About 3 weeks ago, my dear friend Nicole sent me a book by Alan Paton entitled Cry The Beloved Country (“Cry”). Then, two weeks ago, my new friend Hamster sent me Papa—A Personal Memoir, by Greg Hemingway (“Papa”). Cry is a novel about racial injustice, set in an Apartheid bound South Africa. Papa is a non-fiction account of Ernest Hemmingway’s life through his son’s eyes. I love South Africa and Hemingway. I also like good writing. I walk by both books daily and they respectfully ask me to open them to a new journey. But alas, I am stuck in the Shack with Mack and a syrup bottle version of God that makes my stomach turn.
In more guarded conversations—ones that do not find themselves published on the internet for all the world to see—you will hear many say that the dialogue in the Shack is somewhat less than stellar but not quite atrocious. It is an idea book, the Shack apologist will say. I waited for these ideas, hoping that they would overshadow the atrocities of trite dialogue. I had been promised that they would. And not just from you guys. From preachers, and worship leaders, and bloggers, and perhaps even a relative or two.
I am disappointed.
“But while Mack could not stop the tears from filling his eyes, he was not ready to let go—not yet, not with this Woman. …’Not Ready?’ she responded. ‘That’s okay, we’ll do things on your terms and time. Well come on in. Can I take your coat.’” Page 83.
“Mack stepped back again, feeling a bit overwhelmed. ‘Are there more of you?’ he asked a little hoarsely. The three looked at one another and laughed. Mack couldn’t help but smile. ‘No, Mackenzie,’ chuckled the black woman. ‘We is all that you get, and believe me, we’re more than enough.’” Page 85
“Pap was working on something with her back to him, flour flying as she swayed to the music of whatever she was listening to. The song obviously came to an end, marked by a couple of last shoulder and hip shakes. … ‘West Coast Juice. Group called Diatribe and an album that isn’t even out yet called Heart Trips. Actually,’ she winked at Mack, ‘these kids haven’t even been born yet.’” Page 90.
“Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female…. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” Page 93.
When talking about Jesus asking why God forsook him: “’Will you at least consider this: When all you can see is your pain, perhaps you lose sight of me?’” Page 96.
About Jesus healing the blind: “’He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.’” Page 100.
“’We have limited ourselves out of respect for you. We are not bringing to mind, as it were, our knowledge of your children. As we are listening to you, it is as if this is the first time we have known about [your friends], and we take great delight in seeing them through your eyes.’” Page 106.
It is true, the Shack is an idea book. And I don’t like the ideas.
The church has eaten this book up. We’ve put it on the best seller list. Why? We want an identifiable God. So we quickly adopt a version in which we dress her in an apron and jeans, allow her imperfect grammar, plug her into an iPod, limit her deity within human confines, and allow her to cast aspersions about Jesus’ eyesight on the Cross. We like her to refrain from pushing. She would never swallow us in a whale, or strike us off our asses on the road to Damascus. She waits for us. She does things on our “terms and time.”
Who is she? She is your all-understanding aunt. You know, the one who used to listen to MTV when you were 6 and knows how to make that kick-A blackberry cobbler. Because we can all identify with blackberry cobbler. And who didn’t shake to the Dire Straights?
But at the heart of it all, the God I know through scripture is not understandable. His qualities are infinitely juxtaposed: he is violent and tender; he is permissive and forceful; he is creative and destructive; he is understanding but unbending; he sets forth his plan and then relents. Further, he sent us a representation of himself that was not understood, even by those who followed him the most closely. And when the Spirit came and infiltrated every believer, they still didn’t quite get God—at least, not all the way.
I know that the above quotes contain many debatable theological issues, but that is not the point of this post. Perhaps we can discuss these more fully in the comments. Instead, I ask why we are so quick to adopt a rewritten God? Why do we desire to neuter the immutable complexities of God, which I admit can seem vexing? I think these complexities are beautiful. They keep me coming back for more.
Look, I don’t need God to be white, or male, or Baptist, I just need him to be God. Not my aunt Sharon (who I must say makes incredible toffee). And I fear that all I’m getting here is a culturally acceptable version of him. A palatable version of the trinity. A made-for-T.V. theology in which Oprah is sure to be the central character. We’ll watch it and laugh at that cute blue bird nuzzling in the crook of her neck.
Rubbish.
