Gospel-Driven Blog is privileged to have Dr. James B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary (Portland Campus), revisit The Shack with us.
Dr. DeYoung provides much needed, helpful insight into this widely popular but misleading book that continues to exert a great deal of influence within Christian as well as non-Christian circles.
I have posted below an abbreviated version of a longer review (9 pages) by Dr. DeYoung. For those who would like to read the longer review, click here: Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation.
While all the reviews that I have previously cited (Paul Grimmond and Tim Challies) are very helpful, Dr. DeYoung brings a unique perspective in his reviews due to the fact that he is personally acquainted with William Paul Young. Furthermore, Dr. DeYoung has done a great service for the church and for the cause of the gospel by exposing the foundational problem with The Shack and its author.
For those who are unaware, it is critical to realize that William Paul Young espouses the heretical teaching known as Universal Reconciliation (condemned by the church since 533). This accounts for his heterodox views (e.g., faulty views of the Trinity, Biblical revelation, Christology, eternal punishment, etc…).
The gospel must be paramount!
Paul, in Galatians 1:8-9, writes, “8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
Regardless of how genuine, sincere, credible, popular, well-received or authoritative a Bible teacher or author may seem, ultimately, it is not the messenger but the message that matters.
The issue at stake among the Galatian churches was not Paul but the gospel. The gospel must be paramount!
Therefore, Paul says if anyone, including himself or his missionary associates who were fully authorized representatives (v. 2; Barnabas, Silas or Timothy), or even an angel from heaven should proclaim a false gospel they themselves will incur the judgment of God.
The alarming words of Paul should cause every reader of The Shack to consider carefully the gospel that Young is seeking to promote.
Distorting the purity of the gospel is no small matter. Paul says that the eternal destiny of man is at stake. A false gospel nullifies grace, renders useless the death of Christ (Gal. 2:21) and severs a person from Christ (Gal. 5:4). Such consequences are hardly trivial, light matters.
If we do not feel as deeply about the distortion of the gospel as Paul did, perhaps the problem is that we have not understood the gospel as clearly as Paul?
Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation
James B. De Young
October, 2008
Seldom does one have the opportunity to review a work of fiction written by a friend that has risen to the top of best seller lists. Recently The Shack has been approaching sales of three million or more. There is talk about making a movie of the book.
What is so unusual about this success is not only that the novel is ostensibly a Christian work of fiction but that it also espouses a view of God that is creative but biblically challenged. It is novel both as literature and as theology. But does Christian fiction have to be doctrinally correct?
A brief look at the book uncovers an unremarkable plot. Willie retells the story of his friend, Mackenzie Phillips, who as a child was abused by his father which left him bitter toward God, the Bible, and the ministry. When his youngest daughter is kidnapped and brutally killed in a mountain shack, Mack’s anger freezes his total outlook in sadness and despair. Years later God invites him to return to the same shack. He encounters the Trinity in the form of a large African woman (“Papa” =the Father), a Jewish carpenter (=Jesus Christ), and a small Asian woman by the name Sarayu (=the Holy Spirit). These three lead Mack to discover a fresh meaning of God’s love for him and forgiveness.
Who is the author? For more than a dozen years I have known William P. Young. We have discussed much theology in a “think tank.” Over four years ago Paul embraced universal reconciliation and defended it on several occasions. He claimed that universalism changed his life and his theology.
The core belief of universal reconciliation asserts that love is the supreme attribute of God that trumps all others. His love reaches beyond the grave to save all those who refuse Christ before they die. God’s love will even conquer fallen angels and the Devil himself who will join the saints in heaven. This view of future destinies claims many texts that seem to teach that the reconciliation that Jesus accomplished on the cross extends to all creatures (Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:16-20; Col. 1:19-20), that all will lovingly confess him as Lord (Phil. 2:6-11), and that God’s will that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) will be accomplished without fail.
After the The Shack was written, the editors worked over a year to eliminate its universalism (as they assert on their web site). Paul now disavows universalism. Yet like all universalists he affirms that he “hopes” that none will experience eternal suffering. But the critical question is this: Does universalism remain in the book? By comparing the creeds of universalism with The Shack one discovers that many tenets of universalism and other errors are implicit in the book.
