Calvins Corner

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Siggy the Terrible says:


    “The Shack has touched a lot of people in a place where the church hadn’t touched them”

    I haven’t made my way through your whole podcast, but this came to mind:

    This quote is true. It is true as well that many in the church suffer in silence and blame the church and the Pastor for not reading their minds. I’ve been guilty of that myself. They (we) then harbour bitterness and take it into a picturesque, edited suspension of disbelief (there’s a lot in that phrase) via film or novel. It is quite easy to manipulate emotions in this venue as opposed to a church setting and come out looking more pastoral, or at least the one whose finger is on the pulse of the church. Folks then return to their church wondering why the Pastor, elders, other servants, and pew sitters don’t make them feel as understood as the author or the film.
    Thus they harbour pain and bitterness in silence waiting for their next emotional high they found from certain media. I have done the same thing with great internet sermons and teachings when I should have been living the doctrine I was picking up, but instead became bitter comparing my pastor and church to others.

    I see now I have been quite the hypocrite.

    The Shack has touched people with no effort. The Shack Dilemma is identical to the biggest problem I encountered serving clients whose services were paid for by the US Gov’t. There is literally no buy-in. No investment means little incentive to change oneself or ones’ environs. We do the same when we insist on our monistic lifestyles of internet fellowship and Facebook friends, but ignore our neighbours every Sunday and Wednesday to, in, and out of church. We feel we’ve done our duty with nice words, but there is no investment in tears. This is where I believe the Shack and other media like it may hold a greater danger than its poor theology. It meets our needs with no buy-in from us and further encourages the lie that we can reap in joy without sowing in tears.

    Thx Michael, for helping me think through some things. I’m done being a pain in everyone’s derriere on this issue.

  2. says:

    Why isn’t the church communicating the love of God as well as a “heretic”?

    I see at least two causes, or replacements of Jesus. And remember Jesus repeatedly positioned himself (not a what) to be the sole person (not what) of belief.
    The two idols are “the Church” and a “leader.”

    Regarding the first, it seems “the Church,” at least the Protestant portion, with all their bitter vengeance upon Roman Catholicism (by the way I never had nor will be a part of it), especially with their view of the papacy, has functional setup the same.
    “The church” has proven time and again its more important one “receives” salvation through it, than whether or not they’ve received Christ’s payment. THEIR methods/approvals/preference/crack-pot opinions are more important.
    How do I know: Look at this current jihad, along with the hundreds of others where MANY people’s relationship to Jesus was improved (remember what the Bible places preeminence upon?).
    Does “the church” first attempt to discover is God maybe working through something?
    No! Again, “the church” finds itself on the outside looking and and once again, throws its tantrum, thinking again, God needs/wants/requires its approval (or opinion).
    Also, for all those jihading about how “dangerous” this book is, they obviously haven’t bothered to learn church history where time and again, God has worked in ways which to the historian (hindsight), was obviously a move of God, but also contains a fair amount of weirdness.
    And here’s the greater irony, for all the churche’s jihading, watch how much more God will work in ways outsides its tax shelters, regardless of how many spiritual ulcers it develops.
    But I know, I know, they’re “called” to jihad. I guess a fruit of the Spirit is to tantrum.
    Personally, I would think eventually maybe we can look at how to share in where God is working or maybe why we aren’t helping others like this book has.

    Regarding the “leaders” as idols, listen how much in “the church” you will learn more about a man, his opinions, his preferences (many times passed-off as doctrines), yet most remain ignorant of the man Jesus!
    Jesus even said (referring to what would become our Bible), it all was about Him.
    Yet, they claim they’re pointing people to Jesus, “teaching” the Bible to point people to THEIR opinions.
    They can’t use Jesus’ life or words to blame “the homos”, Dems, brown people, an author, or any other scapegoat for what is REALLY pissing them off. Their constant anger that is the fruit of their religion masquerading as making disciples.

    Ok, now go ahead and jihad on me; I don’t care anymore, I know the man Jesus.

  3. Lynn says:

    I propose a careful reading of the following:

    When People Say, “But The Shack is Just a Novel!”
    By Warren B. Smith

    A woman standing in line outside the theater to see The Shack movie was eager to talk with me about Paul Young’s best-selling book. She said she “loved” The Shack and couldn’t understand why it had so many critics on the Internet. She was especially perplexed by the number of “negative” comments made by pastors. Obviously confused by all the controversy, she suddenly exclaimed—”But The Shack is just a novel!”

    What the woman and so many other Shack readers fail to take into account is that the book is much more than just a novel. It is a carefully crafted presentation of Paul Young’s alternative “Christian” universalist theology based on “real” conversations he claims to have had with God. In Young’s forward to The Shack Revisited, a book written by his friend C. Baxter Kruger, Young corrects any misunderstanding that The Shack is “just a novel.” He writes:

    Please don’t misunderstand me; The Shack is theology. But it is theology wrapped in story.1

    If you want to understand better the perspectives and theology that frame The Shack, this book [Kruger’s] is for you. Baxter has taken on the incredible task of exploring the nature and character of the God who met me in my own shack.2

    According to Young, God came to him in the “Great Sadness” of his own “shack” and communicated directly with him. Much of The Shack’s theology is based on what Young learned in his conversations with God.

