"SHACK" THEOLOGY: WHERE IS THE DEVIL?~"LIES WE BELIEVE ABOUT GOD" BOOK BY WILLIAM P. YOUNG, MORE HERESIES

 
"SHACK" THEOLOGY: WHERE IS THE DEVIL?

BY WARREN B. SMITH

SEE: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2017/newsletter20170515.htm; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves.1 – C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

The Shack’s author, William P. Young, quotes C.S. Lewis favorably and frequently in his books, but The Screwtape Letters by Lewis is not one of the books from which he has quoted. I bring up Lewis, not as an endorsement, but to point out a discrepancy. The Screwtape Letters is a novel that presents some of the many ways Christians can be effectively seduced and deceived by Satan and his demons—a subject that is completely ignored in The Shack and in Young’s other books. The discrepancy is that Young  chooses quotes from authors like Lewis to serve his own personal and theological agenda while conveniently ignoring writings by the same author that actually contradict his agenda. The Screwtape Letters is a perfect example.
The Screwtape Letters consist of a series of letters sent by a senior seducing spirit named Screwtape to his young understudy Wormwood. In the letters, Screwtape teaches Wormwood how to subtly undermine and eventually destroy the faith of his Christian “patient.” In the quote cited above, Screwtape tells Wormwood to conceal himself in such a way that the designated individual remains unaware of his spiritual presence. And this is exactly what we find in The Shack. The Devil and his deceptive spirits are never mentioned—not even once. It’s no wonder Young avoids The Screwtape Letters when he quotes C.S. Lewis. Acknowledgement of a real Devil and seducing spirits plays no part in The Shack and its supposed expression of  Christian theology.
Young has a witty but innocuous C.S. Lewis quote at the beginning of The Shack’s main chapter on relationships.2 But where The Screwtape Letters serves to expose and warn about the ways Satan thwarts and undermines a believer’s relationship with God, Young’s novel—and in particular this chapter on relationships—says absolutely nothing in this regard. Given The Shack’s emphasis on the importance of  “relationship,” it seems odd that no mention is ever made in Young’s novel about a believer’s uninvited yet inevitable “relationship” with his Spiritual Adversary—Satan the Devil. There is no acknowledgment, no warning, no advice, no anything in The Shack concerning the Devil, his seducing spirits, and their many wiles.
Contrarily, the Bible tells believers to put on the full armor of God, so they can stand fast against the wiles of the Devil and powers of darkness that are very real (Ephesians 6:11-13). We are admonished to be “sober” and “vigilant” because our Spiritual Adversary is walking around like “a roaring lion” and “seeking whom he may devour”—whether that be in a shack or anywhere else (1 Peter 5:8-9). We are told to resist the Devil and his temptations with the Word of God—not with human wisdom and “relationship” (Matthew 4:1-11).
Young’s easy dismissal of the Devil implies that our Spiritual Adversary is not someone we have to contend with in our lives and relationships. Young goes so far as to teach that “evil and darkness” don’t even exist. Young puts these words in the mouth of his “Holy Spirit” character “Sarayu”:

Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence.3

But this is what the universal New Age Christ teaches—that “evil does not exist.” This false universal Christ states:

Innocence is wisdom because it is unaware of evil, and evil does not exist.4

With darkness having no existence of its own, it’s no wonder that Young’s presentation of evil and darkness agrees with the teachings of the New Age rather than the teachings of the Bible. His expressed disbelief in the existence of independent evil goes right along with his self-confessed universalist leanings.5

 Hidden in Plain Sight

The Shack’s Papa “God” cites a number of inhibiting factors concerning “relationship” in what Papa calls “all the limiting influences in your life that actively work against your freedom.”6 These limiting influences are also referred to as “that confluence of multifaceted inhibitors.”7 But again, Young fails to make any mention of the Devil as one of these influences or inhibitors. For a man who likes to quote C.S. Lewis, Young might want to read or reread The Screwtape Letters. It would seem that Wormwood-like seducing spirits have effectively convinced Young they have no existence. As a consequence of this spiritual deception, Young has defined the Devil right out of existence—out of The Shack, out of his “Christian” theology, and out of the Bible. Sadly, most Shack readers become so emotionally caught up in Young’s novel, they never notice that the Devil is completely absent from his Shack story and Shack theology.
So where is the Devil in Young’s novel? Be sure of this—the Devil’s presence completely overshadows and thoroughly permeates the pages of The Shack. Cloaked in humor, clouded in human wisdom, concealed in flattery, tucked away in mockery and sarcasm, and hidden in half-truths and lies, the Devil thoroughly inhabits the many conversations that ultimately produce Young’s universal, New Age-flavored Shack theology. The Devil may appear to be absent from The Shack, but for those who have the eyes to see, the Devil is the unspoken force that inspires Young and purposely and cunningly drives his novel. As they say, the Devil is in the details. The Devil is not absent from The Shack, he is just hidden in plain sight.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:  for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:11)

Endnotes

1. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York, NY: Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 39.
2. William P. Young, The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity ( Los Angeles, CA: Windblown Media, 2007), p. 104.
3. Ibid., p. 136.
4. A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume (Glen Ellen, CA: Foundation for Inner Peace, 1975) (Text) p. 38.
5. Wm. Paul Young, Lies We Believe About God (New York, NY: Atria Books, 2017), pp. 118-119. (Young states that he believes in universal salvation.)
6. William P. Young, The Shack, op., cit., p. 95.
7. Ibid.

Related Information:
BOOKLET – The Shack and Its New Age Leaven by Warren B. Smith
The Shack’s Universal Papa
“The Shack,” TBN, and the New Age 
___________________________________________________

“Truths We Believe about God” Theological Review of “Shack” Author’s New Book: “Lies We Believe About God”
 The movie was released in the same time as Young's latest book By Pastor Larry DeBruyn
SEE: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2017/05/truths-we-believe-about-god.html; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A Biblical & Theological Refutation of Wm. Paul Young’s book, Lies We Believe About God

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
—The Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 2:1, KJV 

Introduction
As promoted by the best-selling religious allegory The Shack, a non-Christian worldview is playing around with the mind and soul of evangelicalism even to questioning of salvation’s meaning. With the release of the movie by the same name, The Shack’s verbal images are now being visualized. Contemporaneously, and capitalizing upon the publicity generated by the movie, yet another book by Wm. Paul Young has hit the market, Lies We Believe About God.[1] 

Note the Yin/Yang, light/dark symbolism

What Young covertly taught by allegory and metaphor in The Shack he now overtly teaches in Lies—teachings among others, regarding God, humanity, love, and salvation. Reportedly, Young admitted that, “The Shack is theology.” And then added, “But it is a theology wrapped in a story.”[2]

Now in Lies We Believe About God, the shrouded “story” plays a more minor role as Wm. Paul Young openly states his theology. Young continues to exert a compelling presence among mainstream evangelicals through his interviews, books and release of the movie, The Shack. Leaders Pat Robertson and James Robison have praised the movie.[3] Featuring the book’s author, the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) has recently aired a weekly program Restoring The Shack.[4]

Why Be a Christian? 
But despite their popularity, Young’s teachings contradict what Scripture teaches about God, humanity, love and salvation (his contention being that all people are reconciled to God, are friends with God; i.e., universalism), and this conflict needs to be addressed. His revisionist thinking about “Christian beliefs” does not derive from seeing the faith through the lens of Holy Scripture, though he might pretend it to be otherwise, but rather through a prism of his life experiences and emotions. His devastating life experiences while growing up in New Guinea as an MK (Missionary Kid) may explain his journey as to why he has come to believe what he believes. But while the negative emotions aroused by his experiences, and similarly those of others, may explain why Young feels the way he does about some of the evangelical culture’s expressions of belief, they do not excuse his departure from biblical Christianity; that is, if biblical Christianity is to remain the true way of understanding and approaching God.

