Facebook and if you're watching this later on on delay on YouTube welcome YouTube if you'd like to join the conversation virtually you're welcome to do so in the comment section below and I mentioned YouTube if you are uninitiated you don't know all these Facebook live videos that we do end up being housed and archived on the YouTube channel go to YouTube and type in Household of Faith in Christ, and you'll see our blue and purple logo there. That's our channel and all the videos are there. You might remember last month we did a couple of messages, we were talking about the third epistle of John, actually the tail end of that, and we were beginning to pivot into talking about some of the theological views that are expressed in a very popular book and movie called The Shack. And we took a break for Palm Sunday and Resurrection Sunday, but now we're back tackling that subject matter this week and for the next couple of weeks as well. You don't have to have seen the movie or read the book to follow along, it might be helpful, critical, try to touch enough of what's going on so you can feel like you know what I'm talking about, at least at some level, and then participate in the conversation. And I say this with some regularity, we're thrilled that you're joining us, absolutely love it, tell your friends, have them join us too, but if you're doing this instead of going to church, that doesn't cut it. You need to be going to a church, the body of believers gathering together, That's what it means to be church, do church, behave as the church. If your church isn't meeting, find one that is. And if you're within driving distance of Frederick, within 30 minutes to an hour or so, and you don't have another church that you would feel good about, come join in with us. But this is not a replacement. This is a supplement for being part of a church. Unless, of course, you're joining us, then this becomes your church. So, we're gonna get into the message here in a minute, and then we'll have about a half hour or so for discussion about the things brought up in the in the message, but before we do that, I'm gonna ask Angela if she wouldn't open us in a word of prayer, and then we'll get started. Gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for another opportunity to come together in fellowship in the name of your son, Jesus. And we just pray, Father, that you would speak by your Holy Spirit, that you would speak truth through the mouths of the people gathered here. We pray, Lord, that nothing comes from our flesh, Lord, but everything that is said comes straight from the throne room, from your throne room, Father, so that your message is glorified, your truth is glorified in this gathering. We thank you, Father, and we ask that you would bless this gathering in this manner, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, amen. 1 John 2 says, I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 1 John 4 says, Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Second John says, the elder to the elect lady and her children whom I love in truth and not only I but also all who know the truth because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever. Third John says, for I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth as indeed you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." These verses are from the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, which is the perfect rule and guide for faith and life practice. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. You might, if you've been with us for a while, virtually You might recall and know that we've spent months working our way through the epistles of John. Sorry, well, 1st John and 2nd John, 3rd John, pretty much wrapped up 3rd John just a few weeks ago. And now we're kind of putting a capstone, finishing touch by looking at the themes that are brought up in the three epistles of John and using as a foil the themes and teachings that are brought forward in the book and movie, The Shack, and seeing how those very popular teachings stack up to the scriptural teachings that are advocated for and defended by the Apostle John. The Epistles of John, they emphasize the fact that Jesus Christ's identity is the Son of God. And these letters, they emphasize the importance of obedience to this Messiah Our King. The Apostle John also emphasizes the importance of mimicking the love of our Lord and Savior. Huge themes for John, truth and love. Again, as I mentioned last month, we took a rather extended peek at the very successful book and movie and phenomenon called The Shack. And we spent some time lauding the shack for its positive aspects, for highlighting the love of our creator, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But we also drew attention to reasons for having concerns about the shack, for potentially having an unbiblical bias and therefore an unbiblical agenda. This is important for Christians to grapple with Because the Apostle John, in his three letters to us that we have preserved for us in our canon in the New Testament, emphasizes the importance of truth. Does the shack teach the truth? Some, yes. But not all. Now a Quick refresher or introduction for the uninitiated, the shack tells the story of a man named Mac and