“The Shack” the Movie

I have read a few reviews of “The Shack.” Some were positive, and some were negative. I did go and see it, because I wanted to see how close the movie would be to the book and if there would be a reason to write a review. This will not be an extensive review. Anything I could say about the movie is already in my review of the book, which can be found here. The book has now sold over twenty million copies.

Not very far into the movie, it became obvious that it was going in the same direction as the book in that it contained much of the same unbiblical nonsense. The only good thing I have to say about the movie is that it did not contain as much heresy as the book, primarily because it is never possible to include as much in a movie as in a book. It would make the movie oppressively long to do so.

That having been said, I must point out that the movie is, in reality, much more dangerous than the book. I say this because a movie can be used very effectively to manipulate the emotions. Some people believe that anything that elicits emotion is effective in bringing people to God. This is, of course, nonsense. A skilled moviemaker or playwright could produce something that could play with the emotions and make the viewer feel good about pretty much anything. Warm fuzzy feelings do not determine truth. Truth stands on its own, regardless of what someone “feels” about it. Since “The Shack” is about the “great sadness” of losing a little daughter to a kidnapper and murderer, it certainly tugs at the heartstrings.

Regardless of the skill of a writer or moviemaker, truth cannot be manufactured from falsehood. William Paul Young (author of The Shack) has written a new book, Lies We Believe about God. If anyone had any doubt about the unbiblical positions he implied strongly in The Shack, this book removes all doubt, in that he comes right out and admits to those positions. A short review of this book is found here.

I would not advise anyone to see the movie who does not know the Scriptures well enough to discern truth from error. My wife Janet made a very short statement that pretty much summarizes the movie:  "God is love, and sin doesn't matter." It would be difficult to be much more profound than that.

I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS, BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

There are many today who approach the Bible from quite a different perspective than those of us who grew up believing it to be the infallible Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice. The continuing questions about its accuracy and reliability can be very frustrating when it seems so obvious that the Bible is not something to be questioned. However, we live in an era when many, even in the church, are so consumed with pop psychology and political correctness that they simply cannot submit to the simple, straightforward teaching of the Word of God. To some, it has become all about “what it means to me,” “how I feel about it,” and “does it make me comfortable?”

Often, the Scriptures are used to teach the very opposite of what they actually say. This is done by clever, sometimes scholarly-sounding manipulation of words, often by self-appointed experts with little knowledge of the Bible, in order to make a passage of Scripture say other than what it actually says. The Bible warns against such misapplication of truth. “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16, NASB). When confronted with something in the Scriptures that may be hard to understand or hard for man’s ego to accept, there are always those who are willing to distort the clear meaning or wrest it from its context to make it say what is more comfortable.

The Scriptures say that there are some who are “willingly ignorant” of the truth (2 Peter 3:5, KJV) or that they “deliberately overlook” the facts (ESV). In the NKJV, it says they “willfully forget.” The NASB says it “escapes their notice.” No matter how it is said, it is quite clear that some simply choose to ignore the truth of Scripture, and become as one teacher said, “dumb on purpose,” and they do so at their own peril.

One thing we hear frequently today is the title of this article: “I know what it says, but what does it mean?” Such a question, at best, borders on the ridiculous. I remember hearing Ken Ham, the creationist speaker, respond to this by saying, “If you come to a big red sign that says S-T-O-P, it wouldn’t make any sense to say, ‘I know what it says, but what does it mean?’ I’m not sure it can mean anything if it doesn’t say anything.” Mr. Ham was exactly correct.

A common practice is to use the Scriptures to justify pre-conceived beliefs. For example, if someone wants to believe that God did not really create the universe and all that is in it in six days, then it is a simple matter to reinterpret the Bible and make it say what is desired. For example, if such a Bible actually existed, the “Politically Correct Self-Esteem Version” (PCSEV) might say, “In several million years the Lord allowed the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them to come into being.” This would indicate that there was no specific, direct creative act by our omnipotent God, but instead, there is plenty of room for evolution and all of the other human opinion that so often comes into play when men try to tell God what He means.

What does Bible actually say? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

Sin is an unpopular issue in today’s culture. The idea that there is a standard of which we all fall short is not at all politically correct. As a result, we get self-serving, popular opinions and reinterpretations of the Scriptures, such as, “All have made mistakes and can find relationship with God difficult unless they work hard to find a proper level of self-esteem.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

The biblical teaching of the penalty of sin is likewise unpopular. Would God really hold people accountable and bring judgment on them because of sin? Isn’t He a God of love? Doesn’t the word “love” completely define the very essence of who and what God is? In light of this, the Bible ought to say, “The cost of making mistakes is independence from God, but the reward of seeking a relationship with God is personal comfort and high self-esteem.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

And of course there’s this business of salvation. Isn’t it kind of a put-down of modern humanity to say there is need of a savior because of our sin, and to make it more humiliating, there is nothing we can do about it in our own strength? Aren’t we better than that? Won’t God accept our efforts on our own behalf? So we arrive at a new interpretation of Romans 10:9. “If you confess with your mouth your own deity, and believe in your heart that you are truly God, you will find yourself at one with nature and your own self-esteem.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

What about this stuff about the sovereignty of God in all areas, including salvation? Doesn’t such a doctrine violate the “free will” of man? Does it not make man totally powerless and give God much too high a standing? Does it not reduce man a mere puppet to be manipulated by God? A new approach to this doctrine is as easy as rewording the Scripture to say what feels good. “When the people heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying themselves; and as many as believed and sought a relationship with God were, as a consequence, appointed to eternal life.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

Another very unpopular teaching is that there are “rules” for Christians to follow. After all, “I am free in Christ.” It almost seems as if some would use The Shack as their Bible. A nice, convenient, comfortable rewording of the Scripture might say, “If you love me, and yourselves, you will seek a relationship with me (unless of course you find a relationship with me uncomfortable and not to your liking).”

