Good Fight Ministries’ A Shack Of Lies represents the fifth documentary I have reviewed from that ministry. While it is not technically a documentary, I still use that term to differentiate between it and the movie The Shack (I hope I don’t lose you by doing that). I would call it an expose (pronounced ex-poh-say), but I cannot get the accent thing working for the word.
Pastor Joe Schimmel, the president and founder of Good Fight Ministries as well as the pastor of Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, California, serves as the documentary’s host. With a runtime of about 158 minutes, this 2017 documentary exposes the many false doctrines and heresies of William Paul Young’s The Shack (a book which became a film) and Lies We Believe About God (a book). This review shows some of the many highlights and notable quotes this film shows. Henceforth, I refer to William Paul Young as simply “Young” unless I need to distinguish between him and another person with the name of “Young” in some way, shape or form.
This documentary has an introduction, eight unofficial chapters (henceforth referred to simply as chapters) and a conclusion. Each chapter begins with “Paul Young X” or Paul Young’s X” (where X equals something he possesses or something he does). For example, one chapter has the title “Paul’s Young’s Antinomianism.” Another chapter has the title “Paul Young Confuses The Trinity.” Obviously from the chapter titles, Young represents the main subject of analysis in this documentary.
Stylistically, this documentary differs from two other documentaries I have reviewed. In The Kinsey Syndrome and The Submerging Church, the chapter title appears on the screen when that chapter’s subject matter is about to be covered. That same thing does not happen in this documentary. You basically have to know the chapter titles prior to watching the documentary in order to know what chapter is being watched. If you do know them prior to watching the documentary and you’re a notetaker (as I am), you can easily organize your notes for each chapter. If you do not know them, then your notes can be quite the run-on sentence OR (if you’re not a note-taker) the documentary can be a bit hard to track if you’re not paying close attention. This is simply a stylistic observation I made. It certainly does not take away from the (SPOILER ALERT FOR THIS REVIEW) great job this documentary did.
Schimmel gives perhaps the perfect answer in justifying why he is doing this review. He appeals to such texts as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Acts 17:11. Those texts state the following, respectively (NASB):
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Christians are commanded to test all things (see also 1 John 4:1). Moreover, the Bereans (see Acts 17:10) were regarded as noble-minded for taking the teachings of Paul and Silas (see Acts 17:10 again) back to the Scriptures to see if those teachings squared with the Word of God. Schimmel also appeals to other texts such as Titus 1:9, 2 Timothy 4:1-5 and 2 Corinthians 10:5. It is not hateful, divisive or the like to compare what people are saying in the name of God to the Word of God. Instead, it is necessary.
Schimmel also points out the important fact that over twenty million people have bought Young’s book The Shack. Moreover, many more have watched the film. Therefore, this is far from a Matthew 18 issue. A public teaching (and you cannot get more public than book and film) warrants a public response.
Schimmel is not the only one to speak out against The Shack; Schimmel notes how Al Mohler stated it was full of heresy (this was the article cited). In my notes, I have Schimmel mentioning how an atheist (an atheist!) called the film “new age propaganda.” In wrapping up my commentary on the introduction, I want to cite a long quote of Irenaeus (an early church father):
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.“Against Heresies”, Book 1:2, Preface
One far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, “A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it comes under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit…Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off,
even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep’s clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different.
Schimmel uses the illustration of the emerald to make a very important point; there is a difference between blowing millions on a fake emerald and losing your soul on a fake emerald (i.e., false teachings, a counterfeit gospel, heresy, etc.). I had never heard of this emerald illustration prior to viewing this film. Moreover, the quote from Irenaeus is an awesome one. It makes me wants to read some works from the early church fathers for my next reading book.
I did not quite get when chapter one (which is about Young’s book Lies We Believe About God) started because I had not figured out the documentary’s style until later on in the film (which is fine). Nevertheless, post-emerald illustration, Schimmel does give some excellent primary source information that proves The Shack is theology; Schimmel cites from Young himself in making his point:
Please don’t misunderstand me; The Shack is theology. But it is theology wrapped in story…”William Paul Young, “The Shack Revisited” by C. Baxter Kruger (New York: FaithWords, 2012), Foreword (underlining done by me)
Referring to the same book cited above, Young states, “If you want to understand better the perspectives and THEOLOGY that frames The Shack, this book is for you” (emphasis and underlining added). To anyone who believes The Shack is simply fiction, please consider the author’s own admission that the book is theology.