22 comments:
amen. perhaps for someone with a background of harsh, wrathful, vengeant view of God, and legalism, and loveless obedience, this book would be good to talk about. not champion, but talk about. the character in the book is not GOD, but it seemed that Young did his best to sketch his idea of God, and i know how easy it is as a very unexperienced writer to let a sketch be a full-color photograph just to avoid the effort of explaining its deficiencies. it's true that GOD is love--incredibly, mysteriously, absolutely love. and we'll never understand it fully like The Shack tries to.
i do not have this issue. it is fiction. period. if someone wrote another book about Frankenstien and portrayed him as a homosexual with a british accent, i would not have a problem with it.
lets think why this bothers you. What problem would there be if people began to view God as a loving group? This book is not the first to portray complex things in a simple way.
People like this book BECAUSE it shows a God who feels distant to most people( even christians whom i could even go as far as to say Mack's character is a symbol of)in a close and noticable way.
This book is successful and that should not be surprising if you think about our world. So many people don't feel like they can connect with something that is intangible and that God is distant, and uncaring. Even people who are fine with a faith without knowledge of everything would most of the time accept the more knowledge as well if it were offered to them. So, the idea of getting a chance to talk with God is what Everyone would love to do and that is why people are swarming around this. But, not all the stuff in here is crap:
the book suggests God does care about the individual, that although he is too complex for us that He is able to present Himsef in a way that can be understood in small ways (i say in small ways because this book did not suggest this portrayal of God was all there was--many times the God characters allude to things that Mack cannot understand.
Young simply took an encounter that many have wished to have and set it against fictional characters who are involved in grief and pain. He did that to give you a reason to read it, and probably figured that there are people in pain out there who can identify to wanting to take a swing at the big guy.
I think Young, if he were preaching and not writing fiction, would have a lot of explaining to do, but i do believe God is gentle more often than not and is interested in each of us. If readers come away with this concept and can make it their own, then Young gets a medal in the Human category at the Olympics.
I would also have no problem with portraying Frankenstein as a homosexual with any accent. I would actually probably enjoy it. However, Willie writing a fictional account of the God-head--a real person. That is the problem here. Young is trying to skate theology under the radar by calling it fiction. Or at least someone is trying to.
"This book is successful and that should not be surprising if you think about our world." Exactly my point. Our world wants a dumbed down version of God that is easy to understand.
I'm not saying everything in here is crap. There is some good stuff in here. I just find it outweighed by the junk.
I loved it. I'm sorry that the book doesn't mean anything to you, I was hoping this would be more of a discussion of the books good aspects, kind of what the Baker said, and not such a disappointment to everyone. Does anyone besides the Baker and I actually enjoy this book???
I feel I have to add that I read this before you could even get a copy at Barnes. I didn't have all the freakin' hype that you all feel this book needs to live up to. One of the senior pastors at Fellowship recommended it to my mom and he said he felt it was theologically sound. Like the sheep I am, I read the book with that in mind.
I wish that I could better describe what I feel about the book, but I'm not a great writer; I love to read but I'll be the first to admit that dissecting a book isn't what I'm best at. Perhaps it is my ignorance that allows me to see the beauty more clearly without the critical eye. I'm not being sarcastic here, honesty I'm even intimidated to post here, most of you are literary masters!
My heart was raw and sore and I was angry with God when I read it. The not-good-writing bothered me at first, but then I feel into the book like a movie and read it in a day. Doing that made me gloss over a lot of the imperfections I guess. I admire and am jealous at the same time of you who didn't need to hear that God IS love again. I had forgotten. This book broke me because it challenged me to the core what my perceptions of God were. I'm JEALOUS of the deep connection that some people have, I have to STRUGGLE for it, and even then he (or she!) seems distant. *I never felt about God, however, like the background described in the first comment either.* I knew God loved me, but when all the crap with Summit happened, I realized my foundation of "God is Love" was built on a shaky foundation never ultimately tested.
I've not even had time this last week to read, so I shouldn't even be posting, but I don't know if I will anymore because I'm a wuss and it makes me sad to read all the negative things that people found about a book that meant so much to me. Hopefully you'll find something redeemable, or at least, get through it quickly so you can to move on to better books.
I was negative about the book at first. I thought it was cheesy and over the top. Plus, I agreed with Seth on many points and the theology did bother me. But as I continued to read I just quit worrying about all that stuff. I let myself become a part of that world. And when I did that, there were some "ideas" that suddenly jumped out at me. Positive things.
Just an example of one of them: I have been having a hard time praying lately, being so busy that I hardly think about it many days. But when I read, it was almost a prayer. This book reminded me that God is present at all times. I saw how Mack thoroughly enjoyed his time with God, and that made me remember how much better I feel when I do pray constantly, and that God is not an obligation, he is a person. I wanted that kind of communion. Not with Mack's God, but with the real God - whatever he knows himself to be. It's not for me to describe him.
