My comment to Wayne Jacobsen:
Hi Wayne, I think there are some loose-ends in your defense of THE SHACK. Your position regarding the author, William Young : he believes in UR, and you say that you don’t. By collaboratiing with someone who believes in UR it sends a message that you think it’s a light matter; a take-it-or-leave-it matter.
Note, i’m not talking about guilt by association. I’m asking whether you take the doctrine of UR lightly.
The “god of UR” is not the God of the Bible.
http://lifestream.org/blog/2008/03/04/is-the-shack-heresy/comment-page-4/#comment-33271
Ian Vincent 
January 22, 2011 at 1:46 am
Wayne Jacobsen’s reply (on his blog) :
January 22, 2011 at 2:02 am
Thanks Wayne for your reply.
Does William Young still believe in UR?
If so, was his decision to delete his references to UR out of the draft simply a pragmatic business decision, so that the book will sell more copies?
January 22, 2011 at 4:45 am
To believe in UR is to worship an idol.
They found the God of the Bible too harsh, so they created a substitiute in their imagination.
They couldn’t reconcile how this God of the Bible could be love and yet torment forever those who reject Him.
UR is a matter of men rejecting God.
I agree with Wayne that we should patiently try and help such people come to the real Jesus.
January 22, 2011 at 7:47 pm
“The Shack” is a deception [doctrine of demons].
I don’t know how anyone who loves God and His words could read and stomach it.
However, I know some who love God and do …. and I have conversed with them about, confronting the errors. They will acknowledge them, but still like the book. Why?
They belong to congregations that mix truth and lies on a daily basis; they were raised in deception. Some of them know better–but refuse to address error–because they love the praise of men more than the approval of God.
Don’t mean to be difficult–not feeling harsh towards any Christian–just stating the truth, as I know it.
Peace
January 23, 2011 at 12:27 am
Wayne Jacobsen’s next reply:
January 23, 2011 at 12:36 am
Wayne,
Thanks again for your clarification.
Yes, i was not confusing UR with Universalism, but please tell me what is the essential difference between the two, if all people are eventually reconciled to God anyway? One may as well be a Hindu or whatever, if the Bible says that God will eventually reconcile everyone to Christ.
On the matter of your relationship to William Young, i find it astounding that you could work so closely with a brother in Christ, but now, some time later, not know, or not care to know, what he believes?
January 23, 2011 at 12:54 am
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I agree.
The basic fundamentally flawed assumption of THE SHACK is that the God presented in the Bible suffers from bad PR, and we need to create a fictional scenario to try and make this God more palatable for the more enlightened post-moderns. Create a new god.
If someone cannot stomach the harsh realities (harsh to our perception) presented in the Bible about the nature of God, then they simply cannot accept this God. Idolatry offers a temporary substitute.
If we truly understand what transpired on the cross, in the death of God’s Son, then we will accept eternal judgment as the perfect and just consequence for those who reject His sacrifice.
January 23, 2011 at 1:45 am
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:18-20)
Post-modern christendom cannot accept these facts.
It tries to conceal the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all sin, and thus give man an alibi for his sinful condition. It takes the position that God is not like that, but says that the “God of wrath” is simply a traditional man-made view of God : religion using fear as a tool to manipulate people. The enlightened view of God (they say) is not a God of wrath, but love, only. They say that God would never influence people by fear and threats of eternal suffering.
————————————-
I agree with Wayne that THE SHACK is not distinctly new-age or emergent. BUT it is a subtle bridge and link to those beliefs. A stepping stone in that direction.
————————————
I think the reason that explicit, literal scripture texts were not included in the “theology” of THE SHACK is that the writers thought it would spoil the tenor of the book. They were right. There are so many scriptures that HAD to be not mentioned in order for the premise of the book to work. To include those texts would be like eating a pork chop at a barmitzvah.
————————————
Theology is an interesting and convenient word. God doesn’t use such terminology. To Him, something is either the truth or it is a lie. Truth never is lowered into mere “theology”.
January 23, 2011 at 2:27 am
Here is the problem with “The Shack”: it is written by someone who professes himself to be a Christian.
If the author didn’t claim to be a Christian, I wouldn’t have a problem with it: it would just be another vain fantasy of man.
The author’s professed faith implies that he accurately understands and is communicating God’s character and nature: but it is leaven to the immature and extraordinarily dangerous to those weak in the faith.
January 23, 2011 at 8:39 am
I can see the distinction that Wayne is making between Universalism and Ultimate Reconciliation. He is rejecting two distinct ideas, although they do both point to the same end. It is important to reject the idea that all religions point to the Lord, even though they don’t use the term Christ, and it’s important also to understand that not all men will be saved. (Even some who profess to follow Christ.)
I really must have missed the boat on The Shack. It had no effect on me at the time I read it. Jacobsen’s earlier book, ‘So You Don’t Want To Go To Church Anymore’ came along at the right time and place, and was very helpful to me at the time. The Lifestream ministry was one of the ministries that helped me begin to see through some of the fallacies of compulsory organised church and it’s hierarchies. There were others I found helpful as well. I don’t necessarily agree with all they say, but God has used them to teach me and encourage me in my new walk meeting in a house with other Christians. There were some warnings there too that were timely for us.
Anyway, I read The Shack expecting it to have some kind of impressive effect, because of all I’d heard about it. Instead – no more effect than any other work of fiction. I found the writing not as good as other fiction books I had read recently, and the theology confusing – it was not clear to me what it was saying. Plus I skipped the parts about the horrible things happening to the little girl, since as a mum with young kids, I just found that too unpleasant. I did like the part about the Holy Spirit clearing weeds out of the garden. That was a nice analogy, that I did understand.
January 23, 2011 at 8:42 am
Also – I’m glad he clarified ‘UR’. It sounds so Babylonian.
February 2, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I read Wayne’s defense of The Shack and was immediately struck by these words at the end of the 2nd paragraph: “It’s like eating chicken. Enjoy what you think is the meat and toss what you think are the bones.”
That sure sounds nice, but it doesn’t work like that. A bone is a bone, and flesh is flesh. I don’t think a bone is not a bone and eat it. I’ll choke and have digestive problems or worse. And if I’m throwing away meat because I think it’s a bone, then I’m throwing away something that my body needs. I’m sure you get the point. Thanks to the Bible, the difference between bones and flesh have been clarified for us.
It may sound like I am nitpicking and that perhaps Wayne didn’t mean to say it that way. Well, he did say it that way, did he not? Frankly, I think it well illuminates some of the flawed thinking further down the page.
By the way, I’ve read The Shack, and it is most definitely heresy. The matchless Son of God a bumbling clutz? And that’s only the start.
February 2, 2011 at 8:40 pm
[…] February 2, 2011 by Braden I found this truly profound statement on another brother’s blog (link) and wanted to share […]
February 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm
“It’s like eating chicken. Enjoy what you think is the meat and toss what you think are the bones.”
Braden – I agree 100%… the pastor of the aog house of religion where I was saved used to say the same thing… my response is that its not a matter of spitting out the bone, its that the meat is poisoned…
From being involved secondhand in product marketing I can tell you that anything can be spun to be painted in a positive light. While I agree that there is some undo criticism of certain points of the shack, it doesn’t change the whole.
In Christ -Jim
February 4, 2011 at 2:59 am
Thanks for your input, all of the above.
I agree with Braden and Jim. Yes, there has been undue criticisms of The Shack : a lot of mixed and confused reactions.
I agree that using a fictional literary device to portray the three Persons of God is both stupid and blasphemous. It is symptomatic of the utterly pathetic state of modern American navel-gazing Christianity.
And “eating the meat and spiiting the bones” can be understood in several ways and in varying degrees. To some degree we do bear with one another on the fact that none of us speaks “ex-cathedra” (infallibly) and only the literal Scriptures are infallible, so there is always an element of “spitting out the bones” or rather, simply letting it pass. But the “bones” in The Shack are bad enough to cause us to not receive the author as a serious man of God.
Anyone who makes personal profit from selling a “message from God” cannot be taken seriously.
In the first century such a person would have been considered a joke.
February 8, 2011 at 8:42 am
Hello,
I think that the difference between Universalism and biblical Universal Reconciliation is that the former anonymyzes the individual and negates the cross to a mere legal transaction, while the latter affirms that judgment for all sin applies to the individual, with judgment starting at the house of God.