his six-year-old daughter, Missy, is kidnapped and she is taken to a shack deep in the woods and she is murdered. And this causes Mac to enter into what the author, William Paul Young, describes as the great sadness. And you might relate. Mac's life, it feels inside out. It doesn't feel normal anymore, if it ever was. He questions what he was taught in church and even at seminary. He wonders if it's just all a dream, a hoax, a hallucination, a nightmare. Is God toying with him? His relationship with his wife, and his other children, it's weakened as he goes through this season in life. And Mac finds no answers at all from his pastor or from the fellowship of believers who join him at the worship service, mostly because his congregation is really just a religious social club. And so he's not certain of anything anymore. He's not even certain of the distinction between the irrational and the rational. Does any of that connect in your life? Can you relate to having these kinds of questions? Now it's at this point in the story that Mac receives a letter from someone named Papa. And Mac wonders, could this Papa be the killer? Could it be God? As I was reading the shack out, I began to wonder, could it be the devil? Max says on page 71 of the shack, part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note. I find that ironic as we've just finished up studying three notes from God that we call the epistles of John, demonstrating that yes, indeed, God does care enough to send us a note, more than one. And Mac wonders, if this papa maybe is God, will he have a long white beard? Will he be a bright light or a flame? And with all of this, we conclude our setup of the story, a rather sad story. This is an achy, breaky heart sort of a story. It's a story of hurt and doubt. It is so relatable. And this is what makes the shack popular. It is so powerful a scenario this story is. And this is what makes the shack dangerous. If what it teaches about God is not true. Now the book, it does admit to the presence of evil in the world. So there's a positive check mark for the shack. It honestly acknowledges the brokenness and the deadness of living in this evil world. It calls attention to dead and empty and evil horrors of the demonic that might dare us all at some point in our life to shout at God angrily, I hate you. blame God, to think of him as indifferent, not being there for you, to doubt that he even exists, which would mean that we exist in a black chasm of darkness, sucking any last vestiges of hope that we might have had remaining in our heart. These are powerful things and the shack hits upon them. And Mac's only hope is for God to come and find him and show himself as a God who brings life and order out of despondency and chaos. And this is kind of what happens in the shack. Now maybe Mack is dreaming, hallucinating, but in the shack, he has an encounter with God. At least this is what William Paul Young intends for you to understand. But is it God? The real God, the true God, the biblical God? there is reason to have doubt. Now in the shack, there is at least some truth. If it's okay that I should say that there's some truth without upsetting the author, because after all, he does quote Albert Einstein on page 151 of the shack, saying, whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. However, attempting to follow after the noble character of the Berean Jews in the book of Acts, we're gonna press forward with great eagerness and we are going to examine what the shack has to say in light of what the scripture has to say and see if what Paul Young says in the shack is true. Now the book presents As I mentioned, the idea of a God who brings order out of chaos. Especially order out of the chaos of our lives. Lives filled with emotional pain. Pain that is often best dealt with by pressing into the hurt. I'll give the shack point there. And it indicates that God is able to take what is bad, dangerous and is able to use it for good. And good does not always mean what makes us feel good. And the shack says that there is such a thing as good, distinct from evil. This is confirmed as true in the shack. The book illustrates beautifully that we are each co-laborers with God. These are all points in the shack's favor. These are all biblical truths exemplified by the shack. So if you're a fan of the shack, these might be some of the reasons why. And you know what, kind of a personal agenda thing, but the book also, it pokes a little hole in that phenomenon, what would Jesus do? Remember that was very popular a number of years ago. And anything that pokes a hole in the what would Jesus do phenomenon is actually a pretty good thing in my book. And there's a little bit of ink that's spent on the benefits of leaning on God, because depending on things absent of good, well, that's depending on evil. And the book highlights the Son of God as one who did not grasp after his rights, choosing instead to serve. And in this, there is an example to us. Are we willing to surrender our rights, our rights to life, to property, to fill in the blank? These are all very positive aspects of the shack that square rather precisely with what the Bible teaches. And I'll add this too, while it's fleeting, there is a fleeting moment of reverent heavenly