AN EVENING AT THE SHACK, WITH PAUL YOUNG

Hello beloved,

I spoke of William Paul Young (author of The Shack) a few weeks ago, in an article entitled, “The Emergent Church: Submerged in Delusion”.  If you haven’t read it yet, I would encourage you to do so at:
http://ifmypeople.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/the-emergent-church-submerged-in-delusion/

Beloved, we are surrounded by deception.  It seems that everywhere we turn, someone is claiming that they are the new mouthpiece for God.  Everyone wants to come up with a new way to understand and communicate the will of God.  Mr. Young even said, “I want to be a part in the change that is happening in the community of faith.” It’s obvious that his wants are becoming a reality.  Many people are taking this fiction book as doctrine.  O it is so dangerous.

Last night, my wife and I, along with another couple, went to a lecture featuring William Paul Young.  I say lecture, but it was a much different environment than what you would expect.  He played some emotional music, mixed with some humorous songs during a night of story-telling.  It was a very “comfortable” setting.  I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that.  I’m just explaining to you the setup.

He spent a little while just telling us his story about his book, “The Shack”.  He told us how it was so obvious, to him, that God had providentially lifted this book to the top seller list, giving several “miraculous” examples along the way.  All I have to say about that is that you had better be very careful with signs and wonders.  They, by no means, accredit someones ministry as being approved by God.  See Deuteronomy 13 if you want biblical proof of that statement.

Paul used alot of his time to get the people to really like him.  He is, in fact, a likable guy.  He is funny, witty, seemingly humble and very intelligent.  This night, though, had a very dangerous theme.  Over and over, he presented his book as a “new” thing that God was doing.  According to him, the language we now use is very religious and “stuck”.  You know, because all of us that stick to sound doctrine are just placing God in a box.  So, according to Paul Young, The Shack is what God wants to use to change the language that God uses to reach people.

He then went on to explain some of the ways in which he was letting God outside of our man-made box.  One was why he used a large, African-American woman to portray God, The Father.  He explained that God “transcends gender”.  After this, he went to a Q&A session.

I was the second person he called on in the Q&A session.  Here is the exact question I asked him.  I said, “Your book title says, ‘Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity.’  I don’t remember Hell ever being mentioned.  But there was a quote from Papa, I believe, saying that ’sin is it’s own punishment.’  So my question is this, ‘Do you believe in a literal Hell?’”

His exact response was, “Good question…next question.”  He was kidding of course.  He spent about ten minutes actually answering the question, but his first response kind of summed it up.  He didn’t really want to answer the question because he didn’t want to outright say what he believes.  But, as he danced around the question, he gave some obvious hints.

His first actual response was, “Hell is real.  It is a spiritual reality.  It is a place created for Satan and his angels.”  But he clearly and definitively said, “It is not separation”, using Revelation 14:10 to back it up, saying that the Lamb was present with those in torment.  He, of course, did not give the scripture reference; something he did many times throughout the night.  There is a big problem with that.  When quote verses from all over the Bible without giving references it’s hard for people to record them. Which makes it hard to put them in context to see if what is being said is legit.

He continued to answer my question and said this, “God does nothing that is not motivated by love, which should make us look at it (Hell) differently.”  If you read the book, you will come away confused on what the author is trying to get across on some issues.  It was no different during his lecture.  After this last quote, he said that “we have theologically defamed God.”  It seemed that he was saying that the fundamental doctrine of Hell was a mis-interpretation of Scripture which defames God.

Still speaking on the wrath of God, he said, “God’s wrath is not directed at us (mankind).  It is directed at those things that keep us from being free.”  He used Romans 1:18 to back that up; again, not giving the reference.  “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…” Beloved, if you put this in context, you cannot come up with what he was trying to say.

To sum up his answer to my question he said that there is enough ambiguity in Scripture to think that there might be a chance that God will, after a certain period of time, give everyone a second chance.  Again, that was a subtly unclear statement.  Was he saying that people would have a chance to accept Christ after they die?  It would seem so.  Well, that completely contradicts Luke 16:26, which says, “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”

As the night went on, he seemed to get more and more out there; yet in a very subtle way.  As my friend Gaute said, “It’s spooky!”

