Seems like we're rolling. Hello, Facebook. And later on, if you're watching this on YouTube, hello, YouTube, on tape delay. Although it's not called tape, right? If it's digital recording, I don't know what to call it. But anyway, thank you for joining us. Today is going to be a week of transition. We're wrapping up what's been a lengthy series today. We start something new next week. We'll talk more about that a little bit later on. As always, we have a message that's going to last a half hour-ish or so, and then we'll have a half hour-ish or so of discussion. If you'd like to participate in the discussion remotely via Facebook Live, you can comment in the comment section and we'll incorporate questions or comments or criticisms, whatever you have, into our dialogue. There's no requirement that you do that, but you're certainly welcome and actually encouraged. It's nice to hear from you every once in a while to know that you're paying attention and care about what we're doing here. And we are now in the beta testing phase of our website, so I'm going to let you know what that is. I mentioned it for the first time last week here on Facebook anyway I did. So if you go to HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com, I know it's a lot of letters, but it's the name of the church, so hopefully it's easy to remember. HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com, you'll find our website. It's in the beta test. There's some things that still are being worked out. So if you notice something that doesn't seem right to you, or you have a suggestion, I'm welcome to all the feedback. We want to make it be an excellent resource for everybody, anybody who might want to use it. So anyway, before I get into the message, I'm going to ask Angela to open us in prayer, and then we'll jump right into the message and get into the discussion after that. Sovereign Holy Father, we thank you for bringing this gathering here this evening, Father. Your word says that wherever two or more good people are gathered, You are there. We certainly welcome you, Father. We ask that by your Holy Spirit that you would help a message go forward that is your will to go forward. Father, we ask that you speak to each of our hearts individually. We ask that you each issue correction, instruction, edification to this message. We ask that you bring to this message who would be blessed by it. And Father, we also ask that you keep away from this message, Lord, anybody who would come to do any kind of harm. We thank you for your blessing upon this gathering this evening. In the precious name of our Lord Jesus, we ask these things. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Angela. So we started last summer a series on the epistles of John. We worked our way through first, second, and third John. I don't know exactly how many messages, at least 20. maybe close to a couple dozen. And the last few of the messages, we've kind of put the exclamation point on our messages for the Epistles of John by looking at the main themes in those epistles, which are truth and love. And again, it's not truth at the expense of love or love at the expense of truth. It's both and they go together. They're, you know, two sides of the same coin kind of an idea. And we decided to look, and he speaks against all of the heresies of his day, all the attacks against that truth of his day that were compromising the truth and compromising the church behaving in love. And we're using the book and the movie The Shack as kind of a case study in our contemporary setting. to see how John would tackle those sorts of things, and the reason we're using the Chaconne and its popularity over the last 10 or 15 years is rather noteworthy. And the other thing is there is so much fodder, so many things that are plaguing the church over the last 10 to 20 years, so many of them are represented in this one book. So this is a chance to examine a variety of dangerously heretical views while at the same time talking about what's attractive about it. Why are people drawn to it? What makes it so popular? Because there is some good in it too. So we've drawn attention to what those things are so we can learn how to navigate into the truth. And put rather simply, the Schatz central mistake is that it so wants to emphasize love that it loses the truth. as the Apostle John would have us understand, if you lose the truth, you lose love too. So the shack, in an attempt to be so loving, ends up being something other than loving. It's something the world might see as loving, but it's not true love the way that the Bible would have us understand it. So that's where we are today. So if this is your first time joining or you need a little refresher, real quickly, the story of the shack, it's a novel. It's written by William Paul Young. And the story begins early on in the pages. There's a six-year-old daughter named Missy who was abducted, taken out into the woods, and murdered in a shack. And the whole rest of the story is then dealing with the father, whose name is Mac, how he's coming to grips with this reality. His life is turned completely upside down, and he ends up, the author anyway would have us believe, that he ends up having an experience of some sort with God, who plays out in three characters, meant to represent the Trinity. Papa, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and Saraiu, the Holy Spirit. So that's kind of the setting. Last week, we spent most of our time actually looking at the Papa character, and so this week we're gonna transition into looking at the other two Trinitarian characters, the Jesus and Saraiu character. But before I go any further, let me pause for a real quick word of prayer as we transition now into the message. Father, we thank you for preserving your truth for us in your written word. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to study it, to examine those truths and apply them to our lives in the here and now. We ask that you would make us diligent to meditate upon your truth and to live lives that demonstrate your love to a lost and wanting world who needs to know the truth and needs to feel your love. We pray that what we do here today would be glorifying to you, would be edifying to that purpose. By the power of your Holy Spirit, we are leaning into you now and each and every moment of the day. As we pray to you now, knowing that you hear us because you've promised to hear us because of your son, Jesus Christ, who gave his life for us on the cross. It's in his name that we pray. Amen. All right, so we're gonna shift now our focus. This is church, we should do this, right? On to Jesus. But not the biblical Jesus. The Shacklical Jesus. Jesus in the shack is a Middle Eastern man and he's not particularly handsome. So far, so good. It seems our author, William Paul Young, has Isaiah chapter 53, verse two in mind. But oddly, the main character in the story, Mac, he doesn't know to expect this. He doesn't expect that Jesus would be a Middle Eastern man who's not particularly good looking. And this is despite the fact that Mac has said in the story to have been seminary trained. Mac also didn't know that Jesus is the pearl. Read about that on page 177 of the shack. And all I can say to that is, oh well, I don't know, maybe all the seminaries aren't created equal. I'm not sure what to say about that. So that would be a negative, but on the plus side, And I mean this sincerely, and we've gone out of our way, this is our fifth message now where we've used the shack as a case study, and we've gone out of our way to highlight some of those good moments in the shack, and this is one of them. Profound quote from the Jesus character, page 142. Do you realize that your imagination of the future, which is almost always dictated by fear of some kind, rarely, if ever, pictures me there with you." That really is an excellent quote. Do you tend to think of your future with Jesus in it or with Jesus not in it? Paul again has given us a splendid thought starter with this quote, and I would encourage you to contemplate your answer to that question later on. Maybe have a discussion with your friends about it. So that was excellent, but, sadly, there are hints in the book that Jesus is almost only human. It said that he had no power within himself to heal anyone. That he is totally dependent on the power of the Father. You read this on page 100. This feels a bit like the heresy it's called adoptionism, but it would be a variant of it because on that same page, page 100, Papa talks about having been limited when he, the father, was in Jesus. This is the sort of thing for someone that's biblically educated at some level would have their head start spinning like one of those fidget hand spinners. What is he talking about? The Bible doesn't teach this stuff. Now, the Jesus of the shack is not unique in having become human. On page 99, Papa says, when we three, talking about the Trinity, when we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We now became flesh and blood. This is a form of what is called Sabellianism. I've mentioned this one other time, God is three characterizations, not three persons, and this is heresy. It's not orthodox Christian belief. And yet, it is a weird form of Sabellianism in the shack, because in the shack, Jesus chooses moment by moment to remain grounded and has never drawn upon his nature as God. Yeah, we're recording it, Tyler, so we're done, okay? Good job, buddy. William Paul Young's position here requires a change in the dynamic of the Trinity. If the son is permanently grounded, he can never actually take off and fly as God, or he can't get off the ground, then there's an imbalance between the three in the Godhead. Now compare this to Jesus merely veiling his divinity, which is the biblical instruction on this, Well, then the reality of his power is still there, and this avoids a change in the nature of God and the corresponding change within the Trinitarian structure, but Paul Young gets that wrong. Now, maybe Paul Young is following the teachings of a group called the Eukites or another group called the Massalians. They taught that the threefold God is one, but God takes on different forms that are perceived differently by the senses. So this is a form of modalism that centers on human experience. Christians in this view, they need revelation to their senses through personal experiences. Revelation through the institutional church, not so much. The Jesus of the shack. death on the cross. In the book, Papa, he also has wrist scars, or, and Papa, I guess it's she also has wrist scars, and this is what is called patrapassionism, patra, you know, papa, patra, that's father, passion, suffering, the father also suffered on the cross. This is heresy, and actually we see that the movie, The Shack, takes this heresy one step further because Saraiu, who's meant to be the Holy Spirit character, is also depicted as having wrist scars. Now Papa says the father and the son, they were both crucified. It says on page 96, we were there together, regardless of what he felt at that time. I never left him despite his sense of forsakenness. Now you should be thinking, holy spokes, danger, danger. The Bible teaches that Jesus became sin. The father cannot look upon sin. Jesus more than felt forsaken. I'd point you to Mark chapter 15, verse 33. Second Corinthians chapter five, verse 21. Isaiah 53, verse 10. And when the shack, Mac, our central character, he actually makes the point I'm making. He says, That makes no sense to me. This can't possibly be true. Well, it's not. Mac is right. But sadly, Mac is made out to be a fool in the story. The Jesus of the shack is not unique in having limited himself. The Holy Spirit character in talking about the Godhead says on page 106, we, have limited ourselves out of respect for you. Relationships are never about power, and one way to avoid the will to power is to choose