worship in the book. You can find it on page 138 if you'd like to look it up yourself. And there is a trinity in the book, for example. There's Papa, and there's Jesus, and there's Saraiu, meant to be the Holy Spirit. So there is a lot that is true in the shack. Well now let's take a look at Papa. Papa in the shack is described as a large African American woman who meets or sees Mac, or Mac sees Papa face to face and wears Mac's mother's perfume. So there are some dispute points to note about this right off the bat, right? John chapter four, verse 24, other places, we understand from scripture that God is spirit, therefore not a man or a woman in the biological sense of things. While this is true, the Bible does pretty consistently refer to the Father in masculine terms, using masculine pronouns and those sorts of things, for the most part. And I think that this is important. It helps us to understand very important concepts in the Bible, like what is called federal headship, and customs of the ancient Near East, and practices that are related to inheritance, and adoption, and questions of leadership, and order. You lose a lot of those insights if you lose the gender designations. So, people get rather upset sometimes with the shack on this particular point, and they're not exactly wrong. But, despite all these big theological issues that get raised by these sorts of things, I don't think that Bible-believing Christians should spend all their ammunition on this point and get completely bent out of shape because Papa is presented as a female. I mean, later in the book, Papa is presented as a male, after all, in most of the story, presented as a female. And there are times in the Bible when God is presented in feminine terms. So that's not the be-all, end-all argument to make. It's more concerning, should be, just to me, hopefully after I'm done explaining to you, it will be to you too, it's more concerning that Papa is seen at all. In the Bible, no one ever sees the Father face-to-face. Never. Point you to John 1, verse 18, 1 John 4, verse 12, there's other places you can look. So we have in the shack a situation where Mac sees the Father face-to-face when no one else does, and This Papa seems to be a construct of Mac's own imagination, his own desires. And remember, Papa wears the same perfume as Mac's mother. And Papa says things to Mac like, that's okay, we'll do this on your terms. Find that quote on page 83. You might remember from last month that I wondered if perhaps our author, William Paul Young, is a pacifist. And it could be because Papa's clearly anti-gun in the story, disdaining to even hold one. So I ask, are we free to make a mental image of the father and to make him in our own image? I mean, this is a character in the shack. These are words that are used to describe Papa in the shack. Papa in the Shack is joyful, folksy, casual, affectionate, playful, constantly thinking things hilarious, roaring, belly laughing, chuckling, smiling, grinning, giggling, grunting, snorting, smirking, humming, beaming, winking, mocking, muttering, snickering, and super silly, delighting with spasms of mirth and amusement. yelling things like, time for some fun. It's the portrait of a kind of slap happy guy. I mean, at one point, Mac asks, am I supposed to believe that God is a big black woman with a questionable sense of humor? That question appears at the bottom of page 88, spilling over to the top of page 89, and it is an excellent question. What we have in the shack is a very domesticated laissez-faire and whimsical god, always quite pleased, perpetually satisfied with shoulder shimmies and hip shakes. Lots of cooking in the kitchen while listening to West Coast Juice, which is described as Eurasian funk and blues on page 90 of the Shack. And this musical choice is a surprise to Mack because he expected that God would listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Mormon! Mack is supposed to be a seminary-trained Christian, and he thinks that God will listen to Mormon music? Really? Now again, let me say something for half a second here that's more positive about the shack. In the end of the story, the pain that Mack was experiencing, it vanishes. leaving Mac happy. There is a happy ending, and this is good, of course, and the Christian message is about a happy ending, right? Our horrible experiences will come to an end. No more crying, no more pain, no more death. Everything will be as it should be at Christ's second coming as we live with him in glory. That is the Christian message. But in the shack, Mac gets to this glorious, happy ending, with God not being glorified. God is basically explained away. Human decisions are in control, not God, not his word. The God of the shack does not inspire much in the way of worship or awe. In fact, Mac is downright irreverent early on, and he is astoundingly sarcastic and informal later on, constantly blaming and doubting God. Now, how does this stack up with how people in the Bible react when they are in the presence of God, falling down as though dead? saying, woe is me, recognizing their own uncleanness, their own sinfulness, their own unworthiness before the grandeur of God. In the shack, there is no sense of awe of God. I point you to page 183, if you have a copy of the book. Mac uses the Lord's name in vain on page 166, and he curses in God's presence again on page 167. 