Shawn Boonstra, lies about the Tea Party

The Adventist Review has a recent article entitled Would Jesus Be in Zuccotti Park? By Shawn Boonstra. In his second paragraph he writes:

“Would He?  Conservative evangelicals would likely disagree, preferring instead to see Jesus on the other side of American dissatisfaction, attending Tea Party rallies and helping push America back to its religious roots.  Of course, no self-respecting liberal would agree: Jesus, they would emphasize, is clearly about social justice and toppling corporate greed.”

Now I am not going to accuse Boonstra of being a deep thinker, he is not after all his answer to his question is:

“Where would we find Jesus in the heart of the world’s current mess?  At rallies and protests?  His current occupation provides the answer: He’s chosen to stand in heaven’s sanctuary, devoting His full attention to the same underlying problem He focused on during His earthly ministry: sinners in desperate need of reconciliation to God.”

So he has limited thinking ability that he must apply to Jesus Christ who is God a physical location, the heavenly sanctuary. As if God has a building in heaven that was the model for earthly buildings rather then a God who deals with reality and trying to express reality in earthly terms. Even Adventists realize much of the furnishings of the temple can have symbolic meaning and can connect them as symbols of Christ, so why have a whole building of symbolism where Christ can minister to symbols. It is foolish but it is traditional Adventism.

But what bothers me more than his traditionalism is his lack of discernment. Take for instance the statement that the Tea Party rallies are helping push America back to its religious roots. Is that what the Tea Party is about? If so you sure don't find it in their online material. For instance:

“The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:

•  Limited federal government
•  Individual freedoms
•  Personal responsibility
•  Free markets
•  Returning political power to the states and the people

As a movement, The Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement, is instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands.”

Newt Gingrich one of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for President has a Contract from America which lists several points, but not one about pushing America back to its religious roots. His points are:

1. Protect the Constitution

2. Reject Cap & Trade

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

6. End Runaway Government Spending

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

9. Stop the Pork

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

How does someone who begin with such fallacious understanding of current events think they can give us any beneficial information. If your argument begins by misrepresenting people or groups it has a faulty foundation and all arguments built upon it will fall. As Boonstra next line shows:

“But students of the Bible ought to ask themselves if Jesus can safely be co-opted by either movement.”

You see his false premise is growing, building more errors upon his original error (is the Tea Party co-opting Jesus). We could argue his errors of no self-respecting liberal would agree it is about social justice and toppling corporate greed. That might be true of Jim Wallis and his ilk, but there are many at the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests that are protesting such things as Jewish Bankers, that Jews must leave this country. Others that are saying destroy capitalism and start a revolution that creates a new country under communist philosophy. Antisemitism and communism are just two of the ideas we hear from various OWS protesters. So it is any wonder they would disagree with the fictitious Tea Party return to religious roots. I would guess they also disagree with the propagation of flying elephants. It says nothing to say someone disagrees with something that is not even being talked about.

Lying about people and organizations is used when the facts don't fit well with someone's own opinions and speculations. Adventism has a high degree of speculation about what the future holds. That speculation is often considered inspired. The speculation has never proved correct in their areas of prophetic prognostication but that seems to not stop them from pretending that their speculations are true. So when the facts don't line up with the reality, tell another lie.

Better yet tell it in the official church publication. If our church leaders cannot be trusted to be accurate in the small things, why trust them with the more important things such as our spiritual lives and our doctrines.

Perhaps it is time we occupy our churches and remove these thoughtless leaders. That might be something the OWS supporters and the Tea Party supporters could agree on.

Book Review Revival of the Gnostic Heresy

Two of the most intriguing movements in Christian history are Fundamentalism and Gnosticism. These two subjects were placed together in an interesting book entitled: Revival of the Gnostic Heresy -- Fundamentalism by Joe E. Morris (2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, New York, NY). The book seeks to trace the history of the Gnostic doctrines to the arrival of Fundamentalism with as the title portends the idea that Gnostic religion has had a rebirth in what is now termed Fundamentalism.