The purpose of this writing is not to deal with all the issues Young raises in Lies We Believe About God. While he raises a few legitimate concerns which I might share, most of them are illegitimate. What I find irreconcilable with the authority of Scripture is the template he forces on the Christian faith and how wedded to his life experiences, he tries to fit the Bible and its teachings into the psychological and philosophical way he views the world.

For example, if, as he states, all people are universally reconciled to God (Young: Are you suggesting that everyone is saved?... That is exactly what I am saying! LWBAG, 118), then why believe Christianity? (John 14:6) Isn’t that Young’s point by using an atheist as an example of being a child of God to disprove the lie, “Not Everyone is a child of God.”? (LWBAG, Chapter 24, 203-208)[5] If early Christians had not believed in the exclusivity of the Gospel, the Christian church’s genius would have been lost and Christianity would have reduced itself to the status of a sect in the first century. If I thought universalism to be true, I would possess no compulsion to believe Christianity or encourage others to place their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If in the Trinity I along with every other soul on this planet already have an eternal and loving relationship with God, then no matter what I believe or how I behave I am going to be God’s friend and go to heaven anyway, right? It may take time to work out the friendship between God and me, but we’ll get there.

“Unshackled: Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality”[6]
Previously to this writing and eight years ago, I expressed my concerns regarding the theology of Paul Young as expressed via story, allegory and metaphor in The Shack. My reservations were written in my book, Unshackled: Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality (2009). Interested readers can also consult my article about the “god” of The Shack posted years ago on the website Herescope titled, Elousia and the Black Madonna: Imagination, Images and Impurity in “The Shack.”[7] The purpose of this writing is not to replay previous writings contained in Unshackled, but rather to biblically and theologically interact with and refute Paul Young’s teachings in his book, Lies We Believe About God; namely, that by virtue of descent from the Trinity via creation, every human being is through Jesus connected to God in a personal, organic, dynamic and eternal relationship (Genesis 1:26-30; 2:7).[8]

Thus we turn to look at the view of salvation Young promotes in his book (really, all his books) Lies We Believe About God. To begin with, I would like to share the paradigm Paul Young employs to measure Christianity, how he determines what are the truths and what are the lies regarding the faith. Understanding this template will help readers to see, I hope, why Young embraces some beliefs and why he discards others. And I might add, around this worldview much of the popular pan-evangelical movement appears to be coalescing.

The Author’s Spiritual Template
As I have reflected upon two of his books, The Shack and Lies We Believe About God, a spiritual template emerges—call it a paradigm, straight jacket or grid—by which Young measures his spiritual truth derived from the aggregate of his life experiences—as well as those of others (good and bad)—his psychological preferences, his philosophical perspectives, his twisting of Bible passages, his theological musings and his beliefs about God. In order to be included as part of the “relationship” between God and man as his template fashions it, his religious experiences and beliefs must fit in accord with his misgivings about the Christianity he experienced while being part of the North American fundamentalist-evangelical subculture (being an MK, Bible college student, etc.).

The Themes of His Template 
The core of his template is this: Young believes that universally all humans have a relationship with God and are redeemed and reconciled to Him. Everything in life—all cultural experiences, Scripture and theology—must, conditioned by his and other’s experiences and accompanied by his explanations, be molded to fit his belief system. If life events, evangelical expressions of faith or Scriptural teachings don’t fit his system of “truth,” they are considered “lies” (few, a very few, deservedly so). Thus the question arises, because he writes from a claimed Christian perspective, what are the psychological, philosophical, biblical and theological underpinnings which form the universalistic template by which he determines his truth that everybody’s saved because they’re in a relationship, either enjoying or not enjoying it, with God? To explain why he believes what he believes, we will try to unpack these assumptions.

(Movie endorsements for The Shack. Source)

Three Themes 
Indicating where he’s coming from, there appears to be three general themes which form his paradigm: first, by virtue of creation, the universe and the Tri-Personal God (Father, Son and Spirit.) co-exist in oneness; second, in this oneness the Trinity infuses the universe with the Love (spelled with an uppercase “L”) they interpersonally experienced before the foundation of the world (John 17:23, 24, 28); and third, every human by virtue of having been created by and being immanently inside the Trinity has, does and will participate in this divine “Love” Young calls “Relationship.”

First Theme: The Universe and Universalism 
To Young God is the Tri-Personal being who infuses and permeates the whole of creation which he spells a couple of times with an upper case “C” (Creation) in Lies We Believe About God and approximately twenty times (Creation) in The Shack. In doing so, he suggests nature is possessed of divineness. Presumably, the universe exists because in a symphony of unity the Trinity created it (Father, Son and Spirit, Genesis 1:1-2 and John 1:1-4). But this created universe, and here’s the catch, exists “inside” the Trinity.

In the Foreword to Young’s book Lies We Believe About God, C. Baxter Kruger, a Trinitarian theologian, explains the relationship of the Three-Person Oneness of God to creation like this: “Inside of this moving divine dance of relationship, everything was created: every human being, every plant, every subatomic particle, everything.” (Emphasis added, LWBAG, 127-128). So in this view creation is not separate from, but is contained in the Tri-Personal God. The universe is inside, not outside the Trinity. The Trinity is the container, the universe becomes the contents, and God infuses Love into the contents so that no separation exists between container and contents.

Remember: Both Young and Kruger tell readers there’s no separation between the Trinity and humanity, no us and them. (LWBAG, 232, 11) Question: How do compatriots Kruger and Young know everything’s inside the Trinity? Do they arrive at this conclusion through philosophical speculation, their Sophia? Is that the basis? (In The Shack wisdom or Sophia is not Christ (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30), but “a personification of Papa’s wisdom,” 171).

Note: Kruger, as presumably Young, views the whole creation as dwelling within the Trinity (i.e., as Young would say, “No separation!”). By implication, it can be postulated that the converse of this creation-relation-equation can also be believed; that the Trinity indwells a dancing creation the Tri-Personal God shares with “every human being, every plant, every subatomic particle, everything.” If it is assumed that creation is symbiotically inside the Trinity and the Trinity inside the creation, then as represented by Jesus the prototypical human—“every single human being is in Christ... and Christ is in them.” (LWBAG, 119)

This quantum-like physics worldview (where like gravity the Trinity’s energy or Force of Love infuses and permeates the entire cosmos) is monism or oneness, i.e., all is one and one is all. This eastern-like mystical and New Age worldview implies that the universe and the Triune God exist together in a harmonious and rhapsodic movement (No separation!) of dance, in a sort of hypostatic union comparable to the way in which the divine and human fused and danced together in the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ. In such a symbiotic relationship (Creator and Creation “need” each other.) the creation feeds from the Trinity and the Trinity feeds from the creation (Yin/Yang or As Above, So Below).

