Seven More Points About The Shack

Kara,
I beg to differ with some of your conclusions (and apologies if I have misread what these are).
We cannot divorce theology and scripture. They must exist in dialogue. When we interpret scripture we do so in the light of our understanding of God (theology) and when we speak of God (literally what theology is) then we must do so with reference to His revelation as witnessed in scripture. Orthodoxy is merely the accepted confines of the outcome of that dialogue – but it can never be fixed. To do that is to turn theology or scripture into an idol or, if you will, put God in a box.
To dismiss theology as ‘merely’ doctrine is simplistic. In academic circles that may well be true, but what is being done here is the working out of that theology/scripture dialogue.
When we witness to our relationship with Christ, we are ‘doing theology’ and revealing scripture. They cannot be separated.
That does not mean you need to be an academic to be a Christian, but it does mean that orthodox (note the lower-case ‘o’) Christianity needs to exist, and can only exist, where the confines of the dialogue are defined and being redefined. Everyone has a part to play in that conversation, but it needs to be acknowledged that it can never be a simplistic one.
But I am curious. Please describe God to me in the ‘simplest form’ so that I may accept Him. Would you tell me that He loves me? Or would you tell me that I am going to be punished as a sinner? Either way you’ll need to explain what they mean and then its not so simple.
When Jesus taught that we need to accept the gospel ‘as would a little child’, He was not suggesting unquestioning innocence. He was saying that we need to set aside the ‘box’ we create as we grow up and understand that there is a lot more still to learn.

John C.T.:

My Nuffsaid’s Law comment was in response to mbaker’s post (#144). It’s my fault for writing it such that it seemed to be addressed to all and everyone.

I should have started it with:

mbaker:
.
After Godwin’s Law….

and ended it with a smiley. 🙂

Anyway, I am personally applying Nuffsaid’s Law and moving on to CMP’s other threads, as well as to other blogs and things. I don’t think there is more I can say, and the links to article’s like DeYoung’s have given me enough of what I need to think about and read re: The Shack and its critics.

Shalom, y’all.

Shalom as well, EricW. I see now how you intend your comment to be taken, thanks for the update (I assume that you’ve also noted that I tried to support and continue your question re universalism).

regards,
John

Dr. G,

I think the Bible does an ample job of making that distinction of the question you asked about why if Christ conquered sin and death why does it still continue? So that we don’t get into another exhaustive round of what the atonement is and what it means, and also why sin continues, I would suggest you do a thorough word study on the topics, using scripture as your guide. Then, as you have said yourself, you will be then be more informed of what both sides are talking about.

I prefer to stick to the specific questions raised in the book that are relevant to this particular thread.

Perhaps CMP could do a post on the atonement and sin that would address your particular issues more specifically.

Eric W.

Thanks for your clarification. I like the Godwin’s law best too!

God bless.

I would like to clarify my discussion, every Muslim person I have come in contact with, online AND in person all have a curious item in their house, it’s called a Bible that has an Old and New Testament. It usually is the KJV. And these Muslims study this Bible a lot and know quite a bit about the verses.

My point is this, through all of their efforts at attempting to understand it come short. They usually look for things to find contradictory but with all their hard work studying the Bible they remain Muslim.

Most of the converts have been led to the Lord not through being told which doctrine is right, but by the simple messages. You can study all day long and not get it right at the end of the day, but you can come up with some interesting ideas. They spend quite a bit more study than most Christians do.So what good did all the studying do them if it left them in the condition they are in?

John O
In 151…
God Is.
Nothing more simple than that.

JohnO,

I have been feeling bad every since that one comment I made this morning that I apoligized to EricW for. That was an ill conceived comment all around and simply came out of my frustration with the subject at hand and the fact that I couldn’t believe it was really necessary to be having this conversation on a Christian blog. You certainly weren’t picking apart every verse on the subject–you only mentioned reservations about one specific one I had brought up so that was a huge exaggeration. I want to apologize to you for that.

Further to mbaker’s comment, with which I agree. I think all would agree that CMP’s website is conservative and orthodox in it’s theology; CMP willingly admits to being reformed and calvinist. Hence the issue in regard to Young and his book is not what is the correct view of the atonement (over which people can have varying views), BUT are Young’s views in line with orthodox theology and in line with reformed theology. So we take it as orthodox and therefore as given that God does punish sin and penal substitution is a partial description of what Christ did. This thread is for discussion about how close or far or in error Young is with respect to these theological positions, NOT whether these theological positions are correct. To digress into the latter would be a hijacking of this thread.

However, it does not appear that there is sufficient desire or effort to keep this thread on topic, to deal with issues of discernment (should one read it (or not), or recommend it (or not)), and issues that inform discernment with respect to this particular work (how much error has Young put into the book, and how apparent is that error). If this appearance proves true, I suppose I shall follow EricW. onto other threads.

regards,
John

@Cheryl,
No apology necessary. Such is the nature of blog discussions that they can get passionate, but I certainly wasn’t offended by anything you said.