1. Universalism subjugates God’s justice to his love. The creed of 1878 asserts that God’s attribute of justice is “born of love and limited by love.” The novel asserts that God “cannot act apart from love” (p. 102, 191), that God “chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love,” and that God did not choose “justice for everyone” (164-165).
2. The creed of 1899 asserts that God “will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness”; there is no future judgment. Similarly Paul denies that Papa (God) “pours out wrath and throws people” into hell. God does not punish sin; it’s his “joy to cure it” (120). Papa “redeems” final judgment (127). God will not “condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from his presence and apart from his love” (162). To judge is to act contrary to love (145).
3. Universalists deny a personal devil. He goes unmentioned in the book (134-137).
4. Paul reveals that the entire Trinity became incarnate, and that the whole Trinity was crucified (99). Both Jesus and Papa (God) bear the marks of crucifixion in their hands (contra. Isa. 53:4-10). These ideas suggest the heresy of patripassianism and modalism, that God is singular who assumes the different modes of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
5. Reconciliation is effective for all without exercising faith. Papa asserts that he is reconciled to the whole world, not only to those who believe (192). The creeds of universalism never mention the need to believe in Christ. Rejecting the idea that God willed humans to have a will that allows them to reject him is deterministic and coercive.
6. All are equally children of God and loved equally by him (155-156). In a future revolution of “love and kindness” everyone will confess in the power of the Spirit that Jesus is Lord (248).
7. The institution of the church is rejected as diabolical. Jesus claims that he “never has, never will” create institutions (178). This counters Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 and 18.
8 ) The Bible is only a revelation of God. In the novel it comes as an afterthought to other revelation (198).
Universalism began with Origen in the third century. In the sixth century it was condemned as heresy. In modern times universalism undermined evangelical faith in Europe and America. It opposed the Great Awakening in the 1730’s-40’s. By 1961 universalism joined with Unitarianism to form the Unitarian-Universalist Association, with its denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
How does one answer the errors of universalism? From the Bible which I’ve cited at The Shack Review.com.
Near the beginning I asked: Does Christian fiction have to be doctrinally correct? In this case the answer is “yes,” for Paul’s intention is to teach theology throughout The Shack. If it is only fiction, why was universalism removed? Although a story may be quite helpful, if an author uses doctrinal impurity to teach how to be restored to a redefined God is one restored to the God of the Bible? Jesus warned that a house built on the wrong foundation will collapse (Matt. 7:24-28). So will a shack.
January 16, 2009 at 10:33 am |
[...] John Fonville posts this excellent review. I am amazed at how many Christians are singing the praises of ‘The Shack’. A sign of our biblically-ignorant, and doctrine-depreciating times? For further important critiques of this misleading book, check out articles by Paul Grimmond and Tim Challies. [...]
January 24, 2009 at 1:32 am |
We run rather behind the USA in the UK on things but I can tell you that the Shack has arrived here recently and is being widely read by Christians. This review is incredibly helpful and thoughtful and I will be passing it on to others. Thank you. David
January 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
[...] James De Young on ‘The Shack’ Posted on January 27, 2009 by mywordlikefire ‘The Shack’ is reviewed and exposed by James De Young, a Western Seminary professor who knows the author personally. On Gospel Driven Blog. http://gospeldriven.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/guest-contributor-dr-james-deyoung-revisiting-the-shack... [...]
February 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm |
[...] Revisiting The Shack [...]
March 14, 2009 at 9:15 pm |
It is a good read if you are mature enough to know the difference between fiction and doctern. I`m not sure that God as an African American woman is something I can get used to, but it is just a story and should be taken as such. Lord of the rings is also just a story and many christians have read it and are quite alright. Too many people are getting way too carried away with this book being some kind of heresy, though strange it may be. By the way God is universal in that we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Even bloggers.
April 20, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
When the book was sent to publishers it contained Christian universalism, the belief that all unsaved people are going to heaven because of Jesus’ sacrifice.
The author in an interview on KAYP Radio, with Pastor Kendall Adams, denied the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. In other words, the author of The Shack, like many others, is now denying the very purpose of the cross.
Ron, it is not just a story. It is theology passing as fiction.
October 23, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
That’s the whole point. Young’s teaching blatantly disregards clearly interpreted Scripture in context. It takes either foolish naivety or willful ignorance to adopt such a lie. If it were true, the whole “message” of Christ in Scripture would be false rambling, so the only part that’s false is the diabolical teaching such as is presented by heretics like Young.