Schimmel also gives a challenge to the viewer to be like a watchman on the wall and an F.B.I. agent. Of course, he is not meaning a legit agent from the bureau. Rather, he states the viewer should be Full of Bible Intelligence. This is rather good advice. He also appeals to Acts 20:26-27, 29-30 in his argument about being a good watchman.
One can infer chapter one begins when Schimmel begins talking about Young’s Lies We Believe About God. Shortly after Schimmel starts quoting from Young’s own book, the Christian should be able to see that Young is an enemy of Christianity. Here is a quote from Young’s own book. This page is from the foreword to Young’s book. C. Baxter Kruger, the individual mentioned in the earlier quotes, wrote the foreword to this book:
You can see in my thesis why Paul and I regard the widespread notion that human beings are separated from God as a fundamental lie…p. 11
The above quote is a denial of original sin. Young himself has stated that “the God of evangelical Christianity is a monster.” The chapter titles in his book represent alleged lies. Here are some of those titles:
- 3. God Is In Control
- 8. God Wants To Be A Priority
- 13. You Need To Get Saved
- 15. Hell Is Separation From God
- 17. The Cross Was God’s Idea
- 19. God Requires Child Sacrifice
- 24. Not Everyone Is A Child Of God
- 27. Sin Separates Us From God
If you’re a Christian and you are reading that list, certain Scriptures to refute that list of nonsense should come to mind. Before I bring up some (in addition to the Gospel), let’s look at more Schimmel citations of Young. These citations prove Young is a universalist (bolding done by me):
The Good News is not that Jesus has opened up the possibility of salvation and you have been invited to receive Jesus into your life. The Gospel is that Jesus has already included you into His life, into His relationship with God the Father, and into His anointing in the Holy Spirit. The Good News is that Jesus did this without your vote, and whether you believe it or not won’t make it any less or more true….Lies We Believe About God, pp. 117-118
God does not wait for my choice and then “save me.” God has acted decisively and universally for all humankind…
Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation? That is exactly what I am saying!
Obviously, there is much wrong with the above quotes. First, Young gets the Gospel wrong (more on that later). Second, he believes everyone is saved. If everyone is saved, then what exactly was Jesus doing on the cross?
Speaking of cross, Young does not have the greatest things to say about the cross. Here is another Schimmel citation of Young:
Who originated the Cross?Page number unknown
If God did, then we worship a cosmic abuser, who in Divine Wisdom created a means to torture human beings in the most painful and abhorrent manner. Frankly, it is often this very cruel and monstrous god that the atheist refuses to acknowledge or grant credibility in any sense. And rightly so. Better no god at all, than this one.
It should be apparent that Young is hostile to biblical Christianity. Schimmel cites such biblical texts as 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Isaiah 53:4-8 and Isaiah 53:10-11 in refuting Young.
I mentioned earlier that Al Mohler and an atheist recognized Young’s works for what they were. As I conclude my commentary on chapter one, I want to add that Young’s mom, a missionary, called Young a heretic. Dave Aldrich, a guy who designed the graphic creation for The Shack, expressed “deep regrets” and a sincere apology to all he may have led astray for his partaking in the graphic creation. Finally, James B. DeYoung perhaps explains what led to the creation of The Shack and even William Paul Young’s heretical theology:
I have known the author of The Shack, Young, for more than a dozen years. In 2004, Young wrote a lengthy document in which he rejected his evangelical faith and embraced universalism. I expose these in my book. He said then: that evangelical faith and its teaching about judgment makes God “grossly unjust”; that “Jesus is a million times more vicious and vindictive than Pharaoh, Nero or Hitler put together”; that Jesus Christ is “not the Savior from sins”; that Jesus died “a failure and in vain and never saved anyone”; thus Jesus “is not even a good man but a liar, a rogue and a deceiving rascal”; that “Calvary is a farce, a travesty and a sham.”James B. De Young, “‘Burning Down The Shack’ Exposes Greatest Deception To Blindside The Church In Last 200 Years.”
I don’t know how you felt reading that above quote, but my blood boiled as I typed it. I show all this information because Schimmel does an excellent job citing a bunch of information in proving that William Paul Young is hostile to biblical Christianity. Furthermore, he is far from the only person to recognize Young for who Young is; Young is an enemy of the Gospel.