@KK
That’s pretty simple 🙂
What about my childlike (not childish) response, “Why?” (if you have kids you’ll realise that you can never, ever get away with simple answers).
On a more serious note though, you speak about accepting God on a simple level and reply that that means accepting that “God is.” Even the demons and Satan accept that ‘God is’, so there has to be more to it than that surely? And are we not called to accept the Gospel rather than God?
No need to answer – this is even more of a tangent as John CT points out

John O
Because it is so,

Hebrews 11:6
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

1:come to God
2:accept He is
3:we seek
4:He rewards

That is pretty simple and if I start putting more into that then I pervert the scripture.

God said to Moses “tell them I AM sent you”.

A brief clarification on my part of my last comment to Eric above. When I say I like Godwin’s laws best too, I hope everyone realizes I was not talking about the man’s reference to comparing folks with Nazi’s, but it was a pun, as in I like God-wins laws best. Just thought that I should make that more clear.

If anyone has one, or knows where we could get a specific list of what all Young’s questionable/unorthodox comments are in The Shack, so that we could put them side by side with what scripture says, I believe that would be helpful to keep the post on track.

My pastor’s wife is ga-ga over this book, and he preaches verse by verse out of the word of God, so I am wondering what and where this book’s overwhelming popularity is coming from.

For instance, is it cleverly designed to manipulate people’s emotions by touching some secret place in their hearts, by relying merely on certain popular streams of post-modern theology rather than proclaiming the complete substance of the gospel? Is it simply about the common grace God extends to all, i.e. it rains on the just and the unjust? And if so, how do we Christians touch people so deeply in a more orthodox way?

These are the real questions I think we need to be asking.

mbaker,
perhaps the answer is not so orthodox. God is not rigid as orthodoxy is. God is holy so by default He cannot be unholy. But God is smart enough to know how to reach people.

We know there was a certain day Jesus was born on, we just don’t know the day. But we still celebrate it as we always have. Does Jesus really make a deal out of the day? No He does not. But it was special enough that the entire host of heaven were celebrating. So let’s not be so rigid in our orthodoxy that we forget to be happy. God has it all under control and He knows what to do.

Kara,

I may be taking you all wrong here. But it sounds like you are saying that correct teaching/doctrine really isn’t all that important? Could you clarify for me please. I might be totally missing what you are getting at.

Kara,

I don’t make it an either/or thing. I don’t think orthodoxy, at least as we are defining it here, is rigid in the sense of being legalistic but anchors itself both through our relationship with Christ, or better yet, His relationship to us, and His word to us. I see it as in John 1: 1-14 that God and His word are the same. Christ who was/is/and yet to come is the living proof of it.

So I am speaking of right relationship, through His grace and truth, when I personally speak of orthodoxy. Others may define it differently.

Cheryl
Of course I am not saying that. What I am saying is that people get carried away into other people’s ideas of theology without ever investigating it themselves.

We always have to study the Bible ourselves. And most theology programs are always bent toward doctrine and teach their theology from that viewpoint. And by doing so leave out a lot of truth because it most often contradicts the doctrinal view. Doctrine is not Theology.

We must make the distinction. Doctrine is not theology.

David Koresh had a theology. It formulated his doctrine. And yet David Koresh spent many hours studying but his conclusions came to a very frightening end. But he spent so much time trying to learn.

I would never want people to never learn, but I don’t want people to try to learn without God teaching them to begin with. I did not write the book. God wrote it (for those who jump on that, yes God wrote it, He just wrote it through people). And all those people never knew each other, they were spread across several thousand years so they must have been in one mind to bring about such unity.

What I do not like is people teaching doctrine as a guise under theology. And all great theologians had different doctrines and all it leads to is people scratching and fighting over which doctrine is correct.

Theology is the study of theism…not the study of doctrine. But many theologians forget that in order to build up their own viewpoints. We can disagree on many points, but at the end of the day what are we supposed to know? If we believe in Jesus and ask Him to show us the truth of Himself, He will do it. Besides many people had to when they had no access to Bibles.

When clergy was doing all the reading for the populace, it never led them right. The clergy became powerful, but it hurt in so many ways. That was my point.

Okay folks,

I hope you guys don’t give up on this thread just yet. I finally felt free to go and buy the book and start reading it. Haven’t gotten very far yet. But I saw something right at the start that no one has brought up. I want to read further before I say what I am thinking because this is a thought I don’t think I can pass along until I know for sure if I have grounds for my thoughts.

I’ll let you know as soon as I can. If what I am seeming is right, I think it has profound impact on how we may look at this book.

Kara,

Thanks so much for your clarification. I didn’t think you could really mean that. But I just didn’t get what you did mean. I think the only way to keep from getting wrong impressions here is to ask when we don’t understand what someone means. Now I won’t have to wonder any more!

I will use another simple analogy.

My mom and I were discussing building a sandwich and comparing it to people who make doctrines. Some put on ham, or turkey, or bologna and then work with the condiments. While we were thinking this might be ok, she said “but wait, what about when people put dirt or trash onto the bread. you can’t eat it then.”

All sandwiches have the same foundation…all doctrines have the same foundation. But it’s what is piled on that foundation that makes it worth eating or not.

Cheryl
I think we are ok, you have learned pretty much where I stand on many issues. I have to account to Jesus for my blog posts and my beliefs so I want to make sure I am as correct as I know to be.

‘all doctrines have the same foundation. But it’s what is piled on that foundation that makes it worth eating or not.’