In fact, it’s so off the wall, I think we don’t need to be overly concerned, because the Spirit of God will penetrate the hearts of the predestined in spite of those who are to be accursed. A five-year-old can read the Scriptures and see how bizarre Young’s teaching is. What a waste of life, but to God be the glory!
August 2, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
Dr De Young claims Universal Reconciliation was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Constantinople in 533AD. This is often posited by those opposed to UR. However, it is a false claim, and I challenge anyone to point out where in the anathemas it is mentioned. By the way, the same Council of 533AD also condemned anyone who would not refer to the ever-virgin Mary as God-bearer.
There are oodles of scriptures supporting UR such as 1 Timothy 4:10 ‘The Saviour of all men, especially those who believe.’
However, the real issue is one at heart, not that of introducing competing verse references. Either it is in your heart to wish unbelievers suffer eternal torment, or it is not. Most Christians have too much baggage to even consider UR as a valid theory, because it posits, in Jesus words, the last coming in first.
October 23, 2009 at 7:01 pm |
Bryan, you seem like a more intelligent individual than to propose such heresy yourself. 1 Timothy 4:10 means that Jesus is the Savior of men, SPECIFICALLY of those who believe, not in ADDITION to as you seem to be indicating. The meaning you are suggesting doesn’t even make sense and attempts to nullify other passages of Scripture that teach some will be separated from God forever. Sorry, God’s Word stands firm in spite of feeble attempts to play on emotional reasoning.
“Either it is in your heart to wish unbelievers suffer eternal torment, or it is not.” So, it’s up to how we feel? Come on Bryan, that’s just lame.
Jesus is the propitiation made available to the whole world, but like the bronze serpent Moses lifted up for the people in the wilderness, everyone must decide for themselves if they will look to Him in faith as their Savior.
Again, the bottom line is in John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” “For ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’” (Romans 10:13)
The teaching of universal salvation violates clearly interpreted Scripture in context and can only be supported by twisting and distorting God’s Word as Bryan has demonstrated here.
Bryan, your talents can be used much more effectively…for good, and I hope that changes soon.
August 25, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Excelente artigo, precisamos de pessoas assim que falem a verdade, outro site com questões polêmicas é o http://www.contradicoesbiblicas.com.br
September 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm |
there are two many pharisees roaming around in pulpits today with their pet doctrines, etc. Why are they so afraid of the shack. They are afraid that God is too nice. Hilarious. Why, he can’t be that nice…that is exactly what the pharisees said about Jesus.
September 15, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
I love what Bryan said above…
September 15, 2009 at 11:04 pm |
The people who go around condeming others such as Paul Young are exactly the same people that who would reject Jesus if He was standing before them. It makes me want to throw up!
October 23, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
What a ‘rag.’ That article credits “the creeds of universalism” (whatever they are) with being the ultimate authority on what Universalism teaches.
#2 says: “…there is no future judgment.” Wrong!
#3 “Universalists deny a personal devil.” Wrong!
#4 “Paul reveals that the entire Trinity became incarnate…? I never heard of such a teaching
#5 “Reconciliation is effective for all without exercising faith.” Wrong!
#6 “…everyone will confess in the power of the Spirit that Jesus is Lord” Um, #5 just got through saying “Reconciliation is effective for all without exercising faith.” Now he turns around and says, in effect, ‘everyone will exercise faith by confessing Jesus is Lord through the power of the spirit.’ Which one does he disagree with, #5 or #6?
#7 “The institution of the church is rejected as diabolical.” Wow, He got one right! Just to clarify. It’s the ‘institution’ that’s diabolical, not the church (the Body of Christ).
#8 This statement may very well be in the book, but, has NOTHING to do with Universal Reconciliation.
–”Universalism began with Origen in the third century.” Wrong! It began with God. Colossians 1:19-20 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
– “In the sixth century it was condemned as heresy.” Yeah, by the ‘institution’.
–”In modern times universalism undermined evangelical faith…” Yes, it does. As it should! Evangelicalism teaches ‘faith in faith’ not faith in ‘Christ.’
