Fallen and Flawed

The Craptastic Book That Won’t Go Away

Let me be vulnerable for a moment. 

It breaks my heart every time I hear professing Christians declare their love for William P. Young’s The Shack.

It breaks my heart because they do not declare that same love for the Bible… 

Neither do they declare a jealous regard for the New Testament…

Or even a zealous devotion to a book of the Bible like Isaiah, the Gospel of John or 2 Peter.

Yet, they go on and on over the wild speculations of a rogue Christian and how he’s helped them birth a new relationship with God.

Never mind Young’s main character’s wicked, blasphemous rants against a holy and just god. Never mind Young’s vision of God as an obese black woman. Never mind Young’s smug indifference to theological precision.

Here’s the Problem

The Shack appeals to our native narcissim. We want God on our terms. We want God to accomodate us. To make us feel welcome. We want him to present himself in a way that we can stomach. To justify our emotions like anger, bitterness and resentment.     

I can only think that those who don’t read the Bible but nurse a love affair with The Shack do so for one reason: They are afraid the Bible will confront and contradict them.

They are right. It will. As it should.

Echoing Archie’s concern over guidance, read The Shack if you must. But don’t put much stock in it. Put stock into the Word of God. Because in a year, hopefully, The Shack will be forgotten once the next craptastic feel-good book emerges.

On the other hand, the Bible will go on for the next 1,000.

Here’s the Deal

The Bible is a story about our natural and chronic guilt and rejection of a loving and holy God and his willful act to intercept our headlong dive into sin, judgment and destruction we justly deserve.

It’s a story of God giving us his son, Jesus Christ, to live and die for us as a ransom for the monster debt we owe God. Naturally, the Bible is going to sting us.

If it doesn’t, we can only believe it is stupid. Or we are numb, cold or dead.    

What Do You Think?

I sometimes wonder whether the threat to Christianity is greater on the inside than it is on the outside. The Pharisees were Jesus’ rivals…not the Sadducees. And 2 Peter and Jude are entire books about false teachers. The Shack falls into that category.

What do you think? Am I curmudgeon? Or do I have a legit beef here? Love to hear what you think.

Tags: Bible, God, Shack

Quick Survey: How Do You Read?

I need your help. 

Yesterday I was intrigued by  Tony Reinke’s Reading Digest.

Tony listed all the books he’s completed. The ones he’s currently reading. And the one’s he’s going to read in the future. 

What I found unbelievable was that he was in the middle of so many books. Six to be exact.

It got me thinking. 

My own style of reading is a lot like a conveyor belt. Single file, one at a time.

Pencil in hand, I tend to bull rush through books this way. In fact, that’s exactly how I got in the habit of reading some books in two hours.

Fact is, I can’t stand the thought of putting an unfinished book down and picking up the next. In this respect, I’m very single-minded.

[Not like you care, but I eat the same way: Meat first. Mashed potatoes next. Green beans follow. Then dessert. Reflective of some psychological hang up, I'm sure.]

The Whole Point Behind This Post

So, I’m curious, how do you read:  Are you a narrow, one-book-at-a-time reader? Or do you prefer a wide, sprawling diet of books? Or a combination of the two? 

Also, tell me why you think you read this way. I’m very interested in what makes you tick.

Tags: Reading

My Wickedly Late Guide to William P. Young’s Heretical Book The Shack

Bucky Fuller: Mentor to Young?

 

*An open letter to anyone who thinks The Shack is a good book.*

You’re not going to like me for this. For 4 good reasons:

1. It’s been over a year and a half since The Shack has been published. Better reviews are available. [I'm a terribly slow reader.]

2. I only read two-thirds of the book.

3. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

4. I think you’re not using your brain when you say it’s a good book. 

Now, before you hit the Back button, let me explain. 

What your over-zealous response to this book indicates to me is an obvious lack of critical thinking, faith or spiritual discernment. 

How Can I Say That? 

Well, any careful reader will see Young’s got a theological ax to grind. And he wants to create God in his own image. Which is bad.

How you missed this, I don’t know. 

So, let me spell out to you what Young did right with this book before I go onto explain where he went really, really wrong.  