to limit oneself. Where is this concept found in the Bible? This is an anti-authoritarian view. This is a one-dimensional picture of God, one who is simply saccharine sweet and mushy, no masculine strength, no seriousness, no regalness. Is Jesus merely a youthful best friend? He's not king? Lord? He's just a guy? A guy? who now sees beauty better as a human than he could as God. That's what he says on page 109. The Jesus character says that he sees better as a human than as God. The Jesus of the shack is not unique as the way to the Father. Page 110, the Jesus character says, I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarah U. The best way. Well, how about the only way? And here's another distressing quote from the shack. Page 182, the Jesus character says, who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian. Well, what is it? A Buddhist? Maybe, because in the shack, Jesus adds, those who love me come from every system that exists. They're Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have no desire to make them Christian. Now to this, Mac, he asks a pretty darn good question. In light of all of this strange new information, where everything, anything seems to go, he asks, okay, what do you want me to do? And the Jesus character responds, whatever you want. This is odd dialogue. This is odd dialogue in general. It's odd dialogue from a biblical perspective. But interestingly, it's even odd dialogue for the shack, because throughout the book, Paul Young has said that when people do what they want, bad things happen. Like little six-year-old girls are taken to the woods and murdered in a shack. And there's nothing that God can do about it. And Jesus had just finished making the point in the story that not all roads lead to him because most roads don't lead anywhere, and yet it seems that John has left open the door in the story that at least several roads will lead to Jesus, and if given enough time, everyone will find one of those several roads. The Jesus of the shack says things like, on page 148, filling rolls, is the opposite of relationship, which can almost trick you into thinking, oh, that sounds profound. But then you realize it's a mixing of categories, and so it should strike us as gobbledygook. And he says, I'm not about performance, I am about being. Ooh, again, that almost sounds profound, but it begs the question, he's about being what, exactly? And he says, I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. Ooh, almost profound again. But I thought the Bible teaches us that Jesus came as a man to save us. Guess I was wrong. He came to complete a picture, says the shack. But at least it's a wonderful picture. But understand, this picture in the pages of the shack, it's not even meant to be an example. Jesus goes on to say, it's on page 149 of the shack, quote, my life was not meant to be an example, end quote. Now, I would agree, the life of Christ is not merely an example. But has William Paul Young forgotten that the Apostle Paul wrote, follow my example as I follow the example of Christ. That is first Corinthians chapter 11 verse one for those who are scoring at home. Why does all this bother me as much as it does? Because it seems to me that it has set up an anti and it leaves us with a Jesus who sounds quite a bit like the Long Island Medium. You know who the Long Island Medium is? She's got a, oh, she still has it. For a long time she had a cable TV show. It was pretty popular once upon a time. Maybe it still is, I'm not that plugged in to what the Long Island Medium's up to these days, but very popular show, and the gist of it is she would conjure up a conversation supposedly with our dearly departed, and she would speak to them from beyond the grave, And she would come back and share these encouraging messages. In almost every episode it was, oh I spoke to your grandmother, or I spoke to your daughter, or I spoke to your husband, or whatever. He loves you so much, and everything's fine, and that thing you're concerned about, he's forgiven you, so you can just relax. All is wonderful and well. That's the Long Island medium in a nutshell. On page 173, the Jesus character is talking to Mac, and he's telling him about his deceased daughter, Missy, the one who had been killed earlier in the story, and he says, Missy and I, we talk. She was actually more worried about you. She prayed for you, for your peace, I can tell you that there was not a moment that we were not there with her. She knew my peace, and you would have been so proud of her. She was so brave. Well, I met him. Now, page 124, Jesus tells Mac, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure, and free to simply be. This sounds like a 1960s flower child. I mean, seriously. And Mac, he protests all the stuff he's hearing. He says, certainly it's okay, right? It's gotta be okay to use power for protection. That's okay, right? And Jesus says, nope. So there is no such thing as a just war. There is no power of the sword to the state. There's no valiantly defending your family? I mean, all of this is evidence that people are simply, quote, addicted to power? That's what it says on 125, page 125. And Jesus adds on page 179, the Jesus character adds on page 179, I'm not too big on religion, and I'm not too fond of politics or economics either. Now, boy oh boy, Jesus of the New Testament, The real Jesus, he sure does talk an awful lot about money for somebody who's not too interested in economics. What we have here is a fight the power, truth to power Jesus. A John Lennon Jesus. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. No religion too. Who needs the old Bible when you got the old beetle? Those are some of the things that you should know about the Son of God as presented in the shack. Now let's turn our gaze to the Holy Spirit. In the shack, the person of the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian woman named Sarayu, who collects tears because, well, tears are healing waters. It says that on page 83. Now, Sarayu is an interesting name. Why Sarayu? It's the name of an Indian river. It flows through Hindu territory in the country of India, and they've named that river Sarayu because it's the name of one of their gods, the Hindu god. Sarayu is the wife of the god of fire. Well, what sort of things that are said by Sarai in the shack? Well, on page 122, she says, hierarchy would make no sense among us as the Godhead. So she's wrong right off the bat. I point you to 1 Corinthians 11, verse three, the Gospel of John 6, verse 38, the Gospel of John 8, verse 28, Mark 14, 36, 1 Corinthians 15, 28, just to mention a few references you can check out later. But despite being wrong, Papa agrees with Sarayu, calling any form of hierarchy, quote, such a waste, end quote. And Jesus agrees, too, in the pages of the Shack. He says, once you have hierarchy, then you need rules. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules. Are laws and rules bad? And with hierarchy, I mean, is God not higher than man? Is Christ not the head of the church? Is the husband not the head of the wife? Are parents not the head of the children? Is government not the head of the state? Well, according to the shack, no. Saryu says, authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse of the strong to make others conform to what they want. Does that sound familiar? Oppressor oppressed, come to mind? Big part of our lingo this past year. I mean, you wanna say, when you're reading this sort of stuff, holy cow! Is Jesus Christ just some power-hungry jackal with a sinful will to power? Now there are people, in fairness, there are people who they seek to be authoritarian and independently control everything. That's what's called sin. There is a sinful sort of hunger for power, that is true. But in the shack, William Paul Young tosses out the baby with the bathwater and he dismisses the biblical authority structures that are illustrated for us there, and so, We don't want to throw away the authority that is premised on servant leadership. Servant leadership, that is what the Bible's authority structures are all about. Now, instead of this, biblical teaching, the shack, as Sarah used to say, it's on page 197, if you have a copy at home, the Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. Well, that's untrue. But she does go on to say, very nice page, Life and living is in him, meaning Jesus, and in no other. Well, hey, that is true. But where is the glory of the atonement in Jung's view as he presents it in the shack? And what's so weird, oddly, Paul Jung, the author of the book, agrees with me. He agrees with the Bible for a moment. on some of these points. Near the middle of the book, on page 132, Saryu says, for any created being, autonomy is lunacy. Freedom involves trust and obedience inside a relationship of love. And so, there is a hierarchy after all! But then there's not, because on page 145, the Jesus character says, Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Saria to me, or Papa to her. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way. H-E-R-S-E-Y. Heresy. Even the main character, Matt, He has a good sense to ask, how can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me? That is a good question, Mac. A very good question. Page 205, Sarah Yu says, in response to Mac asking these sorts of questions, quote, your words are dead. full of law and fear and judgment. Law, fear, judgment. What about the law of God? Fear of the Lord. Judgment day. Sarai continues, You won't find the word responsibility in the scriptures. Religion must use law to empower itself and control the people. Postmodern thinking pervades this book. And of course the word responsibility isn't in the Bible, certainly not in the original autographs, which is written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. There are no English words in the original versions of the Bible. But based on your translational approach, it could be, because the concept is there. I could point you to a number of places. I'll just give you one for now. Luke chapter 12, verses 47 and 48. Now, as is often the case in the shack, Mac, he asks a question that we might want to have asked. He says, are there no responsibilities of a husband, of a father, or an employee? He asked that question on page 205. And the shack says, no. So we should all have open marriages. We should all tell our kids, go fend for themselves. Each one of us should tell our employers we're not going to do anything they want us to do. So Mac, he says on the next page, wouldn't everything just fall apart? And the response he gets, only if you are of the world. But people are of. the world. And those of us who are called to be in the world, but not of it, we have expectations to live godly lives, but not according to the shack. Papa says on page 206, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. This is unbelievable. First Corinthians chapter four, verse two comes to mind. So there's Micah chapter six, verse eight, Matthew chapter 12, verse 36, et cetera, et cetera. And it's interesting how much irony there really is in this book. Here's a passage I'm gonna read to you. It's on page 98. It's William Paul Young speaking as God here. He's taking on one of the voices of the characters of God. And it's as though he's writing to himself. He's writing something that I, you, might write to him. It says, quote, the problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am, this is God talking, of who I am, by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn't much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I'm not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think. Our author, Young, doesn't even follow his own advice. On page 197, almost 100 pages later, he again, ironically, issues a warning about his very own book. It says, quote, check your perceptions. Beyond that, check the truthfulness of your paradigms. Just because you believe something firmly doesn't make it true. Now I have quoted an awful lot of William Paul Young's words today, and very little of God's authoritative words. So let's wrap up today's message by hearing from the Word of God. We're gonna hear from the Apostle John, his parting words from his first epistle. So this is 1 John 5, verses 20 and 21. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. That is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Perfect rule and guide for faith and life practice. Those with an ear to hear, let them hear. Let us pray. Father, we thank you for equipping us through your Word and through the illumination of your Holy Spirit, we recognize the lies of the enemy. They can seem so persuasive and positive at first glance, but because we belong to you, you protect us. Ever we ask your forgiveness for those times we do give in to the pressures of the world around us, our own desires, our own yearnings to recast and remake you in our own image and therefore make for ourselves an idol. Help us, Lord, to stay true to you as we know you stay true to us. As you go out into the world, the mission field that surrounds us, all of our coworkers, all of our neighbors, all of our social media contacts, we know that they need to hear the truth because they hear so much of the kinds of things we've talked about today that are attractive on the surface but are poison pills. We ask that you continue to help us to be edified and to glorify you in our discussion that is to follow, that we would be examples of your truth as we follow after the example of Christ. In his name we pray, amen. All right, so that's, After this discussion we're gonna have, we're gonna be putting to rest for a while, the epistles of John stuff, and we won't be talking about Shaft maybe ever again, I don't know. And next week we start our series on the book of Revelation, which I am actually getting rather eager to start to share with you. I've been working through some stuff, getting ready for the series, and it's gonna be cool. All right, so I'm gonna throw out a question to kind of get the discussion hopefully started, unless anybody has an initial thing they're just burning that they wanted to share in response to what we just talked about. So, in the story, Mac actually has a moment where he forgives the killer of his daughter, so that's a good thing, right? And then he asks, this is on page 227, if you have a copy of the book, he says, so is it all right if I'm still angry? I've forgiven him, but I'm still angry. And Papa responds, absolutely. So do we agree, disagree, put a level of nuance on that? What do we think about that? When we forgive someone, are we still angry? I think anger is a sign that you actually haven't forgiven him. It's also murder. One way to frame this, we should model God's forgiveness, so when God forgives us, is he still angry with us? So, I would agree with what the room is saying here, so there's another example of the Shack getting something wrong, he puts words in God's mouth, and God gives the wrong answer. So you know it's the wrong God. Universalism, this idea that everyone will be saved. No one is consigned to damnation. It runs throughout the Shabbat. We didn't really touch upon that in the message so much today. I mean, I hinted at it in one of my comments, I think, but it was a bigger theme in a couple of the other messages we did, I think. Anyway, here's a quote. When Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross, they were no longer in his debt nor mine. This is the apocryphal character speaking. In my relationship with those men, I will never bring up what they did or shame them or embarrass them. This is on page 225 of the shack, by the way. So my question here is, is this in regard to the crucifixion only? If yes, if no, why do you say so? It says when Jesus was on the cross and he forgave them, they're no longer in his debt, no longer in God's debt. and God's relationship with them, he's never gonna bring it up, he's never gonna shame them or embarrass them, so, what are the implications of our answer to the question of whether or not this applies only to the crucifixion? You know what I'm asking? No. Not quite. I guess if there's like a chapter and verse to like, Well the reason I'm asking the question, I guess, is the way that it comes across as I was reading the shack was because he forgave them at the cross, it's a blanket forgiveness for everything and anything, for any and all sins. There's no repentance. There's no sense of a designated chosen or elect group. I think that Jesus does forgive those who crucified him in that moment in that moment but he forgives them so that they can have a moment of repentance to turn to him and away from their sin and if they don't they would still face judgment for all their many sins for their sinful condition and I feel like that and it runs with the universalism theme, that everybody's sins have been forever forgiven, whether you repent or not. So that's what I was getting with there. That was a bit of an oblique question. I was concerned about that question when I, I almost wasn't gonna ask it, but. Oh, there you have it. Hey, this'll be better. Mack, in the story, retrieves the body of his dead daughter, Missy, and as he carries her, The shack says on page 230 that he knew that the real Missy wasn't there. Is there any problem with that statement? He's carrying his daughter's body. I've heard people say, you know, this body, the real me, but who was it that said there will come a day that I will die? And don't believe him for a minute, because the real me will be in heaven. I forget who it was. It was a pastor who said that. I forget his name. Well, it's just a shell. Right. He was saying that within the context of, listen, this is a temporary fleshly body. And my spirit is what he was basically saying. My spirit will be with the Lord in heaven. That's what he's saying That's what he's saying