Episode 3: Book Review, "The Shack"

PAIGE'S TAKE:

This week we decided to review a book that we’ve both read. Jen frequently recommends books to me; so far I’ve read three she’s suggested. We read for different reasons and tend to read different genres: Jen reads for education, information and a bit of pleasure and I tend to read solely for pleasure with an occasional jump into trying to inform myself. Her ‘pleasure’ reads are Judy Piccoult; mine are Nora Roberts. So, it’s a bit remarkable that I’ve enjoyed two of the books she’s recommended; the other one was kind of a “maybe”. (By the way, I still have about three others I may never get to read as there just aren’t enough hours to read between laundry, Facebook, and being a mom.)

There was quite a discussion that ensued over the theme and spirituality of the book; and whether works of religious fiction should go so far as to change the scope and accuracy of the God outlined in the Bible. As I read for fiction I was pretty certain I wouldn’t find the book blasphemous or sacrilegious; I have, in comparison, read the “Left Behind” series; which cannot under any suggestion be considered anything but fiction with some truth interwoven in their pages.

I don’t believe any modern writer can adequately write a book dealing with the certainty of God’s character, meaning, teachings or truths without involving a bit of their own fiction and personal beliefs of God. God chose to directly intervene and speak to the writer’s of the true Bible, using his voice and his power – I don’t believe modern authors can claim that same authenticity without a bit of skepticism being considered by any reader.

People of any faith (or no faith), believers or not, should read any book pertaining to religion, with a bit of doubt; as a starting point to study and learn more about the subject they are reading about. History books are not to be taken at face value; websites, news articles and many publications are usually written with a great deal of bias, as well as truth (I won’t quantify the amount of truth – it will depend on the author, the facts and research used and the subject). So, if a book presents a specific belief, it should not be taken at face value, but investigated and verified using true sources of knowledge – a dictionary, Bible dictionary, a Hebrew translator, a trusted pastor or your own insight and / or knowledge of God.

When Jen recommended this book to me, I was fairly certain I wouldn’t like it, but within a few pages I was pretty swept up in the story. Writing style is a lot to me and the characters were likeable and real. The story itself is set in the Pacific Northwest, so the visual descriptions were easy to imagine as well as mind-pictures I could identify from personal experience.

*POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT???*

Mack had a horrid childhood and it’s remarkable to me that he seems to have a fairly “normal” adult life; a stable marriage to a hard-working, Christian woman, and children than are well-liked, friendly and with no obvious issues, until the “Great Sadness” hits their lives. He doesn’t seem to have a close relationship with God, but he’s not completely against the idea or availability of God, either.

Over the course of one weekend, Mack has an opportunity to speak with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit through an invitation he receives in the mailbox. The three are personified in a complex and interwoven personality that clearly explains and yet completely mystifies the reader and Mack. There is clarity in the discussions with the three that explains, although in human knowledge, the beauty, the intricacy and the power of God that I think many search for but may not find through church, relationships with others and solely reading the Bible. Throughout the weekend, Mack comes to grips with religion, salvation, relationships, love, grace and learns to heal and grow because of his past and into what can be his future.

This is a very deep book with a lot of religious and spiritual teachings that would benefit a great many Christians in their lives. It is troubling that the author uses gender to assign personality to the Triune, although I know that as humans we tend to personalize God (and the trinity) in male format; Biblically, God is always referred to in the male pronoun. I have to say that I appreciate the author’s vision of the trinity and the explanation that each character of the triune gives for their appearance in their meetings with Mack. I’m not sure that Mack, in his pain and struggles with religion and family would have accepted any other appearance of the God-head than what was presented. Through his time with the three; his healing begins and he is more able to relate to the God that we all associate and characterize.

There is some profound wisdom regarding friendships and relationships that make the book far more than just a ‘religious’ book or retelling of a story; fascinating in the intricate yet simple ways we relate with others as well as God.

I would not recommend this book to a person looking for God or struggling with God’s power in their life; although those may be the exact people the story was written to touch. It IS a fictional account; although the author says it’s based on a true story.

I would however recommend this book to someone who is searching for a deeper meaning of God – although it should be remembered that my opinion is that it is not a book written by God through the author, it is the author’s perception of a man’s struggle with God and our identity in God.

JEN'S TAKE

Whenever the entire world reveres a “Christian” novel, I’m exceptionally wary. When a “Christian” novel jumps to the top of the national bestseller list, I’m nervous. After all, Jesus told us that if the world agrees with us, we’re doing it wrong. If the world hates us, we’re doing it right. (That’s reassuring since I’m frequently hated.)

And so it is with “The Shack” by William P. Young. For three years or so I’ve avoided reading this book for the reason above. Though reviews from friends and family have been along the lines of “This book changed my life” and “I’ve never understood God until I read this book”, the skeptic (see above) in me refused to read it.

Then it came up in a “What are you reading” discussion on Facebook, and though I’d never read it, I went off about the horrible doctrine and absurd theology contained within. But I’m smart enough to know that an argument won’t hold water unless I have something to tread with, so I admitted I hadn’t read the book, and that I would read it to see if my opinion had changed.

(I was, I have to admit, insulted when a Facebook friend asked me within the discussion “Do you read much fiction?” as if to imply that I couldn’t possibly understand that this book was fiction and, therefore, the bad theology could be discarded. More on that later.)

I read it.

My opinion did not change.

(Stop reading here if you haven’t read the book because it’ll likely be spoiled for you. If you’re ok with that, continue. You’ve been warned.)

The premise of the book is a man, Mack, wrestling with a grief he’s been unable to shake since his 6-year-old daughter was abducted and presumed murdered a few years before. (Disclaimer: I am not implying his grief should be shaken, not at all. I’ve never lost a child and can’t presume to know how it would feel at any given hour or moment. I imagine that, like Mack, I’d likely hate the killer for a good long time.) So a few years after the abduction, Mack arrives home one afternoon to find a note in his mailbox. It implores him to meet him at “the shack” and is signed “Papa.”

(I found it odd that Mack instantly believed that the note came from God. I mean, really? I mean, we knew that his own father was dead, but to automatically assume that “Papa” was God was a jump that I don’t think we were ready to make. But I digress.)

So let’s continue. Mack. Note. God. He gets this note and, after a discussion with a friend, decides to go to the shack. To meet God. (The shack is a rundown building in the middle of nowhere in Oregon where it’s assumed his daughter’s murder took place.) But he feels he can’t tell his wife so he lies to her while she’s away with their other children. He lies to his wife about going to see God. Mmmmkay.

So he borrows a jeep, works his way through the Oregon wilderness, and arrives at the shack, looking for God. He is greeted by—I am not making this up—a big black woman (my aunt told me to think of Della Reese in “Touched By an Angel” and I have to agree that’s an accurate description). This—this big black Della Reese looking woman—is God.

Really.

Now. I’m not saying that God does not appear in human form, or that God cannot appear however He needs to appear. This is true, to a point; it may be that when He “appears” to us as someone we have known or loved, for example, He’s not sending you Himself, He’s sending you that person, with a message from Him. But I digress

But. God. Is. Not. A. Woman.

Regardless of your “interpretation” as to whether or not God is actually genderless (He is genderless but there is a reason He is referred to as a “father” and not as a “mother” in the Bible) it’s a form of blasphemy to attempt to give definition to God.

Ok, fine. But this is fiction you say. (Or, at least, my FB friend suggested…with the implication that I, a writer and holder of an English degree, could not distinguish fiction from non.)

And I think that’s really the crux of the whole debate for me: just because something is fiction, must it still hold to good theology and doctrine? Does it make a difference if the work is fiction or not if the theology is bad?

I argue no, and my gut says that Paige is going to argue yes.

Paige will say that, if that’s the case, every book ever written will be blasphemous, heretical, and full of false doctrine. I’m not so sure that’s the case. Every book ever written is not selling itself as an allegorical story of forgiveness, salvation, and redemption, as “The Shack” is doing. I mean, if I pick up a romance novel (and I don’t know anyone…cough cough, Paige…who reads those regularly) I’m not expecting the hero with robust loins to be patterned after my Lord and Savior, and I’m not expecting the heroine to represent all of fallen mankind. That’s the difference. People have been writing allegory for centuries, and I am and have been perfectly fine with that. It’s just that usually when writing allegory, one does not give a Godly name and human shape to the being meant to be the allegorical savior. Furthermore, not all fiction is directly about God the father and His relationship with both Jesus and us. It’s that distinction that I believe sets “The Shack” apart from all other fiction, even Christian fiction, and it may be where Paige and I disagree.

In “The Shack”, Papa is not only meant to represent God, but the author tells us point blank that Papa is God. And the author also gives human form to Jesus—certainly fine, because, after all, Jesus was God in human form; and to the Holy Spirit, an Asian woman who floats through the scenes. It is her that perhaps leaves the greatest effect on Mack, and it’s her personification that I think I take the greatest issue with. The thing about the Trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit—is that we are not meant to understand it. In the Bible, God never even describes Jesus but to give details regarding where He was born and his heritage, which can lead one to imagine what He may have looked like. The reason God doesn’t tell us what God looks like, or why He doesn’t give definition to the Holy Spirit (other than the fact that it is, you know, a spirit), is because we’re simply not meant to know. And to claim that we do know, or even to pretend we know, is blasphemy at worst, heresy at best.

There were certainly things that I did not take issue with in this book. The overall theme of forgiveness and letting go is one that I think everyone needs to be exposed to. It’s difficult to forgive someone who has hurt us so badly, and I think someone would be lying if they said they’d never had trouble forgiving someone, and not many people have gone through what Mack has, to be honest.

So I get that. I get that it’s a powerful theme, and one that probably needs to be explored on a deeper level and on a regular basis. I get that what we are supposed to take away from the book is not, in fact, the possibility that God could be a black woman (He’s not), that Jesus claims He doesn’t care about sin (He does), and that the Holy Spirit is in fact flesh and blood and a woman who speaks with an Asian accent (it’s not).

But I worry. I worry that someone who reads this book who is not well-versed (no pun intended) in the Scriptures or doesn’t even really have a solid understanding of what is and isn’t sound doctrine, if a Christian, is going to come away from this book thinking that William P. Young’s (fictional) God—the God who says sin is its own punishment and there is, therefore, no hell; the God who says that all people of all faiths eventually wind up with Him anyway; the God who loves with the love of a nurturing mother and not a loving father (and if you think there is no difference and that a parent is just a parent you are dead, dead wrong)—is the God they worship. And I fear if they believe this is the God they worship, they’ll wind up in hell rather than the heaven they believe in. (Of course, they wouldn’t think there was a hell or that people go there, so….) I worry even more, though, for those that read this book—more than likely the majority of readers—who are not Christian will get “saved” through this book. They’ll be saved without a mention of the Gospel, without a mention of the Garden of Eden and our basic need for salvation, without an understanding of what God can do for us. Instead, they’ll be saved into a faith where they spend more time thinking about what they can do for God. That sort of faith implies God needs us. He doesn’t. If He did, He would not be God.

As my pastor is fond of saying, what you win them with will be what you win them to. And for that, because of this book, I am fearful.

Why Get Married?

This week, Jen and I wanted to talk about why marriage is important and why 'everyone' wants to be married. 

Jen's Voice:

          When my husband and I were dating, 12 years ago, I remember one morning he was over at my apartment before work.  (No, he hadn't slept there, he came over to…well, I can't even remember. But we didn't live together.  He'd often come by in the mornings and we shared most meals together in the evening too.)  Anyway, we were brushing our teeth in my bathroom and he said to me, with a mouthful of toothpaste, "Some day we'll be doing this in the nude."  My silly 22 year old self thought that sounded great.  We laughed and thought about how cool that would be, said goodbye, and went to work.

         

          Well you know what?  12 years later, 10 years into our marriage, most days we're fighting over the one bathroom in our house so we can brush our teeth in private.  The only time we ever see each other nude is when we…well…need to.  If you get my drift.  (Even that, really, you just need to be *partially* nude…and if the lights are out, that's a big bonus.) 

         

           All that to say, that *feeling*, that "Holy cow, we could do this naked and be married and have SO much fun" feeling, it wears off.  There will come a time when you'll think "My gosh, if I have to look at that man one more second today…" and your thought won't really complete itself.

         

            I think a lot of people go into the idea of wanting to be married thinking that it's always going to be like it is right now.  In fact a celebrity (if I may use that term loosely) said recently of her broken engagement, "The best your marriage is going to be is how it is when you're dating" and the problem is that I think most people *believe* that, which accounts for not only the astronomical divorce rate, but the rampant desire (almost infatuation-ish) homosexuals have for marriage.  They want what they feel NOW for the REST. OF. THEIR. LIVES.

         

          That's simply not going to happen.

         

          So here's the thing:  marriage is HARD.  Marriage takes work, every minute of every day.  Marriage is not just about getting to brush your teeth in the nude with that person whenever you want.  (Really, who wants that?  Ick.)  Marriage is not about fulfilling your sexual desires.

         

           (I'll give that a minute to sink in.)

         

           And that's where my opposition to gay marriage lies.  Ask any homosexual and they'll say "But this is who I'm *attracted* to."  They won't say "This is my soulmate" or "this is the person I can see myself growing old with" or anything else. They'll say "This is who I'm *attracted* to."  Well. Bully for you.  And I suppose, really, that that's my point.  At some point, people, it is statistically probable that you will no longer be *attracted* to your spouse, whether heterosexual or otherwise.  If that is your basis for wanting to be married, why should I grant you that "right". Most people--even heterosexual people--marry based on whom they are *attracted* to.  Twelve years ago, I thought the best thing in life would be to brush my teeth in the nude with my then-boyfriend/now-husband.

          I'm not down on marriage by any means.  I just don't think people who are fighting for marriage realize what it *is*.

          It's living with the same person and their same quirks year after year after bloody year.  Amazingly, in 10 years, my husband *still* has not learned how to close a cupboard door when he's done with it.  (I thought he would have learned that by now.)

          It's having children and, in doing so, watching any time you might have enjoyed spending as a couple being used, instead for his-and-hers alone-time type tasks.

          It's trying to remember all the cutesy things you did and said when you were dating and thinking "My gosh that was so long ago."

          It's trying to remember why you even wanted to *get* married in the first place, anyway.

          And it is loving your spouse through the weight gain, the wrinkles, the bad moods, the frustrations, the not being attracted to them anymore, the them not being attracted to you anymore, the open cupboard doors, the days where the children have left you curled up in a fetal position waiting for the men in white coats.

          You marry them because of who they are.  You marry them because of how they make you feel.  You stay with them, most of the time, in spite of who they are.  You stay with them in spite of how they make you feel. 

          But.  I could just be cynical.

          What is marriage to *you*? 

Paige's Voice:

“Mawwage is what bwings us togwether today....”

Why does marriage matter?  Why does anything really matter?  If everyone could have a Ferrari or a castle, would anyone find them appealing?  If what was available to only a few was granted to everyone, would it be as special or as important?

Originally, the purpose of marriage was to legally bind a man and a woman together for legal and property purposes, as well as children and wealth.  Love didn’t come into play in many marriages – in several countries marriages are still arranged by parents or family for the purpose of lineage or financial advantages.   

Not everyone could marry; but it wasn’t reserved just for wealthy or royals, either.  The Act of Marriage was a privilege sanctified by the laws of God and legalized by the laws of man.  Contracts were drawn up, vows were made, papers were signed, and witnesses were required.  Even elopements had regulations that were followed. 

So why do we romanticize marriage so much in modern day society?  Today marriage seems to be all about “love”.  I love this person, so the natural progression is to marry and have kids (although, sadly not always in that order).  But is marriage just about love; that gooey feeling that causes stars in your eyes and butterflies in your stomach? What happens, when that gooey feeling goes away? 

In the news (if you Google “Strange Marriages”) you’ll find people – humans – who have married: The Eiffel Tower, Himself, The Berlin Wall, A DS Game Character, a Fairground Ride, a dead ex-boyfriend, a pillow, a snake…. And the list goes on and on.  So, what was the reason they married these things?  They had formed an attachment to the item and felt attracted to remain with them forever.  (I’m not going to necessarily touch on the physical aspect of these relationships).  There was no intent, desire or possibility of having children with their new spouse.  There was no need to leave an estate or worldly possessions to that spouse – although I do know that people have left millions to their living animals – but they didn’t marry them to do so.

 Marriage is about more that the dating relationship; it’s a lifelong commitment to that other person.  To be a better person by being with them, caring for them, staying with them, loving them when neither of you deserved to be loved.  It’s about more than children – many couples don’t have children in their marriages and stay married forever. 

Marriage should be the give and take of everyday life.  Getting up in the morning because you’re the morning person, while your spouse is not; finishing the argument (or letting it go) because it’s really important to the other person.  Standing up for each other regardless of what the parents, kids or friends say.  Marriage is a lifetime commitment. Yes, I have friends that are divorced; and yes, there are valid reasons for divorce; but that’s not this post.

Marriage has been in the news because it’s been declared a right of all – not just for one man and one woman, but for any consenting adult that chooses to marry another consenting adult.  Those that oppose changing the description of marriage as being “between one man and one woman” are called religious extremists, haters, bigots, homophobes.  People who are in favor of changing the face of marriage forever are said to be people just fighting for their rights and equality.

If marriage is such an important entitlement, then I agree that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.  But that leads our country and our people down the banks to a very slippery slope of legal questions and rules.  As I see it, if we re-define marriage to include anyone who has a whim to marry, then the laws must be changed regarding gender, age and plurality  of marriage.  If marriage is no longer confined to one man and one woman (it IS STILL illegal in the United States to be a polygamist), then marriage will become available to all.   The consenting age would need to be changed to reflect the maturity age of a person, not just the chronological age on the cake.  And, as referenced in my opening paragraphs, who is to say that the pillow or the deceased boyfriend didn’t consent to the marriage anymore than marrying one’s goat or tractor?

The problem with equality is that not everyone is equal.  Not everyone has the same body or thoughts or beliefs or abilities.  Legalizing marriage for every person would do more than just damage the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, change the layout of the family and bring equality to minority groups.  It would completely destroy the necessity of marriage. 

So, I ask again, if everyone can do it, then why would anyone want to?