40 and then again in God's presence on page 224, Mack is rude, he repeatedly cuts God off, he interrupts God. And the Shack's God, totally fine with Mack constantly and irreverently interrupting and using sarcasm, indicating his irritation with God. And God in the shack is routinely doubted as a liar. One example of that is on page 102. God is made to cry by Mac on page 92. You know, the shack, it presents a tender God. And that's a good thing, God is tender. But in the shack, we also have a weak God. The God who says on page 92, I have no magic wand to wave. I mean, forget the occult reference for half a second. God can do no miracles? Now, Paul Young does once use the phrase awestruck wonder in the pages of the shack, so that might keep some readers happy. If you wanna find that one reference to awestruck wonder, it's on page 110. But prayer before meals is disrespected in the shack on page 105 and disrespected once again on page 120. And Mac is said to be amused by God on pages 115 and 117. And right before this on page 114, Mac says, I hope you're right to Jesus. Seriously, I hope you're right. This is supposed to be Jesus. There is no sense pretty much ever in the shack of the throne of God. Instead we have scenes like Jesus skipping stones on page 170, or on page 176, Jesus depicted in a childish fashion, chasing after a fish that he just can't catch. I mean, the one who proved to be a great fisherman, just ask St. Peter, for example, he can't catch just one fish? Near the end of the story on page 237, Mack says, Saying goodbye to God seemed a little silly. Mac's whole relationship with God in the pages of this story has been rather silly, if you ask me. Now there is a thread of anti-Gnomianism that runs throughout the shack. This means that there's an anti-law view that's put forward. Anti is against, and Gnomianism, the root word there is gnomos. Law, anti-law. On page 88, Mac is told by God, you can do whatever you want. Very next page, you're not supposed to do anything. You're free to do whatever you like. And then, now Jesus was serious. Don't go because you feel obligated. That won't get you any points around here. Go because it's what you want to do. Are you kidding me? When I initially prepared this message, it was designed actually to be something like a lecture that would last about 60 minutes long. We would have no time for discussion if we did that. So I'm gonna pause here and break this up actually into three different messages and three different discussions to go through all of the various issues that are at play in the shack. And I'm emphasizing the shack because that's our foil. These are issues in our culture at large. These are issues that have infected the church, the visible church anyway, its very own self. We need to understand how to recognize things that aren't true and do battle against them and replace them with what is true. Now, I didn't quote a lot of scripture today. I started by quoting some verses of scripture. And if you remember the messages from last month, the two that we did that talked about the shack a bit, and today and then the next two we're gonna do in the coming weeks, Not be quoting a lot of scripture, but I am going to be referencing a lot of scripture, already have and will continue to do so. And I would encourage you to do your own self-guided study. And one of the beauties of doing this on a video is that you can stop and start the video and you can jot down these passages and you can look them up. And you can, one, check and make sure I'm not misrepresenting what God's word says. You can see that it actually says that. You can kind of build all the pieces yourself. So in chronological order, as they appear throughout this, what will turn out to be a five message series on the Shack. In the order in which I bring them up in the series, here are the scripture references. 3 John 13-15, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Exodus 3, Exodus 33, Hebrews 13-17, John 14-6, Hebrews 10 and Hebrews 13, Acts 17-11, the book of Job, 1 John 2, verses 18 and 26. 1 John 4, verse 1. 2 John, verses 1 and 2. 3 John, verses 3 and 4. The Gospel of John, chapter 4, verse 24. The Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 18. 1 John 4, verse 12. John 16, verse 8. 2 Corinthians 7, verse 10. Mark 3, verse 5. Ephesians 4, verse 30. 1 John 2, verse 28. Isaiah 59, verse 2. Romans 6, verse 23. Deuteronomy chapter 28, verse 63. Proverbs 16, verse 4. Psalm 11, verse 5. Romans 2, verse 5. Revelation 6, verse 16. Revelation chapter 17. Isaiah 53, verse 2. Gospel of Mark chapter 15, verse 33. 