My Personal Reflections on The Shack (Part 3)

In the first two parts of this post series, I shared facts about The Shack book, its author, William P. (Paul) Young, and what I loved about the book and the movie based on the book (the movie largely held true to the book).

In this final post, I will be sharing parts from book and the movie that had me scratching my head a bit, evidence that Young now fully adheres to and promotes universalism, and my closing remarks on the affectionate God portrayed in both the book and movie.

As I mentioned earlier in this post series, I am not a scholar or a theologian, but I enjoy researching facts and passing on what I’ve learned (spoiler alert).

If you are riding the fence on whether or not to read/see The Shack, I pray that the information provided in this post series will help you make an informed decision.

In 2007, when The Shack book was first released, many Bible-believing Christians were concerned about some of the statements Young makes through the dialogue between Papa (God the Father), Jesus (God the Son), Sarayu (God the Holy Spirit), and Mack Phillips.

Honestly, it would take you a long time to search the Internet in order to learn all the reasons The Shack book and movie stirred up embers of controversy among Christians. (Wayne Jacobsen, a co-author of the book, has written an excellent article titled, “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Shack,” which addresses most of the arguments raised against The Shack.)

In this post, I’m going to share the excerpts from the book that had me wondering exactly what the author/collaborators were trying to communicate—along with my Scripture-based responses:

• On page 100, where Papa is talking to Mack: “Humans are … created in my image.” Genesis 1:26-27 says that Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, but after the fall, Genesis 5:1-3 says that Adam “became the father of a son in his own likeness” (notice it doesn’t say “God’s image”) The fall changed everything. The perfect union between God and man was breached when Adam and Eve disobeyed Father God—asserting their independence, rather than remaining perfectly dependent on Him. Also, there are other parts in the book where Papa refers to all of humanity as being her “children.” (Father God is portrayed as an African American woman through most of the book and movie.) This is not based in Scripture. Only those who are born again (who have believed in Jesus) are “children of God” (John 1:12, 11:52; Acts 17:29;  Rom. 8:16, 21; 9:8; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2, 10; 5:2).

• On page 103, where Mack is talking to Papa after he noticed the nail scars on her wrists: “I’m so sorry that you, that Jesus, had to die.” Now, I must admit that here we are treading the deep waters of the mystery of the Trinity—God in three Persons. The Scripture that immediately came to mind when I read this in the book and when I saw it come to life on the big screen was “God (a reference to the Father) is Spirit” (John 4:24). God the Son, who came in human flesh, is the only Person of the Trinity who suffered the actual physical, mental, and emotional pain of the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:36). In Jacobsen’s article, he makes it clear that the writers of The Shack don’t believe that the Father was crucified, and that “the point in the book is that God didn’t abandon his Son on the cross. He was ‘in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5:19). Because Jesus took on our shame as well as our sin, he felt abandoned because he could no longer see the Father who was right there with him.” Honestly, I haven’t fully explored the meaning of this mystery. I do know that Jesus felt abandoned and forsaken because He literally “became sin,” and as our sin-bearer, He received the punishment for the sin of the world so that everyone who believes in Him would “become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). As I learn more, I will come back to this post and update it.

• On page 182, where Jesus is talking to Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslim, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. 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.” I would have to ask Jacobsen exactly what he intended to communicate through this dialogue in the book to understand fully. But, for now, I will just offer my two cents based in Scripture: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 all refer to those who have believed in Jesus as “Christians.” Also, in the Bible, those who are not believers in Christ are referred to as sinners, not saints, and are defined by their sin (murderers, self-righteous). Believers in Christ, however, are referred to as saints and are not defined by their behavior, but by who they eternally are in Him (Rev. 20:12, 15; 21:27). And, finally, this might sound picky, but if by “followers,” Jesus is referring to those who have already believed into Him, then they have already been transformed into sons, daughters, brothers, sisters—His Beloved. Identity (who we are) in Christ is not progressive, while the renewing of our attitudes and actions are (Rom. 12:2;

• On page 192, where Papa and Mack are talking: Papa: “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” Mack: “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” Papa: “The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.” Jacobsen’s article clarified that, even though Young was influenced by universalism (the belief that everyone is saved eventually), neither he (Jacobsen) nor Cummings adhere to those beliefs. As I shared in my previous post in this series, Jacobsen wrote: “He (Young) agreed to let us take out the universalism theme saying he was less certain about it than when he wrote the first draft. So when people tell me that The Shack promotes universalism, I know it doesn’t because Brad and I don’t embrace it and when we rewrote the story in four different drafts over 16 months, we took it out.” Jacobsen and Cummings both believe that God has done His part in reconciling the world to Himself, but that a response of faith is required for salvation. There is gobs of Scriptural evidence that supports this (John 5:24; Acts 10:43, 26:17-18; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:26; 4:13-14, 22-24; 6:3-4, 17-22; 8:5-8, 9-10, 12-14; 10:4, 9-10, 17-23; 12:19; 16:7; 1 Cor. 3:17; 5:9-13; 6:9-11; 2 Cor. 2:15-17; 4:3-4; 5:18-20; 6:14-17; 11:13-15; 13:5; Gal. 1:8-9; 2:4-5; 3:22; 5:4-5, 19-21; Eph. 1:13-14; 2:1-3, 12; 4:17-20; 5:5; Phil. 2:14; Col. 1:21-23; 2:13-14; 3:5-10; 4:5-6; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 2:15-16; 5:2-9; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2:12; 3:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Tim. 3:1-8; Tit. 1:15-16; Heb. 2:2-3; 10:26-29; 12:25; 2 Pet. 2:4-10, 17; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:10, 14-15; 4:5-6; 5:1; Rev. 20:12-15).