And it is the foundation that needs to be there to support what is piled on top. So it works both ways. Christ is the both the cornerstone and the head of the church, according to scripture. The Alpha and the Omega. It his truth we follow.

Truth can always withstand scrutiny, but garbage is still garbage, even when it’s wrapped in gift wrapping and tied with a bow.

I am hoping the latter is not the case with The Shack, but that it has simply struck a deep emotional chord with folks who can identify, at least in some measure, with the various characters in the book.

As a southerner, I could readily identify with some of the characters in Gone With The Wind, and while I was raised in the same area the book was set in, I knew that while it had some good historical fact in it, along with the fictional characters, there was also some artistic license taken with some of the historical events as well.

However, even now, when folks visit that area of the south, they want to know where Tara was. When we would tell them Tara never existed, they can’t believe it, because the author made it seem so real that folks came to believe it was actually a true story.

mbaker,
I thought that was based on a real character. But I know what you are saying. It was full of baseless stereotypes also. My family would have been one of those po’ white trash families…the less than genteel that weren’t looked favorably upon by the more respectable society. And we are just as Irish..lol.

That’s like Hee Haw or the Beverly Hillbillies. A man I know from Kentucky told me there was a man who came to visit and wanted to know if he could take vittles with them…Margaret Mitchell wrote a good story. It formed our opinions about the old south. Tara by the way is a real place in Ireland. Perhaps you can direct people in that direction.

List of Young & Shack errors or dangers:

I agree with DeYoung that “How can I have a deep relationship with God, or with a human being for that matter, if it is based on lack of understanding, or even misunderstanding, of who the other person is? Does the lack of knowledge of the person
of God lead to lack of faith and false or faulty living or practice?”

1. Rejection of the body of Christ: Young in practice has rejected church bodies in favour of house meetings. I guess he tries (like so many others) to ignore that fact that the body of Christ is made up of sinners and that church life—-however organized—-has always been messy (Paul and Corinthians comes to mind). So, in his book he denigrates churches as unnecessary and misleading. Further he claims that nothing useful was learnt in seminary. Highly untrue, and a slap to all those Godly professors. This is not an error in doctrine, but is an unwarranted, untrue and misleading characterization of the body of Christ and of the persons who work therein and of what can be learnt and accomplished therein. He effectively teaches that we can learn directly from God and experience all that we need (well, except for what he teaches in his book and conferences of course, but I’ll ignore the hypocrisy for now), and that it is possible to read the Bible without paying attention to language and culture of its writers.

2. Rejection of the principle of Scripture alone as the full and final authority, and denigration of Scripture. Despite the Bible’s testimony to its own unique qualities, the majority of The Shack’s references to Scripture are negative in their tone: “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…. God’s voice had been reduced to paper…. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients…. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book”. Hey, I’m all for spiritual experiences and things laid on one’s heart or words of knowledge, but experience is checked by and subordinate to Scripture. It is very misleading and hurtful to Christians to suggest otherwise. I agree with Challies, “The Bible testifies to its own uniqueness and sufficiency. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17). It testifies to its own perfection and power. “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).

3. He teaches, and his book does support, universal reconciliation. By embracing universal reconciliation, “Paul creates his own view of how love and holiness or justice relate and neglects reflecting all those texts that talk about the judgment of God on the unbelievers who reject him. By not embracing both truth and love Paul gives a distorted view of the nature of God.” In addition to what I have posted above about universal reconciliation, it is important to recognize the distortion that Young gives to Scripture. Young writes that one day, when all is revealed,
every one of us will bow our knee and confess in the power of Sarayu that Jesus is the Lord of all Creation, to the glory of Papa” (248). However, he writes as if we will all (everyone) will say this in the experience of eternal life and love with God. However, in Scripture all will acknowledge Jesus as Lord, but some will do it to their judgment and eternal death, and others will do it to salvation and eternal life. Related to this is his support for pluralistic universalism, for when Young writes that ““Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions” (182), he clearly does not mean that they are saved out of those things but that such people are saved even though they remain mormons, etc.

4. He has a wrong view of sin and punishment. He has God say that he doesn’t punish (tell that to the people in Sodom and Gomorrah). “‘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 is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (page 119). That teaches what people in this modern age, indeed every age, want to hear. What people often need to hear and understand is their own sinfulness and God’s judgment of it and impending punishment (but not necessarily the “Sinners in the hand of an angry God” sermon, a la Jonathan Edwards). “Jesus will take vengeance . . . destruction” (2 Thes. 1:8-9)

5. I would consider it wrong to give God the father an image, even in fiction, or to personify him. I believe that the orthodox view is that neither God the father nor God the Spirit has ever appeared as a theophany (physical manifestation of God in human form). Now if this were pure fiction, I might not consider it so wrong, but the author wrote the book to communicate his theological ideas and added the fiction as a device to tie his thoughts together. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Romans 1:22,23). This counts in all areas of our life, including fiction and theological teaching materials (as his book is).

6. I think that even in fiction it is wrong to portray God as a woman. God was greatly offended by and judged Israel and the adjacent nations for combining God with female deities. I would also suggest that God needs to appear as a woman to jolt people out of their comfort zones or to heal things relating to poor fathers. The book has a warm and cozy maternal approach, which is problematic if the problem is fatherlessness (absent, poor or bad). As Blog and Mablog wrote, “There is no way we can hide from ourselves that we have a need for a father, but we cannot bring ourselves to repent, and have our hearts turned back to actual fathers. We cannot bring ourselves to honor our (admittedly sinful) fathers, so that our lives might go well for us in the land that God gave to us.”