2 Corinthians 5, verse 21, Isaiah 53, verse 10, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 1, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, John 6, verse 38, John 8, verse 28, Mark 14, verse 36, 1 Corinthians 15, verse 28, Luke 12, verses 47 and 48, 1 Corinthians 4, verse 2, Micah 6, verse 8, Matthew 12, verse 36, and 1 John 5, verses 20 and 21. I close with a word of prayer, and then we'll have our discussion time. Father, we thank you for revealing yourself in a way that we can trust, that we can study, that we can come to know you better. Thank you for preserving your word all these years. We thank you for the power and presence of your Holy Spirit to soften our hearts, to illumine our minds, to understand your truth, and to grow in discernment, to recognize things that are contrary to your truth. We ask that you would continue to bless your people, that we would grow nearer and dearer to you with each passing day. And we ask that the conversation that we're about to enter into will be rooted in your truth, and would be edifying to your people and glorifying to your name. We praise you, Lord, and thank you. In the precious name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. All righty. So, By the way, you don't know watching, but before we started on Facebook Live for this video, we actually watched a documentary that featured William Paul Young kind of explaining his story and his theological view and that sort of thing, and it just helps to support. what we're talking about in these messages. So if anybody has something on their chest regarding that or this message or things we've talked about in recent weeks that you want to start with, we can. Otherwise, I've got some prepared questions as well. The other thing I wanted to say was when you were talking about how basically God is presented as approachable and you know doesn't have a standard of holiness and basically negates all of what scripture says which is why we needed Jesus to come so that we can be approach the throne of God but only through the mediator Jesus and the book of Job of course my favorite book came to mind where yes so he gets he hits on a little bit of truth that We can go to God with what's on our heart, because he knows it already, and we can be bold in essence, in the sense that we can ask the tough questions of God. But the other part of Job is God says, all right, now let me question you. And that never happens with the shack. There is no, OK, I've allowed you without basically burning you up, because that's what you're deserving of. I've allowed you to be so bold with me and question me, but now I'm going to put you in your place and tell you exactly what's going on. And that never happens. The god of the shack is just one of us. And that is not at all the truth. In human terms, I'm thinking about, biological fathers and the way their children relate to them. Children can go to their father because there's a relationship there. We have a relationship with the father through the son, our mediator, as you mentioned. So we can go with a boldness. A biological child shouldn't be cowering in fear from their father. They can go with a boldness to their father, but it's with an awe is the right word, but with a respect for the father. He's also the authority, he's also the disciplinarian, he's also the guy who's in charge. And compare, it just occurred to me as you were talking, how are fathers depicted so often in movies and sitcoms? Idiots. Yeah, they're goofballs. They're weak goofballs, and that's kind of how. Upbraided by their children. Yeah, and stupid. And there's an element of that in how Papa is presented in the shack. And the way that he presents the Godhead, he goes to the extreme to make God approachable. There's feminine aspects, I believe there are feminine aspects to God's character and that's the compassion part. In humanity, that's why there's a woman. Because there's feminine aspects to his personality. He makes, you know, to the point you made when you were preaching, he makes the father in the shack a woman, which I never understood. Why do you need to make the father a woman? And, you know, he makes the father, you know, kind of goofy and kind of, you know. And in the shack, he also makes Jesus quite goofy. You know, I mean, the way that he, picture makes Jesus in the shack. I mean, the picture you would get in your head is a hick with tobacco stained teeth, with a straw in his mouth, with a straw hat on, with torn dirty overalls, and holes in them. That's how he makes Jesus look, like a bumbling idiot. And I just remember when I A long time ago when I read the Shack, I just remember being so offended. And I was just thinking, other people in false religions who reverence their God, I think they would actually be offended by it. If they think the Christian God is this, I think they would go, It's been a long time ago so that the fish story this is how ironic I mean like with Peter and Peter followed Christ because he had been fishing all night and couldn't catch a thing. And then he caught 153. And then he caught more fish than he about to break the net. Because Christ just said, just throw it over the boat. Just throw the net over the boat. But in the shack, Christ is like, oh, what about butterfingers? Oh my gosh. It's just so irreverent. And the first commandment is to honor God as God. And it's just, you know, so he doesn't necessarily say something heretical, you know, by misquoting a scripture. The shack is heretical just by how it presents God. Yeah. Speaking of the Jesus character, on page 181 of the shack, here's a quote. It's Jesus, the Jesus character speaking, talking to Mac. It's not your job to change people or to convince them. You are free to love without an agenda. So how would we respond to that? Some of our responses need to be nuanced, right? There's