“Christian Universalism” without the application of the cross of purity to the believer is nothing more than Universalism in Christian packaging.
John
February 8, 2011 at 10:17 pm
The problem with ‘Shack’ is that you can go through it and time and time and time again refute its essential suppositions with biblical truth: yet, it’s supposed to be about God, right?
Worse, the errors misrepresent the very nature of Christ’s atoning act, the meaning of repentance, how God views sin, and other fundamental aspects of the GOSPEL.
I note that it was the consistent Pauline [apostolic] example to outright reject and rebuke perversions of the gospel message–always–every single time.
The book is “symptomatic of the utterly pathetic state of modern American navel-gazing Christianity.”
My thoughts on the matter are best summed up by this verse:
“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still,” (Revelation 22:11).
February 8, 2011 at 10:19 pm
As the last two lines of Ian’s last comment indicate [indirectly], we have to consider: does this work profit man or God?
Peace
February 10, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Hi John. There is no Biblical Universal Reconciliation. When asked are many saved, Jesus answered that few are saved (relatively few, when compared to how many are eternally lost). And a host of other scripture statements on the matter.
February 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Thank you Ian. The bibliclal UR folks have a hermeneutic more solid than most, and most who try to refute them cannot match their scholarship.
I am sure that Jesus said “Narrow is the way, and few there be that find it”.
And along the same lines, there are many who did marvelous works in the name of Jesus who learned from Him that they did not know him, and were workers of iniquity.
But judgment includes many things, not just condemnamtion. It also includes acquittal, probation, inquiry.
But, as for the biblical UR adherents, they are distinct from universalists, and whether or not their doctrine is true was not really the point of my post, but only to point out the distinction between themselves and universalists.
February 10, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Hi John. ‘Biblical’ means what the Bible actually says. Therefore UR is not Biblical. I think you are meaning to say that such people say that they are Biblical, and believe that they are Biblical.
Only in their imagination. How can a lie be a solid Biblical interpretation?
I agree that their gobbledegook often ties people up in knots.
There are several forms of judgment, as you point out, but if the issue is UR, then the relevant judgment we are referring to is eternal condemnation. A fixed, immutable, irreversible judgment.
John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
February 11, 2011 at 12:18 am
Wayne Jacobsen’s last reply to me on his blog:
http://lifestream.org/blog/2008/03/04/is-the-shack-heresy/comment-page-4/#comment-33271
February 11, 2011 at 12:26 am
Here’s the last part of the comments from there:
#
Jim
Comment by Jim | 2011/01/23 at 08:38:43
Wayne –
You a true emergent manipulator who may take comfort in lies until the day your heart stops beating and you appear at the judgment seat of the God of the Bible… not the idol God of the shack. Maybe you should post this comment too with a note for readers to google an article titled “a false reformation called emergent”.
I hope you will read it at leas,t as it may shake up your corner on untruth (which is quite large).
-Jim
#
Wayne
Comment by Wayne | 2011/01/23 at 08:54:23
Jim,
With your vast knowledge of Scripture have you read anything about being a false witness. I am not emergent, have never been emergent, and am not in that conversation with people. Guilt by association is a pretty cheap tactic when you can think of nothing else. I have no fear about standing before God some day for the things I’ve said and written. Why? I was with him this morning, and though his glory does come from earthen vessels and there is much in me he is still transforming, I have been reconciled to him through the Son and enjoy a growing communion with him. To be honest, however, people with your arrogance are a real turn-off. The depiction of God in the Shack is a contribution by three of his followers about what they have come to know and understand at that stage of their journeys. And we drew from Scripture to form that picture. Whether you understood it or not, liked it or not, you you don’t have to be obnoxious about it. He asked us to love others as we have been loved by him. Is that so hard to do?
