The Shack Unmasked—

WPY Exposed

The The Shack is among the top 100 best selling fiction books of all time. Commentary on the book is plentiful and all over the map, varying in nature from very positive to very negative. Something, however, that can't be refuted is the level of influence a book has when its sales are north of 20 million copies.

BLUF:

The author William Paul Young (WPY) uses The Shack to offer his own private interpretation of Scripture. However, Scriptures clearly state that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Pe. 1:20. Rather than relying on the Bible to tell us who God is and explain the mystery of God (which is His plan of salvation), WPY offers his private interpretation (which is steeped in universalism and existentialism).

The purpose of this page is to expose and highlight the flawed, and often subtle, implied twists of Scripture presented in The Shack. This evaluation of the book is developed through a lens of reason that views the word of God as the one and only infallible revelation of God and of His plans for our race and planet. With this lens in mind, consider this serious warning recorded in the last chapter of the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" Rev. 22:18-19.

"Jesus answered them, ... the scripture cannot be broken" John 10:34, 35.

In The Shack, author William Paul Young (WPY) provides a prime example of someone who blatantly disregards both verse 18 and 19 of Revelation 22. WPY makes Thomas Jefferson's infraction appear minor. Thomas Jefferson (see a picture of his Bible on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History) made his own Bible by clipping out any verses with which he disagreed. WPY steps way beyond that and offers his contrived notion of who God is through the his imaginary people in The Shack. (It is disclosed, in the last chapter of The Shack, that the episode at the shack documented in chapters 5-17 originated in the imagination of the main character Mack while he was unconscious in the hospital for four days following a terrible car accident that occurred on his way to the shack.) WPY offers no justification for his views, and conveniently has no reason to because The Shack is a work of fiction. Yet anyone curious if WPY's non-Biblical theology is limited to this work of fiction, can easily discover, by a cursory look at some of his youtube presentations (e.g., https://youtu.be/XzwKddqhiY8) and his more recent non-ficton book, he teaches it as (supposedly) highly enlightened truth. For a sample of his private interpretations, consider his definition of sin which he asserts is "missing the mark of your ontology". You decide how well WPY's definition agrees with the simple and clear word of God: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4.

Logic, Who needs it?

No sound argument regarding who God is can exist in a context that denies the Bible is absolutely true in its entirety. Let's consider why.

As defined in logic, an argument is a set of premises with an inferred conclusion. Logicians classify arguments as being valid or sound. An argument is valid if it would be contradictory to have all the premises true and the conclusion false. An argument is sound if it's valid and all of its premises are true. There is one and only one way to provide a sound argument for interpretation of Scripture. First and foremost the following presupposition (i.e., axiom) must hold: The entire Bible, from its first word to its last, are the clear, infallible revelation of God’s will and His salvation. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and it alone is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested (2 Tim. 3:15, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 2 Thess. 3:14; Heb. 4:12).

Without the Bible, the best anyone (including WPY) can do is form a valid argument. The only way to establish a sound argument is when the Bible is used as a means to test the truth of the premises of a valid argument.

The assessment of The Shack documented on this page attempts to test WPY's assertions and premises with Scripture, but comes up empty. Thus, whereas WPY's assertions and premises are very appealing to many, his conclusions are illogical (i.e., not sound) because nothing exists that can substantiate his premises. Therefore to answer the question Who needs logic? Evidently not WPY nor those who agree with him.

The Shack

Unless one is a fan of reading fiction, chapters 1 through 4 make for some pretty difficult reading because they compose a fictional background story of nearly 70 pages to set the stage for the episode at the shack (chapters 5-17) which is the central element of the book. The following is brief thumbnail of the highlights in these first four chapters that serve as background for the central episode at the shack.

Summary of Chapters 1-4:

The Shack, Chapters 1 - 4

Summary of Chapters 5-17:

Summaries of chapters 5-17 are listed in the embedded worksheets below. Click on the tabs labelled Chap 5, Chap 6, etc to view a summary of each chapter. The contents of the column labeled "Apparent objective of author WPY" are the conclusions of the author of this assessment of The Shack. The cells shaded pale red highlight WPY's contradiction of Scripture; the cells shaded pale green highlight instances of WPY's agreement with Scripture (which is rare). Red clearly dominates WPY's theology. The URL that is the source of content of the Summary and Analysis columns is listed (these were accessed at litcharts.com/the-shack on 20 March 2021) near the top of each worksheet.

The goal of this assessment of The Shack is the compare and contrast the apparent objectives of author WPY with the inerrant word of God. When performing this type of assessment of The Shack it becomes obvious that WPY is offering his non-Scriptural opinions on the character of God. As aptly observed by Roger Patterson: "If you rely on personal experience for determining what is true, The Shack will be very appealing. If you rely on the Bible for determining what is true, The Shack will leave you disturbed.... You will find distorted shadows of the true God in the pages and scenes of The Shack, but you will not find Him .... [He] can only be found in the pages of Scripture. Only that God [i.e., the one and only true God] can truly heal the wounded heart and satisfy the longings of the soul." (see https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/staying-outside-the-shack/, accessed 3/20/2021.)

accessment of The Shack

Chapter 18

In this final chapter WPY benefits from the freedom of writing in the context of a fictional story. WPY avoids any need of trying to explain how any of the experience at the shack could have been real. It is explained that the accident occurred on his way to the shack, and that the entire experience at the shack in Chapters 5-17 didn't actually occur. Once fictional Mack learns this, he must decide whether he should put any credibility into the dream he had about being at the shack. Mack decides to do just that; and believes everything in his dream was absolutely true because he remembered the imaginary Jesus in his dream told him it didn’t matter whether he was "really" interacting with the Trinity at the shack because the truths he was learning were real.