But what does the Bible actually say? "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

We live in a day in which the value and even the definition of marriage has been undermined. The biblical view of “one man and one woman for life” has been replaced by “any two (or sometimes more) people together for as long as they feel like staying together.” So it would be easy for someone to re-write the Bible to say, “Persons, love your significant others, at least while you feel like staying together.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

Even though the simple matter of church attendance is quite clear in the Scriptures, it is not necessarily popular among professing Christians today. Some feel they can worship God in their own way – in the mountains, at the beach, etc. After all, “the weekend is mine, and I need to relax after a hard week at work. And besides, I don’t like the music, and I don’t like the pastor’s annoying preaching style. I would rather go where people will listen to my opinion instead of my having to listen to a sermon from the Bible.” It is almost as if some believe the Bible says, “Going to church can be a good thing, but only if it makes you feel comfortable and gives you what you want to hear, which will encourage you, and all the more as you realize how important it is to have your needs met.”

But what does the Bible actually say? “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:25, NASB). That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

It would be quite easy to think of many more examples, but there is really no necessity. Anything in the Scriptures that people don’t like can be dismissed through twisting the words and meaning to make it say what is desired. The Bible tells us that when people refuse sound doctrine, they will seek out teachers who will twist the Scriptures for them. ^“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NASB).

We need to take a proper approach to the study of the Scriptures, realizing that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. This can be summarized as follows:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise” (Dr. D.L. Cooper).

This has been restated as follows:

1. If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.

2. If the literal sense makes NO sense, seek another sense until it makes good sense.

3. If the literal sense seems to make good sense, but appears to be in contradiction to other parts of the Word, use cross-references, check original Hebrew or Greek, check context, tenses of words, arrangement of contradictory words and see other translations.

www.gnbcbible.com

These are good guidelines. As we study the Scriptures, our best approach is, “That’s what it says. That’s what it means.” What’s so hard about that? We either believe what God has said or we choose to let our opinions rule, which is a very dangerous way to interpret and understand the Bible.

The Emerging Church

Several months ago, someone asked if I would write a post about the emerging church, also called “the emergent movement.” My firsthand knowledge of this subject is limited, so I did some research before attempting to write about it.

My first observation is that clearly identifying and defining the emerging church is something like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. There seems to be no clear-cut statement of doctrine and no real definition of what the emerging church is. The movement appears to be quite fluid and changeable. The best definition that can be given is that there is no real definition. It is difficult to define that which allows God to be anything we feel like making Him. This non-definable characteristic is symptomatic of the “post-modern” era in which we live and the efforts to create a “post-modern” church to “engage the culture.” Some even contend that the emerging church is fading away and will no longer exist by the time it can be defined. See the article, “Farewell Emerging Church, 1989-2010.”

It appears there are a number of common threads that run through the different variations of the emerging church. A short review cannot even begin to scratch the surface, but I have put into writing a brief summary of a few of these. Some of them almost seem contradictory, but even that fits with the elusive definition.

It looks as if there is a desire to reverse the Reformation and to go back into the mysticism, traditions, and doctrines that ultimately caused the Reformation. Not the least of these is a revival of the "Eucharist" and the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” which would have us believe that the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was really insufficient to save us, and it therefore must be replaced by a continual offering of the actual body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. This is clearly refuted by the teaching of Scripture. “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:10-12, NASB). Although this passage was obviously written concerning the Old Testament priests and sacrifices, it has a very valid application to that which was yet future at the time – the mass. The Reformation took place for many reasons, not the least of which was the doctrine of justification by faith alone, apart from good works, on the basis of the finished work of Christ, as presented so clearly in the Scriptures. See the video “Emerging Church: The Road to Rome” by Roger Oakland.

The emerging church is a response to our "post-modern" culture. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the nature of the culture, but there is a huge difference between that and conforming to the culture. Culture should not be allowed to dictate doctrine and practice to the church. The website gotquestions.org offers the following: “Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of ‘cold, hard fact’ in favor of ‘warm, fuzzy subjectivity.’ The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way. The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking — it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture … the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology.”

Because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. Once truth is considered to be relative rather than absolute, there can be no sound doctrine, because everything is interpreted according to individual feelings and opinions rather that according to God's holy, unchangeable Word. Some have variously described the doctrine of the emerging church as “absence of the cross,” “no real reference to sin or the need of redemption,” “a move away from theology to a ‘fix the world’ philosophy,” “less theological and more relational emphasis,” etc. (Taken from personal interviews).

After doing some reading on the emerging church, I realized that I had already read and reviewed a book that could serve as a manifesto or a “Bible” for the emergent movement, The Shack, by William Paul Young. As I looked further, I quickly discovered that the connection between the emerging church and The Shack had already been made by many writers.

An article entitled “The Shack’s Cool God,” by David Cloud of Fundamental Baptist Information Service, gives a great deal of insight into the relationship between The Shack and the emerging church. Following are some quotes from that article:

“The emerging church loves to tamper with traditional Bible doctrine and there is no fear of God for doing so!”

“The Shack is about redefining God. Young has said that the book is for those with ‘a longing that God is as kind and loving as we wish he was’ … What he is referring to is the desire on the part of the natural man for a God who loves ‘unconditionally’ and does not require obedience, does not require repentance, does not judge sin, and does not make men feel guilty for what they do.”