To this end the book begins with a section on Gnosticism followed by a section on Fundamentalism. This is where the book shines. Written clearly and concisely it gives an excellent introduction to Gnosticism in Christianity. Christians for far too long have ignored the Gnostic doctrines and have assumed too little about fundamentalism ignoring some of the subtler ideas it encompases. The ignorance of the Gnostics is however understandable since it was not until the Nag Hammadi Library find in 1945 that we really had a good collection of the Gnostic documents. As the author points out:

“There are some who say that Gnosticism simply never left and that the relatively

recent discoveries of old books and publications of new ones had little to

do with “jump starting” a movement that never died. Those confident of this

belief are members of Ecclesia Gnostica and other Gnostic congregations like

them scattered around America and throughout the world. They were here first,

before James Robinson translated the ancient Nag Hammadi texts for the world

to read and before Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels was published.These latterday Gnostics will direct your attention to history and point out that the Cathars,

Rosicrucians, Knights Templar, Esoteric Freemasons, and Theosophists had roots

in Gnosticism.7” (Introduction page 3)

Gnosticism however is not some unified doctrinal statement of beliefs so the author takes some time to introduce us to some of the basic tenets. After Athanasius in 367 C.E. sent out his letter listing the 27 New Testament books and proscribing for destruction those writings which were not in harmony with the 27 the author writes:

“A secondary outcome of Athanasius’s declaration was an action at a remote

Coptic monastery. To protect their valued manuscripts, they buried them in the

desert. For seventeen hundred years, all we knew about Gnosticism was what

scholars could glean from a handful of texts and filter through the heavily biased

writings of the early Church fathers. The discovery of thirteen codices at the

foot of the mountain Jabal al-T_rif, near the village of Nag Hammadi in Upper

Egypt, changed all that. These forty-six treatises, often referred to as the Gnostic

Gospels (though some are more Christian than Gnostic), have shed considerable

new light on Gnosticism, a very diverse phenomena represented by many groups

with myriad religious beliefs and practices. The task at hand, based on this new

knowledge, is to condense all of this data into a core of basic tenets.”

On page 26 the author summarizes the Gnostic concepts as follows:

Gnosis means knowledge, and it is knowledge that saves. For Gnostics, salvation

lies in discovering the truth of their identity, their origin, how they came to

this earth, and how they can return to the divine heavenly realm, which is their

ultimate destination and goal. This is the knowledge, the truth that leads to salvation.

But it is grasped by only an elite few who are “in the know.”

Gnostic cosmogony, or worldview, is dualistic. Reality is composed of spirit

and matter. Spirit is good. Matter is evil. Because there is evil in the world, it

could not have been created by the one True Divinity, or God. Therefore, evil

came about through a catastrophic cosmic disaster. As a result, the spirit became

trapped in the evil, material world. In order for this spirit, represented as divine

sparks in certain humans, to return to its heavenly divine realm it must acquire

saving knowledge. This saving knowledge comes from a divine redeemer. This

divine redeemer came into the world to save the lost sparks of the spirit.

So far, all of this sounds vaguely Christian. Then comes the significant factor,

or hermeneutical key, that differentiates Gnosticism from Christianity: flesh

is evil; therefore, the Gnostic redeemer is all spirit and never became flesh. For

Christians, “the word became flesh.” For Gnostics, the word became spirit. No

flesh was involved. From the Christian perspective, the Gnostic divine redeemer

was impotent. He (or she) lacked humanity.

Gnostic Christians were active in Christian Churches but did not believe all

Christians would be saved, primarily because they did not have access to the

saving knowledge. Because many belonged to the Church, and because of their

insistence that the one true spiritual God could not have been human, Gnosticism

posed a very real and major threat to the existence of the young struggling

Church. Their ascetic ethic was another serious challenge.

As with Gnosticism Fundamentalists also contain a variety of beliefs, thus there are different fundamentalist denominations and there are fundamentalists within most all denominations, the 5 Fundamentals then are starting points but do not encompass all of Fundamentalism. As the author states on page 86:

These five concepts are the “Fundamentals” of Fundamentalism. However,

Bawer reminds us that not all legalistic Protestants are Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are elitists, he states and “keep themselves apart from the evil mainstream culture and thus pure.”21 William Loader also cautions against viewing Fundamentalism as a monolithic system of thought.22 Many who are fundamentalist in their thinking are not fundamental in their demeanor, outlook, or behavior.