So Paul Young chooses to name God “Papa” and Elousia (i.e., a combination of the Genesis and Hebrew name for God the Creator, “El,” Elohim, and the Greek verb “ousia” meaning “being” which he borrows from the Greek philosopher Plato). Elousia in The Shack describes herself as “the Creator God who is truly real and the ground of all being.” (The Shack, 111) The source of the phrase “ground of all being” derives from the radical theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965).[9] One theologian evaluates that,

God as the Ground of Being is thus the God in whom Tillich would have us place our trust. But this God belongs to the circle [“We are a circle of relationship,” Papa tells Mack about the Trinity in The Shack, 122] of pantheistic theory. Ultimately, Tillich’s God absorbs everything into Himself [ed., like Young and Kruger’s model of the universe—everything is “inside” the Trinity].[10]

Tillich’s dialectical theology “has been variously designated as a system of Gnosticism, naturalism, pantheism, and atheism; and all these designations are, more or less, accurate.”[11]

In addition to Tillich, Young and Kruger borrow from and are popularizing the theology of Jürgen Moltmann (1926- ), in many ways the “father” of the emerging church, who used “the classical term perichoresis to speak of the mutual relations among the divine persons in God.”[12] This perichoresis relationship (Greek peri = “around” combined with choresis = “choreographed”), also called “social” Trinitarianism, co-inherence, “the dance,” Moltmann extends “to all relations, including mutual interpenetration among beings in the world and their mutual interpenetration with God.”[13]

In cosmic co-inherence, not unlike quantum theory, the Tri-Personal God and all that comprises the universe symbiotically dance together, mutually moving with, among, between and in each other in an ethereally loving and dancing relationship. As the title of Cooper’s book indicates, Young and his friend Kruger are peddling and popularizing panentheism within the greater evangelical, charismatic and emergent church communities—that God is in everything (contrast pantheism, everything is God).

So in reality Moltmann’s panentheistic theology, and by implication Young and Kruger’s, reduces the faith to pagan nature worship, and millions of Christian readers are ignorantly genuflecting before The Shack, both the book and the movie. By use of his template, Young transports readers to worship in his temple.

 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
—Romans 1:21-23 

Kruger’s quotation of Moltmann indicates his connection to the German theologian. To introduce chapter 9—“The Oneness of the Spirit, Son, and Father”—of his book The Shack Revisited, he quotes:

By virtue of their eternal love they live in one another to such an extent, and dwell in one another to such an extent, that they are one.
—Jürgen Moltmann[14] 

Thus, any understanding that God is Holy (“holy” means to separate, to be set apart, and to be sanctified) becomes quite naturalized.[15] And by the way, if the Lord God is not Holy (Revelation 4:8) then neither is He Worthy (Revelation 4:9-11).

But in a worldview like Young and Baxter’s there is no separation between Creator, creation and creature. As Cooper points out, this worldview is panentheistic (God dwells in all, and all dwells in God), though both Young and Kruger probably would not outright state this to be the case. But it might also be classified, at least according to the stated characteristics of their paradigm, to be pantheism. In stating something that sounds eerily familiar to what Young and Kruger write, Andrews defines monism-pantheism:

The essential element of Pantheism... ‘is the unity of God and nature, of the Infinite and the finite, in one single substance.’ The Infinite is not swallowed up in the finite, nor the finite in the Infinite, but both co-exist; and this co-existence is necessary and eternal [ed., by Young and Kruger’s reckoning, everything eternally exists inside the Trinity]. Thus we have the One and the many, the Absolute, the All. It will have no dualism, it will unify nature, man, and God.[16] 

This then is their sense of their universalism, the Trinity circularly moving, “dancing” and changing together in the oneness of Love, and in the process (enter process theology) why not let the whole creation, “every human being, every plant, every subatomic particle, everything” join the great quantum-cosmic dance? Then indeed, there will be “no separation” between God and humans as biblical words sin, wrath, condemnation and judgment imply, only Love manifested in “dancing,” “sharing” and “relationship”—the next word we move on to consider.

(Perichoresis illustration - Source)

Second Theme: The Universe and Relationship 
God is Love, and because the whole creation exists inside the Trinity, there is as has been stated, no separation between God and humans. The Tri-Personal Deity infinitely and eternally loves; each member equally loving the other two without personal diminishment, jealousy or competition between and among them (To state again, this is called perichoresis, co-inherence, social Trinitarianism or “the dance”). Their “dancing” relationship the Tri-Personal God desires to see reproduced between them and all humanity, and this the sovereign Tri-Personal deity has done, is doing and will continue to do ad infinitum. Because all creation exists “inside” the Trinity, creation becomes infused, like gravity, with the Love they share. “Relationship” therefore becomes actualized between God and every human being who ever lived.

Extending out of the Trinity’s union with creation, God is understood by Young to love humans unconditionally, and humans, though they might not realize it just yet, to similarly love God. (After all, they’re inside the Trinity!) Though some humans do not find themselves necessarily “fond” of God, God always remains fond of them (“Fond” is Young’s synonym for love, “We are especially fond of you,” Papa says to Mack in The Shack, 234). It may take time for some humans to become “fond” of God (i.e., develop a relationship), but sooner or later when they wake up to Love, whether in this life’s dimension or the next, they will (Talk about determinism...!).

Of course, such a scenario flies in the face of the Apostle Paul’s statement that there are those who are “haters of God” (Romans 1:30). Yes, some people can’t have a relationship with God because they hate Him!

Having looked at the aspect of relationship in Young’s worldview, we turn now to the subject of redemption and reconciliation.

(Source)

Third Theme: The Universe and Redemption-Reconciliation 
Because God has lovingly wedded all humans into oneness—they are inside the Trinity—within him, her or them (Young’s hermaphroditic [androgynous, ed.*] goddess “Papa” in The Shack) they experience union with God, an eastern-mystical-like union which transcends time, matter and space. Young states that, “every single human being is in Christ (John 1:3), and Christ is in them, and Christ is in the Father (John 14:20). When Christ—the Creator in whom [Note: not “by” whom.] the cosmos was created—died, we all died. When Christ rose, we rose (2 Corinthians 5).” (LWBAG, 119) Young then adds that “prior to the foundation of the world, we were all included;... saved in eternity... all included in the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:19).” (LWBAG, 119)

From birth, if not before, Young teaches that the whole of humanity, being inside the Trinity, was somehow metaphysically “present” with Jesus in the great redemptive event of history, his life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension into heaven. All humans therefore have experienced, are experiencing, or will experience reconciliation and relationship with the Tri-Personal God because “all” were eternally in Christ when He redeemed-reconciled them to him/her/them “selves.” Baxter Kruger writes that to speak the name “Jesus” is to speak in “oneness,” the name of the Trinity. He explains,

Therefore, to speak the name of Jesus is to say that the Triune God, the human race, and all creation are not separated, but together in relationship. Jesus is Himself the relationship; He is [ed., by virtue of His incarnation] the union in between the Triune God and the human race. (LWBAG, 11) 

Kruger then explains that this is “why Paul and I regard the widespread notion that human beings are separated from God as a fundamental lie, one that denies Jesus’s very identity”—and presumably, denies our identity also, an identity of being from time immemorial metaphysically and transcendently one in Jesus, which oneness has now totally become immanent. (LWBAG, 11)

Note: I do not deny the truth that in positional union in/with Christ all believers have together been made alive, raised up and seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3-7). What I do deny are the universal implications which Young prejudicially extracts from the great truth of believers-only union with/in Christ to extend it to every single human being who ever lived.

Read more concerns HERE

The Template’s Summary 
This is the spiritual template of Wm. Paul Young and C. Baxter Kruger, a grid through which Scripture must pass and then be molded to fit into their paradigm of universalism. This is the foundation upon which they base their beliefs. (Bible verses had better fit, or else!). In the last part of the book and in an attempt to prove his fantastic scheme of universal relationship-redemption-reconciliation, Young weaves together a series of Scripture passages, something he calls A Catena. He extracts and intertwines thirty-four Scripture passages in his catena, many extracted from the Apostle Paul’s letters. In this weaving-deceiving he attempts to make biblically believable the conversation he’s having with naïve readers. His catena only includes passages containing the words “all,” “every,” “world,” “cosmos,” “everything” or “everyone,” passages he personally selects to fit his template and provide cover for his aberrant theology. About this method of using the Bible we ought to recall words of the Apostle Peter. Young’s approach to Bible quotation or allusion resembles that of “untaught and unstable” teachers who distort the meaning of Scripture to their own and others’ destruction if they swallow “hook, line and sinker” what is being cast to them (2 Peter 3:16).

Young presumes that because all creation is “inside” the Trinity, because the Love of the Trinity resides in union with all creation, and because all humanity before time participated in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, all are, have been or will be redeemed-reconciled with God. For readers who might have read or be reading The Shack or Lies We Believe About God, I ask that you consider my assessment of Paul’s paradigm to see whether or not his arguments can best be understood against this backdrop. Universal Love as expressed in universal relationship-redemption-reconciliation is the template Young tries to fit God and humanity into, and no matter what, they are going to fit!

This is the New Age-New Worldview-New Spirituality destination the evangelical movement appears to be traveling towards. Though the movement’s trains, whether the New Apostolic Reformation, the Emerging Church, Neo-Calvinism, the Charismatic Movement (add Liberal Denominations, Catholicism and Primitivism into the mix) etc., seem to be traveling on different tracks, they will arrive at the same hub: pantheistic nature worship. If not Christ, religious persons will devoutly deify and worship the cosmos, and then themselves. “I was an atheist” the T-shirt saying goes, “until I found out I am God.”

About the captivating religious box Young and Kruger have constructed for people to put their trust in, no matter how earthly-wise the packaging of it, the Apostle Paul gave this warning to believers: The box is empty!

Beware lest any man spoil [captivate] you
through philosophy [love of sophistry]
and vain deceit [empty deceptions],
after the tradition of men [human wisdom not God’s],
after the rudiments of the world
[the constituent particles and powers of the universe],
and not after Christ. For in Him [Not us!]
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
—Emphasis and bracketed comments added, Colossians 2:8-9 

We turn now to the book, its title and contents.  

To be continued . . . 

Endnotes 
[1] Wm. Paul Young, Lies We Believe About God (New York, NY: Atria Books, 2017). Besides this book and The Shack, Young also wrote Crossroads and Eve. 
[2] Charity Gibson, “‘The Shack’ Cover Artist Renounces Book for Leading People Astray: ‘I Have Deep Regrets’,” The Christian Post, April 19, 2017 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-shack-cover-artist-praised-renouncing-book-i-have-deep-regrets-180895/). Gibson quotes Dave Aldrich who designed the cover for The Shack who quotes Young. 
[3] Al Dager, Media Spotlight (Sequim, WA; Omega Ministries Spring 2017): 27. 
[4] Trinity Broadcasting Network, March (https://www.tbn.org/programs/restoring-shack). 
[5] I will employ the acronym LWBAG (Lies We Believe About God) and page numbers when quoting the book. 
[6] Pastor Larry DeBruyn, Unshackled: Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality (Indianapolis, IN: Moeller Printing Company, 2009). Book available for free PDF download at Discernment Ministries website, http://www.discernment-ministries.org/Unshackled%20by%20L.%20DeBruyn.pdf ; hard copies available from Discernment Ministries, P.O. Box 520, Canton, Texas, 75103; Phone: 903-567-6423. 
[7] Pastor Larry DeBruyn, “The Shack, ‘Elousia,’ & the Black Madonna: Imagination, Image, and Idolatry,” Herescope, July 2, 2008 (http://herescope.blogspot.com/search?q=Black+Madonna ). 
[8] Pastor Larry DeBruyn, “The Shack and Universal Reconciliation,” Herescope, October 24, 2008 (http://herescope.blogspot.com/search?q=reconciliation ). 
[9] Young adapts the phrase “ground of all being” from the term used by Paul Tillich (1886-1965) “to indicate God as the source of all reality or being.” Donald K. McKim, “Ground of Being,” Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY; Westminster John Knox Press, 1996): 122. 
[10] Kenneth Hamilton, “Paul Tillich,” Creative Minds in Christian Theology, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969): 470. 
[11] Vernon C. Grounds, “Pacesetters for the Radical Theologians of the Sixties and Seventies,” Tensions in Contemporary Theology, Stanley N. Gundry and Alan F. Johnson, Editors (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1976): 95. 
[12] See John W. Cooper, Panentheism The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006): 251. For further study, Kruger recommends the writings of Jürgen Moltmann. See C. Baxter Kruger, The Shack Revisited (New York, NY: FaithWorks, 2012): 267. 
[13] Cooper, Panentheism: 252. 
[14] Kruger, Shack Revisited, 106. In his chapter’s title note how Kruger subtly employs one definite article “the” to preface Spirit, Son, and Father, contrary to Jesus’ command to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The quote subtracts from “the” Trinity in favor of “oneness.” 
[15] See Larry DeBruyn, “The Holy God,” Unshackled: 17-22. 
[16] Samuel J. Andrews, Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict, Second Revised Edition (New York, NY: G.P. Putna’s Sons, 1899): 126-127.

*Herescope's editor added this word. Read Warren B. Smith's excellent article "The Shack’s Universal Papa," in which he descibes Papa as not unlike a pagan trickster god. "But in regards to Papa, it states that “in his shapeshifter form he tends to change genders and forms to delight himself."  Our friend Warren B. Smith is writing many articles posted at Lighthouse Trails, some which are referenced or linked to in this article, including his most recent: “Shack” Theology: Where Is the Devil?
• TBN Pulls Plug on “Shack” Author’s New Book—Sort of . . .
• “The Shack,” TBN, and the New Age

To read more discernment material about William Paul Young, and his two controversial books THE SHACK and LIES WE BELIEVE ABOUT GOD, including the recent Hollywood movie based on The Shack, see the articles referenced in Pastor Larry’s footnotes above. Also see the many articles posted on the Herescope blog over the years, such as: 
• THE SHACK & Its New Age Leaven
• THE SHACK, "Elousia," & the Black Madonna
• THE SHACK and Universal Reconciliation
• "UNSHACKLED"
• Quantum Physics and the New Spirituality

Herescope and the Discernment Research Group have been on a badly needed sabbatical since December 2016. This post begins a multi-part series which will be published on Guarding His Flock Ministries website and also Herescope. 

