Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to say, this was a great fictional book but horrible in a doctrinal sense
June doesn't think it was the author's intention to write the book with any doctinal sense. In fact, she's pretty certain that his point was not to.
Which, according to June's understanding, was exactly the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist
If you're going to have God as a character in your fiction, then you must deal with God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.
June doesn't think so. It was a creative work of fiction, thus the author was free to adhere to nothing. --Other than, hopefully writing something worthy of getting published, if that was his intent. Which for most writers, would be...
(Which basically means that June doesn't know where to even start in terms of discussing this book!)
Start with the first chapter, June..I got the book today and will either try to finish it before the big discussion or I will just unsubscribe to this thread until I finish.then come back and read what you and Troop wrote..
Now, now, WC, never let it be said that June isn't down with the program! It's just that her June 7th brain isn't aways up to par at the end of a very, very long day...However, now that it is once again another day, and the dawn is soon to be sent to it's post, June will start at the beginning:
William Young may not have exacty written a nobel prize winning piece of literature here, but he's clever. He knows how to draw in an audience. June gives the author credt () for a great opening sentence that had her "compelled" right out of the gate with this book:
"Who wouldn't be skeptical when a man claims to have spent an entire weekend with God, in a shack no less?" -Young sets the tone not just for skeptics such as June, but for anyone who is looking to read a "plausible," linear written narrative, as that is not what the author promises. (Not that we, as the reader, necessarily know that.) He off-sets that, however, in his depiction of the protagonist as "quite ordinary, and certainly not anyone particularly special...unremarkable" such that one senses that Young is essentially opening the gate for saying that we, the ordinary, unremarkable reader(s) can be open to relatng to what is about to unfold. It's also a foreshadowing to the fact that Jesus became man both in the ordinary human sense, in order to save the ordinary of God's creation.
June more or less realized that whatever the purpose of this book, that ultimately some sort of conflict would be resolved by the end; that of Mack's relationship with his father. That was no accident on Young's part, as one couldn't help but smile and ask themselves which "father?" ("He swore he would never look back, and didn't.") He then proceeds to typify Mack as the "average" believer in his feelings and beliefs about his religion. Nothing out of the ordinary or outstanding there..Along with: "I suppose that since most of our hurts come through relationships so will our healing, and I know that grace rarely makes sense for those looking in from the outside," the central point of the book.
June liked the fact that the story is not told by Mack, himself, but rather, Willie. (Just as God tells his "story" through others, be it the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or other people...Just as the disciples narrated/wrote the gospels.) But the author also allows the reader to maintain their sense of skepticism in saying "Whether some parts of it are actually true or not, I won't be the judge" thereby allowing us to draw our own conclusions.
--And most of all, doing so by challenging the reader to enter into the magical wonder of his narrative in stating:
"Suffice it to say that while some things may not be scientifically provable, they can still be true nonetheless." <-----Yo, Troop? (Honest to God, June laughed out loud when she read that line, as she thought "Uh-oh!!")
-And with that, June must go and start her day...
Take it away Troop!
"Anyone?" "Anyone?"
Last edited by june 7th; 10-21-2008 at 04:33 AM..
Reason: Too early to write coherently...OR spell.
I think what initially drew me into reading The Shack was the fact that I had seen it mentioned in several book review portions of popular magazines as being a quick, easy read as well as a fascinating and provocative insight into the Christian faith. So, I think that more than anything I was hoping to finally sit down and read a book that explained exactly what it is that Christians believe about their faith. I know that so much, if not all, of the Christian faith is dependent on Christ but I was intrigued as to how the author was going to reconcile everyone's Christian faith into this book in so much as how the teachings of Christ could be extrapolated outwards into everyday life and what exactly it meant to be a Christian.
To be quite honest, I had no idea when I picked up the book that it was going to be what it was and as a result I had no idea how to approach the book while reading it. Should I approach it from the standpoint of "The Believing Christian", or the "Skeptical Atheist" or just a "Reader of Fiction/Literature"? As I began to read the book there were elements that made me feel as if I was going to have to sit down and read the book from the perspective of all three positions simultaneously. Call it "Troop's Holy Trinity of Book Reading" if you will. So, as luck would have it, I think I was able to get a firm grasp on exactly how it was that I interpreted the book but only because I had to approach it from three different angles. I don't feel that approaching it from one angle only would be proper given my own personal opinions on religion and God as well as my own difficulties with reading modern day fiction in general.
So, to start with I'd like to talk a little bit about how I sat down to read this from the perspective of a Christian even though I do not believe in God in the first place. First, I am rather familiar with the Bible, I have read it and have debated it on this forum for well over a year. So, I do indeed know the fundamental tenants and the teachings of Christ to the point where I feel confident I could approach it with sound doctrinal issues in mind and that's how I initially approached it. Yet, as I started to read the book, I found that my interpretations of Christ and God and his teachings seemed to be ever so slightly askew from the author's perceptions. With that in mind, I realized that in order for me to be "Christian" and read this book I was going to have to do it with the author's perception and his beliefs in mind as this was clearly a metaphor for what he believes in and what he feels are the answers to some of the most difficult questions; with one of them being "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?"
From my point of view as a "Christian" reading this book I found a certain amount of delight in Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. I certainly enjoyed their interactions with one another, the way they treated Mack, and I found that despite Mack's somewhat annoying short temper and hostility towards them that they never seemed to bat an eyelash at his anger. In fact, they received his anger with understanding and hope that reminded me what true love really is. I have to admit that from my "Christian" point of view I was happy to see that the Holy Trinity was well explained as that has always been an issue I struggled with in trying to understand. I found that for many years I have never been able to really put together the makings of the Holy Trinity with the best explanation being "an egg" with the yolk, shell, and the viscous fluid we call "the egg white". Yet, Papa, Jesus and Sarayu added a little bit of a more personal touch to the notions of the Holy Trinity and allowed me to visualize it from a more human level - one that is so much more fitting than trying to envision Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit as a piece of an egg shell or a yolk.
On top of that, I also appreciated the fact that while the Holy Trinity had all of the capabilities in the world to read Mack's mind, to force him to understand, and to make him do their bidding that they refrained from doing so and instead showed him the power of their love to help him understand and cope with the tragedy in his life. And they even explained that in what I thought was a fantastic line from page 145:
To force my will on you, Jesus replied, is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even your choices are not helpful or healthy. That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to him, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.
I came to realize that the submission Jesus was talking about is indicative of a two way street. That by submitting yourself to Jesus and the rest of the Holy Trinity that they too will submit and interact in your life but they will never force you to do anything just as you would not force them to do anything. To do otherwise would fail to be indicative of the love that any solid relationship would bring. In other words, any relationship, whether within the confines of a spiritual quest with God or something as simple as mere friendship is not about pushing your views and making others submit to your will but to find a mutual amount of respect and submitting to one another in a respectful way.
Above all, the teachings of the weekend away seemed to be copiously focused on the fact that God (as a trifecta) never forced Mack to do anything at all - and that goes down to Mack's decision to visit the shack in the first place. To walk with God over the weekend and to piece together a little slice of heaven seemed to enable Mack to truly understand the interactions and workings of God and the Holy Spirit - one that he was sufficiently able to love, submit to, and yet abide by his own free will within that realm.
As an aside, one of the fundamental questions that I think so many people, including Christians, seem to struggle with was given a valiant attempt at answering. "Why do bad things happen in the face of a God who cares so much?"
And again, the answer seemed to lie in those few short lines I quoted above on page 145. In order for there to be a true relationship with God, even flying within the face of everything opposite to what Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu seemed to represent, that they were willing to submit and allow human beings to do as they wish - because to do otherwise would not be indicative of a solid relationship of love. In essence, even by interfering in something so brutal and repugnant as the murder of Missy, that they would have interfered with not only the killer's free will to do so but they would have also crossed the boundaries of their relationship. And by doing so, they had upheld their part of the bargain in the relationship by not forcing the killer to submit to their will.
And even so, even as much as it seemed to pain Papa and the others in so much as who and what the killer was there was an amazing sense of forgiveness and love when Mack asked Papa if she had ever "not liked" one of her creations and her response was quite simple. "I've never met one I didn't love, Mack."
While there are so many other aspects and ways to interpret this book from a "Christian" perspective, I think that the core question we have to realize within it was how to reconcile such a disasterous and trying time with the love of God. And I think that from the author's perception and his view of the Christian lifestyle he does just that in not just saying "You have free will" but you have the free will and ability to encompass your lifestyle in one of equal submission and walks of God and that neither your will or the will of God will force you to do anything because that is a fundamental tenant and sign of true love.
Ultimately, I do believe that from a "Christian" perspective, if you are willing to accept the author's answers for the questions in Mack's life as well as the questions he poses to the Holy Trinity, that you need not flip through the pages of the Bible to ascertain a semblance of truth but are able to open your eyes and understand that this seems to be a different perspective and one of the better ones explaining the love of God as a whole.
Now that I have that out of the way, I would like to analyze the book from the "Skeptical Atheist" point of view. I must make note that I did not set out to rip the book to shreds or to bash it to pieces as that isn't really my intention. But, the book did raise several important questions and failed to answer some of my own questions - but again, it's important to keep in mind that we are reading the author's perceptions of his walk with faith and spirituality and not necessarily what is "The Truth".
To start with, and by responding to one of the opening lines as was mentioned by June, the author presents a captivating and almost daring line that says:
Suffice it to say that while some things may not be scientifically provable, they can still be true nonetheless.
I must say that this certainly captured my attention and not because I thought it was a strike at people like myself who lean more into the spectrum of wanting to prove things but more in the fact that while I think there are wondrous and noble elements to grandiose ideas and thoughts, that if they are unable to be proven we should not put our trust and faith in them. There are plenty of scientific theories for explanation that cannot be proven in the utmost of senses such as String Theory or Multiverse Theory and as confabulated and enthralled that I am with them, I do not believe in them or hold faith in them because I realize that they cannot be proven as of yet. For right now, they are in the best of senses, things I would love to hold a belief in but cannot bring myself to do for lack of evidence. And such is how I view notions of God.
Nonetheless, I was able to let that little remark slip by after a slight cringe and a pull off the bourbon bottle and I moved forward into the book to give it my best "go" as an Atheist reading the book.
I think that it would be unfair of me to criticize the reality of Mack's visit to the shack as something far fetched because after all, the book is fictional in the utmost of senses. So, to take a slightly different approach, I wanted to look at some of the main issues within the book and the way I view religion and God from the exterior to see if I could not reconcile my feelings about religion and God to the people who would be reading them - who I'm sure I've lost 99% of at this point.
I think that one of the most glaring things that struck out at me that I wish every single Christian could read in this book were actually two different quotes that seemed to carry the same message. A message that I have been fundamentally trying to scream about for years. On page 98, I wanted to highlight, underline, and italicize this passage:
The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn't much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I'm not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think.
And then on page 203, these sentiments seem to be reiterated when Mack asks Sarayu why humans like laws so much. Her response is as such:
It is much worse than that. It grants you the power to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse.
I think that for me this has been one of my largest problems with religion and belief in general. To think of these two passages side by side, it should give us a stunning clarification into exactly what is wrong with a belief in something without evidence. Because individuals are required to take a certain element of their belief in God, no matter how stoic and rigorous, on faith based elements - the propensity for falseness - I find that the very sentiments of religion and God, regardless of the intentions will always get in the way of logic and will stop at nothing to cross the boundaries of relationships that I mentioned from my "Christian Perspective."
In essence, if we are to look at what it means from the Holy Trinity's suggestion of equal submission that religion will always fail to do so because of a lack of evidence. It is with that in mind that I always hold my skepticism with high regards and regardless of how difficult it is for me to sometimes try and understand the other side I do make an effort at times (like reading this book.) I think that in order for this world to be a better place, that in order for people to stop doing the things that they do in the name of belief without evidence (faith, if you will) that they need to consider the thoughts and mindsets of what it means to be in a relationship and how being equally submissive in the same sense that they believe God is submissive will affect their life.
No one likes accusations, no one likes pandering or proselytization. Unfortunately, due to belief without evidence, the world will continue to interject their grandiose notions of egalitarian ego-centrism into what they believe. It's an excuse and if nothing else, it's taking advantage of something that actually COULD have the potential to be something decent.
It is with these notions that I often think that people misunderstand my sentiments of why I call God a brutal, wretched, demonic being. I didn't sit down and get that impression of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu when I read The Shack. I don't necessarily get that impression when I read the New Testament either - although there are some harsher elements I find a little strange. No, when I refer to God being a brutal, wretched, demonic being I am talking about all of the human characteristics that people project onto their God. The God of judgment, righteousness, and unfair loathing. The God who hates homosexuals, the God who decides political affairs, the God who starts wars - those things seem entirely different than the God of Papa, Sarayu, and Jesus.
Yet, only belief and belief alone can stoop to the lowest level of pandering to the ingrained notions that not only should it be respected but that it's worth interjecting a viewpoint over. I give the author of this book a tremendous amount of credit and praise for pointing that out and I only wish that people could read the book in the same fashion. That to cast your judgments and projections onto your God, you are becoming the judge and juror and there is no better excuse than "That's what I believe." It is not acceptable to me and I only wish that people would begin to understand that.
I must admit as well, that I was waiting for Mack to spring the question onto Papa or Jesus at some point and ask "What about hell?" But this question never came up. Not once was there any mention of judgment with the exception of Mack's visit to the cave when he asked to sacrifice himself so that his kids could go to heaven - an interesting metaphor for Jesus' death on the cross.
Overall, there is not much else to say from this side as I dutifully recognize the inherent fictional elements of the book and I also realize that on the same token, this book was a metaphor for what the author believes. In other words, it was his way of reconciling his belief without evidence and I think he's got quite a good view of things. So much more than what I see on these forums day in and day out. While I can't say the book did anything for me in terms of moving me towards believing in God, I can honestly say that the view of Papa, Sarayu, and Jesus is one that can be acceptable if we are to look at how non-judgmental they were. Yet, I must also admit, this is where I had problems with doctrinal issues in the Bible as opposed to the author's perception - because my understanding of the God of the Bible is one that does judge and, yes, condemns.
Finally, I'd like to comment on this from the perspective of a person who sometimes has difficulty reading fiction - especially that of modern day fiction - because I often find the substance of authorship to be quite lacking. With little fluidity and a lot of the "same ol' same ol" I often become frustrated with fiction so I tried to take this approach as if I were supposed to read it for a school book report to allow myself to analyze it. Overall, I can't say there was much to analyze in the first 100 pages other than the author setting the tone in the foreword of the book. He makes a reference to "the accident" which we find out at the end of the book was an accident that Mack was involved in on his way home from the shack and his weekend visit.
There are indeed several foreshadowing events in the book. Missy's fascination with the Native American girl jumping off the cliff to sacrifice herself seemed to bring forth an effervescent reality to what was going to happen in a short amount of time. Mack talks about "flying dreams" which happen to pop up in his stay at the shack as well.
But, aside from all of this, I'd like to give my thoughts on the book as a whole. I thought it was written in an easy to read format at something along the lines of a sixth grade reading level. It was an immensely fast read that I may have been able to finish in one sitting had I had any extra time. The tone was definitely set for Missy's death and the tragedy overall. I did find Mack to be slightly annoying with his attitude towards God and his persistent anger and somewhat seemingly falsetto whining. While I do understand his pain and torment, I had a hard time relegating his anger towards God but perhaps that's because you'd think that by the time Mack realized God was real that he'd sort of lighten up. I think I would.
Although the premise of the book seemed to also take place in what I might call "a piece of heaven", I often got the impression that I was tripping on LSD and listening to Incense and Peppermints by Strawberry Alarm Clock. The surreal feeling of colors and Jesus sounding like a hippie sort of made me a little perturbed at times. There seemed to be a sort of "SMURF-like" happiness to it that just did not really seem all too real to me.
On the other hand, I thought that Mack's visit was filled with good quotes and thoughts on subjects that seem to take a firm grasp of religion in this day and age. I don't suspect the author was trying to turn this into a literary classic like a Melville or Dickens classic but merely presented a very clear and concise metaphor for his beliefs. And I think he did a good job with that.
Overall, I think that it's a book that people of all faiths either within Christianity should read or people who don't believe in God should read. It was worth the fifteen bucks and it certainly did have some parts that resonated within me to understand some of the Christian faith as well as how some people truly do want to walk with God and visit his "Shack".
To be quite honest, I had no idea when I picked up the book that it was going to be what it was and as a result I had no idea how to approach the book while reading it. Should I approach it from the standpoint of "The Believing Christian", or the "Skeptical Atheist" or just a "Reader of Fiction/Literature"? As I began to read the book there were elements that made me feel as if I was going to have to sit down and read the book from the perspective of all three positions simultaneously. Call it "Troop's Holy Trinity of Book Reading" if you will.
I think you explained that well. Anyone who reads "christian fiction" has to do this to some degree.
I've read other authors whose methodology are similar. Some of their books ARE christian classics... such as C.S. Lewis (who I mentioned before)
Og Mandino is another author whose writing style is similar and who I love.
I don't have time to write much this morning but I just found this biography information about the author, William P. Young, that I found interesting and wanted to share it.
I'm still trying to find his religious background.... just because I want to know.
Here's a link to the author's website which has his bio in his own words. It's also got a couple of photos of him and his itenerary of upcoming speaking engagements.
As for myself I have no desire to know what the authors "religion" is..That will only stir up controversy and needless bible quotes which always lead to arguements in this forum
Mr. Young has written a wonderful book about someone searching for the answers and finding his faith..Even though it is a work of fiction, it is very powerful testimony to the basic core of Christianity..I prefer to remember that about this book
Excellent reviews by June and Troop..Troops willingness and ableness to put himself in the christian mindset was priceless..I have often seen June do that, but never Troop....
A+ and ~hugs~ from me on both reviews...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-Just kidding!
It's just that her June 7th brain isn't aways up to par at the end of a very, very long day...However, now that it is once again another day, and the dawn is soon to be sent to it's post, June will start at the beginning:
) for a great opening sentence that had her "compelled" right out of the gate with this book: 
Troop's Book Report