They possess Fundamental beliefs because they were raised in a Fundamental milieu and knew nothing else. Their spirituality, however, functions on a different level. They are not ideologues. They manifest an openness, compassion, and flexibility not usually associated with their more rigid and purist cousins. “Their approach to the Bible is just an element of their spirituality.”23 He advises this additional caution: "Some assume all too readily that to espouse anything other than a fundamentalist stance towards the Bible means to devalue it.”24 The Bible is not an all-or-nothing proposition. In spite of its flaws, it is appreciated and valued. There are many differences and variations within the multiple Fundamentalist denominations. Some espouse themes and concepts not included in the Five Fundamentals.

In the summary of the chapter on The Basic Tenets of Fundamentalism Similarities between Early Christianity and Fundamentalism page 88 the authors writes:

Today’s Fundamentalism is a relatively modern phenomenon that began as a reaction

to modernity. The basic tenets of Fundamentalism were first generated in a series of pamphlets written between 1910 and 1915 entitled “The Fundamentals,”

which were reduced to the “Five Points” generated by the 1910 General

Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian: biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of

Christ, substitutionary atonement of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, and

the historicity of miracles.

It is significant that the first tenet is biblical inerrancy. Without it, the others

would not be tenable. Of the five, the one less commonly held is the substitutionary

atonement that portrays God as punishing his Son. There is linkage

among the remaining four to the extent that they all rely on each other. If one

falls, the others fall with it. This reasoning suggests that, for Fundamentalists,

salvation comes from “right belief ” and not grace, a concept that aligns them

with Gnosticism.

One is cautioned against lumping Fundamentalists into one theological mold.

Not all Fundamentalists share every principle. In cases where they unanimously

agree, emphasis often falls unevenly across the spectrum. There are differences

and variations among the multiple denominations. Some have dominant themes

that are not included in the “Five Fundamentals.” Examples of those differences

include snake handlers of Appalachian notoriety and foot-washing Baptists.

In some ways, current Fundamentalism is similar to primitive Christianity.

Early Christianity, in a short period of time, understood its beliefs and practices as

representative of the one true religion. All others were excluded from the circle of

salvation. Some Fundamental denominations and sects are preoccupied with the

“golden past” of the Church’s history. This “golden” time should be maintained

and relived at some future time.

The idea that “right belief” aligns the fundamentalist to Gnosticism is interesting. The first reaction most would think to this comment is “well don’t all Christians believe that right belief is important if not critical to Christianity.” Here I think the author is wrong. Having grown up after the age of Fundamentalism in a church filled with Fundamentalist perhaps my view of Christianity is thoroughly indoctrinated with Fundamentalism’s philosophy. Yet I don’t really think he is right because as he noted this idea of right belief existed in the early Christian church and it most certainly existed during the Reformation. Where even remarkable Protestant thinkers thought other Protestant thinkers were so completely wrong as to be of the Devil. He may be correct in regards to the Gnostic idea that right belief causes salvation and Fundamentalist think that their right belief causes salvation whereas the majority of Christianity see the salvation process as up to God’s grace. But even there it is doubtful that many Fundamentalist would think that it is really their right beliefs that save them as opposed to God’s grace.

The author attempts to identify dualism as very similar between the Gnostics and the fundamentalists. However here I think he fails because it is simply a part of Christianity, dualism is even as the author notes prominent in the New Testament.

For some, dualism and Gnosticism are synonymous.11 Dualism is certainly

not a foreign concept to Christianity. It is ever present in the New Testament and

in some parts of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. That is hard scriptural

fact. Themes in the Gospel of John and Letters of Paul are unmistakably dualistic.

They are conspicuous in the Gospel of John. When the writer (or writers)

speaks of light and darkness, the spiritual versus the physical world, he is in the

realm of dualism. Though he does not speculate about the divine or lower worlds,

Paul’s letters are replete with the antithesis of flesh and spirit, where “flesh” represents

fallen humanity. Perkins expresses that “Paul’s perception of the flesh as

the entry point for the sinful desires that ultimately bring death to humans unless

they receive the Spirit of Christ comes very close to what one finds in Gnostic

mythologizing.”12 This dualism of evil and good, flesh versus spirit, surfaces in the

synoptic gospels and Johannine epistles, which, most scholars agree, were targeted

by the writer specifically against a Gnostic group or sect that had broken away

from the Church.