“Young’s god is the god of the emerging church. He is cool, loves rock & roll, is non-judgmental, does not exercise wrath toward sin, does not send unbelievers to an eternal fiery hell, does not require repentance and the new birth, puts no obligations on people, doesn’t like traditional Bible churches, does not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and does not mind if the early chapters of the Bible are interpreted as ‘myth.’”

“...The Shack’s god is suspiciously similar to the one described in the books of the more liberal branch of the emerging church …”

“…To believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and the sole authority for faith and practice is not to ‘put God in a box.’ It is to honor God by receiving the Scripture for what it claims to be and what it has proven itself to be … To reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God is to launch out upon the stormy waters of subjective mysticism. It allows man to be his own authority and to live as he pleases, which is an objective of both the New Age movement and the emerging church.”

“What is happening is that people who don’t like Bible Christianity, don’t want to obey the Bible, don’t want to feel guilty for their sin, and have rejected the ‘angry’ God of Scripture, are responding enthusiastically to the man-made idol presented in The Shack.”

“Miracles do not prove that something is of God. There is one that the Bible calls ‘the god of this world’ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and he can do miracles and answer prayers … Miracles are not the proof of the truth; the Bible alone is the proof.”

Roger Oakland, author of Faith Undone, said, “For nearly two thousand years, most professing Christians have seen the Bible as the foundation for the Christian faith. The overall view at the Rethink Conference, however, is that Christianity, as we have known it, has run its course and must be replaced…Speakers insisted that Christianity must be re-thought and re-invented if the name of Jesus Christ is going to survive here on planet earth.” (“My Trip to the Rethink Conference,” by Roger Oakland.)

I could write more, but suffice it to say that there have been many good articles and a number of books written concerning the emerging church, and I really have little to add to those. Roger Oakland's website, "Understand the Times," has a number of helpful articles on the emerging church. In addition to the many resources on his website, he has written an excellent book on the subject entitled Faith Undone. Interviews with John MacArthur about the emerging church are found here and here.

The Scriptures are full of warnings and instructions relative to the importance of avoiding false doctrine while preaching and teaching sound doctrine. The standard by which we should measure any church is the standard of truth, based on the Word of God.

“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Timothy 6:3-5, NASB).

“…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:2-4, NASB).

“…holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9, NASB).

“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1).

Addition to My Review of "The Shack"

Over a year ago, I wrote a review of the very popular book, The Shack. Since that time, the book continues to be widely read among Christians and continues to deceive many people with false doctrine. Recently, I realized I had left out one of the most important points I should have made, so I revised my review and included the following in the section, "An Unbiblical View of Salvation." (Note: My complete review is found here.)

On page 110, “Jesus” makes a statement that is nothing short of heresy. He says, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa (God the Father) or Sarayu (The Holy Spirit).” What? Jesus says he is the “best” way to God, thereby implying that there are other ways. Such a statement as this is by itself enough to relegate this book to the trash can. The real Jesus of the Bible would never have said such a thing. Instead, He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 16:6, NASB). Notice the use of the word “the” instead of “a” or “the best.” Reducing Jesus to “a” way to God or “the best” way to God robs Him of His deity, His glory, and the value of His redemptive work.

Jesus also said, “…unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24, NASB). There is no wiggle room in that statement. Jesus did not give people freedom to "sort of" believe in Him but to also make their own way. He is the way. He is the only way. It doesn’t make any difference what anyone thinks or feels about it. If a person believes he can get to God in any other way besides through the Lord Jesus Christ, he is very badly fooled. This truth is further underscored in the Book of Acts. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12, NASB).

It’s Not About Me

A very popular, modern method of “Bible study” is for the participants to sit around in a circle and discuss a verse or short passage, chosen by the group “facilitator.” (Notice the absence of the word “teacher.”) Each member of the group takes his or her turn telling “what I feel this verse means to me.” All opinions are acceptable, as long as the individuals offering the opinions are “sincere.”

Such a method of “study” takes the emphasis off the objective truth of Scripture and places it instead on the subjective feelings and perceptions of the individual. In reality, God does not care what the passage “means to me.” What is most important is what it actually says. After we understand what it says, then we may need to work at determining what it actually means. A little secret here – unless there is figurative language, such as an obvious metaphor (“This is my body.”), there is no reason to look beyond what it says to determine what it means. Of course, we may need to do a little digging to determine the literal meanings of the words, but discovering nuggets of truth in the Word is worth the effort.

There is far too much focus today on “how I feel” and “what I think” and far too little focus on truth. I recently saw an online video in which the topic of discussion was the book, The Shack. (See my review of The Shack here.) You can see part one of this video here, and part two here. The basic thrust of the video was that Christians need to quit worrying so much about doctrinal correctness and realize that if a number of people are encouraged by such a book, it is clearly valuable, and it is wrong to criticize it. This is obvious foolishness, because the objective truth of God’s Word always trumps what any of us think or feel about it.

^“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NASB). “But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1, NASB).

For a short video on this topic, go here. For John MacArthur's excellent article on this topic, go here.

A Review of "The Shack" by Ron Livesay

On occasion, a new book bursts on the scene and takes a large part of the Christian community by storm. The Shack, by William Paul Young, is such a book. There are currently over five million copies of the book in print. Many churches, Christian schools, youth groups, etc. are using it as a Bible study resource, and in some cases, it is supplanting the Bible as the source of wisdom about the nature of God and His desires for man.

Today we do not need more human wisdom, new ways of looking at truth, or new truth, “…because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25, NASB). What is desperately needed is the preaching of the old-time Gospel, a message that has never changed. The idea that we need more “relevance” is simply wrong. There is nothing more relevant than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Watering down and changing the Gospel message in order to be “relevant” to reach a new generation will result in no one really being reached and many false converts being made.

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (I Corinthians 1:21-24, NASB).

There is nothing of greater importance when evaluating books of human authorship than to recognize the supremacy of the Word of God in all matters. If the Scriptures are ignored or denigrated in any way, the value of the book doing so is immediately called into question. The Word of God is the standard by which all other things are measured. Those things that are found wanting should be ignored, and if they are doing harm, they should be opposed.

While I had heard of The Shack and had even skimmed through a couple of reviews of it, I decided to withhold judgment until I had read it for myself and then to write my own review. I further determined not to base my review on anyone else’s review but to read the book and come to conclusions based on Scripture. In reality, it does not matter what I think of the book or what anyone else thinks of the book. What matters is how the book stacks up to the truth of the Word of God.

The story is about a man named Mack and his struggle with the fact that his young daughter, Missy, was kidnapped and brutally murdered. His continued experience with “The Great Sadness” consumed his life, damaged his family, and prevented him from moving on with any level of normalcy. One day, he received a note in his mailbox, presumably from God. His reason for believing it might be from God was that the note was signed “Papa,” which was Mack’s wife Nan’s pet name for God. The note invited Mack to visit the shack in the wilderness where evidence of Missy’s murder was found four years earlier, although her body was never found. Against his instincts, Mack finally went to the shack, which magically transformed before his eyes into a beautiful cottage, as winter magically transformed into spring. At the shack, he met the three persons of the Trinity, and conversations with these three led him to a new level of peace in his life.

It is not hard to believe that many people stop reading this book at the point where God the Father reveals Himself to Mack as a “large beaming African-America woman” who called herself “Papa” (page 82). I could not help but picture “Mammy” from Gone With the Wind. Regardless of all the reasons presented in the book as to why God the Father presented Himself in such a manner, the fact remains that God is always presented in the Scriptures as masculine, never feminine. God the Holy Spirit revealed Himself as a “small, distinctively Asian woman” (page 84), later identified by the name “Sarayu” (page 87). Jesus was a man who “…appeared Middle Eastern and was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt and gloves” (page 84).

The Shack has been touted as the most significant piece of Christian fiction in our modern world. Eugene Peterson said on the cover of the book, “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!” Comparisons to Pilgrim’s Progress are ludicrous. The huge difference between the two books is that Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory based on biblical truth, whereas The Shack attempts to be an allegory to teach truth, but it is based on someone’s newly-formulated definition of the nature of God and His desire for a relationship with all of us.

One defense of The Shack stated that since it is fictional and allegorical, we need to realize that and not worry about what it teaches. That is precisely the problem. If one ignores the fact that this book is teaching falsehood, the power of that falsehood to convince unsuspecting readers is amplified. A well-written allegory about God would most certainly not have Him making false statements, and there are many false statements made by the three persons of the Trinity in the book.

There are a number of wrong and unbiblical views expressed in The Shack, as follows:

An Unbiblical View of Scripture – This book presents a very low view of the Scriptures and elevates our experiences and feelings at least to the level of the Word of God.

“…the thought of God passing notes did not fit well with his theological training. 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 an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” (Pages 65-66).

There are several basic problems with this statement, but we will consider just two. First, there is the implication that God would not have committed His Word to the “ancients and uncivilized” without also speaking directly to “moderns” and “educated Westerners.” That is a very condescending view of those who have gone before – men such as Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Apostle Paul, etc. It appears the author would call these men “ancients and uncivilized” in comparison to those of us who are “moderns” and “educated.”

It is a very good thing that God did not wait until today to give us His Word. The whole process would likely get tied up in church committees, regulations, lawsuits, and union rules created by “moderns” and “educated Westerners.” Are we to believe that we today are somehow better than they? We should be thankful that God spoke so long ago. It would be very confusing to have to wait for Him to speak to us. We have the advantage of having His whole Word without having to wait for more revelation to come along. There is no wisdom in rejecting or negating the Word of God in favor of the words of men, and we have far less excuse to do so than the “ancients and uncivilized” might have had.

Second, this statement about the Scriptures implies that we are all powerless to understand what God has said in His Word unless it is “properly interpreted, of course” and that it must “be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects.” While there are those who hold to such a view, to peg this onto all Christians is to build a classic “Straw Man” argument, a technique which is found numerous times in The Shack. The truth is that all believers have an anointing to understand the Scriptures, we have the very author of the Scriptures indwelling us and illuminating us to understand, and we are commanded to study the Scriptures in order to be “approved unto God.”

An Unbiblical View of God – Early in the book, Mack takes a very weak stand on who God is. Missy asked him, in the context of an old Indian legend, “Is the Great Spirit another name for God – you know, Jesus’ papa?” Mack responded, “I would suppose so. It’s a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great” (Page 31). The Scriptures make it clear that anyone who worships any “god” other than The God of the Universe, through the person of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is worshiping a false god. Satan has always desired to be worshiped, and he is happy to receive the worship of those who knowingly or in ignorance worship any other god but the true and living God. Satan is behind every idol man chooses to worship. Mack, the main character of this book, a man who went to seminary, has no idea who God is. On page 79, he even expressed doubt as to the very existence of God.