So in the end, it is this longing that the book created in me that I will remember. Not the awkward writing or the "bad" theology. And I will always appreciate it.
I am posting this comment so that I can get email follow ups.
Heidi, it is good that this book so profoundly affected you and you are no more a sheep and no less smart for having been affected (shewt, or is it effected?). No one that I know has the market cornered on God's love. I think it's good to be able to share differing opinions here. It's beautiful, actually.
Your comments are valuable and good and make just as much sense as anybody else's. Seriously? Opinionated does not a literary genius make. Keep bringing it and keep reading and don't let a differing opinion throw you. You've got plenty of backbone to stand up to that and to state what you understand to be true.
Oh Seth,
In view of your humble and undogmatic comments, may I present a satirical response without offending or making you feel defensive and attacked?
How wonderful it must be to be into Paton and Hemingway and so intellectually above the “atrocities of trite dialogue” written by William Paul Young, who was abused as a child and encountered an angry God he didn’t want his children to know. Seth, the consummate churchman, has the Spirit to pronounce the righteous judgement of “Rubbish.” How many of us simple minded readers are there to allow such rubbish to be number one on the New York Times Paperback Trade Fiction bestseller list. Could it possibly be that you are so full and satisfied from eating the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (law) that you cannot understand Young’s book about eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (Jesus)?
The Shack is a book for the heart, not the mind. It is to be experienced. It will be judged and not enjoyed by those who are satisfied. Perhaps only the wounded, the seekers, the unsatisfied, those of us who are broken and who leave church services hungry and desiring a full Supper rather than the crumbs of the Lord’s Snack, can find anything worthwhile in such a poorly written best seller. Perhaps it is the church and the religion rather than The Shack, who have dumbed down God to the point that we miss His very Presence and Love and can’t hear Him. Remember, God no longer dwells in institutions (temples, churches built with hands), but now dwells in hearts and speaks to us there. We need to learn to inhale as God seeks to breathe life, His life, into us.
Oh, how horrible the “less than stellar” idea that God may have actually read 1 Corinthians 13 (much less authored it), and knows that Love (Himself) keeps no record of wrongs and, consequently, can provide healing and even freedom (Galations 5:1) to those of us who have experienced hell here on earth.
How “trite” the idea that the God you “know through scripture,” is available to be known by His dwelling fully in the Christ, who dwells in us (Colossians 1:27). How could He possibly be understandable, as though, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” could ever be true! How interesting that Jesus said that the Spirit, not scripture or the church, would lead us into all truth. Surely, it is the scripture that gives us life and not the Son, the One it points to. Oh yeah, it is the scripture that tells us, “This New Agreement is not a written law, but it is of the Spirit. The written law (scripture) brings death, but the Spirit brings life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). Oh well, God is so confusing, isn’t He?
Thank God for the real writers out there and may He save us from such simple minded views such as those so stomach turningly presented in The Shack!
Oh yeah, I know this comment is poorly written and another atrocity to deal with, so, please forgive me and please forgive the sarcasm. Understand that I was so moved by The Shack that I have stupidly given away 35 copies so far! I’m obviously not very bright! Where is my copy of Death in the Afternoon? Oops! That one’s set in Spain and not South Africa! My bad!
Young’s book took me from the edge where I had been standing, begging, pleading, asking, seeking, knocking, yelling, screaming, shaking my fist at God, and it pushed me over the edge into His love which cannot fail! It immersed me in the Spirit and brought me freedom. I read it slowly as it was hard to read through the tears of joy and the many pauses to just say thank You, thank You, thank You. And I have been a full time minister (three graduate degrees) for over 30 years!
May I recommend that Pagan Christianity be put on your reading list? And may I seriously say again, forgive the sarcasm. I really don’t mean to attack or offend, just to vividly say there are different opinions out there that, while you may strongly disagree, still deserve a modicum of humble respect.
Seth, may our Father richly bless you with your journey. Terry
don't misunderstand me, I LOVE differing opinions!
It was just the constant negative opinions, I never read anything positive about the book. It seemed pretty one-sided. You can't learn or grow if everyone has the same view of things so I cherish the different opinions of my friends, they help make and shape my own! It just got old reading negative ones, that's all.
Wow, Terry. That was serious. Do we know each other?
H-bomb, I love your opinion. I respect your opinion. We differ, but I know you and understand where you are. That's what makes dialogue fun. I am not trying to take away your take-away. Keep bringing it. Post a good-stuff entry. I'll read it and enjoy every bit.
Well. Hi, Terry.