These dualistic themes within the New Testament, however, are within the

context of an incarnated Christ, “The word became flesh” (John 1:14). They are

pulled together, gathered into that singular event and person, so the polarities,

the contradictions, are subsumed and held in balanced tension. Except in parts of

the Gospel of John, a theological dialectic is maintained between the humanity of

Christ and His divinity. Conflicts would rage about this issue for centuries. The

strife continued through the Councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Chalcedon (451

CE) where the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, were hammered

out and articulated in creedal form.13 The dualism of Gnosticism and Fundamentalism, of the physical world versus the spiritual world, is another matter. Most scholars contend that they are not only imbalanced but also significantly skewed toward the divine pole of the theological spectrum.

Where is dualism, the splitting of reality into physical and spiritual (evil and

good) compartments, evident in Fundamentalism? On the surface it is not openly manifested. Nothing in its creedal statements, resolutions, or “Five Fundamentals”

overtly states that the Spirit is good; matter is evil. There are no seminary

classes in conservative schools of theology labeled, “Dualism 101.” It is neither an

obvious theme preached from pulpits nor sung specifically from hymnals. Dualism

is not among the Fundamentalist “formulas” one hears—sin, salvation, judgment,

redemption, atonement, and so on. But dualism is there. It is imbedded

in the themes of evil flesh and saving spirit. Dualism is evident when one speaks

of the bad world and the need to set oneself apart from that world by leading a

spirit-filled, or spiritual, life . . . by knowing Jesus. It is implied in any messages

one hears about a God who is good and a Satan or devil who is bad.14 (page 94)

What appears to be the case here is that the author wants to make the dualism his corner stone argument but it simply does not work because dualism is simply a part of Christianity. On a related not however he does present a better argument:

Gnosticism is basically a return to salvation under the law. “The Gnostics

believed that salvation must be earned. They believed the individual must make

a science out of his own redemption.”26 This also sounds very much like Scientology,

where one works through a number of spiritual levels to attain the pure

spiritual self through a process called “auditing.”27

In Fundamentalism, one achieves salvation through personal decision.

This is not a divine act of pure grace and acceptance from above. This is conditional

grace. One must accept, and “know,” Christ before salvation is possible.

There is no other way. This is one of the results of dualism. Religions advocating

their way is not only the way, but the only way, imply an either–or dualistic split

in reality. This is Fundamentalism. It is Gnosticism. (page 98)

This has always been a weakness in the Fundamentalist Christian worldview where they use the text that says there is no other name by which men can be saved than Jesus. So what about all of those who have never known about Jesus? It is a terrible limitation on God but it is a wonderful inspiration for the Christian to tell people about Jesus. It unfortunately has lead to the kind of street corner evangelists who draw a crowd telling how Jesus loves them and condemning them as horrible sinners and then asking to pray the “sinners prayer” for salvation. They get to hear about Jesus but that is about all and it is not a very attractive Jesus at that. No doubt it has led to others doing true evangelism and missionary work also out of a genuine desire to spread the gospel and save souls.

According to the book the dualism’s keystone is as follows:

The most significant similarity between the two religions, the keystone of both

and the one upon which this book is predicated, is their concept of divine

redeemer, the Anointed One, the Christ….(page 98)

Doctrinally, Fundamentalists give a tacit cognitive (literal) nod to Christ’s

humanity. At deeper more visceral levels, with their near-obsessive need for inerrancy

and purity, it is very difficult for them to conceive of the Christ as capable

of doubt, fear, despair, sadness, depression, or loneliness, or to see him as human,

of being compatible with sin . . . of being sin. They are much more comfortable

with Luke’s patient, serene, and resigned righteous martyr who, during his crucifixion

from the cross, utters, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” (23:46);

as opposed to the hostile, lonely, despairing, and agitated Jesus of Mark who

becomes “deeply distressed and troubled” (14:33); whose soul is “overwhelmed

with sorrow to the point of death” (14:34); who asks his Father to “take this cup

from me” (14:36); and who, eventually, from the cross, cries out “My God, my

God, why have you forsaken me” (15:34)?29 In short, for Fundamentalists, divinity

dominates humanity.