Reprinted with author's permission with minor modifications to the textual layout for blog posting. The glossary of definitions throughout this post were added by Pastor Larry DeBruyn for the Herescope version of his article. For the original article see: http://guardinghisflock.com/2017/05/01/truths-we-believe-about-god/#more-3090

THE "SHACK'S" UNIVERSAL PAPA

 
THE "SHACK'S" UNIVERSAL PAPA

SEE: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2017/newsletter20170502.htm; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Warren B. Smith

There is nothing new about saying, “I am God.” . . . However, in the Judeo-Christian-Moslem world, God is usually not popularly understood as a universal presence, the ground of all being.1 —New Age leader David Spangler (emphasis added)

---

God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things [a universal presence]2—The Shack’s “Jesus” defining “Papa” as a universal New Age God (emphasis added)

---

“I‘m not who you think I am, Mackenzie.”3—Papa, The Shack (emphasis added)

---

Shared Universal Presence
Ask certain indigenous peoples of the South Pacific Islands who Papa is, and they will tell you she is a female goddess4—just like The Shack’s female Papa. Ask certain Haitians, New Orleanians, and Wiccans who are into Voodoo, and they will tell you that Papa is a shapeshifting “trickster” who can appear as either a male or female deity—just like The Shack’s Papa.5 And if you ask, they will all tell you that their Papas are universal Papas who dwell “in, around, and through all things”—just like The Shack’s Papa.

photo: From L to R: Avraham Aviv Alush as “Jesus,” Sumire as “Sarayu,” Sam Worthington as “Mack” and Octavia Spencer as “Papa” in THE SHACK. Photo by Jake Giles Netter.

Papa as Earth Mother
Shack enthusiasts should take note that “Papa” is also the name of a Polynesian Earth goddess who is part of a pantheon of gods and goddesses found in the South Sea Islands. On the “Journeying to Goddess” website, under the heading “Goddess Papa,” we read that Papa is “the Earth Mother who gave birth to all things” and that “Polynesians summon Papa to help in all earthly matters.”6
In his book Unshackled, Pastor Larry DeBruyn describes how William P. Young’s “Papa” bears a striking resemblance to “the name, nature, and nurturing potential” of this Polynesian Earth goddess Papa.7 Quoting from a source on Hawaiian gods and goddesses, DeBruyn cites the references they make to the “comfort,” “care,” “guidance,” and “unconditional love,” that are given to people “in times of crisis and grief” by this Hawaiian Papa and how her “intervention instills calming reassurance and healing.”8 Young seems to parallel the same script as The Shack story wholly revolves around the comfort, care, guidance, and unconditional love that is given by Papa to his main character, Mack, during his time of crisis and grief—how Papa’s intervention instills calming reassurance and the ultimate healing of Mack’s “Great Sadness.”9
Another website elaborates on how the female Polynesian Papa “worshiped by Native Hawaiians” is regarded as “a primordial force of creation who has the power to give life and to heal.”10 A pagan site informs us that a Papa goddess is especially prevalent amongst the Maoris of New Zealand,11 while another site references a South Seas Papa as part of the mythology of the Southern Cook Islands group.12 While Young obviously put a lot of thought into the naming of his Shack characters, and even though he spent his early childhood living on the South Pacific Island of Papua New Guinea,13 he claims to have had no knowledge of this South Seas Papa goddess prior to his writing of The Shack.14
Papa as Trickster
Certain Haitian, New Orleanian, and Wiccan Voodoo practitioners are devoted to a spiritual “Papa” who can appear as both “male and female” and is known as the “trickster.”15 By simply googling “Papa” and “trickster,” a variety of websites emerge to describe this Papa Legba spirit that stands at the gateway to the spirit world. One of these sites—“Exemplore”—states that Papa Legba “is one of the most widely served African deities” and “is always the first and last spirit invoked in any ceremony” because “he opens and closes the doorway to the spirit world.” 16 The site explains that in Voodoo, “Papa” is “the intermediary” who “stands at a spiritual crossroads and grants or denies permission to speak with the spirits of Guinee.”17
On the same Exemplore site, in a special section for witches, Papa is described as a “master shape shifter” who “can help you transform on the astral realm, master dream powers, and advanced magics.”18 But in regards to Papa, it states that “in his shapeshifter form he tends to change genders and forms to delight himself. So don’t be surprised if a woman shows up to help you.”19 And just as Young’s female Papa and the South Seas islands female Papa can be summoned for help, comfort, and healing, this Voodoo trickster Papa can be similarly called upon. One of the posted comments on this witches part of the site states—“Anyone can summon Papa!”20 But sometimes this Voodoo Papa comes when he is not summoned. In another comment, a perplexed woman wrote—“I did not know about Papa at all until he presented his self to me as my spirit guide. Is this normal?”21 A posted reply assured her that “Papa does his own thing his own way, so if he presented himself to you, you can be sure it is him.”22 Another site expressed the confusion that can result from a female ”God” named Papa—“It’s so confusing because Papa is a Mama.”23 But Scripture assures us that the one true God is “not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is not a Papa who is a Mama which art in a shack—He is “our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).
Praying to Which Papa?
So what Papa are people invoking when they are inspired to pray to Papa after reading The Shack? Is Young presenting Shack readers with the true God of the Bible or with a generic Papa “God” that overlaps with all the other mamas and papas and gods and goddesses around the world? The Shack’s “Jesus” answers that question loud and clear for any Shack reader who has a heart for the truth. With words purposefully put in his mouth by Young—a self-described universalist24—The Shack’s “Jesus” proclaims that his Papa “God” is “the ground of all being” because he “dwells in, around, and through all things.”25 In other words,  The Shack’s Jesus says that the Shack’s Papa indwells everyone and everything. This is the same universal God that David Spangler describes in the  beginning quote of this article. But this is panentheism, and this is a lie. This is the foundational teaching of the New Age/New Spirituality/New Worldview that has been rapidly emerging both in the world and in the church. All of this is to say—The Shack’s Papa is a universal Papa and The Shack’s “God” is a counterfeit “God” who has cunningly wormed his way into an unsuspecting church.
Trickster Book
As seen with the Voodoo Papa, some of these mama and papa gods and goddesses are also “tricksters.” And they are definitely doing their trickster thing—which often entails cleverly undermining existing societal rules and established religious beliefs as they offer their unique brand of spiritual healing in the name of a more universal alternative spirituality. What can be especially deceptive is that much of their rebellious spiritual activity is cloaked in half-truths, clever remarks, playful humor—and even Christian language. And what seems all too apparent is that The Shack—and particularly The Shack’s Papa—fall into this trickster category. The novel grabs people’s hearts and minds even as biblical Christianity is being dismantled in front of them as they read the book. And only a trickster book can convince people they are reading about Jesus Christ when the name of Christ is never mentioned—not even once—in the entire story. A generic universal Jesus and a generic universal Papa and not a single mention of Christ, or the Devil for that matter—yet The Shack has already become one of the most popular Christian books ever written!
Trickster books for the church will use Christian language to pull the wool over your eyes so they mess with your mind—it’s all part of “messing around” and being a trickster. Toward the end of The Shack’s story, when the female Papa shapeshifts into being a male Papa, Mack asks if Papa is “still messing” with him. Papa’s immediate answer is—“Always.”26 At this point, sincere readers of The Shack need ask themselves a reasonable question—“Is the one true God of the Bible always “messing” with us, or is this what you would expect from a universal gender-bending trickster Papa “God” who bears more of a resemblance to the trickster god of this world than the one true God of the Bible.