October 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
Young’s teaching blatantly disregards clearly interpreted Scripture. It takes either foolish naivety or willful ignorance to adopt such a lie. If it were true, the whole “message” of Christ in Scripture would be false, so the only part that’s false is the diabolical teaching of those such as Young.
In fact, it’s so off the wall, I think we don’t need to be overly concerned, because the Spirit of God will penetrate the hearts of the predestined in spite of those who are to be accursed. To God be the glory!
October 23, 2009 at 7:02 pm |
Clearly interpreted, eh Dan? Clearly interpreted by who (or is it whom)? What’s clear to me, may not be clear to you. And vice-versa.
October 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm |
“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)
While there may be several different applications, in the original languages, there is always only one interpretation. And, the applications stemming from a particular interpretation cannot violate other interpretations. It’s very simple really. God spoke with a single meaning, not several to be determined as we see fit.
One thing I’ve noticed recently is that those are promoting this heresy seem to be “born again” believers. How dumb is that? However, that’s actually very reassuring to me, because I know that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” (Romans 8:28-31)
“Those who are called,” are those He foreknew and also predestined, justified, and glorified. So, the “called” will be saved regardless of the false teaching from those who are to be accursed. And, “God’s elect” are distinguished from those who are not.
It’s God’s Word, not mine. The saddest thing about this whole “movement” of universalism is the miserable and feeble attempts by those who are wasting their time and efforts, but perhaps it only goes to show how much greater God’s plan is than our own, which is superficially and unsubstantially fabricated.
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” It’s almost not even worth discussing!
October 23, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Huh? Did you think I said that both of our ‘interpretations’ were correct? I never said that. My point is, what’s clear to me may not be clear to you, so talking about “clearly interpreted Scripture” only means what YOU believe it ‘clearly’ says. I believe it ‘clearly’ say’s something different.
October 28, 2009 at 8:36 am |
The absence of any competent argument of the facts indicates that there is no defense of UR. Enumerating the problems that you have with an argument and then saying “Wrong” is not exactly an argument against the point. Why is it wrong?
Dan has cited several worthy arguments against UR and there has been no credible defense to date. You can yell and call names, but the facts are clear.
Biblical truth is clear, it’s application can vary, but if you consider the whole council of God and not just a few verses, you have to reconsider, as the author of The Shack did, your understanding and belief in UR.
How can you say that you understand your own Doctrines if you don’t even know that it has Creeds? What are creeds but statements of doctrine. Doctrine is just a statement of what you believe. I’m weary of people running away from “doctrine” like it’s some kind of plague. And then they don’t even know, nor can they clearly state, what they believe.
UR, to me, seems to play on the “anti-establishment” feelings that many people have today. Some are against the government (which I join in on) and some are against the Church. Excuse me, the “institution” of the Church. But isn’t that even made up of members of the church?
Too much scripture, as Dan has shown above, goes completely ignored and too many questions go unanswered by UR proponents for it to even be considered as a legitimate doctrine. It is truly “pie in the sky” belief.
October 28, 2009 at 10:40 am |
I would have thought it was pretty easy to understand what I meant by saying ‘wrong’ when accused of believing there is no future judgment. It means I believe there IS future judgment. Same with denying a personal devil. There IS a personal devil.
I could care less about Dan’s supposed “worthy arguments against UR.” All I was doing was showing that the author of that article doesn’t understand UR. Ask any Baptist if an article showing the weakness’s of Catholicism’s creeds proves Christianity is wrong.
Yell and call names? Care to point that out?
Why do you guy’s keep saying words to the effect that ‘biblical truth is clear’? Clear to who (again, or is it whom?). If it IS so clear, why are there thousands of different denominations that all use the same Bible? Obviously people differ on what they think the Bible is saying. I understand you believe it ‘clearly’ say’s many people (if not most) will be tortured forever in a literal fire. I believe it ‘clearly’ say’s God will redeem all.
No, I don’t have to reconsider my belief in UR. The more I understand the Bible as a whole, the stronger my belief in UR.
I’m not running away from doctrine. But, if the ‘UR creeds of 1899′ are going to be used as the authority on what I believe, and if the author did properly represent what they teach, then I certainly do wish to distance myself from that document. Again, like holding a Baptist to the creed’s of Catholicism. Catholic creeds do represent Baptist beliefs any more than the UR creeds of 1899 represent mine (or anybody I know).
