It is intended, undoubtedly, as a way of trying to bring about some kind of redefinition or new understanding of the Christian faith…The main character says at one point that he now understands that everything he learned at seminary was basically all wrong." http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-04-11
If you liked The Shack--please email me explaining why you liked it. If you did not like The Shack--please email me explaining why you did not like it.
