The Shack 5

1. So we finish reading the The Shack today.

• Review of 1-53 here
• 53-103 here
• 104-150 here
• 151-193 here

2. Chapter 14 deals with the contrast between law and grace. Here are some of the statements that give you the gist: "The Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus" (197). "Religion is about having the right answers... But I am about the process that takes you to the living answer" (198). "Don't look [in the Bible] for rules and principles; look for a relationship--a way of coming to be with us."

Here are some more: "Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse" (203). "Enforcing rules... is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty."

There is much that I believe is true in these statements. A "legal" or "law and order" mindset is not the mind of Christ. The legalistic mindset "has fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). There may be many who will say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we keep the law in your name," and Jesus will tell them that they never knew him. I suspect there will be some who preached many a legalistic sermon on holiness who will not be in the kingdom of God because they did not truly love their neighbor and therefore did not truly love God.

I do think Young may have a slightly one-sided view of Paul's ethic, but I think he is more right than wrong. Augustine put it this way: "Love God and do what you want." What Augustine was saying is that if you truly love God, you will want to do things that glorify and please him. You will want to love your neighbor as yourself, not because it is a rule but because it is your heart.

3. In chapter 15, Mack reconciles with his father. After finishing the book, I am wondering if Mack really did murder his father. He puts poison in his dad's bottles, but he later only says that his father drank himself to death. It seems to me that God would have helped Mack deal with that event if he had actually caused his father's death.

In this chapter, though, Young tries to portray a heavenly scene of sorts. He does his best and you might think of some of the fantastical pictures in Ezekiel and Revelation. In this encounter, he meets his father and reconciles with him.

The implication seems to be that his father is in the kingdom of God. Many have wondered at this point if Young is implying a certain universalism, that everyone will be saved. Could be. I respect those who feel this way, although I cannot reconcile it myself with the biblical texts. But I understand that it is hard to balance God's mercy and justice. I think those who take an extreme view of mercy are more true to God's character than those who take an extreme view of justice.

But Young never says that everyone will be saved, and he does not tell us the details of how Mack's father's final moments played out. He does make it clear at the end that every knee will bow and every tongue confess at the end that Jesus is Lord (248).

4. On Sunday morning (note the implicit allusion to the resurrection), Papa has changed from the image of a black woman, to a man with silver-white hair in a pony tail. The implication is that up to this point, because Mack wasn't reconciled with his father, he had difficulty relating to God as Father.

God and Mack go up the mountain to find Missy's body. I thought of Abraham and Isaac going to make sacrifice in Genesis 22. The killer had left a trail for himself, a red arc. I don't know what symbolism was intended. I thought of the rainbow in Genesis after the flood, and about the blood of Christ.

Near the top of the mountain, Mack forgives his daughter's killer. "Forgiveness is not about forgetting," God tells him. "It is about letting go of another person's throat" (224). "Forgiveness does not establish relationship" (225). "Only some choose relationship." "Forgiveness does not excuse anything," God says (226).

Mack will have to declare forgiveness over and over. It will become easier "the third day" (227). (spoiler) The killer is found in the end, and Mack continues to forgive him.

5. I suspect this book will be therapeutic for many who have experienced great pain and grief. You can live the story and live forgiveness as you move through it.

6. They bury Missy's body, although only in whatever place Mack is in. A "tree of life" can now grow in the garden of Mack's soul where Missy has been laid to rest.

God in three persons and Mack have a kind of final communion--wine and bread. Then it was over.

As he heads home, he is hit by a drunk driver and awakes in the hospital. It is still Friday, leaving us to wonder if this was all something he experienced in a coma. However, we are led to believe that he did actually try to drive up to the shack and the red arc allows them to actually find Missy's remains.

A key moment is when Mack helps his daughter Katie forgive herself. She had been blaming herself for Missy's kidnapping.

7. A fun read. Here are my main take-aways:

• The picture of God as love in this story is far more true to God's character than the opposite portrayal, which practically sees him as a slave to some abstract law of justice.
• I think the book gives us the best answer to the problem of suffering and evil--we just have to trust that God is good and that we do not have a good vantage point or sufficient information to know why he allows what he does. We just have to trust him.
• God has granted a large amount of freedom to humanity and his creation. He does not orchestrate everything that happens, although nothing happens without his permission. And he weaves many an evil or painful occurrence into a tapestry of goodness.
• We must love even someone who commits the most horrendous acts, because God loves them too. He would like everyone to be saved. A "law and order" attitude is often a tool of the Devil.
• This is just a novel. It sparks some very meaningful discussions. For many, it will be deeply therapeutic in a helpful sense. But don't take it too seriously. Take what God has to say to you and leave the rest. :-)

Blessings!

The Shack 4

1. I'm almost done reading The Shack, with just 50 pages left to read tomorrow. The first day is here, the second here, and the third here.

2. Chapter 11 is the turning point of the book. Mack follows a path into a rock face where there is great darkness within and he faces the "great sadness" of his life. I think this space may represent not only the darkness of Mack's own life but also the tomb of Jesus.

Notice the timing of the visit to the shack. Mack has arrived there mid-day on Friday. He will leave on Sunday. So Saturday is the day that Jesus is in the tomb. "Lo, in the grave he lay, Jesus, my Savior."

3. We find out eventually that the woman who leads him through this darkness is "Sophia," which is the Greek word for wisdom. We learn in the next chapter that "Sophia is a personification of Papa's wisdom" (171). That's good biblical theology, and Mack references Proverbs 8. There are of course some who talk about wisdom as if she is a being distinct from God the Father, but Young is spot on with wisdom as a personification of one of God's attributes, not as a distinct being.

4. Wisdom reiterates to Mack that God loves all people equally, like a parent should love each of his or her children equally. Wisdom says this curious statement: "It is the knowing that grows and love simply expands to contain it. Love is just the skin of knowing" (155). I think what he's saying is that we get to know our children better in relationship and our love continues to cover that new knowledge. Interesting thought, although, of course, this is a novel. :-)

The base of Mack's problem, Wisdom reveals to him, is that he does not trust God. He does not trust that God loves him or his people. Wisdom says that Mack is there for Judgment, which for a moment terrifies him. But, she reveals, Mack is the one who is serving as the judge.

Mack has judged God as the source of evil, she helps him see (I thought of Job here). To help him see how absurd that is, she suggests that Mack must choose two of his children to spend eternity with God, and another three to spend in hell. Mack of course cannot do it, and finally pleads that he go to hell in their place.

Her point is clear. God does not want anyone to go to hell. He does not send people there by his own design. In fact he sent Jesus to die for us. Through Jesus death and resurrection, "I am now fully reconciled to the world" (192). God doesn't mean that everyone is reconciled to him because "reconciliation is a two way street." What God means is that "I have done my part."

5. Wisdom declares that evil is "not his doing" (164). God often doesn't stop it. "He doesn't stop a lot of things that cause him pain." "It is you humans who have embraced evil and Papa has responded with goodness" (165). God "chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love" (164).

"Just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn't mean I orchestrate the tragedies," Papa tells Mack (185). Similarly, "nobody knows what horrors I have saved the world from 'cuz people can't see what never happened" (190). "You demand your independence, but then complain that I actually love you enough to give it to you" (191). Then "out of what seems to be a huge mess, Papa weaves a magnificent tapestry" (176).

"True love never forces" (190) is the key concept here. "Love that is forced is no love at all." God allows evil because he loves us enough to let us have the independence we wanted, but we suffer because of it.

6. I hope we will hear more about this comment: "Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right" (169). Mack stops judging God in the middle of the dark rock, and he has "re-turned," turned back toward God. The novel will move toward healing from this point on.

7. Young gives us his sense of our final destiny as being "a new cleansing of this universe, so it will indeed look a lot like here" (177). This is actually good biblical theology. Despite a lot of popular talk about heaven, most of the New Testament looks to eternity in "new skies and new earth." The new Jerusalem of Revelation comes down to a new earth, and Jesus eats with us as people on earth come from north, south, east, and west in the kingdom.

8. Young has some very negative things to say about the church as an institution. "I don't create institutions--never have, never will" (179). God is about relationships. Young calls religion, politics, and economics the "man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about" (179).

I am not as negative as he is toward hierarchies and institutions. In this he and I probably disagree. Nevertheless, I understand that these are regularly tools of evil and oppression. This quote at the beginning of the chapter by Blase Pascal is very striking and unfortunately often true: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction" (171).

Young's goal for participation in institutions, politics, and economics, it would seem, is to be "in it and not of it." I can buy that.

9. Young is fairly controversial on p.182. Here's the key quote. Jesus says, "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa."

Mack rejoins this question: "Does that mean... that all roads will lead to you?" Jesus responds, "Not at all." He clarifies: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you" (182).

What is Young trying to say here? First I notice the past tense in several of these sentences. "They were Buddhists or Mormons." They "were murderers." Does he mean before they died? Does he mean before they changed and "re-turned"? He hasn't addressed it yet, but it seems pretty clear that Mack murdered his father when he was a boy. I thought of 1 Corinthians 6:11--"that is what some of you were."

On the one hand, Young is distancing himself from pluralism--all roads lead equally to God. His imagery suggests that Jesus is the way. When Young distances Jesus-followers from the word Christian, he is protesting religion and religiosity, not being a Christ-follower. He is at least suggesting that Jesus can find anyone in the world, no matter what road they may start out on.

I don't know if he is espousing the idea of "anonymous Christians." This is the idea that, while Jesus is the only way, there may be people whose heart is following Christ without their head knowing it.

That's probably enough for today. Lord willing we finish the novel tomorrow!

The Shack 3

1. This is my third day reading The Shack, reading 50 pages a day over lunch. The first day is here, the second here.

2. I won't complain about the meal scene. This is after all a novel. Is the picture of God as a black woman too stereotypical of what black women are supposed to be like? The image did make me a little uncomfortable in the first scene with Elousia, but I think Young had no ill intention.

There is some fun humor. Mack closes his eyes to pray and then realizes that God is right in front of him. He opens his eyes and says thank you. :-)

Young tries to make it clear that the three persons are all one God. If Jesus is there then they all are there. If he is talking to the Spirit he is talking to Papa. He tries to depict the devotion of each of the persons to each other. On the whole I think he does a good job. This is, after all, a novel, and he always leaves open the possibility that this is something going on in Mack's head, not the real Trinity.

3. There is talk about the Trinity limiting themselves in conversation with Mack. They know everything, but they "are not bringing it to mind, as it were" (106), so that they can have a real conversation with Mack. We can debate the details. I like the idea that God talks with us as we might talk with a child, knowing much more than we are acting like we know, so that the child can have a conversation on his or her level. This is how I picture God in conversation with Adam in the Garden.

4. Mack spends some time with Jesus in chapter 8, a chapter cleverly called, "God on the Dock." Jesus and Mack spend some time on a dock, and this is close to the name of a book by C. S. Lewis on the problem of evil. :-) Jesus feels more tangible to Mack, which makes sense because "I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu." Some may want to debate the word "best" and suggest "only" might be better. [1]

Jesus explains the names. Elousia is a combination of El (a Hebrew name for God in the OT) and the Greek word ousia, which means "being." Sarayu is the Sanskrit word for "wind." Again, Young seems to be flirting with the possibility that some Hindus before Christ might have been reaching out for God without knowing about Jesus. I wonder if Young will clarify what he is thinking here at some later point.

5. Chapter 8 has some interesting thoughts. God's anger "is an expression of love all the same. I love the ones I am angry with just as much as those I'm not" (119). This seems theologically correct to me.

Then there is the question of hierarchy in the Trinity: "We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship" (122). This is of course the point of view of historic, orthodox Christianity since the 300s.

There are certainly large segments of evangelical Christianity that see the Trinity as hierarchical, drawing on passages like 1 Corinthians 15:28. Most of these discussions become heated because the Trinity is seen as a proxy for discussions of hierarchy in marriage. I personally don't see that marriage relationships necessarily need to follow the Trinity, since my wife and I aren't God. :-)

6. Chapter 8 begins to get into the problem of evil. Young's solution is in fact what I believe the best solution is. We need to trust that God is good and that "there are millions of reasons to allow pain and hurt and suffering rather than to eradicate them" (125). We as finite humans just aren't in a position to know them.

7. I found chapter 9 fascinating. The Holy Spirit and Mack tend to a garden, which evokes images of the Garden of Eden but in the end we find out is the garden of Mack's soul. It is a mess, which the Spirit finds wonderful. Things are constantly being uprooted and newly planted. It is hard work for Mack and at times painful (evoking I thought Adam working by the toil of his brow). But there is purpose in the mess.

Independence seems to be portrayed as the root of human sinfulness. Rather than rely on God, we try to go it on our own. And rather than love each other, we seek autonomy. Evil is seen as the absence of good rather than a thing (Augustine).

There is an interesting exchange about whether Eden was real or a myth. The Holy Spirit tells Mack that it was indeed real. But for those who think it is only a myth, "Their mistake is not fatal. Rumors of glory are often hidden inside of what many consider myths and tales" (134). :-)

8. This is a really clever novel at points. The imagery and allusions are fun but not forced. I could see using it as a secondary text in a theology class as a discussion starter. Jesus and Mack walk on water in chapter 10. :-)

In the discussion between Jesus and Mack in chapter 10, Jesus says that God could fix the world immediately, but then the story would end before it was consummated (145). "To force my will on you... is exactly what love doesn't do." Of course I think this is mostly true right now. I do believe God will force his will on everyone at the Judgment. Don't know how Young will handle that yet.

Jesus suggests that God also submits to humanity. It is mutual submission all the way around, including in the family. I think I get what he's saying. If God lets us have our way sometimes, that is like submitting to us (not sure I like the idea of God submitting to us, though). Of course as an egalitarian I believe in mutual submission in marriage as the ideal.

Some interesting thoughts on husband-wife relationships. I won't agree or disagree. He suggests that the man turned to work and the wife to the husband in the Fall (only for him to rule over her). Both are supposed to face God equally.

He also rejects WWJD, saying that Jesus' life was not supposed to be an example to copy. Not sure I know all of what he is trying to say. I actually do like WWJD as a model, although I agree that everyone has a different idea of who Jesus was. :-)

[1] Did Job relate to God through Christ directly? Did Abraham relate to God through Christ directly? Won't debate those questions here.

The Shack 2

1. Yesterday I started reading The Shack. I'm trying to read 50 pages a day over lunch to finish this week.

So today (spoiler) we learn that Mack's daughter has been horrifically murdered. In the meantime, God ("Papa") has sent him a note inviting him to the shack where they discovered her blood.

2. So the theological analogy starts pretty heavy when we hit chapter 5. There are a couple of theological items prior to that I might mention. I forgot to mention yesterday the interchange on p.31 between Mack and his daughter Missy before she is murdered. She says, "Is the Great Spirit another name for God--you know, Jesus' papa?" Mack responds, "I would suppose so. It's a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great."

I'm wondering if we'll hear more on the issue this alludes to--is it possible to worship God by another name when you don't know the name of Jesus. I'll leave the issue lie until some later point.

3. I thought some sentences on pp.65-66 were interesting: "In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects."

If you know me, you probably know that this made me smile. We Wesleyans and Pentecostals--like the apostle Paul--don't believe that spiritual gifts, revelations, and miracles ended when John wrote the final nu in the book of Revelation. So preach it Young on God's continued communication with his people! Also, as a Bible scholar, I am firmly convinced that the New Testament authors not only read the OT literally but that they also often read it spiritually.

If you have to get a PhD in Bible to hear God's voice, pretty much all Christians through all church history are lost.

4.  I'm sure the portrayal of God the Father as a black woman, Jesus as a Middle-Eastern man, and the Holy Spirit as a hard-to-focus-on Asian woman was hard for some to handle, but the author makes it clear that these are not fixed forms. "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... After what you've been through, you couldn't very well handle a father right now, could you?" (93).

I mentioned in my first post that God is not literally gendered, because he doesn't have genitalia and is Spirit. So I appreciate the way the author has tried to shake us from thinking God is a white male. The author is "trying to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning" (93). I suspect we'll hear later what Young was getting at by the names Elousia and Sarayu (I have guesses).

5. God is omniscient--Elousia knows everything. Check. √ Yet Mack is also free to do whatever he wants. "Just because I know you're too curious to go, does that reduce your freedom to leave?" (94). There's some dance with the question of foreknowledge and free will here. Elousia suggests that freedom is complicated, and I suspect we'll hear more about it later.

Suffice it to say, the Wesleyan tradition does not believe that foreknowledge implies determinism. I have no problem with both believing that God knows all the details of the future and yet does not fully determine it.

6. Elousia has scars on her wrist as Jesus does, so there is perhaps some flirting with patripassianism, a minor heresy that suggests God the Father suffered on the cross with Jesus. I don't know if that's what Young is getting at or not. I do agree with him that God did not turn his face away from Jesus on the cross. "Regardless of what he [Jesus] felt at that moment, I never left him" (96).

That is indeed what I believe, despite a lot of pop theology about God the Father turning away. I actually believe that Young is giving us orthodox theology here, despite how popular it is to think of the Father turning away from Jesus on the cross. I hope we get to unpack why "turning away" theology is bad theology in the pages to come.

7. Finally, there is the idea that Jesus "has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything" (99). I don't know about never (in terms of while he was on earth), but I do believe that Jesus played it by the human rules while he was on earth (e.g., note the wording of Acts 2:22). The miracles he did, his ability to be victorious over temptation--these are all possible for all those who trust in him through the power of the Holy Spirit. One of the things Jesus did on earth is show us what it means to be truly and fully human.

Good theology there, in my opinion. Notice that in both Acts and Paul, "God raised him from the dead." I can't think of a place in Acts or Paul where it reads, "He arose."

Notice the careful wording in The Shack: "Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone" (italics mine). I don't know all of what Young is suggesting, but in his humanness, I suspect this is good theology. Of course I believe that Jesus in his divinity could have healed, but he didn't choose to access that power during his earthly ministry, as far as we can tell from the Synoptic Gospels.

8. There's some theology about love in the Trinity (101). Love needs an object, so the love in the Trinity makes it possible for God to be love. I suspect it goes well beyond Scripture, but it is orthodox. :-)

The Shack 1

1. I'm ten years late to the game, but the movie that has just come out makes me think I should finally give The Shack a read. Since the IWU Marion campus is on Spring Break (I'm not), I thought I could read the book over lunch this week.

So I took the book off our shelf (it's my wife's copy) and read the first 50 some pages today. Many know the story (spoiler). A young daughter goes missing (so far)...

There hasn't been much theology yet, but I did notice a couple interesting points in the first 50 that I thought I would mention today:

2. The first comes in the Foreword. I thought this paragraph was particularly important: "Memory can be a tricky companion, especially with the accident, and I would not be too surprised... if some factual errors and faulty remembrances are reflected in these pages. They are not intentional" (13).

What I think William Young is getting at here is a recognition that when you are talking about God, we cannot hope to get it all right. Indeed, those who think they have God all figured out are probably the last people you should listen to. The hit on the head is a masterful touch--who would dare write a novel where the voice of God in that novel pretended to be the direct voice of God?

3. A second point of interest came from the imagery of the Multnomah princess dying for her tribe. "Honey, she didn't have to die. She chose to die to save her people" (30). Similarly the follow-up: "Jesus didn't think his daddy was mean. He thought his daddy was full of love and loved him very much. His daddy didn't make him die. Jesus chose to die because he and his daddy love you and me and everyone in the world. He saved us from our sickness, just like the princess." (31).

No complaints here. On the one hand, I imagine it annoys some for the symbol for Jesus in the legend to be a princess, but my strand of the Wesleyan tradition has no problems here. God has no penis or genitalia. He is not literally male. Nor does my strand of the Wesleyan tradition believe that Jesus had to come to earth as a man. God could just as well have come to earth as a woman. So no problems with that part of the symbolism for us.

4. Certainly the Bible does not portray Jesus as having no choice in his death. He chooses to submit himself to the Father's will (e.g., Mark 14:36). God gives him the choice. Is there a possible world in which Jesus says no? I guess the orthodox answer is no, because in every universe Jesus' divine will follows the divine plan. [1] Of course Jesus is God, so the plan is his to begin with.

These last comments go beyond anything the biblical texts say. Without explaining the way it works, the Bible seems to affirm both that Jesus' death on the cross was part of God's plan and that Jesus' human will freely submitted to the plan.

So no heresies I can see yet...

[1] "Monothelitism," the belief that Jesus only had one will, was finally considered a heresy in the late 600s. The idea is that if Jesus truly has two natures (one divine and one human), then he also has two "wills," one divine and one human.