October 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
First, giving the answer “wrong” and just assuming that the opposite is true is not really giving a defense of your view. Why do you believe different? What evidence do you site for your belief? This all goes back to knowing what and why you believe as I stated above. If you want to convince someone of a different view, you need to site your evidence and reasoning. Otherwise I have no reason to even consider your view. Does this help?
Saying “I would have thought it was pretty easy to understand what I meant” is very demeaning. It’s like saying “you’re too stupid to get it”. I get it that you mean the opposite, but why? You’ve given no reasonable argument. Can you imagine a politician standing up in a debate and saying “WRONG” and expecting to win anyones confidence.
Regarding Biblical interpretation, there are rules for understanding scripture. It’s not as willy nilly as you suggest. If we can’t have a reasonable system for interpretation then there will be lots of different systems. And that’s just what we have. When people bring their convictions TO the Bible, they can use any verse to prove anything they want. This is not a good hermeneutic.
“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:19,20
There are some basic rules for interpreting scripture that are really based on common sense. Like Definition; what does the word mean? Common usage; what does it mean in other places in the scripture? Context; how is it used in this place and what is surrounding the usage? Historical background; what was life like when the word was used? Logic; use common logical reasoning. Precedent; if the word is used one way in the past, why change it now? Unity; is the interpretation in sync with the rest of scripture? Inference; is the meaning a fact reasonably implied from another fact?
The reason for denominations has as much to do with non-essentials as anything. I can worship in several different denominations and have done so. I’ve been a member of Bible, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Brethren and non-denominational churches. They all hold to slightly different positions on different areas but I can fellowship with them. If I attend a Baptist church, I don’t have to believe that all Lutherans are wrong.
The things pointed out by the author above have to do with essentials of the faith, not areas of polity and other non-essentials.
I don’t know why you don’t like Creeds. The Nicene Creed is still used today and I don’t think a Baptist would have a problem with it. It is usually associated with the Council of Constantinople. This is the creed recited in churches. The council met to refute Apollinarianism. Apollinarius taught that Jesus was a combination of the divine Logos spirit, a sensitive human soul and a human body. He taught that Jesus did not have a human spirit. The council condemned this view in order to show that Christ, as truly human, could redeem the whole person.
Nicene Creed -
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The word “catholic” is with a small “c”, meaning universal, not the Catholic church. Where is the problem with this creed for a Baptist, or other denomination?
October 29, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
I wasn’t attempting to give ‘a defense of MY view’ per se. I was only showing that the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. UR does NOT teach the things he say’s they teach. UR agrees with you in that there IS a future judgment, there IS a personal devil, etc. I did elaborate a bit on a few points. Maybe you missed them?
It’s not that you’re too stupid to get it. It’s that I’m so stupid that I thought it was sufficient for someone who agrees with the belief. Why should I see a need to give a reasonable argument when you agree that there IS a future judgment, etc.? I dunno… my bad.
And you DON’T bring your convictions to the Bible? Yeah… right! Did you believe in “Hell” before you ever read the Bible?
“…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” is talking about those who wrote the scriptures. It wasn’t of THEIR own interpretation. Keep reading through v. 21 “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit.” You err if using those passages to support how to interpret scripture.
I don’t have so much a problem with creeds as much as I have a problem with someone using a creed that I disagree with to show where I’m wrong.
If you care to learn what UR really teaches (at least the version I believe in) then there’s a myriad of sites. I’d like to suggest http://www.martinzender.com Lots of good info.
November 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
I know this thread is old but, I just had to weigh in. I believe in universal reconciliation. I do believe in judgement as well. There is a lake of fire as documented in Revelation. But this book also talks about about locosts with scorpion stings tormenting people, I don’t claim to be an expert on Aramaic idiom(you shouldn’t either unless your name is George Lamsa). So what exactly this lake of fire will be comprised of I will leave to our heavenly father. It will probably anger a lot of biblical literalists but, the reason I believe in universal reconciliation is simple logic. I don’t believe a righteous God will torment people eternally for temporal crimes. Apart from that there is specious textual evidence to support such a view, unless your methodology of interpretation is through tradition (I call that lazy hermeneutics). Blessings to all I would that we could focus on beliefs we hold in common, may you be in health and peace.