#
Jim
Comment by Jim | 2011/01/23 at 10:47:22
Wayne-
The funny thing is you have unrightously judged me just as you claim I am doing. I work with the homeless, violent street gangs, home fellowship, and am not part of any denomination that seeks to corner truth… only the whole council of the word of God. Speaking of love, when a child molester “loves” a child that is hard to accept too isnt it. Please DONT think I am refering to you – only to some of those who you are associated with. There actually may be some guilt by association there if you let spiritual pedophiles into the house though wouldnt you say? Here are a couple of things the Lord has shown me on this in the past.. I realize that you have tradition, reputation, and possibly money at stake so it may be hard for you to accept but here is part of something I wrote.. It uses parables and such so I hope it will be accepted as part of the conversation, and I do thank you for the back and forth, sorry if I have been harsh in an undo manner. -Jim
#
Wayne
Comment by Wayne | 2011/01/23 at 11:03:04
My point was that you see no problem accusing me of a point of view I don’t hold and using a term for my theology I don’t embrace. How is that an honest and fair discussion, Jim. In my experience those who most vociferously claim to have the “whole counsel of God” never do. We all know in part and see in part, until the perfect comes. Those who I’ve met in the world who know Truth the best and live it most freely, do so with a humility and grace that would never claim to have it all figured out. I deleted your article for two reasons. Comparing brothers and sisters in the emergent conversation to pedophiles is way beyond the pale. Secondly, you’ve made your views clear here and I don’t want anyone turning my blog their personal pulpit.
#
Wayne
Comment by Wayne | 2011/01/23 at 11:04:01
Ian, my blog isn’t really a place for a conversation and I have way too much to do to get into an detailed analysis of doctrines I don’t espouse. Simply universalism believes all beliefs will eventually lead to God. Ultimate reconciliation recognizes that only Christ is the light and other religious approaches are wrong, but that everyone will ultimately come to his light. And please don’t make assumptions about my concern for Mr. Young. In his rising fame he has distanced himself from everyone who was involved in helping him out with THE SHACK in those early days. I haven’t had a conversation with him in two years though I have offered it many attempts. Since he is acting now in ways that are inconsistent with what we wrote about relationships, I’m unsure what he truly believes about anything. As I said, far better to ask him.
February 11, 2011 at 12:35 am
One of the major basic planks of Emergentism is that God approves of homosexuality; and bear in mind that approving anything means a person bears the same judgment as those he approves or the sin he approves.
So, Wayne, is it a matter, then, that homosexuality is sickening and disgusting in the sight of God, but pedophilia is a tad more disgusting, so it’s not fair to compare Emergents with pedophiles?
February 12, 2011 at 1:39 am
To John: In your post, which i blocked, you gave the example of the two camps of Calvinism and Arminianism, and said that both are Biblical, but imperfect; therefore, in the same vein, we can think of UR as Biblical but not perfect.
This is not an accurate comparison at all. Yes, both C & A are imperfect, and they take either side of a dual truth, a mystery. They are both flawed attempts to explain a mystery.
Eternal Judgment, however, is NOT a mystery. There are no two sides to it. It’s black or white.
UR makes Jesus Christ to be a liar. There is not even one element of truth to it. Whereas C & A both have elements of truth.
In the degree of error, it tips the scales right into the doctrine of demons territory.
February 13, 2011 at 3:43 am
John wrote:
Forever and ever is Eis Aion Aion. Revelation uses this SAME term to describe the duration of Jesus rule, the lifespan of the redeemed, and also the duration of the lake of fire. It therefore truly means eternal, time without end.
Ultimate Reconciliationists ( UR ) believe in the lake of fire, but they say it is temporary, and that even the devil eventually gets out of there and is reconciled to Jesus. Wacko, eh.
Wacko, but not funny:
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
That’s where UR people end up, eternally lost. Their conscience so seared that they are willing to call Jesus a liar to His face.
February 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Just a couple minor points related to what I said a while back. First, I wanted to point out Wayne’s rather curious use of the word “think” in referring to eating meat and spitting bones. I’ve heard the expression many times, and I use it myself; it’s a good practice of discernment. However, the word “think” is where things go astray, and that’s all I wanted to point out.
Second, when I was reading The Shack (twice), both times I had this strong feeling of irreverence on the part of the author. Why? Anyone who writes page upon page upon page presuming to write (speak) for God Almighty is taking a very grave matter upon themselves. And the broad and difficult range of topics covered in these conversations in the book make Young’s presumption even more galling. Personally, I would be terrified to write one sentence “for God” that wasn’t a direct paraphrase of scripture.
