An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord,

so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil.

It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him…

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow…

I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement…

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify.

Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer.

The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root.

The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Archibald Brown1

Endnotes

1. The above has been attributed to Charles Spurgeon but this quote is actually from a sermon called The Devil’s Mission of Amusement: The Church’s Task – Entertainment or Evangelization? by Archibald Brown, who was a student of Spurgeon. ↩

Copied from: http://apprising.org/2012/12/11/feeding-sheep-or-amusing-goats/

Link to Pulpit and Pen’s article:

Faith Based Movies Intending to Use More F-Bombs, Profanity

Excerpt:
“Oh, and they’re going to start using more swear words. There’s that.
According to Folmar, they “don’t want to play within the constraints of Christian moviemaking.” This includes producing movies with dozens and dozens of profane words, including some of the worst variety. Folmar explains…”

To read this article go to: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/10/02/faith-based-movies-intending-to-use-more-f-bombs-profanity/

To any Christian reading, there is NO RATIONALE of this nature that is Biblical – it is sin and the ends do not justify the means! The Bible speaks plainly on this matter:

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

There is no debate here, no way to justify the use of trash talk, simple as that! Thank you Pulpit & Pen for showing what is going on! I know of others in what are supposed to be Christian publishers of books using much of the same thinking.

Surprising news? Hank Hanegraaff has become Greek Orthodox? The Pulpit and Pen brought us this well done article today to show us Mr. Hanegraaff has flown the coop but I am thinking he is just showing the bad fruit that had been revealed long ago. First the latest,

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, Leaves the Christian Faith?

Here’s just a little of the history going back more than a decade from the Biblical Discernment site’s materials found here:

Christian Research Institute (CRI) Ecumenical Fellowship With Rome

Excerpts:
On 8/12/93, Hank Hanegraaff boldly stated, “We believe that Roman Catholicism is foundationally Christian.” The Bible Answerman program that day had been devoted to the defense of Catholicism. Whether Catholicism is or is not a cult is not the main issue, but its false gospel. Yet, CRI spends a large part of its time trying to prove that Catholicism is not a cult. CRI needs to state clearly that Rome’s counterfeit gospel is sending hundreds of millions to hell. Instead, CRI has defended Catholicism on radio and in its Journal, while its “criticism” has been so vague as to leave one wondering what was meant. For example, on one Bible Answerman program, Catholic apologist Scott Hahn was given free rein to promote Catholicism, defend his conversion to it, and to defend it from callers’ objections without any rebuttal from CRI to his false statements! The average listener would have had to conclude that Roman Catholicism is merely another “Christian” denomination (10/93, The Berean Call). [And this is exactly how it is perceived. In a 2/94 letter-to-the-editor of the Catholic Answers magazine, This Rock, a writer credits CRI for being instrumental in bringing him to the Roman Catholic Church; i.e., he thanks CRI for opening his eyes “to the truths of Catholicism,” and for showing him that Catholicism “held firmly to all the essentials of the historic Christian faith.”]

–  If anyone doubts that Hank Hanegraaff is pro-Roman Catholic, one only need read Hanegraaff’s 6/7/95 fund-raising appeal letter and the pro-Catholic book offered therein — Hanegraaff offers for a gift of $25, the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. (Geisler and MacKenzie believe that a “cooperative effort between Roman Catholics and evangelicals could be the greatest social force for good in America” [p. 357].) Hanegraaff calls Roman Catholics and Evangelicals “must reading” for “thinking Christians who are concerned, not only about sound theology, but also about the future of our nation.” He goes on to proclaim that any obstacles (such as doctrine?) between Protestants and Catholics should not stand in the way of cooperation in areas where we share mutual interests and concerns. This is the same compromising spirit expressed by the Evangelical & Catholics Together (ECT) document authored by Charles Colson in March of 1994. [On two other Bible Answerman programs (one in late-April, 1995, and the other in late-June), Hanegraaff interviewed Geisler concerning the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. The compromise with Catholicism was absolutely sickening.]

