The Shack and Universalism (Part 1)

So it has been a while since my previous post, and I was right in the throes of discussion issues related to the book, The Shack by William P. Young when the full force of this semester's obligations took over! So this post will involve another afterwards, but hopefully less time will commence between the two.

In my previous post, I highlighted a number of criticisms that have been leveled against William P. Young’s book, The Shack. In this post, I hope to address one of them, namely the issue of universal salvation that some say the book teaches.

Now, among the criticisms leveled against The Shack on this front, there are really two questions going on here: (1) Is William Young a universalist? And, (2) Does The Shack teach universalism? The answer to (1), according to theologian James B. DeYoung, who is also a friend of William Young, the answer is yes, citing Young “has affirmed his hope that all will be reconciled to God.” Young’s position is that God's primary characteristic of love will ultimately win out in bringing all people to salvation (a similar view can be seen in Philip Gulley’s If Grace is True). DeYoung then suggests that Young’s views are also the position of the Unitarian-Universalist Church (UUC). [you can find a link to DeYoung's pdf article under “Journal Review” here.]

Personally, I don’t know William Young, so I cannot answer (1), but I am interested in (2). While others who point out Young’s so-called universalism merely criticize him for saying that Jesus is merely the “best” way to relate to God rather than the “only” way (109), DeYoung highlights ten ways The Shack endorses universalist views, even though the editors of the book worked hard to erase such claims. I summarize them here:

1) God is primarily a God of love (The universalist creed of 1899 states, “there is one God whose nature is love”).
2) There is no eternal punishment for sin (The 1899 creed states God “will finally restore the whole family of mankind”).
3) Young does not mention Satan, nor the “enormity of sin.”
4) God’s justice is subjugated to his love.
5) Young’s wrong view of the Trinity, that the Father also suffered, which leads to modalism; and making God into a goddess.
6) Reconciliation is effective for all without needing faith as Papa has reconciled himself to the whole world (p. 192), not just those who believe.
7) No future judgment.
8) All are equally children of God and loved by him (155-156).
9) The institutional church is rejected.
10) The Bible is minimized.

In response, I would contest that none of these things implicate The Shack as a book on universalism or necessarily represent the position of the UUC. First, Young cannot be a Unitarian-Universalist, as the UUC ascribes to no creed and represents an incredibly diverse number of congregations. UUC’s commitment to Christian teachings is basically limited to the Bible’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. In other words, for the UUC, Jesus is simply a good example to follow to bring about social justice in the world. But in stark contrast, Jesus plays an incredibly central role throughout The Shack. Papa says, “Mackenzie, the Truth shall set you free and the Truth has a name; he’s over in the woodshop right now covered in sawdust” (95). And then later on, “Like I said, everything is about him. Creation and history are all about Jesus. He is the very center of our purpose and in him we are now fully human, so our purpose and your destiny are forever linked… There is no plan B” (192). Indeed, this point rebuts the critique that Young falls short by calling Jesus merely the “best” way to relate to God as well. In fact, at one point, Mack calls Jesus “the way in” (177).

Second, to say that Young affirms a “hope that all will be reconciled” seems to be no different than saying God is patient, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). If God hopes for reconciliation is he a universalist too?

As for #1-10, I’m not sure what 5, 9, and 10 have to do with universalism, and I already addressed them in my previous post. #1 and 4 would implicate the Apostle John who wrote repeatedly that “God is love” (aren’t you glad God showed mercy and love to you instead of justice?). #8 would implicate the Apostle Paul who proclaimed to the pagans in Athens, “We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:29). #6 takes Papa’s statement out of context, as the passage clearly states that “reconciliation is a two way street” (192). #3 can be attributed to The Shack’s neoplatonic view of evil, namely that evil is a privation (e.g., dark is the absence of light) and not really a thing/being (136). This may not bode well with current views of Evangelical thought, but it was widely held by Christians thinkers for a thousand years. This leaves us with #s 2 & 7, which address punishment/judgment. I stated in my previous post that Young has a minimalist position on God’s punishment; however, and yet the absence of explicit affirmative statements about punishment does not mean Young denies it (i.e., arguments from silence are not that powerful). Indeed, at least implicitly, two comments by God in The Shack suggest the possibility of eternal separation. To Mack’s question, “Will all roads lead to you?” Jesus replies, “Not at all. Most roads don’t lead anywhere.” And Papa says later, “It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way” (192). In other words, God does not force a relationship where one does not desire it. To those who desire independence from God, life in heaven would be a greater torment than hell--those who are in hell desire to be there (a position C.S. Lewis posits in The Great Divorce and elsewhere).

Well then, if The Shack does not prevent universalism, what is it that it teaches? I will address this in my next post!