February 15, 2011 at 2:48 am
And sometimes the pathetic defense that has been offered for such audacity is that it’s “only fiction”. Which is true, it portrays a fictional god: a true work of fiction.
February 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
About works of fiction related to truth: My sister once told me about the wonderful writings of her pastor, and how they were inspired of the Lord. I asked her, half-jokingly, “Should we include them in the bible right after the revelation of Jesus Christ?”. She got the point.
Whether presented as fiction or not, if we hold the canon to be verbally and plenarily inspired, then all other writings about truth are “fiction” by comparison….meaning….”interpretation”.
In this aspect, “The Shack” is no different than the writings of John Bunyan or Hudson Taylor or C. S. Lewis or Origen or Augustine or Joseph Smith or Billy Graham or me or you or anyone else.
I am grateful for this blog and for the freedom to participate in it.
John
near Boston, MA.
February 15, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Unfortunately, people I know are giving it much more weight than a piece of fiction, and it is being billed as much more than fiction if you look at any sources that are touting it as ‘life changing’ ‘it brought me closer to god’ etc.
February 16, 2011 at 12:55 am
I’ve read those reviews too, like: “I read the Bible for 20 years and got nothing out of it. Then when I read THE SHACK God opened my eyes….” This PROVES that they found the God presented in the Bible, unpalatable and unappealing, but the god presented in THE SHACK much more amiable. Certainly, a god for our times, with none of that icky judgment and hellfire stuff.
—————————————————————-
John wrote:
I personally never got any blessing out of any Christian fiction. I tried reading the works of Bunyan and Lewis but it drew a blank and got no witness or edification. Give me the inspired Word. Certainly, let’s discuss the inspired Word, but not discuss someone’s opinion of it, as if their opinion carried any weight.
THE SHACK is different to other works of fiction bcos it portrays the Godhead in fictional terms. Truly, a fake Father, fake Son and fake Holy Spirit, and this exactly what many want, as they found the true God of the Bible too harsh and politically incorrect.
February 16, 2011 at 1:30 am
ha! A rare experience for me, too!
February 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“eating meat and spitting bones. I’ve heard the expression many times, and I use it myself; it’s a good practice of discernment.”
To clarify my post too, my old AOG pastor used it when promoting Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer so that is where I am coming fron when I say the meat is poisoned!
-Jim
February 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Responding to Ian’s post, I quote the end of it here:
“THE SHACK is different to other works of fiction bcos it portrays the Godhead in fictional terms. Truly, a fake Father, fake Son and fake Holy Spirit, and this exactly what many want, as they found the true God of the Bible too harsh and politically incorrect.”
The shack is just an interpretive work. For instance, Trinitarians would be justified to say the same thing about any writing of any proponent of Oneness or Binitarianism as you used to describe the Shack. As well, cessationists could say the same thing about any interpretive work of any writer supporting that the supernatural gifts of the spirit are still operational today.
Therefore, all of it hinges on interpretation. We cannot say that the Shack is any different regarding truth than the writings of Jacobus Arminius unless we also claim to have the correct interpretation of each doctine expounded in each work.
IT seems like a catch 22, because we are called to be likeminded and of one Spirit in these matters. In all things, the flesh profits nothing, and the true Word is spirit and life, and cannot be discerned by any systematic theology.
I think this is what Jesus meant when he told certain Jews “which believed on Him” that they were, after all, of their father, the devil. Jesus also addressed Peter as Satan immediately after having told Peter that he was blessed to have received a revelation that flesh and blood did not give to him. In Jesus’ explanation to Peter, “earthly things” are equivalent to carnal interpretations of words, whether written or spoken, and apply to those who think they see, when, in fact, they remain blind.
At all times in the history of the ekklesia, there were heresies and disputations, and these things needed to be such as contrast agents that the Spirit might reveal the truth to a sure remnant, who remained always likeminded in spirit and truth, and that ekklesia remains even until this day.
John
February 18, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Everything is interpretation, just either true or false interpretation.
Interpreting God the Father as a woman, and The Son as a bumbling idiot, is a false interpretation and satanic in origin.
January 26, 2015 at 6:00 pm
[…] found this truly profound statement on another brother’s blog (link) and wanted to share […]