    Young’s Conversations with God

    A Christian news source recently reprinted excerpts from several posts Young made on his personal blog back in August 2007. In these excerpts, Young explained that The Shack is a story, but it is a story based on real conversations he was having with God, his friends, and his family. He writes:

    Remember, I am thinking about writing this for my kids, so I am searching for a good vehicle to communicate through. I figure a good story would be great . . . but I didn’t have one. So I started with what I did have . . . conversations. So, off and on, for about three months I wrote down conversations; conversations that I was having with God mostly, but which often included friends or family.3 [emphasis added by W. Smith]

    Is the story “real”? The story is fiction. I made it up. Now, having said that, I will add that the emotional pain with all its intensity and the process that tears into Mack’s heart and soul are very real. I have my “shack,” the place I had to go through to find healing. I have my Great Sadness . . . that is all real. And the conversations are very real and true. . . .

    So is the story true? The pain, the loss, the grief, the process, the conversations, the questions, the anger, the longing, the secrets, the lies, the forgiveness . . . all real, all true.4 [emphasis added by W. Smith]

    Young’s “Christian” Universalism

    In a February 16, 2008 post on a blog called Christian Universalism: The Beautiful Heresy: The Shack, an avowed “friend” of Paul Young corroborates Young’s 2007 blog post about his conversations with God. The friend describes how the conversations Young’s main character Mack has with God in The Shack are “real conversations” that Paul Young actually had with God. She reveals how these conversations “revolutionized” Young, his family, and friends such as herself. She says that the “radically dangerous” teachings that Young put in his novel have become her new “systematic theology” and The Shack is her new “systematic theology handbook.” The following are her exact words and punctuation as they were originally posted on the “Christian Universalism” blog:

    I know the author well—a personal friend. (Our whole house church devoured it last summer, and Paul came to our home to discuss it—WONDERFUL time!) The conversations that “Mack” has with God, are real conversations that Paul Young had with God . . . and they revolutionized him, his family, and friends (Paul had a very traumatic past, raised by missionary parents, who left him in the care of the stone-age Dani tribe, while they did “God’s work.” He was abused by them, in the process—and there were other tragedies in his life, later on. When he was a broken mess, God began to speak to him). He wrote the story (rather than a “sermon”) to give the real conversations context—and because Jesus also used simple stories to engage our hearts, even by-passing our objective brains, in order to have His message take root in our hearts, and grow. . . .

    I had already come to believe all the “radically dangerous” teachings within this book—so it mostly confirmed what I already believed. But, it most definitely highlighted the reality that I don’t yet KNOW (KNOW!) how much God loves me. I want the relationship with God that I see in Paul Young’s life. . . .

    This was the first book that I read straight through 4 times. First to absorb it. Secondly, to underline. Third to highlight. Fourth, to put “headers” on the top of each page, so that I could find certain passages again. It’s become my new “systematic theology” handbook!5 [emphasis added by W. Smith]

    Thus, by his own account and that of his friend, Paul Young would be the first to deny that The Shack is “just a novel.”

    Young the Universalist

    Back to my conversation with the woman in front of the movie theater. When she said that The Shack was “just a novel,” I described how his novel was actually a fictional device used as a “vehicle” for presenting some of his own misguided theological teachings—teachings that had more in common with New Age teachings than biblical Christianity. When she acknowledged knowing about the New Age movement, I told her that some of The Shack’s teachings were actually New Age teachings. But before I could explain what those specific teachings were and how I had once been involved in the New Age myself, the theater doors opened, the line started moving, and our conversation was suddenly over. She seemed relieved as she turned toward the theater and away from me. Praying that she would come to understand that Paul Young has more in common with New Age universalism than biblical Christianity. I had no idea at the time that Young was about to publicly declare in a new book what so many of us already knew. In Lies We Believe About God, which was released on March 7th, Young states that he believes in “universal salvation”6 and that “every single human being is in Christ” and “Christ is in them.”7 Thus, Young himself makes it very clear in his own words that The Shack is not “just a novel” but rather a “cunningly devised fable” (2 Peter 1:16) for presenting some of his own heretical universalistic New Age views.

    Who is Paul Young Really Listening To and Conversing With?

    Paul Young would have us believe that he has been having “real” conversations with God and that he was inspired by God to write The Shack. Yet he is now declaring himself to be a universalist who believes in the false New Age trinitarian doctrine that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are already “in” everyone. In other words, Young, as a professing universalist, would have us believe that all of humanity is already saved (universal salvation). The question that naturally arises and that is now before the church is—just who is Paul Young actually listening to and conversing with? The God of the Bible or the false “God” of the New Age?

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. (1 Timothy 4:1)


    1. C. Baxter Kruger, The Shack Revisited: There Is More Going on Here than You Ever Dared to Dream ( New York, NY: FaithWorks, Hatchette Book Group, 2012), p. xi.
    2. Ibid., p. viiii.
    3. Sunny Shell, “The Shack, a Biblical and Interactive Review” (, posted 2/16/17, quoting Paul Young from his August 15, 2007 blog titled “The Shack – update – Background #2″ (
    4. Sunny Shell, “The Shack, a Biblical and Interactive Review” (, posted 2/16/17, quoting Paul Young from his August 15, 2007 blog titled “Is the story of THE SHACK true . . . is Mack a “real” person? (
    5. Christian Universalism-The Beautiful Heresy: The Shack (, posted February 16, 2008 by Dena Brehm. (Thanks to Kent McElroy for bringing this blog to my attention).
    6. Wm. Paul Young, Lies We Believe About God (New York, NY: Atria Books, an Imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2017), p. 118.
    7. Ibid., p. 119.

  4. Michael says:

    Such a bunch of nonsense…

    I could care less what Warren Smith thinks about anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading