The Shack by Wm. Paul Young - A Book Review

As a general rule, I tend to stringently avoid books in the mainstream Christian realm, which have gained either secular acceptance or are touted as something that is akin to an addendum to the Bible. Sometimes, my curiosity gets the better of me and I will reluctantly pop down a few bucks to buy a used or at worse, extremely cheap-priced copy of the book. It happened with the whole "Purpose Driven Life" phenomenon a number of years back, and I thoroughly regretted dropping even a dollar for that utterly theologically-devoid tome. I have since come across people who consider that book a treastise of great theology, and I simply conclude that they obviously have not had much formal theological training to appreciate substance. While it is beyond the scope of this review to comment on Purpose Driven Life, I will simply say that it re-inforces my long-held belief that if a Christian book is popular in the mainstream market, something has gone wrong. Fact is, the Bible has always had opposition from the secular world, but that is to be expected, just like how the Bible teaches that the Christian life is not easy and that Christians will (not may, but will) be persecuted.

Fast forward years later and once again, I hear of a massive promotion of the latest Christian cross-cultural book phenomenon, "The Shack." Heck, our church is in on the action, as is many churches, both promoting the book for study, reflection, or personal enjoyment. The book is selling at Costco, Chapters, and anywhere else that sells best-selling paperbacks and hardcovers. Christian media is discussing this book as a fresh, much welcome inclusion for any believer's library. And both Christians and non-Christians are commending the books on its inherent ability to make one think deeper about faith, if not actually promote life-changing behaviour. Based on all this, and the fact that I am an occasional sucker for hype, I thought I'd drop ten bucks or whatever it was to snatch a copy of the book, despite the fact that it is recommended by Eugene Peterson, who is, on my list of Christian writers, near the very bottom, in terms of theological consistency and doctrinal objectivity. I first gave it to my wife, who tends to devour books much more quickly than myself. Ensuring that she was not to give anything away, I asked her for her opinion of the book, and to my surprise, she rated it as so-so. So last Friday, I decided to crack open the book and check it out for myself.

Now, setting some context here, without going into painstaking detail. Two Thursdays ago, my wife and I experienced our second miscarriage. We have two beautiful little kids, but the loss of another child was both disappointing and devastating to us, particularly when the second miscarriage occurred exactly two years to the day the last one happened (October 30, 2006). I was a complete mess the first time, and didn't fare much better this time, especially given the fact that my wife experienced a lot of complications which required multiple hospital visits.

In all of this, I experienced raw pain and all of the frustration with not understanding why God allowed this to happen to us, all came to the surface once again. So I thought it was somewhat of a strange coincidence that the book that I had planned to read dealt with a father who lost a child as a result of a gruesome murder, and who is now angry and deliberately distant with God. Hey, I could relate, and since I had some time at night to reflect, on these things, I thought I'd give the book a whirl.

Well, I am not one to beat around the bush, so here is my candid opinion of the book, and I will deviate from the standard review format (noting positive elements first, followed by negative elements - I am deliberately not doing it this way because of structure and flow of how I want to present my opinion). The first 80 pages were fabulous. I thought it was well written (for a Christian book - what a shocker!) and the rising action and pace of the story kept me turning the pages, well into the night. I really felt the main character, Mack Philip's, pain, despite the fact that he lost a six-and-a-half-year-old girl to what turns out to be a serial killer. I was pleasantly surprised by the vividness of the descriptive language of scenery, people, etc., and was enjoying the plot. At around page 80, I thought to myself, "OK, I can see why this book is so highly regarded by a number of different Christian folks".

Then everything started going downhill. I have never read a book like this before, that starts with such a high degree of promise, only to descend to the depths of utter lameness and cheesy dialogue. Where to begin... First, I started recognizing that this book is really not that much of a far cry from Purpose Driven Life. In trying really hard not to given anything away, all I can say is that the book probably resonates with so many people, because it takes the ever-popular "safe" approach to sprituality, emphasizing only part of the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, while ignoring the other parts. Here's a quick illustration to demonstrate what I'm getting at here. Remember when Jesus caught that woman in adultery? The vast majority of people will conveniently quote Jesus' words "let who is without sin cast the first stone." Of course, these same people seemingly glide over the fact that Jesus, in addressing the woman, tells her "go and sin no more". These folks who promote such touchy-feely theology tend to focus more on the loving nature of God, without looking at the righteous side of God as well. And, furthermore, in many of these books, you will never hear any discussion of the nature of sin (it's important, since it's sin that separated us from God to begin with) or repentance (turning away from sin). Instead, what we get is a mish-mash of God as our beer drinking buddy, our friend who overlooks all our faults and will never point out our shortcomings, and a Jesus who just wants relationships, and will accept anyone's behaviour, even though He prescribes otherwise elsewhere in Scripture.

OK, so I'm being a bit vague here by not referring to the book, so I'll provide some specifics here, without revealing main plot points. First, I will come right out and say that this book is about as politically correct as they come. God is a big black woman (his words, not mine), the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is some middle-eastern guy (at least that's closer than the other two). Now, this is addressed somewhat in the book through the lengthy discourses and conversations that the main character, Mack, has with each of these three characters (think of this book as the Christian version of the David Chilton best-seller "The Wealthy Barber" in which the characters impact financial advice, under the guise of a character conversation in a fictitious environment). The author, Wm. Paul Young, through the characters, indicate that this visible minority focus is supposed to dispel stereotypes, namely that God is an old white man. I personally have never held that view, but I'll play along, just for fun. The problem is, while Young goes out of his way to play up these characters (and a hispanic woman shows up much later as another character), he reinforces his own stereotypes of how each of these minority members act (ie. the smattering of awkwardly-timed ebonics from the black woman, supposedly in the role of God), the submissive, always bowing Asian woman, portrayed as the Holy Spirit, and the exotic beauty of the hispanic.

Now, one may think that this was what Young was trying to accomplish - to get people to stop thinking of God as a man. Problem is, God is not a woman either, so it would have been better to simply make God appear as a voice rather than assign a gender - now, Young later does gender-switch the black woman to be an old white man with a ponytail, but I don't get why he needs to specifically personnify God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It certainly did not make it more believeable to me.

Some other observations: there are several points where men are slammed in the book, with the suggestion among the characters that women would be better to run our world, etc. There is the characterisation of the God (as a male) character and the Jesus (male) character kissing each other on the mouth, as a supposed sign of affection. And then there is the expected schpeel about the environment. If you didn't leave the book thinking that Young is trying to pander to special interests groups, then you are either part of those groups or you didn't pick up on those parts of the description.

While the above aspects already lower my opinion of the book, I have saved the best for last: my main beef with this book is that, theologically, it is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Now, I know what you are saying - I either have no imagination, or I am part of the structured religious establishment, for which Young indirectly chastises throughout the book. I don't agree with either assessment, since I write a lot of material, so certainly I must have some imagination in order to write excessive blog entries and other stuff, and while I am formally theologically trained, I believe I am one of those people who have taken a closer look at what I have been taught and systematically compare it to what the Bible says, under controlled conditions. Why is this important? Because without proper controls in Bible study, one can make the Bible say whatever they want. And hence, you get a book like this one, which obviously caters to people who are turned off by Christianity or who are angry at God. How attractive is the prospect that God can be whoever or whatever you want him to be? Don't believe me? It is striking that near the end when Mack gets ready to leave the shack, that the God character already packs his car up and Mack starts to think "God - my servant" (no, I am not taking that out of context - check the bottom of page 236 and the top of page 237).

(TO BE CONTINUED)

What Christmas REALLY Is About

Well, hard to believe it is December 11 today. Only two more weeks until Christmas Day. Over the years, I have seen Christmas, and by extension, the Christmas holidays, transformed into a remarkably secular event on the calendar, punctuated by feel-good emotions and people being nice to one another (which is good in and of itself, but by golly, how about extend these warm fuzzies year-round?). Of course, all this emotional goodwill towards your fellow man all the sudden gets turned off like a switch on Boxing Day, as people flock to the malls to celebrate their greed and their need to consume and lavish themselves with bargains galore. I'm sure you have all heard of the crazy things done in shopping mall parking lots on Boxing Day, not the least of which involves all types of road rage, and flipping the finger to your fellow man as you vie for the closest parking spot to the big box store of your choice.

I guess I am not surprised that people are like this. Over time, I've found humanity in North American culture to be fairly self-absorbed with their own creature comforts and the need to feed its own continuous desire to have stuff. This is pretty obvious by the well-intentioned, but inherently questionable practice of parents encouraging their kids to write a letter to a fictitious elderly overweight character who has supplanted Jesus as the focus of Christmas, detailing the kids of things that they want, and justifying the request by the logic that they have been good all year round. I have never really understood this seemingly cultural need to lie to your kids - people frown at me when I confess that I not only steer clear of the Santa Claus topic with my child, but I distinctly tell him that Christmas is not about gifts or Santa Claus. Now, this may not put me in good stead with fellow parents at my child's school, or even amongst family and friends who think there is no issue with this - I am not here to pass judgment on their practices - simply state what I choose to do with my own child. But I think that as a believer and follower of Christ, it is important to pass along the truth to my child, no matter how seemingly strange it may come across, given the prevalent culture of everything goes and everything should be tolerable. I have come to realize, over the almost five years that I have been a parent, that my goal is to honour Jesus Christ in my actions and words (I will be the first to admit that I am not always successful in doing either), and I believe part of that is how I raise my child, and showing them through my words and actions ways in which we honour God and Christ in what we do everyday, not just at certain times of the year.

I also find it errily strange how many people come out of the woodwork to go to church on Christmas Day and the surrounding holidays. I think this tends to be more prominent in Roman Catholic churches, where unfortunately, a flawed works-based faith continues to be taught in their teachings, though by no means are the Catholics the sole proprietor of such theology - many Protestant churches seem to have a groundswell of bums on pews during the next few weeks - perhaps people who somehow feel compelled or obligated to attend these services to somehow self-satisfy their theology of "going to church = good person = going to heaven". No doubt this is related to the similarly misunderstood theological concept that if being nice to people = a plus in God's books. I am certainly amazed how how many people, even regular church-going Christians seem to continue to grasp onto this popular concept, despite being dispelled by Jesus and the apostles thousands of years ago. No doubt, the Bible does teach love towards others; however, that is not the way one will become saved; never has been that way, never will be.

So this all leads me to today's posting about what Christmas is really about. No doubt many people will associate the birth of Christ as being part of Christmas - even non-Christians know that. But why is that important? That is quite I will quickly explore today.

The Old Testament is way too rich of an account for me to do any justice in condensing it into a few morsels of summarizing sentences, but I'll attempt to do so for brevity and so that I don't get bogged down in too technical of a theological discussion. Essentially, the Bible starts with God creating the world, and people. God gave the first inhabitants some pretty easy instructions (all things considered). However, people being the curious and self-directed/self-absorbed people that they are, decided to go against God's directions and as a result, sin entered the world. Now, sin is one of those things which people seemingly equate with its symptoms or manifestations. Sure, lying, stealing, worshiping false gods and such are all sinful behavioiur and are the end-result of sin. However, if you break it down, what is sin really? Sin, I believe, is the desire to do what you want to do instead of what God wants you to do. In other words, following your own path (which is why I sometimes chuckle when I hear Christians singing secular songs with lyrics like "follow your own heart..." If you look at any end-result of sin, you'll see that it is comprised of people wanting a self-focus instead of an other-focus or a God-focus. Anyhow, sin creeps into the world. Well, guess what? God is sinless, and cannot co-exist with sin. So there is the first problem. Humans are now separated from God. However, God, being His generous and gracious Self, decides to give people a second chance. Now, I will be the first one to admit that I don't quite understand why the Old Testament seems to prescribe a works-based path to holiness - it is certainly evident in the old Jewish and Levitical law. Nonetheless, while these "rules" were made for people to follow, people, being the selfish people that they are, decided to not follow these rules. Problem with this is that humanity at this point still has a problem. Without reconciling the sinful nature to God's holiness, we are, for a lack of a better term, screwed. No heaven for us. No eternal life with God for us. Logically and theologically, it is consistent with God's nature and our sinful nature.

Thankfully, that's not where the story ends. God, in His infinite mercy (and I cannot think of a better word to describe this) sends His own Son to the earth in human form to walk amongst us, but at the same time, giving us another second chance. The requirements for this second chance are even easier than the Old Testament requirements. Now, all we need to do is not just believe that Jesus is God's Son, but accept Jesus as our personal Saviour. Now, what is all this about? What is He saving us from? Recall that we are eterntally separated from God due to our sin. Well, in due time (about 33 years after his birth), Jesus will be dying a death that will take away all of our sin, and wash us clean. Remember, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate, but one and the same. So God essentially came to humanity, as rotten as it was (and continues to be) and offers up Himself in the form of Jesus so that He can absorb all of our past/present/future sins and make us right before God. Think of it as a person taking a bullet for another person and you'll sort of see what I'm getting at. Jesus lived a perfect life, yet amongst these humans they did not like Him, since He really challenged their root belief systems in that works = holiness and eternal life (there's some theological questions here, which I don't have the answers to). People decided to give him the most brutal of deaths, but the Good News is, that because of Jesus' decision to go to the cross and die on our behalf (remember, He did not have to, and there is evidence that He wrestled and was anxious with what would happen), taking away our sins, all we need to do is to say "Yes, Jesus, I not only believe that you did this for me, but I accept your free gift of salvation, and will live my life according to how you want me to." That's it. No mumble jumble about rubbing beads, doing good deeds, praying for dead people, etc. The gospel message is such a simple message, yet people continue to scorn it and scoff at it, because once again, they want to go their own way. This is nothing new, as history would tell us.

So given all of this, Jesus' birth is a real celebration. Now, there are Christians out there who will not celebrate Christmas because Christmas is not exactly the end of the story. That is true - Christmas would not be worth celebrating, had Jesus not gone to the cross, died, and rose again, clearing demonstrating that He is truly God's own Son. I can understand these sentiments, but the fact of the matter is, we DO have the entire story, and so I really do see Jesus' birth as a cause for celebration since it is the first step in God giving us another chance that is so easy to grasp. It is really, a gift. Now, Jesus' birth was not without its complications (Herod was king at the time and viewed Jesus' birth as a threat to his earthly kingship, not to mention Caesar's). But through God's continuous protection, Jesus and His parents managed to elude a potentially dangerous situation and Jesus grew up and made the supreme sacrifice for humanity. The gift is there for everyone to take. The question is, will you accept it?

Based on all this, you can sort of see why I find it a shame that the world has once again shunned God and Christ, replacement Him with figments of this world and reducing Christmas to a bunch of holidays with feel-good emotions. True, Christmas is a time to celebrate, but not for reasons of simply being kind to others and buying one another gifts (attaching gift receipts to the same) and compiling your own wish list. The true celebration of Christmas is in the fact that God gave us a second chance thousands of years ago, and that should really be the only gift that truly matters.

What Is Sin?

Since I feel a bit in a theological mood today, I am going to discuss some theological topics. One that has always been one of my favourites to discuss is: what is sin?

It's very interesting, because if you ask any group of people, Christian or not, chances are they will define sin in terms of its tangible outcroppings, or its manifestations - they will say stuff like sin is lying, cheating, murdering, etc. The problem with this is that defining it by the symptoms is not entirely accurate. The other problem is that Hollywood and such has made so many movies in which they have not really consulted anyone with half a theological brain to find out whether what they are portraying is accurate. So people think sin is bad stuff that you do. That is not correct, according to the Bible.

In that vein, in framing my comments here, I do want to state that a lot of people view TV and movies and think that the Christian church = The Roman Catholic Church. As a result, they will see the church being a bunch of dos and don'ts, of ritualism and rules-based (I have some major issues with Roman Catholic theology - that will be another discussion for another time). If you look at how the early church was set up in the New Testament, as well as Jesus' teaching for his followers, you will see a different structure. True, some Protestant denominations are just as rote and ritualistic, but I know that many aren't, so I'd ask you to qualify how you define "Christian theology" and "Christian church". I'd go even as far as to say that, despite the fact that most Americans call themselves Christians, I think the number of born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and following Him every day is considerably smaller. Anyway...

While sin is not defined per se (ie. you will never see Jesus say, "this is what sin means", in the context of the rest of Scripture, I propose that sin can essentially be seen as anything which people do which they put their own selfish desires first. Essentially, I would see it as going your way instead of what God would like (or at the very least, not seeking God's will). Now, I realize that I'm not speaking to a predominantly Christian audience here, so I'm sure I may get a cold reception, but this is how I see it, as per my understanding of the Bible, and I have seen consistency in how this plays out in real life.

Some will argue that the Christian sees the world as a horrible and bad place, and as a result, has this worldview of sin in order to buttress their bleak outlook on life. However, I would generally agree with this outlook - however, I would define horrible and bad in the context of sin - it's all through Scripture since the Fall, that humans have that separation from God due to their decision to go their own way. As a result, humanity, until its very end, will bear the consequences of sin. Some people have asked about why God allows suffering of people who never deserved it. I can't answer that question, but I would say that in some cases, it has to not do with their own sin, but other people's sin. Someone drinks too much, drives a car, hits my car and kills my wife and child. Did I deserve to lose my wife and child? I can't figure out why this happened, but I do realize that if I'm ever in such a situation, I'll just have to yield to the fact that actions have consequences and sometimes those consequences affect those beyond us. That is the nature of sin - it's never really in a vacuum.

I'm sure a follow-up question would be: are people inherently good or bad? Again, this answer will not make me popular, but I strongly believe and am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are inherently bad, even if they have the propensity and potential for good. This is consistent with my understanding of sin built-into people when they are born till they die. Here's a personal example I can share: when my son was born, he was born into a pretty loving household. We did not teach him any aggressive behaviour or to be selfish. Yet when he turns 1 or 2, what happens: he starts grabbing stuff from other kids, he starts wanting his own way, he starts pushing others that are in his way - in other words, he is very self-centered. How did he become like that? We never taught him that, nor did we model that for him. It is only by constant discipline and correction that he is able to either keep those selfish desires in check, etc. I've seen this with every single infant/toddler that I meet, regardless of who the parents are. People are generally selfish. And that is just not babies and toddlers.

The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus has overcome sin, and as a result, has bridged the gap between God and humanity. Unfortunately, many churches do not teach this central truth, but instead focus on a list of dos and don't, which is not only not taught by Jesus, but based on Scripture has been shown to be ineffective, since people are selfish by nature and will want to go their own way at some point, rather than yielding to a higher authority. This is no different than the Pharisees who accosted Jesus in his day, who basically were the same people who thought that faith was just "doing the right things" and "looking the right way", etc. That was a false notion of following God, and it was rebuked in Jesus' day by the Man Himself, and it should be rebuked today.