that then I'm okay with that yeah, I mean You know the idea that our glorified bodies may not come from the same material that are physical earthly bodies How as an atom for Adam? Yeah, I mean there's nothing that suggests that it would necessarily other than the fact that Jesus was You know, his glorified body. His resurrection was from his physical body. It's like you're noodling over there, Landon. You have a thought, or you're just noodling? I'm kind of listening to what you're saying. So here's, if we understand it from a particular way and we wanted to give William Paul Young, the author of Shack, Every Benefit to the Doubt, we could be fine with this, but here's a bit of a concern. It becomes such a part of our popular vernacular because our popular culture has been so influenced by mysticism and New Age spirituality and a contemporary form of gnosticism, and these are hyper-spiritualized views of reality, and so the physical is less important and less real than the spiritual reality. And so, are our bodies really us? And I would say yes, and the bodies are truly important, which is why we'll have renewed bodies, glorified bodies, and why Christ still has a body after his resurrection. And there's something connected with that new resurrection body with the old body because Doubting Thomas is able to feel the holes in his body, right? And they're able to see him and there's something recognizable, something different enough that they don't necessarily automatically recognize. But there's some connection. So our bodies are really and truly us. but they're not exclusively us. We're not just a body. But I get nervous at the idea, and you said it, and it's so common, right? Well, it's just a shell. Yeah, but not really. It's so much more than just a shell that contains our real self. That shell is also our real self. That's like saying Jesus is truly God, truly human. But what's more real? Yes. His godness or his manness? Right? And they're both. And I think we need to think in terms of it's... Well, yeah, because he also says to whoever it was, you know, don't cling to me. I haven't had my resurrected body yet. So there's obviously something to our bodies. If he was like, hey, wait now. Yeah. That's one way to look at that passage. I don't know that I would interpret it exactly that way. I don't know that I would understand it that way. There's such a pressure in our culture to dismiss the body. It's just a body and the body's not really a person. And I don't want to get us off on a derailed train here, but this connects to one of the, arguably the, central moral problem in our society today, the question of abortion. that baby that's being killed, it's just flesh, it's just a glob of goo, it's just tissue, it's just a body, it's just physical. It's not really a person. It's not really them. And so we gotta be careful. The body is truly important. It's why we would mourn if somebody loses an arm. Ah, it's not really them, it's just their arm. Ah, it's really them. I would, yeah, I agree with that. In fact, I think what makes us different from the angels fundamentally is that we have a body. Because they are disembodied spirits is what they are. We are embodied spirits. That's what makes us human. That's part of it for sure. And I think that actually helps to make us to be in the image of God. The fact that we are human is what helps us to be considered as being made in the image of God. So yeah, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that. And that's the reason why when we're resurrected, we will have bodies again. We will never not have bodies, unlike angels, who don't have bodies, they're spirits. And so, yeah. understand what you're saying there. So here's some questions to kind of piggyback on some of those themes. So this is on page 234. Mac is given a choice, this is really close to the end of the book, he's given a choice of going to heaven or staying on earth, and Mac chooses against heaven, and Sarayu commends the choice, saying that everything he does on earth is important, and universe-altering, actually. So the question here is, what would be your choice, and kind of as a follow-up, is there anything important, or is there nothing to do of importance in heaven? I think the idea that heaven contains no worship is completely false. It's not like there's nothing going on in heaven. I don't think it's just simply worship and all that. I've heard people talk about how they believe there are animals in heaven, not necessarily earthly animals, but like heavenly animals, I suppose. But it's not like there's nothing going on. It's not, you know, there's this notion that it's a different kingdom. So a different kingdom has a different culture, a different landscape, and even an economy of sorts. So to assume that it's like a leisurely resort. Yeah, it's definitely not that. Although there's a house with many mansions and stuff like that. But what would you choose? God appears in this room right now and he says, oh, you can stay here on earth for a while longer or you can come with me to heaven right now. What do you choose? If it was offered, I would definitely choose heaven. What's that? Bye. Bye. See ya. It's interesting because Paul spoke to this very question and he said, I don't know which to choose, he says, if I stay here, that helps you. But to be with the Lord is very much better. So if you're going to live for God, there's merit in staying here and helping to advance the kingdom, helping to be an instrument to get more people saved. There is merit to that, but I guess if you were to If, for me personally, if my cycle was over, I'm gone. I'm out of here. Your mission on earth is still present, that you completed it, not that. Even then, I'd stay grudgingly, because there's pain here. I think it's kind of a false choice. The idea that we could even choose against heaven. I don't think we would physically be capable of overcoming how great it is in God's presence. To go, to