CRI’s strong move toward ecumenism has led them to refuse to recognize Roman Catholicism for what it is — a cult at best and a false religion at worst. Hanegraaff, et al., continue to insist that Catholicism is a Christian religion with merely some teachings that they cannot agree with. In the process, CRI denigrates those who insist on not pandering to the Vatican’s ecumenical designs. CRI positions itself as the last word in apologetics and knowledge of theological issues. Their rallying cry is for adherence to orthodoxy rather than Biblicism; indeed, they would consider Roman Catholicism an orthodox faith. But orthodoxy is not Biblicism. Orthodoxy is largely based on religious tradition, and is, therefore, often found wanting. “Orthodoxy” is predicated upon the canons of whatever religious authority happens to interpret Scripture; it is not based upon Scripture directly. CRI wants us to believe that Roman Catholicism is a pussycat we can snuggle up to and join paws with for the Reconstructionist agenda of restructuring society. (Source: “Hanegraaff Urges Cooperation With Roman Catholicism,” Media Spotlight, Vol. 16 – No. 2 [9/95], pp. 5-6).

So am I surprised by the recent events and Hanegraaff’s ‘official’ departure from the faith? No, he left long ago.

This is a refreshing article and one that shows our need to pray for each other to be fearless in our stand for Jesus — following Him with sound doctrine! Costi Hinn’s article on Pulpit and Pen is a fearless stand that I’m pretty sure his heretical Uncle Benny would not be happy about:

Stop Calling Error “Anointed”

What better way to deceive the masses than to have no explanation whatsoever? A common tactic by Benny Hinn and other faith healers is to act absolutely dumbfounded at the miraculous hand of God apparently moving through the services. Unfortunately, there is one explanation for this lunacy that they all-too-frequently use – God told them to do it, of course. (Click here to go to Pulpit and Pen article)

Ephesians 4:14 

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

This article is addressing the so-called “Christian” aspect of the story.

The verse above, unfortunately, describes far too many professing Christians (including pastors) who open themselves up to unbiblical doctrine by means of an emotionally driven storyline. A book/movie like The Shack by William P. Young will succeed in increasing ungodliness because the truth of God the Father, the Trinity, and the Christian life in general is nowhere to be found. What is claimed to be “Christian” is nothing short of blasphemous.

The success of this movie will also be due in part to the use of well-known, well-liked actors—a factor that contributes to the viewers’ desire  to watch. Whether knowingly, or unknowingly, just these two things in conjunction with a heart-wrenching storyline goes a long way in people’s minds to accept what is being presented as truth.

Those who know little or nothing about the true nature of God, and are trying to decide what they believe, are at a fork in the road. If they take any of the so-called “Christian” aspects of this story to heart, they will undoubtedly follow the wrong road.

A large crowd going in the same direction does not mean they are going the right way.

Matthew 7:13, 14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

If the endorsements of the book are an indication of what I touched on above, then the movie will prove Eph. 4:14 (God’s word) all the more true. I say this because people tend to take to heart what they see even more than what they read. If those who read the book, and even some who simply heard a synopsis of the story were so moved by it, then it stands to reason because of the visual connection, a greater volume of people will accept the deception with open arms.

The author is being lauded as an authority on the person(s) of God. His Gnostic beliefs are far removed from Biblical teaching. This book/movie not only profanes God the Father and His deity, but blasphemes with almost every word.

Aside from attempting political correctness by the mention of more than one ethnic descriptions of the Trinity, the author is seemingly trying to appease everyone ecumenically as well. Young not only used his imagination writing this book/movie, but borrowed from other cultures and religions which is exactly why this book/movie should not be taken seriously. While reading the book, I got the impression that Mr. Young, through the various uses of other religions and occult practices, doesn’t know what he believes; maybe that explains why he pushes love and relationships so hard, not that there is anything wrong with either; if in accordance to God’s principals. Mr. Young’s god is clearly from his own imagination and contrary to a quote you’ll see later, our imagination does not “…make us so like them” (i.e. the Biblical Trinity).

