Book Review: The Shack by William P. Young
The Shack by William P. Young
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Writing a review of this book is difficult. I could review it as a bad novel, which it is, but that would be an overly simplistic assessment that I think misses the point of the book. I could also review it as an intriguing exploration of God and the role of Humanity in the world, which also it is. At its heart, I believe this is a theological treatise that challenges dominant perceptions of God, especially perceptions held by Christians. It attempts to explore the true identity of God and God’s role in the world. Frankly, this exploration is the most interesting part of the book. The story takes a significant backseat to the theology in my opinion.
I’m still deciding how I feel about the theology. On the whole, I think it challenges a lot of popular notions of what God is and what God wants, and even if the reader disagrees with the specifics of the theology, it undoubtedly causes the reader to rethink his or her assumptions about God in a positive way. In this regard, it’s a good book for the practicing Christian and searching person, looking for some way to understand God in a deeper, more holistic way.
The novelization of the premise, however, is very weak. The story is shallow and predictable. The characters are very one-dimensional, and any amount of literary criticism would completely rip this book to shreds. With that in mind, I would encourage any reader wanting to explore the theology and philosophy contained within the book to begin with Chapter 5, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”. This skips the bulk of exposition and bad fiction writing that will frustrate a lot of readers. Thankfully, I don’t think anyone who does so will miss anything pertinent that can’t be figured out later in the book.
I think both religious and secular readers can appreciate this book. If anything, I think religious readers may have the greater problem with the book because it directly challenges a lot of the sacred theology that Christians hold on to. I hope that people who may be tempted to reject the book on these grounds, however, might see it as an important opportunity to think deeper and fuller about their personal theologies, even if they disagree with points here and there. I appreciate that it did so for me.
Disappointed in Christians (but not Christianity) [Repost]
As I mentioned in a previous post, in lieu of importing all of my archived blog posts from Wordpress (because Tumblr can’t import), I’m going to periodically repost some of my favorites old blog entries. This is the first such post. You can read the original with comments here. For the full archive go to jasonact.wordpress.com.
[Originally posted November 10, 2005]
I learned that the state I grew up in, Texas, recently passed Propositions 2, which is a consitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. As my brother wrote, I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed. More than anything, I am dissappointed in the Chrisitans who champion this, as if they are doing anything to advance the Kingdom of God.
I am absolutely sick of the “religious right” taking issue a moral high ground with some issues and not with others. Where is the proposition to significantly reduce greehouse gases? Or fund the viability of alternative fuel sources? Where are the propositions to fund universal health care? Where are the propositions to fully fund higher education for inner city kids? Where are the propositions for better job training? Where are the propositions to make PEACE? (WWJB: Who would Jesus Bomb? Matthew 5:43-48 should give you an idea) Where are the propositions to HELP people??!! Those would be propositions that advance the Kingdom of God (see Mark 12:28-34).
Of all of the issues for Christians to hitch their politcial wagon to, I am disgusted, embarrassed, and disappointed that they chose something as divisive, hostile, and for the most part irrelevant as gay marriage. Whenever I hear about this issue, I am embarrassed that people lump me into the same category as them, simply because I am a Christian too.
I do not believe that the government should be in the business of defining marriage. It is a religious institution and should be defined by religious bodies, not a civil ones. It is also a clear violation of the separation of church and state, which I also believe is Biblical and Christian. Civil unions should define legal partnerships in the eyes of government; nothing more is needed.
“Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” — Jesus wasn’t just talking about money.
Edit: Contrary to popular belief, gay marriage would not do anything to undermine or harm marriage. I don’t think gay marriage would affect hetero marriage in any way. Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage. Where are the propositions to do something about divorce (and I don’t mean banning it)? Where are the propositions to do something about sexism and gender stereotypes, which also undermine marriage? Where are the propositions limiting the number of hours that someone making $40,000+/year can work because they (especially men) need to spend more time with their families? Where are the propositions teaching family members how to treat each other? Those are the real threats to marriage, not gay marriage.
Don’t try to tell me that gay marriage is a threat to the insitution of marriage when those issues are still out there. That’s like saying Costa Rica (or Iraq…) is a bigger nuclear threat than North Korea.
Seriously, how is PETA not all over this one? Mickey’s a regular sociopath-in-training!
The Problems of Race in 2006 [Repost]
As I mentioned in a previous post, in lieu of importing all of my archived blog posts from Wordpress (because Tumblr can’t import), I’m going to periodically repost some of my favorites old blog entries. This is the next such post. You can read the original with comments here. For the full archive go to jasonact.wordpress.com. [Originally posted March 25, 2006] I went to the Michigan Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (MAMFT) Annual Conference today. The keynote speaker was Dr. Kenneth Hardy of Syracuse University. The topic was “Working Effectively with Adolescents in Families of Color”. It was the best workshop/discussion about multiculturalism, race, and institutional racism that I have ever heard. What I appreciated was his candor and ability to accurately convey to a predominately white, middle class audience that racism and general prejudice are still very pervasive throughout our culture. Perhaps more importantly, he helped me understand the subtle, innocent ways that even I participate in the perpetuation of racism. This is very difficult for me to understand because I am in a cultural position of power. I am a white, middle-class, Protestant, straight male, which means that the existing societal structure was created and is largely maintained by people just like me. But I walked away from the conference with something very different than “liberal guilt” which most people assume should be the primary react of those in the majority. Rather, I left with a much better understanding of how people of other cultures see me as a privileged male, which is the first step to open dialogue. So here are a few of the most important points that I took away from Dr. Hardy’s lecture: With this understanding, it becomes clearer why so many Middle Eastern Muslims have rage at Americans. Americans are in a position of unequalled global power. We have not entered into the kind of dialogue that facilitates collaboration. Instead, we have allowed the process of devaluation to create a culture in the world that has its back against the wall. They have gotten the message that their lives are not valued, and so they will insist on respect. We have had no dialogue with them, and we have expected the world to adhere to our culture, without bothering to learn or respect theirs. This is not a justification for the violence that a few Muslims carry out. There is no justification for that. Rather, it is an explanation. It is a way for us, as people of power and privilege, to understand the context of their rage. This is not a way to blame America for the events of September 11. Rather, it is a way to understand how we can begin to heal, learn lessons, and prevent this from happening again. Until we open dialogue with those who’s culture has been devalued and begin to learn how our messages are received, terrorism will continue to be a problem in the world. As that dialogue begins, however, we will enter into a world that may be awkward at first but closer to a reality of multicultural cooperation.