We would love for you to join us on a regular basis. We'll be your buds and talk about all kinds of heart matters. From time to time, we'll set Seth off in a corner and hurl stones at his tender little head. Come on! It'll be a blast.
Seriously, though, let's be a little bit more lovey toward one another. No one is more or less spiritual or intellectual because of his or her opinion of a book.
I mean, I think a homosexual Frankenstein is downright proposturous.
Do I dare enter?
Terry, I would cry a lot if my pastor spoke online like that to strangers.
Seth, I'm pretty with you on the God image Young presents. For me, God is just way too goofy. Characterwise - would I really want to hang out with him? He's like that person at church who you respect and know is full of kindness and wisdom, but my goodness, also filled with cheesiness; I couldn't stand to actually have dinner with him. And that's where the poor writing affects me.
Jesus, on the other hand, was a much better character for me to read. I imagine this is because bible Jesus was fully human, so shack Jesus didn't bother me. I liked Jesus the best. (That's a strange sentence to write.)I feel like the good stuff I took from the book centered around Jesus.
I'm curious to know, Seth, what specific ideas really bothered you. You know I agree with you 100% on the writing. So what about the ideas?
Sure, theologically we might not all agree with each other or with what Young presents. But I've seen this book heal others from such painful times, and I know at the core of it, they've found their way back to God. So it might not be perfect theology (what is?), but is it damaging theology, like say the prosperity gospel?
Look, why don't we all just meet for happy hour? We can't go wrong there.
Terry, I feel I have to say that I find it ironic that you blast Seth while talking about God's love. I love the fact you loved the book like me... but I don't think sarcasm is the best way to make your point. We all aren't in a room together so things that are written sometimes come across wrong so maybe that's what happened here.
my, my,
while i was gone for a day i find that another one of my brother's was martyred. brother seth.
Terry, i don't know you or your intentions. if you feel so strongly about the book, i would encourage you to continue handing out copies. Perhaps that would be the best way for you to take what you feel about the book and use it for a positive change in others.
bless you for your work as a pastor, but just remember that no number of graduate degrees makes anyone king of the hill on 'the truth' or most correct book reviewer. I also apologize if my comments towards seth have led you to feel so comfortable with the sarcasm, but seth and i are personal friends and he knows my words are tactless with intention, but as Heidi mentioned, it is difficult to know how to react to such strong words from an anonymous person.
Heidi,
please don't count me as a master in literary anything. if this blog has taught me anything it is that i will be thinking long and hard before letting my writing out into the public. my little blurbs alone should speak for themselves regarding my grammatical adherence.
nicole,
i personally felt like the least explored character was the Holy Spirit one. I was disappointed with how little she was described. it seemed that papa and jesus were described directly while saray---
however it is spelled was talked around. your thoughts?
Well dang, I was going to pass on this first month's read b/c of everything going on, but shewt (love that spelling, Amber), how can I not read this book now?
Look, I don't think everyone needs to pile on one way or another. Terry, most of these folks are my friends, so, even if they disagree, they're going to get my back to some extent. The Clarks and I may disagree about a this book, but at the end of the day, I love them and understand where Heidi is coming from.
Nicole--probably not going to talk theology issues here and now, as the majority of my post dealt with the overall view of God as presented in the book. Of course, I'll email you as we go to let you know the particular disagreements I have with the theology. I understand that theology is very personal, and I don't want to start another stone throwing contest.
Terry, if you want to talk about this more privately, I'll be more than happy to. seth.m.haines@yahoo.com
I am all for continuing dialogue on this post, if it interests you guys.
Dear Reading Room, May I this time, very timidly step in to triage the wounded and see if I have enough bandages to begin the healing process. I forgot that friendly fire will easily do the same damage as rounds from the enemy (and I do not want to be the enemy). I have disturbed your peace and I’m not pleased about that, my apologies to all.
Seth, We do not know each other, so one more apology! As to going with satire, dumb, dumb, dumb choice on my part as you cannot see a twinkle in the eye, the wry smile, or the tongue in cheek (as opposed to the very obvious foot in my mouth now)! I was simply wanting to quote some of your comments regarding the book to try to say the dialogue in the Reading Room seemed to be hyper critical and, I feared, missing the very reason for the book’s popularity. I did not mean to put you down. Sorry. There are a lot of battered sheep out there (and I never want to add to the list of casualties) and there are a lot of us looking for what the fifth century Celtic Christians called “thin places.” Thin places are places of awe and wonder where the physical world encounters the spirit world and we feel His presence. We often find thin places in nature, art, music, ritual, etc. The Shack is, I think, for many, a thin place. Anyway, I’m not going to wait for the last verse of Just As I Am to walk the aisle and confess my sin to you, I’m sorry, sorry, sorry.
