This is a critique on THE SHACK written by Wm. Paul
Much as Popular Christianity does not represent Biblical Christianity,
some, like Mr. Young, have taken it upon themselves to fabricate their
own version of God by making up stories in which they can both play
God, manipulating circumstances and characters in accordance with their
agenda, and even put words into their god's mouth.
In contrast, Biblical Christianity hold's God's Word as a sufficient
representation of God and avoid adding to or manipulating God's Word -
with fear and trembling. For the Lord says, "This
is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and
trembles at my word." Is 66:2 "Every
word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in
him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a
liar." Pr 30:5,6
Mr. Young is a liar. God did not say what he claimed he said in his
book. And who endorses his book on the front cover but Eugene Peterson,
the author of arguably the worst Bible version of all time - The
Message. The only thing these books are good for is kindling.
What is his agenda (apart from just trying to make a buck), but to push
his feminist, free grace, worldly viewpoint. Is it because it's a
popular viewpoint and therefore he thinks he can sell more books by
pushing these? Is it because evangelical feminism and free grace
theology dominates the Christian community today and actually reflects
his values? He's going to have to explain that to God on the judgment
day. Fact is, the Shack is a load of crap.
First, of all the possible scenarios he can fictionalize, he choses
that which the world choses in most of its modern feminist portrayals
of life - namely viewing fathers, and men in general as abusive and
women being good. Hey, it sells! In fact in the shack this man who was
abused by his father, whom Mr. Young fictionizes to have been a
church-going Christian, but a drunkard, a wife-beater who tied
his son to a tree for three days while he beat him with a whip. And of
course we all recognize the typical "evil" Christian male figure that
world always portrays in its fictions. Hey, it sells!
And this hatred of men is typical in the Christian community, where any
talk of "submission" and "subordination" of the wife (such as we read
in the Bible) is responded by fabricating such fictional accounts and
scenarios, expressing utter contempt for such a concept and justifying
the evangelical feminist veiwpoint in their hatred of men. Likewise
both Christian men and men in the world have become largely
emasculated, marginalized, even effiminated, having embraced the
feminist philosophy which so enslaves Western culture. So feminist
pastors and effeminate Christian writers largely see it as their duty
to push such crap on the rest of the Christian community.
So how does Mr. Young portray his god? This abused son allegedly meets
god in the shack, the Father turning out to be a fat black woman. (A
rip-off of Stephen King's THE STAND) And she is entertainment oriented
as she's listening to "Diatribe" through some head phones. Being fat is
indicative of lack self-control. And this is confirmed where his
"Jesus" says, "You're free to do whatever you like". And this is in
accordance with free-grace "do whatever you like" theology, so
predominant in the Christian community today.
What does the Bible say about this? "there will
be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them— bringing
swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways
and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed
these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.
Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their
destruction has not been sleeping." 2Peter 2:1-3
their theology it says, "they mouth empty,
boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human
nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in
error." 2Peter 2:18
"The Shack" is a modern example of
such a thing.
Now note also that his god, this fat black woman is referred to a
"Papa", alluding to God the Father. Think about that. He is
effeminizing the male role. He is saying that fathers should become
effeminate. They should become women. And this is in fact much of the
case in modern society, or at least what it likes to hear. Consider
this dialog. Mack says, "I think it'd be easier to have his
conversation if you weren't wearing a dress" His god Papa answers, "If
it were easier, then I wouldn't be". So what is the lesson? That when
fathers talk to their children they should wear a dress! Young could
not have made his feminist agenda more obvious. In fact his version of
the Father and his Jesus are gay.
Getting back to the way this book was written, it starts off taking
pains to make you think you're reading an actual historical account.
This is just like the Gnostics and early fictional Christian
literature. There's always some heretical viewpoint they're trying to
push which is not found in the authentic historical accounts. So they
make this kind of crap up. He presents it like a personal testimony. If
nothing else he simply makes non-Christians view the Bible as just
another fictional account, full of lies, mere alleged testimonies. Like
the boy who cried wolf, the more of these fictional accounts endorsed
among Christians, the more they illegitimize the Bible as historic
fact. This book is not only anti-Biblical, it's counterproductive to
the spread of the gospel.
Naturally it holds a post-modernistic viewpoint. God is how you feel.