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Endnotes (Caution: Some of the endnotes in this article are from occultic websites.)
1. David Spangler and William Irwin Thompson, Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture (Sante Fe, NM: Bear & Company Publishing, 1991), p. 148.
2. William P. Young, The Shack (Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2007), p. 112.
3. Ibid., p. 96.
4. Part Three: The Chiefs xx Papa and Wakea, http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/hm/hm22.htm | Godchecker website: http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/oceanic-mythology.php?list-gods-names.
5. Denise M Alvarado, “Papa Legba and Other Spirits of the Crossroads” (Who is Papa Legba?, Images of Legba, https://exemplore.com/magic/papalegba).
6. https://journeyingtothegoddess.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/goddess-papa/, “Goddess Papa” September 19, 2012.
7. Larry DeBruyn, Unshackled: Breaking Away From Seductive Spirituality (Indianapolis, IN: Franklin Road Baptist Church, 2009), pp. 27-28. Author’s reference pertains to the now archived Wahine’o Wanana Institute’s “Hawaiian Goddesses” website: https://web-beta.archive.org/web /20110410205614/http://www.powersthatbe.com /goddess/papa.html.
8. Ibid.
9. William P. Young, op. cit.,  pp. 43-66, p. 92, pp. 96-98, pp. 101-102.
10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papahanaumoku
11. The Goddess Papa, http://www.holladaypaganism.com/goddesses/cyclopedia/p/PAPA.HTM.
12. Wikipedia: Papa (mythology)— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_(mythology).
13. Wm. Paul Young—About (http://wmpaulyoung.com/wm-paul-young-about).
14. Eric Barger, “Why The Shack Must be Rejected” (Lamp & Lion Ministries, Lamplighter, May 2017, http://christinprophecyblog.org/2017/04/why-the-shack-must-be-rejected),  pp. 13-14.
15. “Papa Legba and Other Spirits of the Crossroads” (Exemplore blog, Images of Legba, Who is Papa Legba?, https://exemplore.com/magic/papalegba).
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. “Papa Legba for Witches,” How Legba Can Help You (https://exemplore.com/wicca-witchcraft/papa-legba-for-witches)
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., Posted Comments (Nitecat response to babygirl1414)
21. Ibid., Posted Comments (jacynnavarro)
22. Ibid., Posted Comments (Nitecat response to jacynnavarro)
23. http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/oceanic-mythology.php?deity=PAPA
24. Wm. Paul Young, Lies We Believe About God (New York, NY: Atria Books, 2017), pp. 118-119 (Young states that he believes in universal salvation.)
25. William P. Young, The Shack, op. cit., p. 218.
26. merriam-webster.com and encyclopedia.com (ousia)
Author Bio:
Warren B. Smith (B.A. University of Pennsylvania; M.S.W. Tulane University)—A free lance writer and community social worker who was formerly involved in the New Age movement. He has served as a program coordinator for people with special needs, directed several homeless programs, and has worked as a Hospice social worker in New Orleans and on the California coast. He has written extensively on the subject of spiritual deception and has spoken on radio, television, and at seminars and conferences.

"I HAVE DEEP REGRETS": GRAPHIC ARTIST WHO DESIGNED "SHACK" NOVEL, RENOUNCES BOOK

 

"I HAVE DEEP REGRETS": GRAPHIC ARTIST WHO DESIGNED "SHACK" NOVEL, RENOUNCES BOOK 

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/04/10/i-have-deep-regrets-graphic-artist-who-designed-shack-novel-renounces-book/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 The graphic artist who helped design the controversial best-selling 
novel “The Shack” has come forward to express his regret for being a 
part of the project out of his concern that it contains false doctrine.

“[O]ver 10 years ago, I was captivated by the story and felt honored to be part of the graphic creation of the book. I was so drawn into it, wanting to know the God it portrayed,” Dave Aldrich of Aldrich Design posted to social media on Tuesday. “The Shack’s story wonderfully painted this picture to me of an incredibly knowable and loving God, one full of forgiveness, but without being judgmental.”
He said that the novel led him into reading other authors such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, and he found himself at the edge of accepting universalist beliefs before he came to realize the danger.
“I thank the Lord that He pulled me back from that edge,” Aldrich wrote.

And while the graphic designer initially liked how God was portrayed as being non-judgmental and all-loving, he now realizes that because God is love, He must judge sin.
“The fact is that there are two inseparable sides to God. He is both love and judge,” he said.
Aldrich states that he now has “deep regrets” over his personal involvement with and promotion of “The Shack.”

“The movie release of ‘The Shack’ has brought all this back to my mind and I felt the need to apologize to all who I may have led astray by my promoting the book,” he wrote. “I look back and see how little discernment I had. And I regret and apologize also for waiting this long to publicly share this.”
And while some may argue that the book and film are just an imaginary story, Aldrich believes—based on the statements of its author—that the work is simply a means to communicate a message.
“Many will still say that the book was intended as just a work of fiction, but the author himself, William Paul Young, is quoted as saying, ‘The Shack is theology. But it is a theology wrapped in a story,'” Aldrich noted.
As previously reported, “The Shack,” released in 2007, is stated to have sold approximately 20 million copies and has been translated into 39 languages. In 2013, Lionsgate Entertainment obtained the rights to turn the book into a film.
“The Shack” tells the story of a man named Mackenzie “Mack” Phillips who faces a crisis while on a family vacation as his youngest daughter Missy is abducted and presumably killed in an abandoned shack. Years later, the grieving father receives a note from “Papa,” who tells Phillips that it has “been a while” and to meet up at the shack the following weekend.
Reluctantly, Phillips returns to the site, where he meets the Godhead—the Father portrayed as a woman named Papa “Elousia,” who later transforms into an elderly man, the Holy Spirit being a young Asian woman with the Hindu name Sarayu, and Jesus as a Jewish carpenter. Together, they seek to help Phillips deal with his faltering faith and to learn to forgive.

A number of groups have published reports pointing to concerning material in the novel.
“My words are alive and dynamic-full of life and possibility; yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment. That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures,” God the Father tells Phillips in the story (page 205).
“Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. The idea behind expectations requires that someone does not know the future or outcome and is trying to control behavior to get the desired result,” Papa reiterates (page 206).
“Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of good, just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of light or death to describe the absence of life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence,” God the Father outlines (page 136).
“I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into My beloved,” Jesus tells Phillips (page 182).
“In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against Me, but only some choose relationship,” Papa states (page 225).
Nonetheless, as previously reported, more than 1,000 faith leaders have endorsed the new movie release based on the novel, according to the resource site for “The Shack,” which provides both written and recorded endorsements from many well-known entities.
Leaders and/or representatives of The Salvation Army, Young Life, Family Christian Stores, The Christian Post, K-LOVE, CBN and TBN, as well as celebrities such as Michael W. Smith, Joel Houston of Hillsong United, Gospel artist Tasha Cobbs and Chip and Joanna Gaines of HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” show have backed the film.
The movie has grossed $54 million at the box office to date.