Amber, I missed! Can you believe it, I was actually aiming for his heart and unintentionally hit him in the head! Poor aim, bad ammo. Once again, sorry.
Nicole, If I make you cry, please allow me to cry with you. You gotta know it by now, I’’m sorry.
The Clarks, it was actually meant to be ironic, just not in the way it actually was ironic! Sarcasm is bad, satire is bad, our choices in the upcoming election are bad, my bad. Sorry. I hope your last statement is what actually happened, I’m just not good with the black and white of this particular medium for communicating.
The baker, friendly fire and all that (see above), didn’t intend to create a need for a new, expanded edition of Foxes Book of Martyrs. Sorry about your dear departed brother, may you never forget him and may you forgive me! If you check the context of what by now seems to all in the room to be my pretext, you will see that I mentioned my background to say how dumb I have been, the blind leading the blind for such a long time or something like that, ironic, you took it to be my implying superiority. I was really intending to put myself down! Sorry.
May the great webmaster delete my comments and banish them to the eternal punishment of electronic hell.
If I missed anyone, I will get more bandages to ease the bleeding.
Much blessings to all and may the healing now begin. I am just going to slink out now, if you will excuse me, and eat some worms, some crow, and have a large helping of humble pie. Terry
Oh yeah, Seth, you may want to get the lump on your head looked at in the morning, sorry. I will read in my own room from now on.
I have read all of the different posts and may i say the heat is definitely out of the kitchen. I have had a hard time formalizing a post mainly because like some have stated, i feel inadequate to post such gibberish when you are in a group of excellent poets and writers who probably have the dictionary memorized (what does juxtaposed mean anyway). So yeah my comments will be simple and simply stated with grammatical errors and spelling mishaps.
I liked this book. Technically we have another week of it. I did have to read my brother comments a few times to one understand it and two not be defensive. I understand his points. I defiantly don't want to make God trite or less of who he is. But I also like the way Young described God and most of the time I liked the answers he gave to Macks questions. When I think of this book in the context that it was written, it makes sense. (I wont rehash it because on this blog has been two posts with the story of how it was written.) Young is writing this in response to tragedy in his life. This may not be how we would have written this story, but it’s how he either imagines God and a weekend with him or maybe it is a depiction of an actual event. That is between the author and God.
What i think is at the center of all this like/dislike agreement/disagreement is the response that we as religious...dare i say Christians are touting this book. Are we saying this is an interesting view and a good story? Or are we touting this as the new gospel and something to hang our hat on religiously? Theologically there may be some flaws with this book. And by all means, I’m sure it’s not the best when it comes to how its written from a writers point of view(im sure there is a better way to say he didn’t write it well). But also in its context it does give, in my opinion, some beautiful ideas of heaven, of what reconciliation looks like, of how a relationship with God should be(i want to drink coffee and have pie with God), and what it means to forgive. These are concepts that we all struggle with and I like how Young described them.
So will I recommend it to others? Sure. It was an easy and enjoyable book and i didn't need a dictionary to understand it...unlike some of your posts. :)
Forgot to add this note to Terry:
I hope that you continue to join us in our reading room. I understood your sarcasm and liked it(mainly becasue it was at my brother...shhh dont tell him). :) But seriously, I did agree with you that the criticism did get a little out of hand and I was sure that your attacks were not ment to hurt feelings but rather to give a counter point. I for one would like for you to come back anytime and read books along with us. HECK I DARE YOU!!! You can become a new friend from a distant land(since we dont know where your from) who joins us on our reading adventures. I'm sure not all the books that we will read will be this contriversal and I for one like to see difference of opinions. So I for one in the spirit of forgiveness,(a theme in the Shack you know) say all is forgiven. Now JOIN OUR GROUP>>>I DARE YOU!!! :P
As I just got back from happy hour, Nichole, and am happy even on a Tuesday eve I'd be down with another, and now that we are all healed and at peace once again in our happy little bloggy book club, we can continue once more into the brilliant sunsets of written dialogue. (no matter how much we disagree/agree and can't really get the point across w/o the dear 90% that makes up non-verbal communication)
I want to say Juxtaposed just to say it because its a cool word. Good call Schell.
Schell, my Belle, I love you! Right on.
Terry, we love you, too, and most of that was just taking up for a brother (who also happens to be my husband (a good husband, who is very hot and kind)). Seriously, please do come back. We're reading Annie Dillard next, and she'll have us all lying on our backs in our backyards at 2:00 in the morning. Send me an email, and I'll get you on the list, and do you seriously want me to erase your comment?
Post a Comment