“Sarayu” (The Holy Spirit) tells Mack, “We have limited ourselves out of respect for you… Relationships are never about power, and one way to avoid the will to power is to choose to limit oneself – to serve” (page 106). Yet the Scriptures make it clear that we are the ones who are limited, and we are to serve the Lord. He is not our servant; He is our Lord and Master. We are His servants. “Serve the LORD with gladness” (Psalm 100:2, NASB). The Apostle Paul repeatedly referred to himself as “a bondservant of Jesus Christ.”

Mack learns from “Papa” (God the Father) that God has no control over His creation. “We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we work to free you from them…Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired” (page 123). This is the kind of thinking that certainly appeals to those who like the idea that man is in charge. However, the Bible very clearly teaches that God is the one in charge.

“… our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3, NASB).

“The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all” (Psalm 103:19, NASB).

“For I know that the LORD is great And that our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” (Psalm 135:5-6, NASB).

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?’” (Daniel 4:35, NASB).

“All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless. To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?” (Isaiah 40:17-18, NASB).

“Papa” and Jesus teach Mack that God does not violate the choice or will of humans and that God actually submits to humans.

“We don’t use you…we want to share with you the love and joy and freedom and light that we already know within ourself. We created you, the human, to be in face-to-face relationship with us, to join our circle of love. As difficult as it will be for you to understand, everything that has taken place is occurring exactly according to this purpose, without violating choice or will…If you could only see how all of this ends and what we will achieve without the violation of one human will – then you would understand…I’m not a bully, not some self-centered demanding little deity insisting on my own way. I am good, and I desire only what is best for you. You cannot find that through guilt or condemnation or coercion, only through a relationship of love” (pages 124-126).

“To force my will on you…is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy…Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way…because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me…we will never force that union on you” (pages 145 and 149).

These statements are in defiance of the glorious, almighty, sovereign God of the universe who is absolutely free to do His own will, and who never asks for or needs our advice. While there are many examples that could be cited of God not only violating, but utterly overwhelming human will, one only needs to consider the Great Flood of Noah’s day and the Tower of Babel in order to realize that God asks no questions and gets no input before carrying out His will.

“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the LORD, or who became His counselor?’” (Romans 11:33-34, NASB).

God asked Job some profound questions in order to teach him who is really in charge.

"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?” (Job 38:3-5, NASB).

On page 141, we learn that God lives in the present. Even this little statement is in opposition to Scripture, which states in Isaiah 57:15 that God “lives forever,” or “inhabits eternity.” God is not bound by time. Time is a created thing which will some day come to an end, even as it had a beginning.

On page 191, “Papa” tells Mack, “My purposes are always and only an expression of love.” This is an expansion of the idea that when the Bible says, “God is love,” a complete definition of God has been stated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Love is an attribute, a characteristic, of God, but it is only one of His many attributes. God is also holy, just, righteous, jealous, etc.

Continuing on page 191, “Papa” tells Mack that God is fully human. “…we are now fully human, so our purpose and your destiny are forever linked.” The truth is that neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit have been or ever will be human, nor do they appear in human form. God the Son came into the world as the God man, the only perfect human, without sin, unable to sin. Some might argue that the three Persons of the Trinity are one, which they are, and therefore if Jesus became a man, so did the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible tells us that “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19, NASB).

On page 203, “Sarayu” tells Mack that God likes uncertainty. “…contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty.” According to the Scriptures, God never changes, and He knows the end from the beginning. “Known to God from eternity are all His works” (Acts 15:18, NKJV). “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'…Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11, NASB). Nothing ever catches God by surprise, and there is no uncertainty in His character.

Clearly, the god of The Shack is not the God of the Bible, and this “god” should be rejected.

An Unbiblical View of the Trinity – There are those who believe that by reading The Shack, one can finally understand the Trinity. Anyone who thinks he understands the Trinity is only fooling himself. Neither The Shack nor any other book can accurately explain a mystery like the Trinity. If people read and study the Bible, God’s book, and still cannot comprehend such a truth, how can anyone believe a book by a human author can accomplish what God’s Word does not? God has told us in His Word everything we need to know. There are some things we would like to know but that we do not need to know. It is really quite possible that God does not mean for us to fully understand certain things like the Trinity. We need to accept some things by faith, not by human understanding. The Bible clearly teaches a triune God, three-in-one, the Trinity. There are three distinct personalities, yet one God. We cannot understand that. No illustration fully explains it. Yet we know it to be true. Not only does The Shack not explain the Trinity, it actually propagates false teaching about it.

On page 99, we learn that the Trinity is fully human. “Papa” tells Mack, “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.”

Mack asked about the hierarchy or chain of command in the Trinity. “I have always thought of God the Father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know, being obedient.” Jesus’ response to this was, “Frankly, I haven’t a clue what this man is talking about” (page 121). When Jesus asked the Father if he understood it, “Papa” responded that, “…I’ve been trying to make head or tail out of it, but sorry, he’s got me lost.” Finally, “Sarayu” interrupted and said, “They’re just playing with you” (page 122). It is refreshing to know that neither Jesus nor “Papa” were confused, but it is a bit disconcerting to think that two-thirds of the Godhead would “play with” or “mess with” the mind of a human being. God does not speak deceitful words. “The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times” (Psalm 12:6, NASB).

“Sarayu” continued, “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command…What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us” (page 122).

The Bible makes it clear that all three persons of the Trinity have distinct functions, and that Jesus Christ submitted Himself to the will of His Father. “Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God’” (Hebrews 10:7, NASB).

“In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:7-10, NASB).