7. Young has God saying that Christ is only the best way to him.

8. Young teaches that there was / is no subordination of the Son to the father. He misunderstands, mischaracterizes, and wrongfully puts down obedience. He teaches an incorrect and inadequate theory of equality. He teaches what suits our democratic ears and culture, and bends scripture to fit it, and how he (Young) would like God to be.

9. He molds God into the image that he would like God to fit into, one that suits his cultural and personal tastes and prejudices, and teaches, effectively, that that approach is fine for us to take as well.

10. Wrong view of, and opposition to, the idea of judging. The Bible requires us to exercise judgment, both in this life and in the next. There is a right and wrong way to do, but it is wrong to condemn it entirely.

11. Wrong view of Christian liberty and a complete misinterpretation of what Paul wrote: ” Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”

“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?”….

“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” (page 203)

12. Young does not interact with other views of these theological issues, and presents only his view, and presents it through an emotional device that creates a greater impact than is warranted, and presents a very limited and incomplete view of the subjects he covers (remember, it was not Paul’s intent to write fiction. He intended to write theology and explicitly ignored the rules of writing fiction).

13. I agree that the great danger of this book is that Paul “is subversive to the truth about a lot of things, including the nature of God and the eternal end of people, particularly the lost. He is subversive to the institutions of the church, the state, the
home. The book hinders rather than helps genuine spiritual growth and understanding.”

14. Young’s theology is often confusingly ambiguous or even contradictory. There are many statements that can be read as orthodox–but not necessarily. So people read into them what they want, though it is clear from statements outside the book that that is not what Young means. Moreover, people point to seemingly orthodox statements on redemption or forgiveness as if they offset his heterodox statements or prove that he is orthodox. He’s not; he’s a confusing mix of orthodox and heretical and can write contrary statements on the same or following pages.

15. His discussion of the nature of the Trinity is confused, and confusing. It certainly is not how it is or how it should be taught. I find it startling that anyone should write, as more than one person has that this book changed their view of the Trinity. God forbid (seriously). He certainly draws on Baxter Kruger’s teachings on periochoresis (mutual indwelling), but I don’t think that Kruger’s teachings are entirely orthodox and they go well beyond what is taught in the Eastern Orthodox (which has thought more deeply about that topic than western churches).

16. An incorrect portrayal of man in relation to God and in the presence of God. Mack is entirely too familiar with God the Father. I agree with Challies, “One of the most disturbing aspects of
The Shack is the behavior of Mack when he is in the presence of God. When we read in the Bible about those who were given glimpses of God, these people were overwhelmed by His glory. In Isaiah 6 the prophet is allowed to see “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1). Isaiah reacts by crying out
“Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5)” God loves us and enters into relationship to us, and as Jesus took on the nature of man, but he is also awesome.

There is no reason to read this book, not even to understand those who read it. Reading sound theology will enable you to deal with the distorted views of others, regardless of how they come to those view or where they get their error from (including this book). Did I read it? Only enough to interact on this blog and warn others about it. The theology in it is not sophisticated enough to hold my interest, by which I mean that it is not deep, not nuanced, not well read, not broad, not bible based, not interactive, not critical. Plus the writing is too preachy, it’s like those ridiculous new christian books (neo, or what’s his name). Plus his depiction of God is so irreverant that I feel disgusted reading it.

regards,
John

John C.T.,

Thanks for that list. I am about half way through the book now and I am certainly seeing some of these things come through.

One thing that has bothered me is the irreverence that I see in the book. When Mack first met “Papa”, he was surpried that the Father would have “a questionable sence of humor”. I noticed that too. God doesn’t come across as the holy God of the Bible. This God does indeed seem to be something else than the One we find in the pages of His Word.

I think something else that I have read that really bothers me that was not specifically listed above was when Papa was speaking about the incarnation and she said, “When we three spoke ourselves into existence.” Jesus was the one that was incarnated–not “we three”.

Something else that really bothers me is a discussion Mack was having with all three members of this godhood. They asked him about each of his family members and Mack was surprised that they really didn’t seem to know what he was going to answer. It was explained to him that for the sake of relationship, they were “limiting themselves”, choosing not to bring to mind what they knew for the sake of that relationship. I find that to be quite unbiblical.

I am just now in the part where they are discussing that there is no subordination of the Son to the Father.

I have found this to be, from the point of fiction only, an interesting story so far. And from an emotional standpoint, it can certainly draw you in. The thought of any parent losing a much loved daughter in the way Mack lost Missy is a “tear jerker” as the old saying goes. Because of that very fact, it is very easy to let down your gaurd and let the flawed theology just pass you by without giving it too much thought. So I can understand how people can read it and enjoy it and maybe not be that concerned. But people are saying that it is changing them, their view of God and even their view of the trinity. So the theology is certainly affecting a lot of people. I can see that at the least, it could give people a much more relaxed view of God– one without the necessary Biblical fear of Him that we need to have.

John CT,

Thanks for compiling that list. That was most helpful.