Orthodox Storytelling

Young’s use of suspense, dialog and conflict are spot on. All three orthodox ways to thicken the plot. Which he does masterfully. But that’s where his orthodoxy stops. 

What follows in the 240 odd pages is a bizarre, corny, heretical fantasy.  

The Problem with the Eugene Peterson Endorsement 

Eugene Peterson of The Message Bible fame compares The Shack to John Bunyan’s classic The Pilgrim’s Progress.

A horribly uneducated comparison.  

Any casual read of Bunyan will see its steeped in Scripture. You can’t go two or three sentences without a direct quote from the Bible. Or at least an echo of the Bible. 

Young, on the other hand, takes an undeniable and fatal departure from the Bible. 

Downplays Revelation

Throughout The Shack Young consistently disparages Scripture at the expense of personal experience. He ignores the beauty, power, transmission and sufficiency of the Bible–and substitutes his own speculations. 

However, without Scripture as our unwavering rule we are subject to every whim. Including fantasies like The Shack.

Perverts the Trinity

Throughout The Shack Young fails to make a distinction between God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Some would argue, and I agree, he entertains the heresy modalism.

Modalism says God is one person who works in three different modes. Young goes as far as to say that God was even on the cross with Jesus. 

Wrong. Dead wrong. 

It was Jesus who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born to a virgin, crucified by Pilate, buried in a tomb and raised from the dead. Not God the Father. 

Muddies Salvation 

Young obscures what the Gospel makes crystal clear– Jesus Christ is the one and the only way to be reconciled to the Father. 

In fact, on page 120 Papa says:

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” 

While sin is a punishment, how can you reconcile that statement with Jesus’ death on the cross? The Bible makes it very clear that on the cross Jesus paid the penalty for our sin.

Distorts the Identity of God  

No where in the Bible are we given permission to view God as a woman. However, Young portrays God as a big, black woman named “Papa.” 

Wait. 3 things dreadfully wrong here.

1. Jesus said God is a spirit. That means God doesn’t have a body.

2. Exodus 20:4 says not to make idols out of wood, stone or flesh.

3. And Romans 1:25 says we’ve “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”

I don’t know about you, but a big, black woman named “Papa” sounds a lot like a creature to me.

Ignores Obvious Hierarchy 

Young again departs from Scripture with his idea of the Trinity–and the damage he thinks hierarchy causes to a relationship.   

On numerous occasions Jesus of the Bible said, the Father sent me, I only say what the Father tells me and I only do what the Father tells me to do. An obvious submission of one person to the other.  

Furthermore, out of the teaching of hierarchy in the Trinity we get the reason why children should obey their parents, wives respect their husbands, Christians submit to their pastors and citizens honor government officials. 

Drop the Trinitarian teaching and you get disobedience, chaos and anarchy. Dangerous stuff. 

Downplays the Presence of the Glory of God

This is where I think Young gets really stupid.

In Mack, the main character, we find a man who can use foul language with God, and even snap in anger at God. 

What’s obvious is that Mack is not in the presence of a being who is far superior to him. We have no sense of awe for Papa. Gone is the majesty and supremacy clearly defined in Scripture by such passages as Revelation 4:10-11.

The One Question You Must Ask Yourself

Now, the one question you should be asking yourself instead of charging roughshod with praise for Young is this: Where does Young get his information?

I have an idea.

His ideas are informed by men like Buckminster Fuller, Paul Tournier and Jacques Ellul–men he quoted at the start of three of his chapters–all unorthodox universalists.

To boot, Ellul was a Christian Anarchist, which probably explains where Young adopted the subversive quality of The Shack. 

Speculations of a Rogue Christian

What the book amounts to is a bizarre, corny fantasy–equivalent to speculative science fiction.   

In fact, Young joins a group of notable authors who’ve carved out Christianity, God, spirituality and Jesus in their own image: James Redfield’s The Celestine Prophecies, Richard Bach’s Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret and Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth. 

And like these authors, Young expects us to take his subjective speculations as absolute truth–over and above the objective truth found in the Bible. 

If Young is involved in personal ideas of God that undermine Scripture, promotes new revelation and leads believers astray…who are you going to listen to? 

I’ll be happy when this book goes away.

Tags: Fiction, God, Papa, Scripture, Shack, Young