On page 164, we learn that God the Father also died on the cross. “Haven’t you seen the wounds on Papa too?…He chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love.” This brings up the classic question, “Did God die on the cross?” The answer is simple. God cannot and does not die. If God could die, then no one would be in charge of the universe while He was dead. Neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit died on the cross. God the Son, who is in fact God, took on Himself a perfect, sinless human body so He could die a perfect human death in the place of sinners. God never died. The one who is God died a human death in the body specifically prepared for that event. “Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me’” (Hebrews 10:5, NASB).

An Unbiblical View of the Incarnation – The Scriptures do not teach that either the Father or the Holy Spirit are ever revealed in human form. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24, NASB). When God appears in human form in the Scriptures, even in the Old Testament, it is always God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ who appears. “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18, NASB).

John 1 gives us great insight into the incarnation.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.…He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-3;10-14, NASB).

Jesus Christ is truly the God man. Although some would teach otherwise, He never did cease to be God, nor did he lay aside His power. He did lay aside His glory, and He voluntarily chose not to use some of his power. Yet “Papa” instructed Mack that even His ability to do miracles “proves that Jesus is truly human” (page 99). She goes on to say that “Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being” (pages 99-100).

Are we really to believe that Jesus Christ did what He did on this earth because of a relationship with God the Father that each of us can also experience? Are we to believe that we too can do all those things if we only get our relationship right? Such an idea is unbiblical, but it appears this is exactly what is being taught in The Shack. When Mack asks further questions about miracles, specifically healing the blind, “Papa” instructs him that Jesus “did so as a dependent human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.” All assertions in The Shack to the contrary, Jesus retained and used the power and privileges of being God. The Gospels are full of accounts of the things that Jesus did, and only could have done, because He is God. Even though He did many other things, the relatively small number recorded in the Gospels were written down for a purpose, and that purpose was not to convince us of His humanity, but rather of His Deity.

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20, 30-31, NASB).

This idea that Jesus did what He did as an enlightened human who was in touch with God sounds a great deal like the New Age idea that we all have the potential to tap into the “Christ consciousness” and evolve into a higher state of enlightenment. It also sounds like the old Mormon idea that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Nevertheless, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus retained all of His power as God while here on the earth. Not only did He have power to heal, He had power over life, even His own life.

“‘For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.’ A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words” (John 10:17-19, NASB).

Not only does this Scripture negate what is being taught in The Shack, but it makes it clear that people tend to be repulsed by truth, because a division occurred among the Jews as a result of this specific truth.

It is obvious that the author of The Shack wants to go to great lengths to illustrate the humanity of Jesus, to the detriment of His power as God Almighty. We see on page 104 that Jesus was clumsy and dropped a bowl of batter or sauce on the floor. Then on page 176, He was unable to catch a particular trout He had been watching for some time. “I’ve been trying to catch him for weeks, and here he comes just to bait me.” Such an idea is inconsistent with the nature of the real Jesus. He doesn’t “try” to do anything. He just does it. Jesus did not come into the world to be so human that we lose sight of who He really is. So many people get into the idea that He became a human so we would know that He understands our plight. It truth, that is only a nice side effect of why He became a human, which was to die and rise again for the specific purpose of saving sinners and defeating death forever.

On page 96, “Papa” denies that Jesus understood what was going on when He asked, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” After Mack asked about this, “Papa” replied, “You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him” (page 96). This teaches that Jesus was mistaken and that He relied on His feelings instead of what He knew to be true. However, there is no reason to doubt that God the Father turned His back on His Son when He became sin for us.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21, NASB).

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness…” (Habakkuk 1:13, NASB).

An Unbiblical View of the Nature of Man – Biblically, the nature of man is defined by his fallen state. Man was created in the image of God, a difficult concept to understand, but when he fell into sin, that image was marred. He disobeyed the only rule God gave him. This plunged the human race into a condition of total depravity, otherwise known as “total inability.” Man is unable to do anything about his lost condition.

However, The Shack treats the fact that man was created in the image of God as if nothing like The Fall had ever happened. “Papa” says, “Humans are not defined by their limitations, but by the intentions that I have for them; not by what they seem to be, but by everything it means to be created in my image” (page 100). This goes hand-in-hand with universalism, which could be summarized by this generic quote. “We are all created in God’s image, so there is enough good in us to save us and bring us into relationship with God. God would never allow anyone who bears His image to be condemned.” Such thinking ignores the exceeding sinfulness of sin and the condemnation it brings.

On page 123, The Fall of man is reduced to merely “choosing independence over relationship.” Again on page 146, The Fall is defined with no mention of sin. “The world is broken because in Eden you abandoned relationship with us to assert your own independence.” This is a very weak view of man’s rebellion against God and his disobedience to what He had commanded. The Fall did not just destroy “relationship.” It condemned man. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18, NASB).

On page 235, there is an overstatement of the importance of man. It is interesting to note that throughout the book, no distinction is really drawn between lost men and redeemed men. The only distinction made in the book is between those who choose “relationship” and those who choose “independence.” Note the following statement made by Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) to Mack:

“Mack, if anything matters, then everything matters. Because you are important, everything you do is important. Every time you forgive, the universe changes; every time you reach out and touch a heart or a life, the world changes; with every kindness and service, seen or unseen, my purposes are accomplished and nothing will ever be the same again.”

This, statement, like other statements in The Shack, strokes the ego of man, but man does not need his ego stroked. What he desperately needs is the message of redemption from sin through the Lord Jesus Christ.