The Shack is a story centering on a man named Mack, who four years earlier, lost his youngest child Missy to murder. One day Mack checks the mail and pulls out a note written by God—signed Papa—telling him to come back to the shack where Missy’s bloody dress was found. Once there, Mack eventually falls asleep, weary with grief and shivering from the winter cold. Next thing he knows he’s meeting Papa, Jesus and Sarayu. They take turns helping him through his emotional roller-coaster ride. Mack is then given the choice to stay with them and his beloved Missy, or return to his life with his wife and remaining two children. Mack chooses to go back and is awakened to find himself where he originally laid on the floor (by the blood stain that was his daughter’s). Mack gets in an accident on the way home and is nearly killed. Ironically, Mack’s wife Nan, the spiritually strong one in the family, is initially skeptical of Mack’s experience at the shack, but their love and relationship get them through and they live happily ever after.

Because there are numerous things in contradiction to God’s word, this will be an attempt to focus on the most obvious errors.

This is just a partial list of errors and blasphemies:

Young introduces his version of the Trinity with a variety of ethnic descriptions as well as two of the three being female pg 82-84, “…a large African-American woman…”(Papa God the Father), “…a small distinctively Asian woman…virtually transparent and hard to see…”, (Sarayu Holy Spirit), a man “…appeared Middle Eastern and dressed like a laborer complete with tool belt and gloves…(Jesus as a carpenter).

Nowhere in the Bible is God or any part of the Trinity described as female. Young, assigned them names stemming from Eastern religion and Greek mythology; Papa and Elousia (God), Jesus’ name is the same but certain aspects of his character are not scriptural, Sarayu (Holy Spirit), Sophia (a personification of God’s wisdom).

Pg 92 Papa is telling Mack, “Honey, there’s no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I’d use it now. I have no magic wand to wave over you and make it all better. Life takes a bit of time and a lot of relationship. [bold emphasis mine]

This is bringing God down to human level. Young’s god can’t take the pain away and doesn’t have an answer except that time and relationships is all that’s needed to heal the hurt he is feeling. This is what you get in a false god, and worldly psychology. The one true God of the Bible says:

Matthew 11:28-30 “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Pg 95 Papa bears the same scars of the cross that Jesus does. “…Mack noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his.” Jesus, not God the Father, died on the cross—the reason for the scars.

Matthew 27:46-50 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

God the Father is omnipresent (ever-present). He forsook his sinless Son because he cannot be in the presence of sin. It was our sins which Jesus bore on the cross for our sake—to save us from eternal damnation. There is no reason, and more importantly, no scriptural support for God the Father to bear the same scars as his Son.

Pg 96 Papa: “Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark,” she stated softly and gently. “We were there together.”” Mack: “At the cross? Now wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?” Papa: “You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.” “…When all you can see is your pain, perhaps then you lose sight of me?”

In this paragraph Young denies the finished work of the cross! God the Father allowed this to happen for a divine purpose and Jesus knew it.

John 19:28-30 “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

God the Father turned away that the scriptures be fulfilled. Holiness does not look upon unholiness. Jesus had to die in the manner He did for our sins to be crucified with Him. So in that, we who believe and accept the gift of salvation may also live in eternity with Him. Rejecting Christ’s finished work on the cross is the worst sort of blasphemy. Young completely distorted part of the foundational message of the Gospel of Christ and created another god!

Pg 141 Jesus tells Mack, “You imagine. Such a powerful ability, the imagination! That power alone makes you so like us. But without wisdom, imagination is a cruel taskmaster.”

This “power” of imagination is not that of a simple child’s game, but more like today’s New Age practices: Transcendental meditation, spirit guides, certain forms of yoga, etc., all of which come from Eastern religions. Much like the ones Young grew up around.

Romans 1:18-23 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous-ness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” [underline mine]

Pg 148 Mack asks Jesus the question, “But you came in the form of a man. Doesn’t that say something?” “Yes, but not what many have assumed. I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn’t create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. We created a circle of relationship, like our own, but for humans. She, out of him, and now all the males, including me, birthed through her; and all originating, or birthed, from God.

This is a perfect example of the latter half of Ephesians 4:14 “…by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” This passage is just begging for someone to say “it’s just semantics” to those who would attempt to correct the error.

I’ll say it now, this is my attempt! Eve was not hidden within Adam. There is no circle of relationship. God the Father created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. HE then took a rib from Adam and created Eve, and they were fruitful and multiplied. End of story!

Genesis 2:21, 22 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

Pg 152 Mack describes Sophia as, “…a tall, beautiful, olive-skinned woman with chiseled Hispanic features…” and continues on pg 153 with Mack thinking she is “Everything that sensuality strives to be, but falls painfully short.”

Webster’s dictionary defines sensuality as, “The quality or state of being sensual; devotedness to the gratification of the bodily appetites; free indulgence in carnal or sensual pleasures; luxuriousness; voluptuousness; lewdness.” Why is it necessary to sensualize wisdom? Young’s fixation on the woman smacks more of a pagan love goddess!

Pg 171 Sophia is named and defined on the one hand, “..a personification of Papa’s wisdom,” and on the other “She’s part of the mystery surrounding of Sarayu.” The conversation between Mack and Jesus concerning Sophia is as follows with a few inconsequential details left out (such as Mack stopping to tie his shoes):

Mack asks if she is God too, making four of them. Jesus says no, there are only three of us. “Sophia is a personification of God’s wisdom.” Mack says, “Oh, like in Proverbs, where wisdom is pictured as a woman calling out in the streets, trying to find anyone who’ll listen to her?” Jesus: “That’s her.” Mack: “But…she seemed so real.” Jesus: “Oh, she’s quite real.” “She’s part of the mystery surrounding of Sarayu.”

Though it is not specifically stated, the picture is thus; Papa is a large African-American woman whose wisdom is personified by a sensually beautiful, olive-skinned, Hispanic woman; who is also the mystery that surrounds Sarayu—the female equivalent of the Holy Spirit. If “wisdom” is only a personification and a mystery then why assign a name, physical attributes, and a completely different ethnicity? Mack asks if Sophia (a.k.a. wisdom) is God too, and is given the answer “no.” But later, he is told she is real, and we just read that she has a physical description.  Either Young’s Papa has a multiple personality disorder, or there is major contradiction going on here. But, the red flag that screams at me is the underlying theme—feminism is the authority. A person can rarely turn on the television anymore without seeing this theme in just about every storyline regardless if it’s real-life or fiction. Even several kids shows and movies have the girl character as the lead, and, or smarter with the sarcastic lines that demean the male character.

Biblically speaking, wisdom is metaphorically referred to as “she”—minus the physical description and name. As stated at the beginning of this article; no female, or characteristics of a female have ever had anything to do with the Biblical Trinity.

Ch. 15 opens with Sarayu and Papa taking Mack on a journey of sorts in his mind. When Mack opened his eyes he was blinded by the light emanating from Sarayu, to which she responds, “You will find it very difficult to look at me directly” “…or at Papa. But as your mind becomes accustomed to the changes, it will be easier.”

The Holy Spirit of the Bible is never described as having a blinding light emanating from “him”. The rest of the chapter tells of Mack’s clarity of vision. He is now able to see as the three god figures see, and everything is illuminated with halos of light: Nature, animals, angels, sentinels, and of course people have an aura about them—more New Age philosophy that flows right into Necromancy. This is the second time in this book that Mack will have contact with a dead loved one. The first, being with Missy when he was with Sophia and he saw his daughter through a waterfall. Missy knew her father was there and motioned as if she was hugging him. Now, in his mind with Sarayu and Papa, Mack sees a commotion of agitated lights which are coming from his dead father. This time Mack actually embraces his father; they forgive each other for various things while Mack’s father was still alive, and all is well.

A quote from Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer pretty much sums it up:

So often people think that Christianity is only something soft, only a kind of gooey love that loves evil equally with good. This is not the biblical position. The holiness of God is to be exhibited simultaneously with love. We must be careful, therefore, not to say that what is wrong is right, whether it is in the area of doctrine or of life, in our own group or another. What is wrong is wrong anywhere, and we have a responsibility in that situation to say that what is wrong is wrong.  (Schaeffer, Francis A. The Mark of a Christian. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1996, c1982)

Article by Kathy Beardsley – 12/4/2016

Other reviews worth reading on the “The Shack” :

• “The Shack” to be the next blasphemous blockbuster film
• “The Shack,” with film pending, called “greatest deception” to church “in the last 200 years”