that word again. But we need to give Shaq credit for where there are elements of some truth so that we don't come across as just mean-spirited, hard-hearted, or just antagonistic. So let's meet the author where he is, but let's also go beyond that and say, okay, that's true as far as it goes, But what about this? So, how do we respond to this? In a certain context, you might say one thing, and another context may say something else. You know, I think there's truth to that. I mean, when you tell people the truth, when you preach the gospel to somebody, you're not responsible for how they receive it. You know, they don't have to receive it. And it's not our job, I mean, it's the Holy, the Bible says it's the Holy Spirit that convicts and convinces people of the truth. What about the love without an agenda part? Do you have a thought on that? Yeah, so agenda is one of those words that has a very neutral meaning, but a very negative connotation. So it's kind of like propaganda, which just simply means the spread of information. But the connotation that's associated with that word is entirely negative. So agenda is kind of like that same way, that you can have an agenda in loving someone in order to reach them to Christ. But it's an agenda in a neutral sense of the word, but obviously he's applying agenda in a strictly negative connotation there. Paul, he's loving with an agenda at Mars Hill, I would argue. He's trying to speak to the Greeks, meet them where they are. He's loving them, but he has an agenda. He's trying to be useful. by God in persuading these people to recognize the truth of their need for Jesus as their Savior. And all of us, shouldn't we always have an agenda in all that we do to glorify God? That should be our undergirding, overriding agenda in all that we do. Christ's agenda was to glorify the Father. That's true. Here's another one, page 185, just a few pages later. Papa is now speaking. Just because they work incredible good, out of unspeakable tragedies doesn't mean that I orchestrate the tragedies, don't ever assume that I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. So again, some thoughts on this. There's an element of truth there, too. Well, and there's an element of I have power there, which is not at all what was being displayed in other parts of the book. I don't need it because I'm God and I can work things for good regardless of the tragedy, in spite of the tragedy. Yeah, that's like a pull landing in. So the God character says, don't ever assume that I caused the tragedy. OK, fair enough. We shouldn't assume that God caused it, right? What about the flip side of that? Should we assume that God didn't cause tragedy? I think that it's very much an empty statement. While he states that I didn't cause this, he doesn't say who does. But the Bible does say who does. And that's us. We're fallen. We're man. We're broken. And it's a result of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree that they were told not to eat from. Our sin has made brokenness, and all that brokenness can lead to tragedy, and so at the ultimate root of things, you keep going back logically, you end up with, hey, all these bad things happened because of your sin, because of me. But there are times in Scripture, God directly causes the tragedy. What are some examples of my Papadouria? Ten plagues? Yeah, ten plagues in Egypt, absolutely. Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues in the book of Numbers. A lot of plagues there. Was it the destruction of Jerusalem? Both temples. The flood. The thing with God is that because he's sovereign, he can use anything to make good come out of it. And because people have decided that sin should be in the world, which is basically what Adam and Eve did. The sin that's in the world, God doesn't agree with it, he doesn't like it, he hates it, but at the same time, it's sovereign under him. And so therefore, it's not outside of his ability to use it to work good. So it's an oversimplified view of God to think that somehow the devil just has total control over evil and he can't do anything about it or anything concerning it. God is sovereign over sin. He's sovereign and so he uses things to bring good. Now I'm not saying he's malicious or capricious in it or thoughtless. in doing that, but he will do what is necessary to bring good and he will use evil to bring good. And a very good example is the plagues that he put on Egypt because he said, Pharaoh, I'm going to use you, Pharaoh, I'm going to use you to give me glory. And he did that through the plagues. And you know, the Pharaoh's magicians, at first, they could mimic them. And then it got to a point that they couldn't even mimic what God did. So God's glory began to be manifest in that. Tyler, we're recording. We're going to watch it later. Oh. So that's just one example. We're going to watch it? We're going to watch it later. If you turn the TV on, we're not going to watch it later. Turn it back off. OK. Tyler? Do you hear me? Yeah. Let's turn the TV off. We're going to watch it later. No, we're already going. Don't touch that. Oh. Excuse me. Tyler Dean, we don't need to be causing a disruption on purpose. Go play arcade. Come on. Let's go play arcade. All right, so we just had a quote by the