As mentioned earlier, Schimmel cited 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in refuting Young. This passage clearly shows what the Gospel is. For more context, I show 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 (NASB):
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
If Jesus Christ is not a Savior from sins as Young erroneously claims, why are there a plethora of passages in addition to the one above that show Christ saves people from their sins (Matthew 1:21; John 1:29; 1 Timothy 1:15; Matthew 9:13)? If Jesus never saved anyone, why does Mary call Him her Savior (Luke 1:46-47)? Jesus Christ saved me from my sins. He can save you from yours too.
Don’t believe you need saving? Well, before I go on in my review, there is something you should know if you are not a Christian and you are reading this; you were born dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2:1-10 explains (NASB):
2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
The Bible is clear that people are born dead in trespasses and sins (2:1-3). God’s being rich in mercy makes one alive in Christ (2:4). Furthermore, it is by grace through faith that one is saved (2:5-9). It is not based on works (2:9).
If you do not believe what Ephesians 2:1-10 states, I would ask you please look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen something, even if it was small? Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Jesus said that whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Jesus also said that if you ever get angry at someone, you’ve committed murder in the heart (Matthew 5:21-26). Just the mere thoughts of adultery and murder make you guilty of the very acts themselves.
Please understand that it only takes one murder to be a murderer, one lie to be a liar and so forth. David said in Psalm 51:5 that he was conceived in sin. Genesis 6:5 states that every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually. Clearly, man has a sin problem. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Man is in big trouble with God because of his sin. This is more amplified by the fact that perfection is the standard (Matthew 5:48).
Now, some people try to justify their sin by trying to balance it out with the good deeds that they have done. However, if you were to try that in a court of law, the judge would throw the book at you. A good judge would not accept a bribe. He would cast you off into jail. God likewise will not accept a bribe, for there is no partiality with Him (Deuteronomy 10:17; Ephesians 6:9).
Thankfully, Jesus came to solve the sin problem over 2000 years ago (Isaiah 53:1-12). You and I broke the law. Jesus paid the fine (Matthew 26:14-28:20). This means that the judge can do what’s legally right in dismissing your case. He can say, “This person has broken the law, but someone has paid his fine. He’s out of here.” This is good news.
There are two things a person must do. He must repent. This means to turn from his sin (Mark 1:16; Luke 24:36-49; 2 Timothy 2:19-26; Acts 17:30-31). He must also put his trust in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31, 17:30-31; Romans 4:1-25, 10:1-17; Galatians 3:1-14; John 6:26-29). These gifts of repentance and faith are granted by God (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 2:22-26). If you repent and put your trust in the Savior Jesus Christ, He will forgive you of your sins and grant you everlasting life (John 6:47). Oh may you know His mercy and grace today if you have never repented and put your trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. He is a great Savior. He is not a failure as Young erroneously claims.
In chapter two (which pertains to Young’s distorting the Trinity), Schimmel begins showing movie clips from The Shack that express the theology of it. He also continues to show more quotes of Young’s universalism and overall bad theology. Schimmel shows a clip from an interview Young did with apologist Matt Slick. In that clip, I have in my notes that Young states that God the Father, God the Son AND God the Holy Spirit were crucified on the cross. I found that interesting given Young’s hostile remarks about the cross that I mentioned earlier.
Chapter three pertains to Young’s denial that one needs to be born again. It is at this point that Schimmel reveals the reasoning behind his titling of the documentary; Young is simply telling a bunch of lies. This is evidenced by the fact that Young calls the statement “Not Everyone Is A Child Of God” (which is one of the aforementioned chapter titles in Lies We Believe About God) a lie. Scripture does state, however, that not everyone is a child of God. Schimmel appeals to such texts as John 1:12, John 3:3, John 3:5, Luke 8:20-21, John 8:44, Galatians 3:26 and Romans 8:14 in refuting Young’s heresy. Here are what some of those texts say:
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”John 3:3-8 (NASB)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.John 1:12-13 (NASB)
44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.John 8:44 (NASB)
In light of the above cited texts, one has to ask a simple question: Is Jesus Christ lying or is William Paul Young lying? Considering Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead, appeared to over 500 people (1 Corinthians 15) AND His bones have yet to be found in over two MILLENIA, I’m gonna bank on Jesus as being the one telling the truth.
Chapter four addresses Young’s antinomianism. I learned something important from this chapter (as I did in all of them). Furthermore, this particular information I learned was something new to me. I have heard of the concepts of being under law and being under grace. However, I had not heard about a believer’s fulfilling the law in Christ. Before I go into that concept, I want to highlight two Schimmel citations of Young’s The Shack:
The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules.Page Unknown
“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Mack had now completely stopped eating and was concentrating on the conversation.The Shack, p. 205 (italics done by me)
Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.
I italicized the words above because when Schimmel cites quotes from Young’s books, he puts pictures of the book on the screen with the notable quotes highlighted. The italicized words I feature don’t appear under that same highlight. While I still think Young has an overall wonky theology, Schimmel could have highlighted more than what he did in my opinion both for the sake of context and to strengthen his argument that Young promotes antinomianism.
Now Schimmel does acknowledge that believers are not under the Law of Moses (this is true). He also states that believers fulfill the law of Christ. He cites such texts as Galatians 6:2, Ezekiel 36:27, Hebrews 8:8 and Hebrews 8:10 in making his point. This “law of Christ” concept is somewhat new to me. I’m not saying Schimmel is introducing new doctrine. I’m simply saying that I’ve only understood the “under law/under grace” concept. How Schimmel explained the law of Christ did make sense to me, though.
Chapter five addresses Young’s denying the depravity of man (or the doctrine of original sin). Chapter two of Lies We Believe About God is titled, “God is good. I am not.” Young calls that a lie, but that is not a lie, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Moreover, nobody does god, not even one (Romans 3:10-18; Psalm 14:1-3). Young actually calls the “I’m just a sinner saved by grace” line of thinking a “piece of s*** theology” (and yes you read that right). Young’s hostility to biblical Christianity obviously continues in this chapter.
Chapter six addresses Young’s denial of God’s wrath. In this quote I show, what I am going to do is display a large citation from The Shack. I bold what Schimmel highlighted. I do this because a recurring thing I noticed in this documentary at this point is Schimmel’s highlighting select sections of a certain quote. In my opinion, he could have highlighted more material than what he highlighted to make a stronger argument (not to mention add more context).
Here is the quote from The Shack (pp. 121-122):
“But if you are God, aren’t you the One spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire? Mack could feel his deep anger emerging again, pushing out the questions in front of it, and he was a little chagrined at his own lack of self-control. But he asked anyway, “Honestly, don’t you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?”
At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.
At this point in the film, Schimmel actually has shown the above quote in the movie of The Shack (and I think multiple times). As a result, I will not gripe much about the select sections that were highlighted (as opposed to reading the whole thing for context). Furthermore, Schimmel’s plethora of Scripture citations to refute Young’s bad theology regarding God’s wrath (Revelation 16:1, Revelation 14:10-11; Revelation 20:15; Nahum 1:2; Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 1:18; Matthew 25:41,46; Proverbs 29:1; Matthew 12:32; Matthew 26:24) more than makes up for the selective highlighting.
Looking at my notes, I could not tell during the movie when chapter seven began. That chapter addressed Young’s universalism. I mentioned earlier that one of the chapter titles in Young’s Lies We Believe About God is, “Hell Is Separation From God.” Young calls that a lie. However, as has been shown often throughout this review, Young is the one who is lying (again). Schimmel appeals to such texts as Revelation 14:11; Revelation 20:21; Isaiah 59:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Matthew 7:23 and Matthew 25:41 in refuting Young.
Looking at my notes once more, I could not gauge when chapter eight began/ended (said chapter being about Young and the New Age) and when the conclusion began. The two seemed to blend (although that might have been operator error on my part in my note-taking). Nevertheless, Schimmel provides a wealth of information in the last unofficial chapter and the conclusion. I actually noted Young’s connections to the New Age in my review of Warren Smith’s A Wonderful Deception. Here are some Schimmel citations that show how quite a few people thought The Shack was of the New Age:
I felt the movie was too New Age for my tastes. If Oprah Winfrey were to make a ‘Christian’ movie, The Shack would be it.Jerry Newcombe, Is ‘The Shack’ Biblical or New Age?