An Unbiblical View of Salvation – There are several issues that point to a very faulty view of salvation. The first and most obvious is the massive overuse of the word “relationship.” Once the book got going, the word “relationship” came into view on almost every page, and sometimes several times on a page. One would think that Paul must have said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to establish relationships…” What he actually said was, “…Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (I Timothy 1:15, NASB). It’s not about relationships. It’s about redemption. Humans are not in need of a relationship, and they are not in need of “experiencing God.” They are in need of being saved from sin and its vile consequences. Only then can any kind of relationship with God and His Word become a reality.

It is interesting to note that in three commonly-used literal Bible translations, the word “relationship” is conspicuous by its absence. It does not appear even once in either the King James Version or the New King James Version, and it only appears one time in the New American Standard Bible. This one reference has to do with the relationship between a man and his wife, not some mythical relationship between all humans and God. Even though this word “relationship” is somewhere between nonexistent and insignificant in Scripture, it seems to be the most important word in The Shack.

According to The Shack, it seems that God is disappointed that we chose independence over relationship, but He still wants that relationship with all of His children, although He would never impose His will on any of us. He will try to help us see the need for a relationship with Him by gently persuading and convincing us.

It appears that the author may well believe that all men are brothers and we are all the children of God – an unbiblical idea that has long been called “the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.” At the beginning of chapter six, the author uses the following quote by Jacques Ellul from his book, Anarchy and Christianity:

“No matter what God’s power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself”(page 88).

That statement is unbiblical. “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3, NASB). The word “Almighty” is used in many places in Scripture, and it is used to emphasize the power and might of God above all human wisdom and opinion. God made it very clear to Job that He is the one in control. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4, NASB). The idea that God “puts himself on our human level and limits himself” is unscriptural and should be rejected.

In his book What I Believe, Ellul declared himself to be a Christian Universalist, writing that "all people from the beginning of time are saved by God in Jesus Christ, that they have all been recipients of his grace no matter what they have done.” This statement stands in contradiction to the Scriptures, which declare otherwise. “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14, NASB). The question becomes obvious. Why is the author of The Shack choosing such questionable sources for his inspiration? It would seem obvious that he is likely in agreement with Ellul on this issue.

On page 100, “Papa” declares, “I desire a relationship with every human being.” Nothing is said about salvation or redemption, but one can only assume that this relationship is the The Shack’s equivalent of salvation. This is another man-centered, man-exalting perversion of true Bible doctrine. The bottom line on this is that if it were the sovereign will of God for all humans to be saved, then all humans would be saved. Without getting into a big discussion of the doctrines of grace, it should be sufficient to quote Jesus from John chapter six.

“‘All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day’…And He was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.’ As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore” (John 6:37-40,44,65-66, NASB).

All of this is sometimes hard to understand, and some find it offensive. Many of His professing disciples left Him, because this teaching was just too much for them. Nevertheless, God gets to be God whether we like it or not, and the God of the Bible is not some kind of hand-wringing, powerless little god who is longing for a relationship with all humans, if only we would cooperate. That god is not God.

God’s Word makes it very clear that the idea of God desiring a relationship with every human is false. Jesus said in the passage quoted above, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…” (John 6:37, NASB). Therefore, we must conclude that either all people who ever lived will come to Christ because all people are God’s children, or some will never come to Him because they are not all God’s children. The latter is obviously true, since there are many who do not come to the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, the other part of the verse says, “…and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37, NASB). Jesus will not reject anyone who truly comes to Him. This is not a contradiction. Rather, it is both sides of the same truth. Coming to Christ is evidence of the grace of God at work in a person’s life.

Based on the authority of the Word of God, we can accurately conclude that there are some people with whom God has no desire for a relationship, which means He has no intention of saving them. We are not considering the “why” of this. Why one person is the object of God’s love and salvation and why another person is the object of God’s wrath and judgment is another discussion that is not necessary here.

On page 110, “Jesus” makes a statement that is nothing short of heresy. He says, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” What? Jesus says he is the “best” way to God, thereby implying that there are other ways. Such a statement as this is by itself enough to relegate this book to the trash can. The real Jesus of the Bible would never have said such a thing. Instead, He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6, NASB). Notice the use of the word “the” instead of “a” or “the best.” Reducing Jesus to “a” way to God or “the best” way to God robs Him of His deity, His glory, and the value of His redemptive work.

Jesus also said, “…unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24, NASB). There is no wiggle room in that statement. Jesus did not give people freedom to “sort of” believe in Him but to also make their own way. He is the way. He is the only way. It doesn’t make any difference what anyone thinks or feels about it. If a person believes he can get to God in any other way besides through the Lord Jesus Christ, he is very badly fooled. This truth is further underscored in the Book of Acts. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12, NASB).

On page 119, “Papa” says, “I’m not asking you to believe anything.” This is in conflict with Scripture, which emphasizes “belief” and “faith” repeatedly. Following are only a few examples:

“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’” (John 6:29, NASB).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John 5:24, NASB).

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NASB).

We learn on pages 163, 211, and 224 that all people are God’s children. Even of the man who so brutally murdered Missy, “Papa” says, “He too is my son. I want to redeem him” (page 224). Question – If this man is already a son of God, why does God want to redeem him? Clearly, this “god” as presented in The Shack, has no idea what redemption is and does not understand that salvation is necessary for one to become a son of God. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12, NASB). By contrast, our Lord Jesus Christ, the real Jesus of the Bible, made if very clear that not all people are children of God. Jesus said the following to some of the religious leaders of His day:

“’You are doing the deeds of your father.’ They said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me” (John 8:41-45, NASB).