This is the key similarity between Gnosticism and Fundamentalism. Their

redeemers never achieve humanity; they never become flesh and blood. They

never become real but evolve into fantasies and magic that many scholars argue

is the Oriental mystical cradle from which Gnosticism came. It is easy to see how

this type of one-sided Christology might affect one’s approach to the Bible and

scriptural interpretation. The Bible truly becomes the divine. (page 99)

While he may be fairly accurate here as to what people see that does not make it accurate as to what the Fundamentalists are teaching. As he notes the Fundamentalist has a cognitive nod to Christ’s humanity, that it may not encompass the passion the author wants it to encompass does not warrant it as the keystone connecting Gnosticism to Fundamentalism. It is not only Fundamentalists who see that “divinity dominates humanity” it is all of Christianity because if humanity dominate Divinity there is no hope, salvation would be a dream that God Himself could not grant. After all the New Testament focus is “God with us” we already know what humanity is like and it is not pretty even when not involved in sin agitation, despair and loneliness plague us, it is a comfort to know Christ felt those pains also but far more comfort to know that the divinity conquered all of those and death as well.

Hopefully I have covered adequately the major considerations of the book, at least the major portions which I think are encompassed in the title of the book. But you will notice I end at page 99 of a 230 page book not counting the Bibliography. While I can’t fully agree with the proposition the book puts forward I do find this book to be packed with useful information and challenging material. The book written in a very easy to read style that is wonderful to find on the subject of history and religion. And after all how could anyone pass on the chance to read a book attempting to connect Gnosticism to Fundamentalism?

Review of William Young's The Shack

Recently I discovered a new pariah in the Evangelical world. His name is William Young and he authored the recent book called “The Shack”. After reading or in my case listening to the audio version of the book it is pretty clear that the problem with Young is found in things he has said elsewhere and those are seen as implied in the things read in the book. But I will get more into that in the second part of this review.

The book takes the form of a story of someone who suffered a tragedy and who then receives an invitation by God to meet at the shack. I won’t tell you the tragedy as to protect some of the literary integrity of the book but you will find it relayed in some of the reviews that I link to below. The Shack is used as the symbol for the life changing tragedy. Thus the book is a novel; a work of fiction which he hopes will reveal truth. Something that no doubt most novelists want from their books, though this book is certainly more overt in the process and as a story teller much less proficient. In some ways the book has a lot in common with the Celestine Prophecy, not so much as a New Age religious tome as Redfield’s book, but as something which so often presents an other worldly view in which light and color play as major emphasis and clarity is often unworldly brilliant. That of course is only a small part of the book but I wanted to point out that while the Celestine Prophecy is basically a primer on New Age thought it is written in a very engaging style which carries on through the book.

The Shack begins by telling of the main character “Mack” setting up his life and his relationship with his abusive and religious father and Mack’s experience which leads to the life changing tragedy which makes him question his religion. This only takes a couple of chapters and then the book turns into something of a conversation with God. A conversation with God is always a difficult task as each person who believes in God is likely going to have a different perspective on what God is like. To counter this problem the author mixes up the ways that God appears in the conversation. God appears as an older Black lady who enjoys cooking and who is referred to as Papa which is Mack’s wife’s term for God. Jesus appears pretty much as simply a Middle Eastern carpenter in contemporary clothes and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman (Sarayu) who is not quite in focus, or constantly in motion. Over all it works pretty well imparting to God both male and female cultural characteristics and demonstrating as well as can be expected the standard Trinitarian concept of God (that is 3 distinct persons). These three deeply loving each other and all three are in a deep relationship. The author’s technique does incorporate the idea of Jesus as a son in more then just the physical incarnation concept however. But the book does not go into that part with the conversations: staying mainly within the framework of unity of all three. That unity being based upon a loving relationship.

The real meat of the book is found in the conversations which are the main focus of the book; the story is about getting to the conversation, between a hurting man and a loving God. How to make the man see things the way God see’s things. As a novel the book is not written very engagingly in other words it is not a story you read to take you into the life of a character and explore his or her feeling and adventures. The story is the preface to the conversation where the author can reveal his ideas about God. That is the reason to read this book. In fact I think the book would be useful in church small discussion groups. The conversations are packed with a lot of ideas. Some showing some real thought and provoking thought in people who might not otherwise think about these things. Others ideas which should be viewed as questionable of traditional Christianities views of God and the authors own questionable views about God.