Jesus character and by the Papa character. So talking about them, Mac says he likes Jesus, but not Papa. religious folk, quote-unquote, for creating a stern God, the Father, and a comforting God, Jesus. So how do we respond? This is a common thing that comes up. How do we think about the Old Testament God, so often depicted as a stern God, and the New Testament God as a comforting God? You don't get that from reading the New Testament, that God is very... The amount of times Jesus talks about hell, and casting out weeds, and separating sheep from goat, and then coming back to reign judgment in the book of Revelation. And then you look at Paul's writing, the Pauline canon as well, and you don't... It's like people get the Sermon on the Mount. And that's all the New Testament version of God they really see. It's just that Sermon on the Mount. They don't see the eight woes or anything else in really Jesus' ministry. And when you take the Sermon on the Mount and you don't really apply that with the rest of scripture, that's where you get the notion that Jesus was a good teacher. And we neglect, oftentimes, the patience of God in the Old Testament. We focus only on when he brings destruction and judgment. But how many hundreds of years was he patient with people before he actually executed some judgment on them? And this is a strong man, right? I mean, the God of the Bible is not two gods. The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are the same gods. So to try to pretend that there's two separate gods, that's not what the Bible teaches. Yeah, okay, I'm gonna reject what you're what you wanted me to reject, but of course everybody would because it's a straw man It's it's easy to knock down. It should be knocked down Yeah, you look at the story of Noah when you talk about you know God is Yeah, he's has a plan and his plan is to flood the world and it's actually you know He's actually grieved by his own plan like he realizes that there's a long-term plan I will bring glory to him and all that but he's grieved by the short-term consequences and how that will be realized in the short term so there's there's a balance to you know you know God has a long-term plan but he understands that there's short-term yeah I don't wanna say negativity, because that's a very trite word to use, but there's something in the short term that may cause him grief. Here's one of the, I think, central doctrinal issues that comes up in the shack, and the author is inconsistent. If you hear interviews or other contexts where he talks about this, he sounds very orthodox and biblical, and yet when you read the shack, He's got a war in his own mind on this, it seems. But in the shack, on page 186, the Papa character says, we were all in him, meaning Jesus, and the we all, meaning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the shack would be teaching that the entire Trinity became man. So who wants to explain how we should understand the Trinity and the humanity of Christ? Well, the Trinity is co-eternal. So they've always existed as the Trinity, at least as far as our eternity goes. And, you know, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And they're always distinct from each other. God does not change forms from the Father to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. Those three forms have always existed. And, you know, it's modalism is what that's called, in a more technical sense. But it's interesting in the movie. I believe they're in that scene where that happened where The God character says that She's the one with the scars from the crucifixion So the father has his crucifixions, and I didn't really see that on the son at all so Or the Holy Spirit for that matter, but it was a father that had the scars from the crucifixion, but not the son and Yeah, if you look closely in the movie, Saraiu does have scars on her wrist as well. So the idea is that all three members of the Trinity were hanging on the cross in the person of Jesus Christ. So how do we understand the humanity of Christ and the divinity of Christ? It's the Son Right, so there's, again, it's kind of a mystery how the Trinity works, but it's one God, three persons, and those three persons are not to be confused with one another. They are distinct, as Ray mentioned, and they... And by the way, if they're not three persons, then how are they the Trinity? I mean, that just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense. It's so contradictory, and who did Jesus pray to when he was praying? And what did Jesus mean when he said, it's good that I go away, because if I don't go away, then I can't send the Holy Spirit to you. So, it's just, they are one. And this isn't an accidental thing in the story. So I mentioned that was on page 186. Well, on page 192, Papa, again speaking, says, we, meaning the three members of the Trinity, we are now fully human. And on page 201, Papa says, I am truly human in Jesus. So as was mentioned, a technical term for this form of heresy is modalism. It's a form of Sabellianism. Students of theology will know what some of these terms mean. And the shack reeks of these sorts of things, and more. We'll get to them. We can't cover them all at one time. And if you're like, does the Bible really say what the people in this