This is the Faith Debate, a theological roundtable gab fest, a free-for-all forum with faith community leaders wrestling over the truth. In less than one half hour, learn more about what really matters than what most others learn in a week. The Faith Debate is on the World Wide Web at WFMD.com, keyword faith. Are you ready for the clash of ideas? Are you ready for the sound of freedom? Let's get ready to rumble in this corner. Weighing in with a master of divinity from Reform Theological Seminary, the faith debate master of ceremonies, Troy Skinner. At the conclusion of our program two weeks ago, you heard the beginning parts of a message called Shack Attack. looking at the kind of extended look at the book and movie, The Shack, using the epistles of John as a foundation for that. Last week, we heard kind of the heart of the message after that initial part two weeks ago. And now this week, we're going to hear the concluding part of the message. Sorry to break it up into three pieces, but you know, I guess that's just the way it turned out. We only have so much time, we can only do what we can do. So here we are with the final part, the concluding part of Shack Attack on the faith debate on 930 WFMD. Sadly, there are hints in the book that Jesus is almost only human. It is said that he had no power within himself to heal anyone, is totally dependent on the power of the Father. Now this feels a bit like a heresy that's called adoptionism, but it is a variant of it, because on page 100, Papa talks about himself having also been limited when he, the Father, was in Jesus. Now, if that causes your head to spin like a fidget hand spinner, that's okay, because the Bible does not teach this stuff. The Jesus of the shack is not unique in having become human. On page 99, Papa says, when we three, the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, when we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We now became flesh and blood. This is a form of what is called Sabellianism, which holds that God is three characterizations, not three persons. This is heresy. And yet, it is a weird form of Sabellianism because in the shack, Jesus, quote, chooses moment by moment to remain grounded and has never drawn upon his nature as God. William Paul Young's position requires a change in the dynamic of the Trinity. If the Son is permanently grounded and always has been, Then there is an imbalance between the three persons in the Trinity. Now compare this to a more traditional orthodox view. Compare this to him having merely veiled his divinity as the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Well then the reality of his power is still there. And this avoids the required change in the nature of God, the corresponding change then within the Trinitarian structure. Maybe Paul Young is here following after the teachings of the Eukites or the Massalians who taught that the threefold God is one, but that God takes on different forms and they are perceived differently by the senses. And so, Christians in this view, they need revelation to their senses through personal experiences. Revelation through the institutional church, not so much. The Jesus of the Shack is not unique in having suffered death on the cross. In the book, Papa's wrists have scars on them. This is what is called patrapassionism. It has been denounced by the church as a heresy. Actually, the movie takes this heresy even a step further, depicting Saraiu, who is meant to represent the Holy Spirit, as having wrist scars too. Papa says that the father and the son were both crucified on page 96 saying, we were there together regardless of what he felt at the time. I never left him despite his sense of forsakenness. Now if you read the shack, hopefully you had a little bit of a twinge here thinking, holy smokes, danger, danger, this could be a problem. The Bible teaches that Jesus became sin and the father cannot look upon sin. Jesus more than felt Forsaken. Again, for your home study, I refer you to Mark chapter 15, verse 33, 2 Corinthians 5, verse 21, Isaiah 53, 10. In the shack, Mac, the central character, he actually makes the point that I'm making. He says, that makes no sense to me. This can't possibly be true. Well, it's not. But sadly, Mac is made out to be the fool in the story. The Jesus of the shack is not unique in having limited himself. The Holy Spirit character in talking about the Godhead says on page 106, We have limited ourselves out of respect for you. Relationships are never about power and one way to avoid the will to power is to choose to limit oneself. Where is this concept taught in the Bible? This is an anti-authoritarian view. This is a one-dimensional picture of God. So much of what the shack says about God is true, but it is one-dimensional. That's, I guess, my problem. It's a God who is simply saccharine sweet and mushy. No strength or seriousness or regalness. Is Jesus merely a youthful best friend and not king? Not Lord? He's just a guy. He's just a guy who says that he now sees beauty better as a human than he could as God. It says that on page 109. The Jesus of the shack is not unique. as the way to the father page 110 Jesus says in the book I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarah you the best way how about the only way and here's another distressing quote from my point of view from the shack page 182 Jesus says Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian. Oh, what