From my perspective the theology is not quite right and still has some major flaws but it is much better than the theology we find in most Christian authors. It is not the giant leap but a first small step. That small step is focusing upon relationships. The relationship between God and man which spurs better relationships between humans. The author’s views would fit well within most Evangelicals views of God. Most people reading the book would likely not see many problems at all with his theology. Which is why several Christian watchdog types have attempted to discredit William Young, perhaps even making the book more interesting in the process. Their two chosen avenues are that Young does not accept the Penal/Substitutionary Atonement and that he believes in universal reconciliation (salvation). But these are not really concepts that can be found in the book. They may be mildly hinted at but if the reader did not know otherwise they would likely not notice them. In some ways it is an interesting phenomenon that these Evangelical watchdogs get so upset over such things even though they are not found in the book. It is not like most anyone agrees with Martin Luther or John Calvin or Charles Spurgeon on every theological idea. But that should not relegate their books to the trash heap of Evangelicalism.

As I move into part two about other reviews of the book it seems only fair that I lay out my pet criticism of the book. One of the annoying errors in the book is speaking of Jesus God says :

“Jesus is fully human although he is fully God he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything he has only lived out of his relationship with me. Living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. “So when he healed the blind” he did so as a dependent limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus as a human being had no power within himself to heal anyone.”

A little later this view of Jesus is countered when God says: I am one God and I am three persons and each of the three is fully and entirely one. Obviously the author has some internal confusion about God. However this idea that Jesus relied on God as an external force is all too prevalent in Christianity and especially in Adventism. As if God acting as God is somehow different if it is God acting as a human depending on God. This kind of ideas does nothing but make Christians and their God look silly. I touched upon this topic in my previous article. I don’t understand how the concept of God with us (Immanuel) is so easily discounted by some Christians. So Jesus depending on God for power is somehow different than God depending on God for His Power. If there is only One God than there is no need to keep separating God from God. It seems those who do this want to subordinate their members of the One God into different orders of God. In fact many Trinitarians are more tri-theists then Trinitarians and many Trinitarians are very much believers in Subordinationism.

Part 2

This section is mainly dealing with the criticisms of the book because they really seem to reflect a difference between Emergent Christianity and Traditional Christianity. By way of reading the reviews you see which style of Christianity people feel is most appropriate. Some of the statements made by these so called discernment ministries are outright lies. But I won’t deal with some of the worst to save time. Anyone who actually reads the book will be able to see. (actually I lost the quote I typed in that showed how much one reviewer lied and I am not about to go and find the spot again and type it in.)

---

Update 4/25/09: It bothered me so much to see this particular falsehood in a review that I took the time to transcribe it from the audio. It is from a book review done by David Dunlap

He writes:

The third Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, is depicted as “...a small, distinctively Asian woman ’...I am Sarayu...keeper of the gardens among other things...’ ” (pp. 82-87). Young teaches that the Holy Spirit was a created being. Mack says, “Sarayu, I know your are the Creator...” Sarayu replies, ”A created being can only take what already exists and from it fashion something different” (p. 131). Evangelical theologians have always insisted that the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Godhead was not a created being. (Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit was a created being.) At another point in Young’s book, Mack queries, “Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?” “Yes.” Replies Jesus, “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit.” (p. 110).

In fact Young in no way teaches that the Holy Spirit was a created being and it is pretty near impossible to derive that from the book quote in context. When you have people like this lying for the sake of their gospel it is a pretty sure sign their gospel is corrupt. Here is the quote from the book:

Mack says, “Sarayu, I know your are the Creator but did you make the poisonous plants, stinging nettles and mosquitoes too? Sarayu seem to move in tandem with the breezes. Mackenzie, a created being can only take what already exists and from it fashion something different. So are you saying that you ”created everything that actually exists including what you consider the bad stuff. But when I created it, it was only good. Because that is just the way I am"…

End Update

----

One of the big problems some feel with the book is as the character who portrays God says: “mixed metaphors to help you from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning…reinforcing religious stereotypes.” In other words don’t question your traditions. As one review says:

The Shack contains subtle and not so subtle heresies. The Shack also contains what many Bible scholars would call “aberrant” teaching. Former Professor of Theology at Denver Seminary Dr. Gordon Lewis wrote me in a private e-mail that “heresy is a conscious and deliberate rejection of orthodox teaching and the acceptance of contradictory views on the biblically revealed essentials of the Christian faith” (Lewis). In the category of aberration, Dr. Lewis writes, “unorthodox doctrine leads to aberrant behavior that wanders from the path of right action (ortho-practice) on biblically revealed moral and spiritual essentials of Christian living. Beliefs have consequence” (Lewis).