I think it gives us a lot more to follow on this thread than just vague generalities.

Of course Young “makes many mistakes”; so do “we” all, said the Apostle James. (To even include the Apostles who wrote our Bibles?).

By the way, I myself don’t defend Young exactly; I’m just interested in using his work, as a provocative way of raising issues. And opening up discussion. Which is probably the spirit in which it was offered up, and put on this blog.

Thus many of us discuss it; not to endorse it. Even when some appear to defend it, it not out of real advocacy; but simply to inspire discussion. Discussion which, even if it rejects THE SHACK, still teaches many some basic principles of Theology. As we explore many issues.

Don’t confuse academics who play the “devil’s advocate,” for a moment for purposes of debate, with the Devil himself. As many of you seem to.

And let’s not confuse rabbit trails with the rabbit, either, Dr. G.

C:

1) Many scholars translate the (apparently Aramaic; ancient Persian/Arabic) term Jesus used for the father – ABBA – as being in fact, informal: “Pappa.”

2) If Jesus was the “Word,” if in the “beginning was the Word,” then in a sense, God spoke himself into existence. While we, when we adopt the Word, likewise speak our new being into existence. (It’s also an interesting reference to the work of a writer; speaking a character, into existence).

3) The issue with Mac is interesting; and reflects an issue in theology; of predestination, etc.. If in fact, God knows everything, then he knows how we will decide to act, or answer, every time, even before we do it. Therefore, in what sense or why, does God a) ever ask questions of us? And/or b) blame us for anything? Since everything we do is on a trajectory in part created by, or in any case known to, God.

To be sure, “free will” is thought to be part of the anwer. But “free will” theory has problems too. So perhaps Mac is right to be curious, surprised, here.

By the way, Catholics (and some Protestants) hold that Jesus, if he was truly God, would never ask God questions – like “why have you abandoned me?” Since, as God himself, he should already know the answers. Therefore, to explain this, some theologians have come up with such a concept as, some kind of voluntarily limited consciousness. In Jesus.

The Shack might make some theological mistakes somewhere; but here? The author seems very well informed in fact, on theology.

Just curious, Dr. G. Are you an Open Theist? Many of your arguments seem to suggest this.

I know some theology; but honestly don’t know enough theology yet, to know what an “Open Theist” is.

My real area of specialization is elsewhere, than in technical theology.

I could look it up; might do that.

In the meantime, to be sure, I don’t like labels. Or limiting myself with them.

Remember, I “supported” (or better said, discussed) Universalism here, merely rhetorically, as a device to stimulate discussion. And in the interest of fairness; to give all sides, an ear, and a voice. For purposes of free and open debate. Not advocacy.

I finished reading the book. Sat up late last night and finished the last little bit this a.m. I may spoil the story here for any one that is still planning to read it, but I don’t know how to explain my concern without doing that.

In general I still agree with what most of the reveiws have said regarding the problems in this book. Some things I thought had been overblown and weren’t that big a deal.

There was only one area that folks thought to be a major problem that I thought had been seriously misinterpreted.

All of that said, I did find what to me were serious problems in the book. I noted some of what I saw in my comment last night.

However, to me the most serious problem here is, the way I understood the book, it seems to me that Young is more than just hinting at universal reconciliation here.

To start with, there was the quote from Papa that I have focused on so much in the past discussions here–I don’t need to punish sin, it is it’s own punishment. It is not my purpose to punish it.

Then there is a point where Mack is told that he has to be the judge and decide which of his children he will send to an eternal hell. (After all, this is what he believes Papa does, right?) When he is forced to make a choice, he said he would rather die for them and the point is made that is what Jesus did for us. Which is of course correct. So he does speak of eternal punishment. However…

In the next conversation on the subject Papa tells him that everyone in the whole world has already been forgiven because of what Jesus did but “not everyone will choose relationship.” At first I thought he meant that those that didn’t choose relationship were, of course, the ones that would be in that eternal hell.

However, the relationship that is talked about is all in terms of letting Him live fully through us in life, (which of course is good) and how that will change the world around us. Nothing is said about it being necessary to have this relationship to be given eternal life after death.

And then the final piece here that makes me believe this way about his position. Without going into great detail here, there is a point in this story where God opens Mack’s eyes to see things as they really are. All beings, humans, animals and God are these light beings radiating ever changing streams of color. Jesus is seen as the King of Kings. There is a huge group of people there and Mack wonders if his dead daughter is one of them but he can’t tell. They are surrounded by angels, who are also light. And his father, the one that was a church goer but an extremely abusive alcoholic that beat his whole family is also there. Note–a huge group of people including at least one known to be dead with seemingly no distinction made between if they had “relationship” with Him in life or not. Mack’s father certainly did not have the kind of relationship Papa was talking about that he offered that would of made the world around him a much better place. And when Mack and his father saw each other, they were reconciled. And the whole group began worshipping and praising Jesus.

Maybe that doesn’t seriously sound like universal reconcilaiton to you–a form of everyone will be saved, but it does to me.

Dr. G,

You were the one who labeled yourself as an academic playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and the presumption was we were confusing you with the Devil.

So let’s dispense with that kind of silliness, shall we, and get back to discussing the post.