is he? A Buddhist? Maybe. In the shack, Jesus adds, those who love me come from every system that exists. There are Buddhists, or Mormons, Baptists, or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don't vote, or are not part of any Sunday morning religious institutions. I have no desire to make them Christian. End quote. To this, Mac asks a pretty good question. In light of all this strange new information, where anything seems to go, he asks, okay, what do you want me to do? And the Jesus character says, whatever you want. Odd dialogue. It's odd dialogue to me just in general, but it's odd dialogue for the shack. Throughout the book, Jung has said that when people do what they want, bad things happen. Like six-year-old girls being abducted and tortured and taken to a shack in the deserted part of the woods and killing her. And that God can't do anything about it. And Jesus just finished making the point in the book that not all roads lead to him because most roads don't lead anywhere. And yet it seems that Young has left open the door to the... that there are at least several roads that lead to Jesus. And given enough time, everyone will find one of these several roads, I guess. The Jesus of the shack says things like, filling roles is the opposite of relationship. Which sounds profound, doesn't it? But it's a mixing of categories, and so it strikes me as mere gobbledygook. And he says, I'm not about performance, I'm about being. Again, it sounds profound, but he's about being what, exactly? He says, I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. Ooh, profound again. But I thought that the Bible teaches us that Jesus came as a man to save us. Was I wrong? Shaq says he came to complete a picture. But at least it's a wonderful picture. But understand in the Shaq that this picture isn't even meant to be an example. Jesus goes on to say that, quote, my life was not meant to be an example. I would agree that the life of Christ is not merely an example. But has William Paul Young forgot the words of the Apostle Paul, who wrote, follow my example as I follow the example of Christ. That's 1 Corinthians 11, verse 1, for use goring at home. Why does this bother me as much as it does? Because clearly it doesn't bother everybody as much as it bothers me. Why does it bother me so much? Because at least from a particular point of view, at least from a particular point of view, it seems that the shack sets up kind of a anti-gospel that leaves us with a Jesus who sounds a bit like the Long Island medium. On page 173, Jesus, speaking in the book, telling Mac about his deceased daughter, says, Missy and I, we talk. She was actually more worried about you. She prayed for you, for your peace. I can tell you there was not a moment that we were not there with her. She knew my peace. And you would have been so proud of her. She was so brave. Long Island medium, right? Page 124, Jesus tells Mac, you were made in our image unencumbered by structure and free to simply be. Sounds like a 1960's flower child to me, seriously. Mac protests that certainly it's okay to use power for protection and Jesus says, nope. No such thing, I guess, as just war, no Power of the sword to the state? No. Valiantly defending your family? All of this, I guess, is just evidence that people are, quote, addicted to power. And Jesus adds, I'm not too big on religion and not too fond of politics or economics either. You know, boy, Jesus in the New Testament sure does talk an awful lot about money for someone who's not interested in economics. We have here is a picture of Jesus that he's a fight the power truth to power Jesus. He's a John Lennon Jesus. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can. Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. Who needs the old Bible when you got the old Beatle? Those are some of the things you should know about the Son of God as presented in the shack. Now let's turn our gaze to the Holy Spirit in the shack. The person of the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian woman who is named Sarayu, who collects tears because tears are, quote, healing waters. Sarayu, that's an interesting name. Why Sarayu? Why the name of an Indian river that flows through Hindu territory? The name of a Hindu God, in fact. The wife of the God of Fire. What are some of the things that are said by Saraiu? Well, on page 122 she says, Hierarchy would make no sense among us, as the Godhead. Wrong right off the bat. I point you to 1 Corinthians 11.3, John 6.38, John 8.28, Mark 14.36, 1 Corinthians 15.28, Despite being wrong, Papa agrees with Saraiu, calling any form of hierarchy such a waste. And so does Jesus agree, saying, once you have a hierarchy, then you need rules. You need law and the enforcement of the rules. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules. Are laws and rules bad? Is God not higher than man? Is Christ not the head of the church? Is the husband not the head of the wife? Are parents not the head of the children? Is our government not the head of the state? According to the shack, no! Saraius says authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse of the strong to make others conform to what they want. Holy cow! Is Christ just some power-hungry jackal? Now, there are people who seek to be authoritarian, independently controlling everything, with an attitude that is full of sin. But this is a sinful sort of hunger for power. But the shack, it tosses out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing biblical authority structures, authority structures that are rooted in servant leadership. So instead, the shack has Sariu say, the Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. Untrue. Now she does also say, life and living is in Him, meaning Jesus, and in no other. This is true. But where is the glory of the atonement in Jung's view as presented in the shack? Now oddly, Paul Jung agrees with me, or agrees with the Bible for a moment, On some of these points, near the middle of the book, page 132, Saraius says, for any created being, autonomy is lunacy. Freedom involves trust and obedience inside a relationship of love. So there is a hierarchy after all. but then there's not on page 145 the Jesus character says papa is as much submitted to me as I to him or stereo to me or papa to her in fact we are submitted to you in the same way use the word a lot this morning but heresy Even the main character, Mac, has a good sense to ask, how can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me? Good question, Mac. Very good question. On page 205, Saraius says, your words are dead, full of law and fear and judgment. What about the law of God, fear of the Lord, judgment day? Sarah continues, you won't find the word responsibility in the scriptures. Religion must use law to empower itself and control the people. Wow, you know, postmodern thinking pervades this book. Of course the word responsibility isn't in the Bible. There are no English words in the Bible, in the original autographs. Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, translated into English. And certain translators could choose to put the word in there, if they so desired, because the concept is there. Look at Luke chapter 12, verses 47 and 48, for example. As is often the case in the shack, Mac asks a question that we might want to have asked. He inquires, are there no responsibilities of a husband, or a father, or employee? And the shack says no. So, we should all have open marriages. Make our kids fend for themselves. Tell our employers we're just not going to do what they want us to do. Mac asks, wouldn't everything just fall apart? And the response, only if you are of the world. But people are of the world. And those of us who are called to be in the world, but not of it, we have expectations to live godly lives. But not according to the shack. Papa says, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. Borders are unbelievable. First Corinthians chapter 4 verse 2, Micah 6 verse 8, Matthew 12 verse 36. I'm going to draw to a close here. I just want to point out that there are some points that you could gravitate to to defend the shack. I would say that they're points of irony, because there's a lot of irony in this book. Theologically, the book's kind of all over the map, and so you can almost make it be what you want it to be. And if you want to focus on the good things in the shack, that's fine. But make sure that you're accurately focusing on what is truly biblical and good, and separating that from that which is not biblical and therefore dangerous. Like I said, there's this irony in the book where he has these salient points that resonate, the author does. Page 98, William Paul Young writes, and this is God speaking in the book, The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn't much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I'm not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think." I don't think there's a single word of that that I would change. That's very good. Some challenge to figure out why Jung doesn't follow his own advice in his own book. Page 197, Jung again, ironically, issues a warning that I think could be a warning issued against his own book. He says, check your perceptions. And beyond that, check the truthfulness of your paradigms. Just because you believe something firmly doesn't make it true. And as good as these last two quotes from William Paul Young are, I don't want to end with quotes from William Paul Young, so let me end with words from the Apostle John. His parting words from his first epistle. First John, chapter 5, verses 20 and 21. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding. so that we may know Him who is true and we are in Him who is true in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. That is a good message for us to keep in mind always. Keep ourselves from idols. Thank you for listening to Faith Debate today on 930 WFMD. We are online at wfmd.com, keyword faith, or you find the drop-down menu of the programs that are on the radio station. You'll find the Faith Debate there. Click on there. Takes you right to our page, and there you'll find the podcasts, easy links there, a rundown of what's coming up on the show, or a listing of shows that have aired most recently on the Faith Debate. Till we meet again next week, 9 o'clock Sunday morning, 167 1�2 hours from now, again, I thank you for listening, and I wish you a fantastic week. uh... next week i think we're gonna have a message the good the bad the beautiful truth until we have to get our uh... act together and getting a panel discussion going we're working on it we've had a few scheduled to get canceled it happens so uh... anyway in the meantime give you something new and fresh to listen to every single week again till next week god bless