A Load of Crap

This is a critique on THE SHACK written by Wm. Paul Young 2007

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 As for 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 Christianity.

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 2:10 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 This is 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 promotes.

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." Indeed "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 5:15 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?

Steve Amato

The Boston Christian Bible Study Resources