For now, the above bullet points are all I will address concerning my questions about the messages being communicated through The Shack book and movie. (I’m actually in the process of savoring the book for the third time.)

Even though Young said over a decade ago (during the book’s editing process) that he was less certain about universalism, the following excerpt from an article titled “The Shack and Universal Reconciliation“ on his own website leaves no doubt that he now adheres to it:

Paul Young told me he is a “hopeful universalist.” He believes that our loving God sent His Son to die for every single sinner without exception. One day God will effectually reconcile every sinner to Himself. Paul uses the term “hopeful” universalism because he understands that the Scriptures speak of judgment, but Paul is “hopeful” that even in judgment, the love of God will eventually bring the sinner being judged to love for Jesus Christ. Paul Young is “hopeful” that the fire of God’s love will eventually and effectually persuade every sinner of God’s love in Christ.

In a March 2017, post, Christian author, blogger, and book reviewer, Tim Challies, reviewed Young’s newest work, “What Does The Shack Really Teach? Lies We Believe About God Tells Us.”

In much of his post, Challies quotes directly from Young’s latest book, Lies We Believe about God.

The following part of his post, I believe, is the most important revelation concerning the lie of universal reconciliation that Young promotes:

[Beginning of quote]: (Lie #13) Chapter 13: “You need to get saved.” Here he (Young) turns to the matter of salvation. I (Challies) will excerpt this at length so you can see his full-out embrace of universalism—that everybody has been or will be saved by God.

So what is the Good News? What is the Gospel?

The Good News is not that Jesus has opened up the possibility of salvation and you have been invited to receive Jesus into your life. The Gospel is that Jesus has already included you into His life, into His relationship with God the Father, and into His anointing in the Holy Spirit. The Good News is that Jesus did this without your vote, and whether you believe it or not won’t make it any less or more true.

What or who saves me? Either God did in Jesus, or I save myself. If, in any way, I participate in the completed act of salvation accomplished in Jesus, then my part is what actually saves me. Saving faith is not our faith, but the faith of Jesus.

God does not wait for my choice and then “save me.” God has acted decisively and universally for all humankind. Now our daily choice is to either grow and participate in that reality or continue to live in the blindness of our own independence.

Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation?

That is exactly what I am saying!

Here’s the truth: every person who has ever been conceived was included in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. When Jesus was lifted up, God “dragged” all human beings to Himself (John 12:32). Jesus is the Savior of all humankind, especially believers (1 Timothy 4:10). Further, 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 the cosmos was created—died, we all died. When Christ rose, we rose (2 Corinthians 5).

Young leaves no doubt that he espouses universalism. To further his argument, he includes an appendix on the matter. [End of quote]

Clearly, there is no doubt that Young adheres to and promotes Universal Reconciliation, the view that all human beings will ultimately be restored to a right relationship with God in Heaven and the New Jerusalem.

The fact that the originator of The Shack story and the two collaborators/co-writers disagree on their views concerning salvation, I believe, is what may be contributing to some of the mental fog I’m experiencing in the above bullet points.

If you need further convincing that universalism is not based in Scripture, check out Andrew Farley’s YouTube message, “Lie #5: The Whole World Is or Will Be Saved.”

I wholeheartedly recommend Farley’s entire Twisted Scripture series based on his book by the same name.

In this series, he thoroughly addresses common lies that Christians believe and provides the Scriptural support to disarm the lies.

Now, I am going to try to land the plane on this series on The Shack book and movie:

I highly recommend that everyone read the book and watch the movie!

For believers in Christ, read (watch) it in dependence on Christ to show you what you can glean from it and how it might help you more fully enjoy His affections for you.

Also, test every question you have by finding out what the Bible actually says on the matter (Acts 17:11).

The Shack’s personification of the Trinity’s compassionate and endearing love, grace, and mercy (among themselves and toward Mack) is sure to foster receptivity in the souls of believers in Christ to enjoy the gifts already lavished on them through their eternal spiritual union with Him.

Thank you, William P. (Paul) Young, Wayne Jacobsen, and Brad Cummings for sharing this beautiful portrait of our affectionate God with the world.

If you are not a believer in Christ and are honestly seeking the truth, I am convinced that the Truth Himself will give you eyes to see (John 14:6).

Since I am continuing to learn and grow in my understanding of grace and how to live more fully in the enjoyment of Christ’s delight in me, I’ll likely come back to this series and update it as needed.

But for now, I’m going to leave it as is and pray that it has helped you more fully understand the truth that God is especially fond of you and desires you to more deeply experience His delight in you!

*If you enjoyed this post series, I invite you to check out my post archives and all of my books, where I share about the inexhaustible love Christ has for us and the incredible hope we have as believers in Him.