He was admittedly using this book to subtly change the way we look at God.  He was later asked the question, “If you say that God transcends gender, why have you been referring to God as He tonight?”  His answer was that he didn’t want to shock everyone.  Instead, his plan is to slowly introduce this new view of God.  He wants to incrementally get everyone to a place where they have no problem with referring to God as “She”.  He even said that he had no problem, whatsoever, referring to God as “She”.

Overall, his message last night focused on introducing a new way to view God.  Sound familiar?  It does if you have researched the Emergent Church any.  It seems everyone wants to find a new way to “do” Christianity these days.

Christianity is about how God redeems a people from their sins if they repent and trust him.  Mr. Young placed much emphasis on finding deliverance from God, but absolutely no emphasis on sin, righteousness and judgment.  The words “sin” or “repentance” were not mentioned all night long.  It was all about how God can fix your problems through relationship.  He was very clear that God does not use guilt or condemnation.  What does that say?  Well, it would seem that it says “Jesus died, not for our sins, but to heal us of your problems.”  It is basically humanism.

He ended the night with a prayer to “Papa”.  The last statement/request in that prayer was, “If we say we love You, that is enough.  Heal us so we can live as free people.” There are some obvious problems with that statement, but I won’t go there right now.

So that’s it right?  Not at all.  As everyone left, we hung back hoping that we might get a chance to talk with him.  Well, he walked right up to us, and said something to Christan(Gaute’s wife) about her pregnancy.  That was very cool, because Christen had a question that she wasn’t able to ask during the Q&A session.

So she asked him about his statement in the book, from Jesus, which said, “I am the best way.”  She asked him if he believed that Jesus was the only way.  To our amazement, he said, “absolutely”.  He explained that the reason he used that statement was because he wanted to use a new language and said that most roads don’t lead anywhere.

Gaute asked Paul what he meant when he said that he was trying to come up with a new language for God, basically boasting that he was God’s “new mouthpiece”.  When Gaute told him that it sounded like he was saying that the Bible is out-of-date, Paul said that he was more referring to man’s interpretation of the Bible.  Paul said, over and over, that the Bible was an ambiguous book.  Gaute did a great job of showing him, through Scripture and men like Luther, that the Scriptures are not ambiguous, but are actually very clear.

His answer to Gaute was “That is your interpretation of the Scripture.”  I told him that there is only one interpretation of the Scriptures.  He agreed.  He asked me if I had all the correct interpretations, basically trying to corner me.  I told him that I don’t know it all, but I have a sound base.  I explained that we could agree to disagree on some things in the Bible, but on the core issues, God is very clear.  I said something to the effect of, “When Jesus said He was the only way, that is very clear.  So to say, in your book that He is the best way was a mis-representation of God.  And to say that “some roads lead to nowhere” is simply not true.  God’s Word is very clear that all roads lead somewhere.  On the day of judgment, we will all stand before God and have to give an account for our sins.  On that day, it will either be Heaven or Hell.  There are no other options.  There are no roads that lead to nowhere.”  (See Matthew 7:13-14)

His response to that was an analogy of someone believing in pink and yellow frogs.  “Roads like that don’t lead anywhere”, he said.  I disagreed.  I said, “If someone puts their faith in pink and yellow frogs to save them from the wrath to come, they will definitely go to Hell when they die.”

The conversation continued for around ten minutes.  It was quite an interesting conversation, and Paul is quite an interesting man.  I’m just praying that God would prick his heart and show him that he is teaching a false gospel and that he will repent.

I’d like to end with this.  During the lecture, the Holy Spirit revealed the following verses to, both Gaute, and myself.  Gaute shared this verse with Paul during our conversation.  His only response was, “I am very familiar with that verse.”

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Beloved, The Shack is nothing more than a fable.  The problem is, it paints the picture of a god that is suitable to our culture.  And it is turning many away from the truth.

In Christian love,
Adam Tennant