room are saying? Acts chapter 10, verse 43. Acts chapter 8, verse 22. Luke chapter 12, verses 8 through 10. Matthew 25, verse 46. These are just a handful of places you can turn and look to see what the Bible says in distinction from what the shack has to say. There's a quote on page 194 of the shack. It's a quote from Buckminster Fuller. I don't know if you know that name or not. Buckminster Fuller, known to have revised scripture with science and a secular definition of divinity. So it's basically a secular humanist translation of the Bible. And Buckminster Fuller says that God is a verb. And on page 204 in the shack, Sarayu, the Holy Spirit character, says the same thing. She says, I am a verb. My very essence is a verb. What do we think about some of that language? And if you read the shack, did you even notice that sort of thing? Did it strike you? They're referencing how God refers to himself as I am, right? I guess that's where that's starting out from? Well, possibly. I mean, it doesn't say explicitly where it's coming from, so it's possible. I'm trying to remember if that was in the movie or not, but there is that, you know, I am is more like a conjugate rather than a verb itself if we want to get grammatical about it. I just think it's interesting because, you know, you think about something that is, You think of a noun, right? So a verb is an activity, an action of some sort. And so is God some sort of non-entity activity? You know what I'm saying? I mean, it's hard to know what he means by that. God is action, I believe that. I don't believe he's just sitting around You know, like a lump on a log or something. He's involved. He's doing things. He takes action. He takes action. He's loved. Love is action. My very essence is a verb. My very essence. This very essence doesn't involve any sort of being, right? That's troublesome to me. We're going to get into that next week a little bit about the importance of this essence being absent of being. We're going to talk about that next week, so it's kind of leading into that. Let me do one more and then we'll wrap up for today. Here's a positive from the shack. It's found on page 202. William Paul Young, the author, accurately says that only Jesus has successfully lived a life fully obedient to the law, and that we are dependent on Jesus. It says, quote, that's why Jesus fulfilled all of it for you. Well, that's true, although, well, fulfilled all of it for you. That word you is important, and in the context of the shack, it really defined Who does he mean by you? Because if he means Max specifically, okay, I would say that's true. That's a representation of the gospel applied to a specific individual. If it's meant for believers as a whole, that's true. Those who are chosen, those who are elect of God, they are the ones who have everything fulfilled in Jesus, that's true. But is the you a universal you? all of the yous that are out there, and if so, that would be problematic, but let's give them some benefit of doubt, at least for our context, let's give this statement some benefit of doubt and say it's only applying to those that are washed clean in the blood of Christ, that are the bride of Christ. Let's talk about, who wants to take a moment to kind of expand and reflect upon this truth and our need for Jesus having fulfilled I mean it is a need for all of us, so even to your point saying it's not true for the you, you meaning everybody, it is, it's just that not everyone receives that as truth, they reject that truth. But it is true for everyone, they just reject the truth. His sacrifice is sufficient for everybody. But not everybody believes in it, receives it. And the only ones who believe it and receive it are those that God calls to himself. All of us reject it. Left to our own devices, we all reject it. Anyway, Tyler's decided he's going to be a disruptive force tonight. We're about done anyway, so we'll wrap up. Anybody wanna close us in prayer? I'll do it. Okay. Thank you, Father. Thank you for another time of just glorifying the truth. The truth is Jesus Christ. The truth is your word. Father, help all that has been said to, Lord God, be received with love and with grace. It was certainly not intended, Lord, just to beat up on William Paul Young. It was intended, Lord, to just love people with the truth because it is the truth that sets us free. It is a lie enslaves no matter how clever it sounds no matter how sweet it sounds it just serves to enslave and father you know the motive of our hearts is that people would be set free by your truth the truth that's found in Jesus Christ the truth that's found in your words so lord thank you for another opportunity to share your truth we ask that you would bring people to this broadcast board who would benefit from it and We thank you and we ask all this blessing in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, amen. Amen. Well, thanks for joining. Dina had to leave the room a few times, so if you left comments, she's usually my conduit for knowing what comments might have been said, so if you shared some comments, sorry we didn't get to them, but I'll try to answer them later. We'll join you next week. We're a little late this week, but we hope to be on time at six o'clock next Saturday. God bless.