What is kind of funny about the above statement is that that is the method of argument the Roman Catholic Church used against Protestantism. Orthodoxy has never really been about what is right as about who has the power to say that they are right. Dr. Lewis is correct that beliefs have consequences but that in the case of this book is generally only acknowledged as beliefs that are different from traditional beliefs have the consequence of exposing traditional beliefs as inadequate, not dealing at all with the quality of the life as a consequence of the different beliefs.

From SHACK ATTACK- OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?:

Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:6. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)

The shack quote actually continues:

“I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” to see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you.

This is all in response to Mack saying that he can relate to Jesus more easily then to the other two. The Shack Attack article however displays the proof text illogical techniques that I found in many of the reviews. If these people would only stop to think they have the whole Old Testament with not a mention of Jesus does that mean that they had no way to God? What these people act like is that if they can insert a Bible verse some place they have answered the question or solved the problem. That however is not true and is pretty clearly not the method the writers of the Bible wanted to convey. In context the statement in no way makes the Jesus referred to in the Shack as a false Jesus.

From Shack Attack:

Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .”

(Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)

The quote from the book continues:

“Ultimately emerging as the real and any appearances that mask that reality will fall away.”

This is in the context of Jesus explaining that when Mack knows Jesus better appearance will not be as important. Clearly the review does not even know what Pantheism actually is but you see the pattern of taking a snippet out of context and inserting something that would sound horrible to most Christians. Another quick example is:

Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)

Again that review does not know what Open Theism is or the concept of literary license or the simple Biblical examples of God revealing Himself as an angel or a burning bush or as Moses saw when he requested to see God the back of God so that Moses would not die. And of course the ultimate example of Jesus Christ the incarnation of God in form of a man a little lower than the angels. That these people think they are discerning is truly amazing to me. I will only deal with one more example from the Shack Attack review because it is very representative of many traditionalists views.

Shack attack:

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal

substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of

the cross.)

The quote from the Shack:

“But if you are God aren’t you the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire. Mack could feel his deep anger emerging again. Pushing out the questions in front a little chagrined at his own lack of self control, but he asked anyway. Honestly don’t you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you. At that Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack he could see a deep sadness in her eyes. I am not who you think I am Mackenzie I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it…”

This is what I think is the heart of the traditionalists dislike for the book. God is not the kind of person most Christians think He is. To them God must punish someone in order to forgive. In fact they have a perverted view of the atonement and to question their atonement theory is nearly the greatest crime a Christian can commit.

A slightly better thought our review entitled a reader’s review of the Shack says:

The Shack offers only hints as to the importance of the cross and to its function within the faith. “Honey,” says Papa, “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.” “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “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.” What then is the nature of this reconciliation? Young never tells us in any clear way. What is clear, though, is that the God of The Shack is not a God who could have punished His Son for the sins of others. After all, Papa says, “Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him” (96). He is not a a [sic] relationship with God? “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions” (182). Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'” (182). While these words cannot rightly be said to actually teach universalism, the view that all men will go to heaven, neither do they clearly deny it. Is Jesus the only way to be reconciled to God? The book is less than clear on this point. Jesus says to Mack, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” Jesus does not say, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” as he does in John 14:6, but merely states that He is the best way.

What is interesting is that the review does not even realize that love is the means to reconciliation. Because to the traditionalist God is loving in that He sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin…because God had to punish someone. Young on the other hand see love as making the first move…God toward man offering man salvation. Healing as opposed to punishment. Reconciliation to the traditionalist is only based upon a legal fiction where the innocent pays the penalty demanded of the guilty. But how can it be demanded of the guilty if it can be substituted with the penalty paid by the innocent? What it comes down to is that the Penal/Substitutionary theory of the atonement has so colored modern Christians that the majority can’t see anything past it. It is historically not the main atonement theory and was a later development that seems to have been set in stone by the Reformation. Emergent Christianity is chipping away at that time encrusted idea and traditionalists are extremely unhappy about that. And that makes the Shack a very interesting book.

For more on the idea of Universal Reconciliation found in the book see The Shack A Friendly Critique