Here’s point 11, which John CT has kindly summarized for discussion:

“11. Wrong view of Christian liberty and a complete misinterpretation of what Paul wrote: ” Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”

“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?”….

“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” (page 203)”

Here we have Young denying something Jesus Himself said, that He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Luke 16:17 has Jesus speaking again:”But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.”

If we are to carry Young’s theory to his logical conclusion of there being no rules, we could even use this theory to nullify the command of Jesus to love our neighbor as ourself, which is supposedly the theme of the book.

Note our remarks on “pappa” above; a widely accepted translation from the Aramaic ABBA.

As far as most of us – Christians – being saved already in some way? In conventional theology, Jesus died for our sins and therefore, we are partially “saved” already. How far does that salvation go? Does the book say? There are many opinions on this, manyr theologies, as we found above. Many here regard this question as beneath their contempt, and well-settled. Perhaps we will look at it again however, some day.

Parts of the Bible (in my memory) suggest that Jesus came “that all might be saved”? So that here again, in a sense, we – even all – are partially saved already? It is just just a matter of whether we accept that or not?

In conventional church language: Jesus is always with all of us, and already died to (partially?) expiate our sins, and to save us. But somehow, we don’t really get saved, until “you accept Jesus in your heart”?

Many hope everyone will be saved. By this or some other means. Many theologies suggest that is possible. Others don’t.

Is Univeralism Biblical? The Old Testasment at times suggest not. But the New is quite a bit more liberal: you can be a good Samaritan – not a jew or Christian at all – and yet be a better “neighbor,” beloved by Jesus.

There might be some other passages in the Bible that suggest it: I dont’ have time to check this.

Though as for the parts of the BIble that apparently don’t support it? Many scholars suggest we take many parts of the Bible – as Jesus said – as “figures” of speech, or metaphors, or “parables.”

So that things like severe scenes of “judgement” and “fire” – might be less solid, more spiritual, than many have thought.

Just to make up a hypothetical argument for the much-demonized and judged, Universalism.

I’m not Catholic by the way; but they dominated Theology for 1,500 years. Suppose we look at what they say now and then. They (and perhaps some Protestants?) hold that to be sure, that an impure person cannot get into Heaven. But since none of us are that pure, they hopte that (constant, Biblical) references to a purifying “fire” refer to a moment – or say, in a place called “Purgatory” – where our remaining impurities are burned out. Protestants might allow something similar in some way somehow. Which would mean that even sinners – who knows, even non-Christians – might get into heaven.

Then too, as for those who are doing everything – or lots – that God, Christ tells them to do? Are they assuredly saved? The Bible tells us that many people who think they are following the “Christ,” and calling on his “name” constantly – “Lord, Lord,” – are actually hypocrits; or deceived persons who following a false Christ.

In which case, some rather very good “Christians,” don’t get into Heaven. And many apparently bad persons, even non-Christians, can get there.

Hypothesizing here, again. But quoting constantly from the Bible.

To be sure, I don’t have my Bible handy here; and my computer is not reliable enough to flip back and forth between computer and Bible right now. I apologize for any Biblical mistakes. Or for that matter, my many computer errors too.

Still, I would say, just superficially, there might be enough of a case for Young here … that we should avoid “judge”ing him too quickly; especially since God tells us that those who “judge” others, will be judged in turn.

And so forth.

The discussion on “law” by Paul – in fact, all of Paul – is incredibly obscure. Anyone who says he has the absolutely final word on Paul … I personally do not trust.

Regarding Paul on the “law”? Parts of the text seem to tell us that 1) Jesus abolished the “law” of “Moses” and so forth; or 2) “fullfilled” ancient prophesies, and therefore met the criterion that the law would not be abolished, until “all had been fulfilled.”

3) In any case, if you hold that all the laws of the Old Testament are still in effect … then if your chruch meets on a Sunday, you are not precisely, exactly, honoring “Honor the Sabbath”; which for Jews, is Friday nite to Saturday nite.

4) While note that many of our laws – which require death for adultry for example, or even gathering bread on, or working on a Sabbath – were apparently argued against by Jesus himself. (“It is written; butI say unto you”). And again, are in any case not enforced by many Christians today; even those that claim to follow the “law.”

5) For these and other reasons, most theologians today do accept the idea that somehow, some old Testament “law”s might be … stretched? Dropped? On the authority of Jesus … and parts of Paul note noted in your comments above.

6) Which reminds me of a basic principle of Biblical theology: don’t just cherry-pick the parts of the BIble that seem to fit a given argument. But examine, present, them all.

But enough basic lessons in Theology. As much of it as I know.

mbaker,

Just to maybe clarify one point you made above regarding not being under any rules. Those quotes are definitly in the book. In his working them out though, he seems to be saying that if we are letting His life live through us (relationship) we will be doing all of those things. But through relationship–not following rules.

Dr. G. said:

“Still, I would say, just superficially, there might be enough of a case for Young here … that we should avoid “judge”ing him too quickly; especially since God tells us that those who “judge” others, will be judged in turn.

And so forth.”

Wow, what a sneaky way to win an argument by being condescending. We are not judging Young himself, but the beliefs he is promoting about God in The Shack , and how well they line with God says about Himself. Apparently you missed something somewhere.

You are using this and other threads as your personal soapbox to expound solely upon your own pet theories rather being willing to enjoin others on the real substance of the subject.

I for one am tired of it, because it is a clear waste of everyone’s time. So I will be leaving this thread as others have already done.

Astute post, cherylu. My list was a bit idiosyncratic, cobbling together my views and views of others that I agreed with. Some criticisms I did not agree with (e.g., modalism) or were a bit overblown (some of Geisler’s and Mohler’s), so I didn’t include them. I think that sufficient posts have been made on this topic (two threads) that it can reasonably be held that CMP was incorrect to assert, “All I am saying is that I don’t see any major line being crossed” and “In the end, I thought that the book was . . . theologically sound.” I also submit that CMP’s recommendation was unsound in light of the fact that Young intended to write the book primarily as a vehicle to communicate his own personal theological views, and the fact people do report changing their views upon reading the book.

regards,
John

Thank you. Note that most of these ideas, are not my personal theories, but are standard academic theology today.

Especially, the line that told us not to “judge” others quickly, is used in theology classes and elsewhere, to suggest we should keep our minds open to many controversial positions. For purposes of discussion.

I mention it here not to advocate it fully as my own; or slip it in as editorialization. But as yet another relevant idea. Though to be sure, I rather like that quote from the Bible. Should I dislike it?

John CT:

Since we both like logical parsing, some points on the Semantics and logic, of your key concepts:

1) Are his “personal” views entirely personal? Perhaps his ideas, personally held … came in part from an established theology? (Universalism, etc.). A point on semantics, and logic here, therefore: to be sure, we often think of “personal” as implying that a) something is uniquely our own. But technically, b) it could mean … just ideas that we have in our person. Which does not preclude others having similar ideas.

Thus, there is no implication there, to preclude his “personal” ideas, having more widely-held theological underpinnings. I personally prefer eating hamburgers to eating rubber bands; but that opinion might also be … an objectively strong one as well. Thus Young’s description of his own work as “personal,” does not necessarily have Young asserting his opinion is unique, or not true. As you seemed to imply above.

2) While regarding the semantics of “Change”? If people change their views, logically again, the word and concept “Change” in itself, per se, does not imply change … for the worse. Perhaps many people were living a mistaken theology … and he corrected them.

To know whether a given “change” was for the worse, we need to clearly determine a) what the original position was; and b) that the change to a second opinion was wrong. Which honestly, I can’t say has been firmly established here, yet.

Note the evidence above, that his theology might not be wrong. If you can refute it all, then you might then have the logical right to say that anyone who’s view was “changed” by Young, was changed for the worse. But until then?

John CT.
I’m not sure your conclusion can be made so firmly and so dismiss the opinion of CMP.
I don’t have time at the moment to address all of the issues you note in your earlier post, but, whilst you might not agree with them, many are still within the bounds of orthodoxy as found in contemporary theology.
Someone (and I can’t remember who or where) made a comment about needing to be ‘more orthodox’. This is a foolish statement. Orthodoxy is not a single point of ‘rightness’, more of a big box with fuzzy edges which is, and only ever will be, a poor attempt at describing God.

Anyway, Cheryl, I’m glad you read the book (you might not be) and are able to express a more informed opinion of it.
Personally, I thought the book was pretty poorly-written fiction wrapped round some challenging theology. I do have issues with Young skirting too close to pluralism (the comment about Jesus being the ‘best way’ as opposed to the only way). But I have no issue with his depiction of God as a coloured female – because it was exactly that, a metaphorical depiction, just as many of the personified descriptions in scripture are metaphorical. I thought his depiction of the Trinity was pretty good and captured much of the core of perichoresis, a perfectly orthodox and, arguably, preferred expression of the Trinity.

Dr. G,

The book of Revelation speaks of people being cast into the lake of fire which is also called the second death. In Mark 9 Jesus also speaks of being cast into hell where there is unquenchable fire. And in Hebrews 9 it tells us that is appointed unto men to die once and then comes the judgment. None of those speak to me in any way of univeral salvation.

Though, regarding Revelation:

1) “Death” itself is thrown into the fire. Does that mean that those who seemed dead, are no longer? Since death is abolished?

2) And how final is the punishment of “death” … when it seems there are many forms of it and layers? When does the series stop (if ever?).

3) Many other parts of the Bible, strongly suggest that the “fire” that “burns” us even forever … does not burn all of everyone; but merely “refines” us (somewhere Malachi …1-3?). Burns off impurities … and leaves the remaining pure soul standing.

All of which suggests universal salvation. Even through the hellfire you love to talk about here.

Again Catholics believe you can be in a firey “Purgatory,” and survive that.

Fundamentalists love to quote the hellfire part of Revelation; but look at the rest of the Bible too.

Can’t do it myself right now; why don’t you do it? Give the other side a fair representation, on your own.

To be sure, I don’t have my Bible here. These are quick remarks.

“That all might be saved.”

Then too, consider a “figure”ative, metaphorical interpretation of the Bible; as Jesus recommended.

Dr G,

Here are two scriptures where Jesus speaks of the punishment given as being eternal, nonending, or of the sin as being eternal, nonending and not forgiveable. I don’t think Jesus in any way speaks only of a temporary time in the lake of fire.

Matthew 25:46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 3:29 “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”–“

Dr. G writes:

“Again Catholics believe you can be in a firey “Purgatory,” and survive that.

Fundamentalists love to quote the hellfire part of Revelation; but look at the rest of the Bible too.”

Catholics get the Purgatory concept out of the Apocrypha, so it is not generally supported by Protestants, who, in my opinion, dismiss the Apocrypha a little too quickly. Although I do not call it Scripture, it has been considered to be of some level of value throughout history and still is today by many outside of the RC church. The apocryphal books were in the Septuagint, which was probably the most common “Bible” at the time of Christ.

I love your remark about fundamentalists because it’s all too true that all of us (not just fundies) are often too quick to ignore scriptures that don’t fit our viewpoints. I even see it in respected commentaries. If we believe the Bible is God’s word, we can’t ignore any of it.

To Cheryl,

To follow-up my last point, many in the church have at least dared to hope for universal reconciliation (UR) – it has a strong historical foundation, because it has some Biblical foundation. Paul seems to support the concept in Romans 5, and 1Co 15:22 is pretty explicit – “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”

How many die? All. How many will be made alive? All. So, consciously or unconsciously, we add “Well, except those who don’t believe” but that is NOT what the verse says. So we apply “Scripture interprets Scripture” where, if we’re not careful, we choose the verses that agree with our presuppositions and use them to interpret the verses that trouble us.

It’s not as simple as we sometimes make it sound. I hope for universal reconciliation, but don’t expect it or teach it – I find too much opposing scripture. But I do see tension in scripture. Your post about the eternality of hell and the verses you quote are true, but check this guy’s blog – http://www.jeremyandchristine.com/articles/eternal.php.

He presents biblical support for his view of Annihilation. I disagree with him, but he supports his position pretty well. Again, my point is that our positions are often not nearly as simple as we make them out to be. People often have pretty good reasons for their viewpoints.

Finally, I don’t remember the details of the story (read the book sometime last year) but right off-hand, the fact that Mack’s father was there doesn’t trouble me. I don’t think it necessarily requires UR. We look on the outside, God sees the heart. Even murderers and adulterers can be forgiven. Some day King David can tell us all about it.

Z:

Thank you.

And also by the way, there are many, many references in everybody’s Bible, even the Protestant one, to a “fire” that “refines” (Malachi 1-3 among a dozen of other references).

And what is the nature of that “fire”? Protestants don’t believe in 1) Purgaory. And yet however, many Protestant churches often metaphoricalize it; to suggest something similar. Many see it to be sure, as only the 2) Day of Judgement fire. But others suggest that 3) that one day, (even now?) we are are to be exposed to the “fire” of God. Perhaps the fire of his Spirit. Which burns off the “chaff” as all Bibles say; the dead “branches.” Our impurities. All words, note, from the Protestant bible.

4) And so perhaps the day of fire is something can happen .. even right now. As you begin to examine yourself, your theology … and begin to see theologcal sins; and burn off those false ideas.

So the “day” of “fire,” could be, even in our lifetime; even to day.

Which ideas will be burned off? Let’s see.

C:

Those two lines look challenging to a Universalist, to be sure. I’d have to a) review other translations; and b) look at their specific context. To see if they hold up as good counter-examples, to universalist elements of the Bible.

Just as a useful exercise: would you like to play the devil’s advocate for a second, and switch sides? And look to see yourself, if even these two could be re-read, in a way that would defend universalism?

Since I hate being the bad guy, full-time?

And since after all, the best way to learn to see the Bible as it is, is to very seriously, all by yourself, work at at least two points of view on every question?

Submit everything to a very, very rigorous debate, within yourself. “Iron against iron,” as some have said here.

Or a friendlier image: take the other side for a minute; learn to see it well, from the inside. And then decide whether it has a case or not.

Walk a mile in a Unviersalist’s shoes … and then and only then, see if you can condemn his point of view as false.

Mind taking the other side yourself for a while? Experimentally? For the sake of an exercise?

Dave Z,

But doesn’t the context of that verse in Corinthians disprove it’s universal application? The very next verse speaks of those that shall be made alive as, “they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

I Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming”

Apparently, by the way, the theological vocabulary includes a universalist form of Protestant Calvinism: “Amyraldianism.” Which we are told, believes in “atonement” for all; though to be sure, only the “elect” are “saved.” Significantly this is, we are told, “also known as four-point Calvinism and hypothetical universalism.”

“Universalism.” In Protestant Calvinism.

So apparently we don’t need to go to Catholicism, to find support for universalism. It’s right there, in the heart of the Protestant homeland: Calvinism itself.

To be sure, it seems limited in some ways. Still again, it would seem that a Protestant could claim to be some kind of “universalist,” and stress a kind of “atonement.” And still be Protestant. Indeed, even a Calvinist; the most serious and humorless form of Protestant. 🙂

BTW, Cheryl, I’m glad you decided to read the book. I know you went in with some bias, but I feel like you read it with a pretty open mind. Though I am curious about what you were hinting at in post 67….

Dave Z,

It also seems to me that the same argument holds for the Romans 5 passage you mentioned. Again, that chapter starts out be speaking of being justified by faith and therefore having peace with God. And the end of the chapter speaks of the gift being given to many and also speaks of it being given to those that recieve it. So again, I think the context tells us that it does not have a univeral application as in “all” men being saved.