The Shack and the Atonement

-
I have been reading The Shack by Wm. Paul Young over the last few weeks. Evidentially, I am not alone in this.

While I do find much of the book to be somewhat helpful when read very carefully, I cannot help but express some concerns with its theological underpinnings. I am going to leave some of the issues it raises regarding the trinity, theology proper, the incarnation, Christ’s exclusivity, and special revelation to those more able. (See Norman Geisler here.) I want to focus on the way the book expresses the atonement (what Christ did in His life and death to secure salvation for us).

On pages 95 and 96, we are told that God the Father has “scars in her wrists” just like Jesus does. The character that represents God the Father says that Christ did at the cross “…cost us dearly.” In this book’s scheme, the Father does not desert Jesus on the cross. The Father suffers with Christ. This has implications for other areas (see here and here), but it also has very personal implications for all of us.

God can forgive us only because Christ paid the penalty for our sins. And what was that penalty? The wrath of God the Father Almighty. All of the punishment that we deserve because of our sins was suffered by Christ. How could God the Father poor out His wrath on Himself? Christ must be seen as a distinct Person for Him to suffer God’s wrath, and if He doesn’t suffer God’s wrath for our sins, we will.

The character who represents God also states that “Regardless of what [Jesus] felt at that moment, I never left him…” (p. 96). Christ became a curse for us on the cross. All of our sin and shame were credited to Him as He suffered and died. How could God the Father not turn His back on Christ once He became a curse for us? God abandoned Christ because at the moment that Christ was credited with our sin, Christ was the worst sinner in the history of the world. God abandoned Christ so Christ could endure the abandonment we deserve on our behalf.

Because of what Christ did for us, we are no longer shameful sinners. We no longer need fear that God will punish us. God is not mad at us anymore. We need no longer fear that God will turn His back on us and leave us in our sins. As one Lutheran puts it, “God abandoned One, so He does not need to abandon you.” When we place our faith in Christ, we are loved and accepted by the Father. We are accepted because of what He did on our behalf.

(For a book-length treatment of what Christ did for us, see R. C. Sproul’s The Truth of the Cross.)

The Shack is an allegory, and allegories are not always a way to express great truth with equally great precision. Despite this, I do not recommend this book for newcomers to Christian theology. Much of it is misleading.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more