Everything is subjective. This "Mack" person has a seminary degree, but
his objective knowlege of the Bible is treated like a load of crap
(just like the world) (Hey, it sells!) His "jesus" massages "papa's"
foot after Jesus had dropped a bowl of batter which spattered on papa's
dress and papa says, "Ooooh, that feels soooo good!" It's such utter
nonsense - manipulating Jesus and the Father like two barbi dolls and
putting words in their mouth. And he basically makes them as if two gay
lovers. This is such utter heresy such utter disrespect he's going to
have to answer for.
I don't know how anyone claiming to be a Christian can embrace this
piece of literature. Such an alleged Christian must have become blind
and corrupted by the world. Yet what else can explain the celebration
this books gets among popular Christianity. Seems Popular Christianity
has become largely the enemy of Biblical Christianity.
Of course the Holy Spirit is spoken of as female. As for sin, his god
says, "I don't need to punish people for sin." (Yet more heresy!) But
this is in line with the Santa Claus figure of God, never punishing
sin. Apparently his god has no judicial nature. Sin is simply viewed as
a disease to which people are innocent victims. Guilt is apparently
just a psychological thing. It's view point, the viewpoint of popular
As I continue in the book, Jesus is viewed as not subordinate to the
Father - no chain of command. Or to quote his "Jesus", "Chain of
command? That sounds ghastly." Why what a coincidence. It's the same
thing that the evangelical feminists say about Paul's commands
concerning wives subordination to their husbands. Yet the Biblical
viewpoint of Jesus' subordination to the Father is the model of such
relationships. Again Young is pushing his feminist point of view. His
god says, "Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse
the strong use to make others conform to what they want." Again from 2Peter
the Bible says (of guys like Mr. Young), "This
is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful
nature and despise authority."
Well there you go.
Yet another feminist quote from his "Jesus" who says on page 147, "The
world, in many ways, would be a much calmer and gentler place if women
ruled. There would be far fewer children sacrificed to the gods of
greed and power." (I guess he wasn't counting abortions!) In contrast
God rebukes Israel saying, "Their children are
rebellious and women rule over them" Is 3:12
Young's agenda. Feminist rule. For women to rule over men. And why is
it that women are pushing for these kinds of things, if indeed their
goal is not that of greed and power? Surely women are greedy. They will
marry and divorce men just for the money. Surely women are power
hungry. It shows in most marriages. The idea that women and good and
men are evil - that men are greedy and power hungry and women are not
is contrary to the obvious facts. Yet this is the blindness feminism
Now to quote his "Jesus" on page 149 "my life was not meant to be an
example to copy". In contrast the Jesus of the Bible says, "I have set you an example that you should do as I
have done for you." Joh 13:15
And his apostle says, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of
Christ." 1Cor 11:1
and 1Peter 2:21 "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for
you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."
"Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus
did." 1John 2:6
Might we say that Young's Jesus is
kind of an anti-Christ? Seeing as he seems on many points to take the
opposite position that the Biblical Jesus takes? Again his Jesus says,
"If you want to do your thing, have at it." The Biblical Jesus says, "Why do you call me lord, lord and not do what I say?"
"And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for
themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again" 2Cor
But again he pushes he free grace point of view, putting
words into God's mouth that God never said.
On page 182 his "Jesus" does not identify himself with Christianity. He
promotes the many roads lead to God philosophy. His Jesus says, "Those
who love me come from every system that exists - Buddhist, mormons,
baptists, muslims ... I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do
want join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my
Papa ..." This is just blatant heresy. Yes Muslims claim to believe in
a "Jesus", but their Jesus they claim was not the son of God, did not
die on the cross, was not raised from the dead and was no more than a
prophet. And the Buddhist Jesus is even further from the Biblical
Jesus. But this kind of multicultural - believe whatever you want
"Jesus" - is the Jesus Young is pushing. How can any genuine Christian
endorse this crap?
On page 192 "Papa" says "as if only to herself, "Men! Such idiots
sometimes". Again this is the cry of the feminists. There is no equal
in his book "Women! Such idiots sometimes." To the feminist, men are
idiots and they aren't ashamed to say so publically, but woe to those
who call women idiots. (Though if any Christian women endorses this
book - well she's pretty much an idiot! Sue me!)
The way the world (including worldly Christians) portray things is
often the opposite of the way they actually are.
The popularity of this load of crap among Christians is a reflection of
the utter corruption characteristic of the Christian community today.
Am I the only one who thinks so?