turn away from that, you know. Yeah, isn't it better as one name, your report, than a thousand elsewhere in the Psalms? So I think that applies. And there's a whole sermon or sermon series or Bible study discussion over many sessions of material on this kind of a question. I just say a couple of things really quick because there's some very popular common misconceptions. In Genesis chapter three, there's a curse because of the fall. And the curse that's talked about to Adam is that work's gonna be hard. The curse isn't that there's work to do. The curse is that the work will now be hard. So don't think that work is a curse. There is work to do after Christ's second coming. There is work to do, glorious work to do, but it won't be, bedeviled in the way that it is now, and so it'll be glorious. And something else to think about, at Christ's return, we get to experience the fullness of God's glory in a way that we can't now. But there is a sense that even now, we're partaking in, we're tasting in a heaven on earth now, because heaven is where God dwells. And where's God dwell today? He dwells in the believers. We are in God's temple. And so we have a taste of it, not in its absolute fullness, but there's a sense of heaven on earth now in Christ's church, in his true church. So some things to think about. Maybe you haven't heard that before, and so now you got some thought starters there. Gonna be a lot of thought starters today. Now, I'm gonna go back and talk about what she says, Suryu says, so I can ask this next question. So on page 234, Suryu commends Mac's choice to stay on earth and not go to heaven because everything he does on earth is important and universe-altering, right? But then, three pages later, earthly existence is thought of as, quote, the unreal world. So first of all, is only heaven real? How do we think about reality? Let's just start there. How do we think about reality? Is only heaven real? Truth is reality. And the truth is God made heaven and earth. And the earth is his footstool and heaven is his throne. And so it's not a matter of one being more real than the other. One day he decided, I'm gonna create. And he created the universe. And the universe is real. And did you see the direct contradiction? I mean, if it's not real, then who cares? Why would you stay in the unreal? And how could you do anything in the unreal that would be universe-altering? How is that possible? It's just like saying there is no God and still trying to practice morality. This violates the law of non-contradiction, right? You can't say, you know, A equals B, and A doesn't equal B. At the same time. And have them both be true. And that's what he's done here, and it's only three pages separating these quotes and ideas. Now, uh... The center of you is a demon, at the end of the day. Yeah, all of these would be false gods. That's a demon, and any god that is not the true God, by definition, is a demon. And so, no wonder she can't speak any truth. Well, in the same mix of pages, on page 235, it was right between 234 and 237, the demon, Sarayu, says, if anything matters, then everything matters. And this phrase is actually repeated on the very final page of the story, on page 248. So it's important enough for the author to say it twice and to essentially end the book with the idea. If anything matters, then everything matters. So what do we think about that? Other than it sounding kind of like a bumper sticker. It contradicts the notion of universalism. Because universalism would denote a lack of consequences. So if there's no consequences, then nothing matters. But, yeah, basically that. If there's no consequences, then you can't have no consequences and then everything matters. Yeah, that's a good point. So again, he's arguing against himself and what he's trying to put forward in his own book. That's definitely going on. It's also, he creates a contingency I mean, does everything matter or not? Everything matters at some level, varying degrees of importance, but everything matters. At some level, everything matters. So it's not contingent on whether anything matters or not. And just because I could conceive of one anything that matters, it doesn't logically follow that every other anything would also subsequently need to matter. It's a false contingency. It's logically incoherent. So I'm mentioning this as just a kind of a mental exercise so that we can get better at thinking rationally and logically and recognize things that They sound good on the surface until you stop for half a second, step back, and say, that doesn't even make any sense. And if somebody's saying things, we all say things. I probably said three or four things, or 20 or 50 things already tonight that don't make sense. But if somebody's putting forward a well-articulated, well-formulated idea, and it's consistently saying things that don't make sense, you really got to start scratching your head on whether it's a trusted source. So in the shack, the main character is told, quote, you are a glorious, destructive mess, Mackenzie, but you are not here to repent. It's on page 158. So what do we think about this statement? Like it, dislike it? I'm sorry, say that again? You are a glorious, destructive mess, Mackenzie, but you're not here to repent. Well, it depends. Is he calling him out? Like, hey, I don't think God would ever use the phrase, you're a glorious mess. What does that even mean? You're a glorious, destructive mess. I just don't think God would say that. I think He would say, I see you through Christ who's perfect. I don't think God has ever looked at... Because a mess is not of God. God is a God of order. He's not a God of mess. He takes, he gets his glory from taking us who are messes and making us non-messes over, over, over. Doesn't this capture the spirit of the age? Yeah. The idea that you're safe from your messiness. You have that buzzword trauma. People brag about, oh my life's such a mess, I'm such a mess, I've made so many mistakes in my life, but nobody's perfect. And then, but if you were to suggest to them, oh, well, you've made such a mess of things, you've done all these wrong, bad things, maybe you should turn from those, maybe you should, let's use a biblical word, repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand, they're gonna be all greatly offended. I'm not here to repent, I'm just here to tell you and brag about what a glorious, destructive mess I am. And it's not easy. I never heard Jesus say that to the disciples. You're a glorious mess. I've never heard him say that. I mean, I've read the Bible. As it turned out, I had five pages of prepared questions for discussion, and we used the first four in our first four discussions, and we're finishing up page five in our fifth discussion, so actually, that worked out pretty well. The second to last page of the shack. It's page 247, it says, perhaps if some of it is not actually true in one sense, it is still true nonetheless, if you know what I mean. from a certain point of view. So what do you think this sort of a statement, what do you make of it? Why do you suspect it's included in the shack? So this is part of the closing statement, if you will, right? Did you like watch Return of the Jedi? You know, Darth Vader did kill your father from a certain point of view. It's like, no, you liar. Think about it in these terms, because I mentioned this in the very first week we used this case study. We took all we learned from the Epistles of John and we're applying them to the Shack. And I mentioned that everybody who makes a movie, takes the time to write a book, they've got some sort of a worldview, some sort of agenda, some sort of idea they're trying to advance. Why would they take the time to do that? They're trying to say something. He's making a case. So he spent almost 250 pages to build a case. And then on the final couple of pages, he's wrapping up his case with his closing statement. And part of his closing statement is, perhaps if some of it's not actually true in one sense, it is still true nonetheless, if you know what I mean. End quote. I think he's trying to present an airtight argument against trying to argue anything that he says in his book. He's saying, in some way, shape, or form, I'm right. You just gotta figure it out. Yeah, I think it's a cop-out statement. He's trying to cover all contingencies, any sort of incoming criticism he might get. Well, might not be true that way, but it could be true that way. You know what I mean? Might not be true on Thursday, but it's true on Friday. And I feel like, yeah, I know what you mean. You're doing a little CYA. You're doing a little cover your ass assumptions. Can I read some of this? I think Colossians 2.8 captures what has happened in the shack. Like in one, if you don't mind. No, absolutely. And I'm reading out of the New Living Translation. And Colossians 2.8 says, don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. I think that's the key. Yeah. Yeah. Particularly, I was going through some of those quotes saying, that almost sounds profound, but it's high sounding nonsense. It's high sounding nonsense. That's what it is. We're not going to have time to have this discussion, which is just as well, because it's a discussion for the ages. It's been going on for generations, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, but I'm going to throw it in the context of the shack, because Arminianism is a big part of the theology in the shack. For example, on page 225, Papa says, in Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. Do we choose God? Does God choose us? How do we understand that? It's a classic, it's the Arminian-Calvinist debate that's been raging for hundreds and hundreds of years, and you can have that endlessly, and so we don't have time for that anyway, but you can have fun with that one with your friends. By the way, if you'd like to look up some verses to guide your thoughts on how to think about some of those questions related to the choosing of God and that sort of thing, Acts chapter 10, verse 43, Acts chapter 8, verse 22, Luke chapter 12, verses eight through 10, Matthew 25, verse 46, those are a couple of places to start to get a toehold and start to grapple with how should we understand that question. Someday we'll probably get into the meat of that kind of a question, or it might come up in a sermon or something like that, but we're just past an hour, I think, now, so, and I've lost my pencil, there it is. Were there any things we have to address from Facebook? Is there anything else we need to address in the room before we turn off the internet connection? All right. Would you mind closing us in prayer? Thank you, Heavenly Father, for this time together, for your truth, for you are truth, for your word. We thank you that you guide us into all truth. We thank you for your Holy Spirit that gives us wisdom to help us navigate in such a world that is filled with such nonsense. We pray that you, through your power, that we would yield to your spirit, that we hold true to the truth, the one and only truth, that you would be glorified in Jesus name. Amen. If you joined us late and you're like, ooh, I wanna watch this later and you're trying to go to Facebook later and you have a hard time finding it, because that happens to me. Sometimes I can't find stuff on Facebook very easily. We have YouTube channels. You can go to YouTube and search for the Household of Faith in Christ. You'll find our channel. You'll know it's us when you see the blue and purple logo with the cross on it. And it has our name, Household of Faith in Christ, there. You'll see that. All of our videos are archived there. And again, if you wanna check out our new website and give me some feedback on it, I'd appreciate that. It's householdoffaithinchrist.com. Till next week. Start reading Revelation this week, because you'll be ready for our discussion that begins next week. God bless.