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR WADE BURLESON ENDORSES HERETICAL THEOLOGY OF THE "SHACK", COMPARES IT TO CALVINISM

 

 "PASTOR" WADE BURLESON'S HERESY

SEE: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2017/02/the-shack-and-universal-reconciliation.html

 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR ENDORSES HERETICAL THEOLOGY OF THE "SHACK", COMPARES IT TO CALVINISM

BY BUD AHLHEIM

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/03/15/sbc-pastor-endorses-theology-of-the-shack-compares-it-to-calvinism/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The SBC pastor closes his blog entry endorsement with this statement:

“Both Al Mohler and Paul Young believe the same thing about God’s unconditional love and Christ’s effectual death. They just disagree for whom it was intended. So go and enjoy the Shack. It is not heresy.”

Consider now a distinctly different comment from another pastor.

“If the leadership of your church does not vocally, openly, and staunchly oppose the theology presented by “The Shack,” you need to find a new church. It is really that simple. If they cannot spot the heresy in this book, they are not qualified to protect the flock from false doctrine – not in the least. They are not shepherds; they are hirelings who are more than willing to open the gate and let the wolves come in and ravage the flock.   Don’t walk, RUN from that place!”

In light of these two opposing pastoral recommendations, if you were to find yourself standing at the proverbial fork in the road of faith, with each pastor standing on his own path, beckoning you to follow, which would you choose? If you are a Bible-centered, Bible-informed, genuinely regenerate believer, to err on the side of orthodox caution and Berean discernment seems not only the proper thing to do, but also the one most likely to keep you on the tough-to-trod, narrow path. To take the more heavily trod path – in this case, meaning to follow the multitudes who extol the power, grandeur, and emotions-evoking power of The Shack – would necessarily imply taking the wider, easier path, skipping gleefully along with the glowing, celebrity-laden endorsements that make it just sooo appealing.   (Deception, mind you, just like sin, is always appealing.)

SBC Pastor Wade Burleson

The opening, encouraging quote comes from Wade Burleson, lead pastor of Emmanuel Enid, a Southern Baptist church located in Enid, Oklahoma. Burleson, a former IMB trustee (he resigned in 2009 over Board charges that he violated non-disclosure, code of conduct protocols by publishing on his blog some details of the non-transparent proceedings of the Board, according to Baptist Press), penned his endorsement of The Shack (multiple entries, actually, laud the work of author William Paul Young) on Istoria Ministries Blog.  (Burleson’s endorsement of
(Burleson’s endorsement of The Shack should, perhaps, be considered in light of his Feb. 16, 2017 entry in which he also promotes a Jesus Culture video.  Jesus Culture is the flagship music group from the thoroughly heretical Bethel Church, FYI.  This speaks volumes, of course, to this pastor’s woeful capacity for exercising Biblical discernment.)

Source: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/03/warning-read-this-post-with-

discernment.html

In a 2009 blog post defending the book The Shack, Burleson made jest of LifeWay’s then response to concerns about the book by marking it with a “Read With Discernment” label.  He emphasized that “the book is a work of fiction.”  (Emphasis original)  What may have been the case in 2009 would be today, after the release of the movie, a difficult claim to defend.  The Shack Small Group Study Kit and Study Guide are being marketed by one of the movies “partners,” Outreach, Inc.  Why, one wonders, would a work of “fiction” need a church or small group study guide if it were being proffered for merely allegorical, entertainment purposes?

Burleson’s blog entry from February 2, 2017, serves up a response of sorts to Albert Mohler’s article that soundly denounced the theology of The Shack as “sub-biblical and dangerous” and called the evangelical embrace of it a “tragedy.” Mohler emphasized that “evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment,” a lamentable reality that “must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge.”
But Burleson’s response, in his blog entry entitled “The Shack and Universal Reconciliation: Answers to The Charge of Heresy By Evangelical Christians,” does not address the continuing downgrade of biblical knowledge within the evangelical church, nor the glaring absence of any attempt at discernment which Mohler rightfully bemoaned.   Burleson’s response was an attempt to favorably close the gap between Young’s theology in The Shack and Mohler’s as a “five-point Calvinist.” Burleson points out that “I understand Dr. Mohler’s theology and happen to agree with it, though I prefer to call it ‘the doctrines of grace’ because I see these doctrines taught in Scripture.”
So Burleson, a confessed Calvinist, attempts to reconcile the glaring universalism of Young in The Shack with his own and Mohler’s theology. His intent is to dispute the charge of heresy brought against the fictitious work and paint it in an evangelically-favorable light.  It is worth noting that to buttress his defense of Young’s theology, Burleson turns to the likes of C.S. Lewis, George Macdonald, G.K. Chesterton, and the “Christian” Mark Twain.
(Lewis, you might note, drew the criticism of Reformed stalwart Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said, “C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement.”  For more on Lewis, go HERE.  So “C.S.” obviously doesn’t stand for  “Credible Source” drawn from the mainstream of orthodoxy.  As to Chesterton, his pithy witticisms do not negate his praise for Catholicism, writing that “The difficulty of explaining “why I am a Catholic” is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.”  Another non-credible witness for Burleson’s defense of Young’s heresy.  MacDonald, a prolific author and poet, influenced Lewis, Chesterton, and Twain.  But MacDonald was, as Burleson notes, an avowed universalist.  As for Twain, who some would like to tout as a Christian – though he has long been a poster-boy for atheism – two quips of his seem to make him an equally undesirable defendant in Burleson’s apologetic for The Shack. See below.)

“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.”  Mark Twain
“I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him.”  Mark Twain

Effectively dismissing Young’s universalism as seriously problematic, Burleson’s argument is to minimize the charge of heresy down to the single issue of the extent of the atonement.  “For whom did Christ die?”  But the reduction of the theological problems with The Shack to this single point is deceptive.  There is more to The Shack‘s problems than Burleson addresses. (A resource from Justin Peters is provided below that addresses many of these issues.)  But, you can read his argument and determine for yourself whether Burleson’s attempt to evangelically anoint The Shack with the mantle of authentic, Biblical Christianity is valid. Perhaps, though, you’ll find his argument (not to mention his cadre of unorthodox co-defendants)  not merely ineffective in achieving this purpose, but serving as further evidence that validates Mohler’s claim of an increasingly discernment-free church suffering from a severe dearth of Biblical apprehension.
Burleson seems far more interested in extending an olive branch of culturally-approved tolerance to a work that is decidedly heretical- though heavily Christianized and emotions-generating – than he is to defending Christ’s sheep from Word-twisting wolves, regardless of how impressively, sheepishly dressed those wolves appear. And make no mistake, Young is a wolf.  And The Shack is not Christian.
The fundamental measure of whether something is authentically Christian is not the frequency of Bible verses that it cites. It is not the prevalence of Christian words and phrases that might permeate it.   Neither is sincerity of message a measure of Biblical authenticity, just as the exhibition of powerful emotions is no evidence for the activity of the Holy Spirit.  False teaching – heresy – does not come with a demonic warning label announcing itself. Rather, it comes elegantly attired as Christian, incorporating selectively chosen tidbits of truth and the vernacular of faith that are woven together into its overall deception. A measure of truth always accompanies the error, a condition which is fatal to truth itself. As Christ warned, “beware the leaven.”
A thing – like The Shack -may look Christian, sound Christian, and smell Christian, but a Christianized facade, even one that powerfully evokes emotive responses, does not make something Christian. The fundamental measure by which something is rightfully gauged “Christian” – be it a book, a movie, and perhaps especially, a church – is the crucial element that has become increasingly absent in the evangelical church – the authentic, Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Shack is devoid of the Gospel.  It is not Christian.
But not only is The Shack not Christian, it is not helpful to the Christian faith. We can be reminded by what may seem a silly point, but John, the apostle and gospel writer and Revelation writer, wrote these inspired Words as the opening to his Gospel, “In the beginning was the word.”   He did not write, “in the beginning was the movie, or the shack, or the whatever.” The Word is what was in the beginning, and it is the Word which He has progressively, and specially, revealed to humanity. That Word, of course, is Jesus, the Christ of the Gospel.   And that Gospel is the power of God to save (Romans 1:16) because that Gospel is the zenith of his redemptive revelation.
For a thing to be Christian and to start at some point other than the Gospel, to only continually avoid that Gospel, means that thing is not authentically Christian, nor is that thing capable of bringing Spirit-regeneration to a dead soul.  It is completely incapable of edifying Christ’s sheep in whom the Holy Spirit resides. Error does not come with God’s “look the other way” endorsement just because it contains a modicum of truth.  And, be sure of this …. God does not need a work of heresy, regardless of how seemingly “God-friendly” it may be, to generate conversational buzz about Him.  He will do his redemptive work as He always has, through the Gospel.
No doubt to capitalize on the current Shack craze, Young has recently released his newest work, Lies We Believe About God. (A review of this book is forthcoming.) The 28 chapters presume to refute erroneous evangelical beliefs about God, as well as to defend the theology he presented in The Shack.   But at the close of Lies, Young offers “A Catena” (“Catena” is Latin for “chain.”) intended to substantiate his unorthodox and, according to Mohler (and multitudes of others), heretical universalistic view:

“A catena, in this case, a chain of Scriptures (various translations based on the Greek New Testament) strung together as commentary on the theme of God’s saving work for all – the grand arc of God’s drama of redemption. When read aloud with a touch of gravitas, the momentum is powerful:” (Source: Lies We Believe About God, pg. 241)

A “touch of gravitas” or not (that suggestion alone expressly indicates that the evocation of positive emotional responses is more desirable than the apprehension of inherent truth), the 34 bullet-pointed Scriptural “commentary” references that Young weaves together represents the classic example of Scripturally caustic hermeneutics. No contextual consideration is given, but great emphasis is impressed upon the reader by each selection in which Young’s notion of universalism seems Scripturally supported.   His citations italicize words such as any, all, every, and world to imply that the verses demand, defend, and substantiate God’s salvation of every sinner.  He weaves these 34 plucked verses to produce a narrative that is pure universalism.
A few examples of Young’s italicized, non-contextual “thread” …

“This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, than through him all would believe.  (John 1:7)”

“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  (John 1:29)”

“We labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)”

But the error of The Shack does not come only with an endorsement from SBC pastor Burleson. Other SBC’ers endorsed it, too. Their comments, coming from a pre-screening of the fictitious flick, are being used as endorsements on TheShackResources.com.
We reported that 1000 Faith Leaders Endorsed The Shack. One of the many SBC churches and agencies represented was The Greater Orlando Baptist Association. A representative of this Florida Baptist group of over 250 SBC churches is named among the 1000 “faith leaders” who lauded the film.

Source: http://theshackresources.com/endorsements-full

According to the association’s website, Mark Weible is its Church Planting Director.  While The Shack clearly promotes universalism, this endorser seems particularly impressed by a presentation of what amounts to little more than a “therapeutic gospel,” not altogether unlike the word-faith, prosperity gospel.  Want to get rid of pain?  Get God.  It’s an equally invalid, unscriptural, and heretical presentation of God.
Another such endorsement comes from a Texas Southern Baptist.

Source: http://theshackresources.com/endorsements-full

Smith happens to be the Executive Director of the Austin Baptist Association. His comment – again, used as an endorsement – doesn’t denote the error with the film’s blasphemous depiction of the Trinity; he merely lauds it as “very creative.” Creativity, however, is neither a spiritual gift, nor a fruit of the Spirit, leaving his endorsing comment suggestive of the importance of something that is fundamentally unimportant when compared, say, to the “very” glaring lack of the Gospel in the film.
It is unclear whether Weible or Smith offered their laudatory comments with the approval of their respective organizations.  Burleson clearly promoted his on a website independent of his church’s site.  But what motivates Burleson that doesn’t apparently motivate the other two SBC’ers is his close friendship with Young.  In fact, back in 2009, so enthralled was Burleson with the book The Shack, it having been recommended to him by his mother, his sister, and his wife, that he invited Young to preach at his church, a move that evidently did not sit well with some (as it rightly should not have).

Source: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/04/wm-paul-young-and-shack-review_

08.html

Burleson’s love of sinners argument is intoxicatingly unscriptural, though, when it comes to opening up the pulpit of Christ’s church to a pagan. While we all are born depraved sinners, the church is not a showcase for pagan philosophy, trotted out though Young’s is as Christian theology.  Though tares exist among the wheat, the pastor is, first and foremost, to feed the sheep, a task that cannot be done by fertilizing them with error.
Which takes us to the second quote at the beginning of this article, the one which warns authentic sheep to flee from any “church” and any “shepherd” that does not vigorously, “staunchly oppose the theology of The Shack.”  That comes from pastor and author Jim Osman.  He and Justin Peters viewed the movie and came away aghast that such a thing could remotely be considered Christian.
(Peters and Osman have produced 5 radio episodes about their visit to The Shack, exposing its heresies, for The Justin Peters Program.  I heartily encourage you to tune in.  If you are inclined, by the endorsements of pastors like Burleson or others, to see no problems with The Shack, please, “examine yourself to see if you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5) because the Holy Spirit always, always, ALWAYS leads TO the TRUTH (John 16:13) and AWAY from error.)
The beginning of the Christian life for every believer necessarily begins with the Gospel.  Nowhere else.  Despite the multitude of Jesuses proclaimed by the evangelical church today and portrayed in culture by some Hollywood flick or a publisher’s paperback novel, unless He is the Jesus of the Gospel of Scripture, it is the wrong – and unsaving – Jesus.  The universalism of The Shack intentionally demeans the real atoning work of the real Jesus on the Cross.
Know, embrace, and follow the genuine Jesus of the Biblical Gospel.  “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” (Mark 1:15)
But just know this … given the rapidly quickening pace of its downgrade, to find that saving Gospel and that Biblical Jesus, you might just need to start somewhere other than a Southern Baptist church …
Because, sadly enough, it’s remotely plausible to say that “you can’t get there from here.”