On page 225, “Papa” says, “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship.” There is a big problem with this statement. If God has forgiven all human sin, then all humans are redeemed and are sons of God. However, the Scriptures make it very clear that there are many who are lost in sin and who will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. This is not popular teaching today, but it is biblical, and it is therefore true. Truth is not always popular, but it is always right.

Mack asks Jesus what it means to be a Christian. His response is both startling and interesting.

“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian…Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims…I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved” (page 182).

On page 192, “Papa” again emphasizes the universal nature of salvation, and yet she places the responsibility for the completion of the work of salvation squarely on humans.

“You asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world…The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.”

If God is fully reconciled to the world, why does the Scripture command men to be reconciled to God? The rationale behind the above paragraph is the old idea that “salvation is of God, but man has to do his part.” This is simply not true. There is no part in salvation that man can do. Left to our own devices, we would all surely perish.

An Unbiblical View of Christian Living – There is real resistance today among many Christians to the idea of “rules” for Christian living. Some will not even accept the idea of “principles” or “guidelines.” Many would prefer to go to a seminar on Christian living than to read, study, and obey the Bible. This anti-rules attitude is underscored in The Shack. On page 89, Jesus answers a question from Mack by saying, “You’re not supposed to do anything. You’re free to do whatever you like.”

On pages 197-198, “Sarayu” tells Mack that “The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in him and in no other. My goodness, you didn’t think you could live the righteousness of God on your own, did you?…You will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship – a way of coming to be with us.”

This is a bit of a “Straw Man” argument. To define someone who believes that there are such things as rules for Christian living as believing he can “live the righteousness of God on his own” is to totally miss the point. While we understand that rules do not save us and cannot make us right with God, there are, in fact, many commands in the Scriptures for believers to obey. There are numerous things we are “supposed to do” and other things we are not supposed to do. Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15, NASB). Colossians 3 gives us numerous instructions relative to what we are to do and what we are not to do. This sounds a great deal like “rules.”

“…consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry…But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices…So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity… Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart. Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality” (Colossians 3:5,8-9,12-14,18-25, NASB).

Christian freedom is freedom from the power of sin and victory over sin, not freedom to sin. In Christ, we have freedom to do what is right, not freedom to do anything we please.

An Unbiblical View of Judgment – “Papa” addressed the subject of judgment, with the following three statements: “I am 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” (pages 119-120). “I don’t do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation” (page 221). “The God who is – the I am who I am – cannot act apart from love!” (page 102).

These statements are in conflict with the Scriptures. Following are some examples:

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19, NASB).

“For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, NASB).

“And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15, NASB).

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18, NASB).

Conclusion – This brief review of The Shack is not in any way a thorough analysis of the book. Rather, my purpose has been to provide a measure of insight into the false teaching the book contains so as to warn those who will listen. While there are many more issues I could have addressed, I trust I have addressed enough to accomplish my purpose, with the following general conclusions:

There is a great deal of ignorance of the Scriptures in the church today. This is a very unhealthy condition that cannot be remedied by encouraging people to read and study books like The Shack. There is a great need today to get back to the study of the Bible, the very Word of God, while continuing to deemphasize the use of extra-biblical books and seminars. “Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Ephesians 6:13-17, NASB).

The Shack is written from an unbiblical perspective and should, therefore, be ignored and/or opposed by Bible-believing Christians. If you have not read the book, I would advise you not to. It is a not-so-subtle attempt to undermine sound doctrine. If you choose to read it, please do so with a prepared heart and your Bible in hand, realizing that anything that contradicts the Word of God is false teaching.

The book makes an effort to “humanize” God and bring Him to our level, thus making us feel better about ourselves. It plays very well into the modern day concept of “self-esteem.” Following is what God has to say about self-esteem: “For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think…” (Romans 12:3, NASB). “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh…” (Romans 7:18, NASB). “…I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am…” (I Corinthians 15:9-10, NASB). “You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (I John 4:4, NASB). “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, NASB). In the New King James Version, it is worded this way – “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.” It is appropriate to note that this last verse is the only verse in the Bible in which both of the words “self” and “esteem” are found, and it teaches the opposite of the commonly-taught concept of self-esteem. Self-esteem is not a Biblical concept. We need Christ-esteem, not self-esteem. “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30, NASB). “…so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything” (Colossians 1:18, NASB).

The god of The Shack is not the God of the Bible. The god of The Shack is a very weak god, unable and unwilling to control his creation and to rule in the affairs of humanity. The God of the Bible is all-powerful, totally in control, and ruling in the affairs of men.

Every pastor, youth worker, Sunday school teacher, Christian school administrator, Christian school teacher, and anyone else who leads others spiritually has the responsibility to sound the warning against false teaching. Failing to do so is not fulfilling the command to protect and feed the flock of God. It is very difficult to watch many professing Christians “…turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4, NASB). It is important to make every effort to point people back to the truth. “…with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil…” (2 Timothy 2:25-26, NASB).

There are several warnings in the Scriptures about false doctrine. We are told that “…we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love...” (Ephesians 4:14-15, NASB). This warning is given because it is necessary. Many will be deceived by false doctrine if no one stands for the Truth, even if it is unpopular to do so. Truth always trumps falsehood, and we must not back away from our responsibility to “…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3, NASB). God’s Word does not change. Truth does not change. In order to stand for truth, it is often necessary to point out the contrasting falsehood.

- - - - -

Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible^®, Copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

My further comments on The Shack are found here. I also wrote a brief review of "The Shack, the Movie," which is found here.