Since its publication, “The Shack” has engendered a good deal of controversy within the Christian community for interpreting both the Bible and the Holy Trinity in ways that some consider to be heretical. Based on a viewing of the movie, I would label those charges to be nonsense; to be truly heretical would require a more cogent level of thinking than the awkward plotting and empty-headed New Agey koans offered up here.Roger Ebert, The Shack movie review & film summary
You’ll notice above that I bolded certain words. This is another instance in which Schimmel lifted select words from a broader context. I thought more context could have been added here to make the citation more effective. This is simply more evidence showing that this is a pattern in this movie. I find that interesting because in other documentaries I have reviewed by Good Fight Ministries, I do often find long citations more than I do short ones. This short citation is still decent evidence. However, more context would have made the citation stronger in my opinion.
The Shack has touched the souls of millions, apparently, and I can understand why. It’s a product of the all-smiles, New Age movement in religion peddled by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and prosperity pimps like Joel Osteen that will take all the dollars you send them in return for something that will keep you in a positive mood.
However, few films, even of this genre, have been so brazenly flawed and miscalculated, serving only as propaganda for peoples FAQs regarding religion. The devout or even those simply seeking some spiritual and social uplift deserve better then such treacly schlock like The Shack that can’t even say the word “God.”Steve Pulaski, The Steve Pulaski Message Board.
It should be noted that Pulaski considers himself a skeptic more than he does an atheist. The documentary suggests Pulaski is an atheist (and he may be). After the Pulaski citation, Schimmel explains it is a sad day when atheists (possibly Pulaski) and film critics (Roger Ebert) can see more truth than professing Christians. He is right.
Around the middle of the conclusion, Schimmel shows some quotes of Young that suggest Young believes in the heretical “little gods” teaching. The pictures Schimmel showed were not the greatest since I could not find the book and page number of those quotes (up until this point I would be able to pin down the exact address of the quotes in his other citations). Nevertheless, the amount of evidence showing Young’s hostility to biblical Christianity is already overwhelming at this point.
Schimmel makes an effective connection between the New Age and satanism. Schimmel shows a clip from what looks to be a very old episode of Oprah Winfrey’s show. In the episode is a satanist named Michael Aquino. It appears the episode was in the context of the way New Agers and satanists viewed humans as having divinity. Here is the dialogue Schimmel showed between Winfrey and Aquino:
WINFREY: Well, the way you explain this is the way a lot of people who are into metaphysics now and the New Age movement and new Age thinking, they say the very same thing. Are you saying that it’s the same?
AQUINO: Yes, except that I would say we [Satanists] have a more precise grasp…We would say that we understand what’s actually happening a little better than many New Agers. …We are not servants of some God, we are our own gods.”
I found this to be quite the connection; Satanists and the New Agers believe they are gods. Moreover, Satanists believe they have a better understanding of this heretical “little gods” doctrine than that of the New Agers. Schimmel concludes this train of thought with quotes by New Agers Maitreya, Anthony Campolo and Helen Schueman. I’ve written about Maitreya and Campolo in previous book/movie reviews. The Schueman quote was as follows:
The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself. There is no separation of God and His creation.Schueman, A Curse in Miracles (NY: Viking 1976) Chapter 8, “The Journey Back,” p. 166
In concluding the film, Schimmel states that Young is “greasing the skids towards hell.” Schimmel also gives exhortations to be about God’s business, lead people to Christ, fight with the sword of the spirit against false doctrine, hold fast to Jesus, read the Word of God, test all things and “do not get involved in error.” Schimmel states that Christians are in a war zone and they gotta stand for the truth. Schimmel also makes a plug for Good Fight Ministries by telling the viewer to subscribe to the Facebook and Youtube pages.
SOMETHING TO NOTE
You will notice I was rather silent on my commentary on the documentary’s usage of movie clips from The Shack. That was by design. The documentary does an excellent job in explaining what is wrong with the scenes in the movie. In my note-taking, I do better in taking photos of quotes than I do movie clips. Moreover, I can explain and comment on those a lot better than I could movie clips. You would have to see the documentary to see the effectiveness of the explanations on the movie clips. I hope by now you have seen already a wealth of information that the documentary cited. The documentary does an equally fine job in refuting the scenes in the movie.
Schimmel could not have picked a better title for this documentary. This documentary is a well-researched, thoroughly-documented refutation of the many heresies of William Paul Young and his works. While Schimmel could have had some stronger citations in a few areas, the mass amount of information and Scriptures he provides cannot be ignored. This is an excellent resource that I would highly recommend.