Here's the important question for fictional Mack, WPY and anyone who decides truth based on dreams or experience: Can either one (dreams or experience) be accepted as logical evidence for establishing truth about God? Or instead, isn't such reasoning simply a subscription to the philosophy of existentialism?

In contrast Christ, talking with His Father, said "sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" Jhn 17:17. And Paul was inspired to write "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" 2Th 2:10-11.

Why is The Shack is so popular?

Here are a couple reasons...

Reason 1:

Two of the most common problems/misconceptions people have against God serve as the backdrop and context for the book:

Why does God, who is all-loving and all-powerful, permit pain, suffering and death to come upon them personally or those whom they love (neither of whom have done anything to deserve these tragedies)?
Misconception that God is primarily concerned with a set of rules and whether or not His rules are complied with or not.

These are accusations against God that everyone must account for in their world view. Pain, suffering and death impacts everyone either directly or indirectly through those they love. Everyone is conditioned with some variant of the notion that "the good" go to heaven and "the bad" go to hell. In addition, everyone recognizes it is not part of their nature or natural desires to comply with all of God's laws. The Shack offers solutions to these charges against God. The offered solutions however are solely the theories of WPY and have very little correspondence to the solutions contained in God's word. See the contrast summarized in the table below:

WPY vs Bible

Reason 2:

WPY claims the world view, taught to Mack in his experience at the shack, releases one from negative thoughts about God and associated depression. He personally testifies this line of reasoning works for him. And evidently it also works for the many fans of The Shack. However, considering the requirements of logic and Scripture, does experience constitute a valid test of truth? Not according to logic; and not according to Scripture: "If they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them" Isa 8:20.

Does WPY really believe the fantasies he documents in The Shack?

If you're questioning whether WPY actually believes and teaches this imaginary God that is summarized herein and portrayed in detail in The Shack (recognizing it is simply a work of fiction), WPY removes all doubt in his more-recent, non-fiction book Lies We Believe About God. In that book, "anticipating the charge of universalism, [WPY] lays his cards on the table: 'Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation? That is exactly what I am saying!' (p. 118). Later he is equally explicit: 'Every human being you meet . . . is a child of God' (p. 206). Thus, hell isn’t separation from God, but simply the pain of resisting the salvation we have and can’t escape (p. 137); and death doesn’t result in final judgment but simply introduces 'a restorative process intended to free us to run into the arms of Love' (p. 187)."--Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) For a more detailed analysis of WPY's theology see: EXPOSING Lies We Believe About God: How the Author of The Shack Is Deceiving Millions of Christians Again. N.p.: Life Sentence Publishing, Incorporated, 2018.

If you were to put WPY within one of the three broad categories people groups Pope John Paul used in strategic planning of his quest for globalism and the Vatican's sole claim to its associated global power and authority, you'd be safe to assume WPY fits exactly within the group Pope John Paul called the "Piggyback Globalists". The worldview of Piggyback Globalists, in Martin Malachi's words, is "that mankind is not called to be holy; it is called to be happy, in the certainty that all the glory of life is right here, and right now." It is also safe to assume WPY will continue to whisper sweet universalism in the ears of his adherents until the day he dies. "There is a way that seems right to a person, but its end is the way that leads to death" Pro 14:12 NET.

For God So Loved the World...

Is WPY totally wrong? Is WPY's opinion good? Is WPY's opinion valid? WPY's opinion—just like the everyone's—is good, and is valid, if it fully agrees with the word of God. If we look to the Bible, we find WPY is not completely wrong. But neither was Satan completely wrong when he partially quoted Scripture to Jesus (see Luke 4:10-11).

To help answer these questions about WPY, consider Ephesians 1:3-6 (emphasis added):

"Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons [and daughters] through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He favored us in the Beloved. [Eph 1:3-6 NASB20]

Who is the "us" in these verses? We—all mankind—are the "us" in Eph 1:3-6. "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" [1Ti 2:3-4 NASB20]. As is made abundantly clear in Romans 8:29-30: "...those whom He foreknew, He also predestined...and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

Do these verses show WPY to be correct? Absolutely not! These verses reveal it is God's will for all to be saved; as is also clearly stated in 2 Peter 3:9. Given it is God's will that all be saved (i.e., have life eternal), does that mean all will ultimately be saved? Absolutely not. God will not violate any man's will; He honors whatsoever each person chooses:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16.

God calls all to repentance (Acts 17:30). The blood of Jesus is only eternally advantageous to those who respond to His call. Choose you this day whom ye will serve!

A few examples of accurate (negative) reviews of The Shack:

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse