I can’t tell you how much I am enjoying the book, “Jesus Has Left the Building.” I wouldn’t have bought it (though the title is interesting), but thanks to the author’s choice to read it, chapter by chapter, on his itunes podcast, am listening. Voraciously. So much to think about. And so much of it speaks directly to where I am, in a constructive way more so than a deconstructive one.
Fascinating stuff. I am flat-out dying to discuss some of what I’m hearing, so hurry up already, download this and then let’s talk about it.
Speaking of good podcasts, Steve Brown Etc., just did an interview with William P. Young, author of The Shack, that I thought was well worth the listen. Since Chuck Colson just said stay the heck out of The Shack, I thought the author interview was timely.
I don’t really care if someone doesn’t like The Shack, but get some better arguments, puh-leaze. For example, Colson complains that Young “has a low view of Scripture” because a character in the story beats a kid using “a belt and Bible verses.” Uh, hello—Young was not saying that the character was doing the right thing. In fact, it was patently obvious that the author was saying the exact opposite. Stating that some people misuse Scripture is not taking a low view of Scripture. Good grief.
And what’s this business about telling Christians what they should and should not read? Read between the not-so-subtle lines: “Christians: you do not have brains, and if you do, we request that you not use them. Critical thinking is reserved for leaders only, who will tell you what is on the approved reading list and what is not.”
Urgh.
Posted by Shauna on May 19, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I just listened to the Steve Brown podcast interview with William Paul Young this afternoon and can honestly say that I found his personal story more moving, more powerful, and more spiritually profound than anything I read in The Shack (which I gave a less-than-glowing review). I’m so glad to finally hear the author’s perspective and more about why he wrote the book and his own Great Sadness, and I will definitely recommend the podcast to others.
Posted by mel on May 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Yep, the big brouhaha about The Shack has only served to push me into reading it for myself to see what I think. (Ditto Harry Potter.) I don’t do well with being told to leave the thinking to someone else.
Thanks for the podcast recommendation!
Posted by E on May 19, 2008 at 5:20 pm
So, whatcha think of The Shack, kid?
As for Charles Colson, I think he should read Eugene Peterson the riot act and tie him to a tree and beat him with a belt and Bible verses for his way-over-the-top ridiculous comparison of The Shack with Pilgrim’s Progress:
Posted by tonia on May 19, 2008 at 5:43 pm
thanks for the links molly….i think i’m ready to listen to this book.
Posted by Helen on May 19, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I reviewed the Shack on my blog last month
Posted by Psalmist on May 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm
LOL…Given the choice between Colson and Peterson, it’s not much of a contest for me.
“Stay away…Danger, Will Robinson!” vs. “Read it and see for yourself!”
I’m just rebel enough to want to read pretty much anything Colson thinks is dangerous. (wicked grin)
Posted by Rebecca on May 20, 2008 at 2:16 am
I agree with Mel-don’t tell me what not to read! I don’t usually read anything non-fiction that has the label of “Christian” on it but my curiosity is peaked.
Posted by Rebecca on May 20, 2008 at 2:18 am
Oops it’s fiction =)
Posted by sonja on May 20, 2008 at 3:51 am
Well … it’s obvious by now that Eugene Peterson knows his history and most of the rest of the hysteria club do not. “E” you need to be tied to a tree and made to read things more carefully before you make such outrageous comments.
I read “The Shack” before it got on the banned book list and it has been a source of healing for me in a time of my own great sadness. Rebecca is right … it’s fiction. Paul did not write theology and neither did Clive … both wrote great works of metaphor and analogy that help bring a mysterious God closer to many of us.
The book police police need to unwad their panties and get a real job.
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 4:59 am
I see you made an appearance at Parchment and Pen. You’ll find my name (Eric W) associated with a few posts here and there, including the one in which you were response #136.
(What’s the difference between “entirely” and “completely”?)
I still don’t know what I was waiting for
And my time was running wild
A million dead-end streets
Every time I thought I’d got it made
It seemed the taste was not so sweet
So I turned myself to face me
But I’ve never caught a glimpse
Of how the others must see the faker
I’m much too fast to take that test
Posted by Beatrice on May 20, 2008 at 6:27 am
I am listening to that interview as soon as I have time … I started to a little bit … I haven’t heard Steve Brown’s voice in so long but it’s unmistakable.
I never paid much attention to him when my mom would listen to him on the radio, but since you say he’s so good, Molly, he definatetely has my attention now.
I have no idea where to find The Shack, else I would read it. Maybe I can inter-library loan …
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 7:07 am
I think history will prove that 200 years from now Christians and those interested in “great books” (i.e., books that significantly affected and impacted the culture) will still be reading Pilgrim’s Progress, and no one will be reading or have heard of, let alone remember, The Shack.
I have read both Pilgrim’s Progress and The Shack and think that predictions and pontifications about The Shack’s greatness and literary/spiritual significance are exaggerations. It has some affecting scenes and good parts (and some bad parts, too), and I like the way Young deals with theodicy, which is the perpetual and eternal question. I don’t doubt that the book provides emotional and spiritual healing for many, many people, and I don’t discount its value; I just questions its comparative significance and place in the history of Christian literature.
E.g., a few years ago, many, many people were proclaiming and promoting Rick Joyner’s book The Final Quest as being a most significant and profound book that seriously and spiritually impacted their lives. And when I dared to raise some questions about it, I became the recipient of many slings and arrows of outraged fans.
IMO, The Shack will likely join The Final Quest and other books like it as being a popular and significant book for many, but not much more in the history of literature, Christian or otherwise.
People will still be reading Dostoevsky and Augustine and, yes, Bunyan, when The Shack has been replaced by another book, and another, and another …
(There. My panties are unwadded. I feel better.)
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 7:09 am
And reading C. S. Lewis, too.
(roar!!)
Posted by Beatrice on May 20, 2008 at 8:03 am
Jacob, I wonder how one can tell or at least make a good guess whether something will be sticking around in the literary scene for a good while, Christian or otherwise. What do you think about this?
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 8:37 am
I’m sure my guess about The Shack is largely that – i.e., a guess. But I think I’m right to relegate it to “popular” status and not “classic” or “classic theology” status.
I suspect that a good way to get a feel for what is classic and what is not is to read lots and lots of literary classics (which, unfortunately, I have not done) so one begins to know instinctively what makes for good/great literature.
E.g., I read the first volume of the Left Behind series and had to really struggle with its trite and contrived substance and plot. That it’s a popular series does not speak well of the reading public’s intelligence or literary level, IMO.
With respect to Christian literature, I think there is a connection between theology and staying power. E.g., Augustine’s works survive and thrive because 1. he was a genius. 2. his theology impacted Christendom significantly in his time and afterwards. 3. the history of Western Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is largely reaction to or against Augustine. Dostoevsky’s works were permeated with his Orthodox faith and culture. Besides being a great writer, he deals with the deep things of the faith from Orthodoxy’s rich tradition. I.e., his novels drew from the theological tradition and in a sense have become part of that tradition; I know of at least one person who became Orthodox because of reading Dostoevsky.
(On the other hand, I was personally only so-so about The Brothers Karamazov; I’ll have to take others’ word for it that he was a great writer, because I haven’t tackled his other works.)
I guess time is the only true test of whether something remains popular and read and hence is/becomes enduring. And enduring is not the sole criteria for whether or not something is good or classic literature. E.g., I hear the Koran is really, really boring, but it’s still revered and read by millions after hundreds and hundreds of years.
Just some thoughts, anyway.
(If you get a copy of Michael Crichton’s book Travels, he has a section/chapter at the end where he discusses his experience of perceiving what was good art and what was not, and how it tied in with a talk he would have given to a scientific society that was skeptical about non-rational experiences – which is what Travels is largely about; i.e., Crichton’s own personal weird and New-Agey experiences. I guess it might be the way with literature – i.e., if you read enough books, both good and bad, of various genres, you can begin to know what is “good” and what is not.)
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 9:09 am
sonja:
FWIW, I may actually buy The Shack for some specific persons to read, and maybe will reread it myself. In fact, I’ve recommended it to a couple people who knew nothing about it (i.e., even though they’re familiar with popular Xian stuff like Blue Like Jazz, they’d never heard of The Shack).
Maybe my opinion will change.
Hey, Molly, I wonder what Tommy Nelson would say about it? (pastor of the local semi-megachurch, Denton Bible Church) He’s a 4.5-point Calvinist and pretty much goes straight by the book, I think (both The Bible and J. Sidlow Baxter’s Explore the Book, which is high on his list of recommendations, IIRC – speaking of which, I was going to garage-sale my copy until I just looked and saw what it’s selling for at Amazon.com!).
Sorry to dominate your blog today.
Posted by molly on May 20, 2008 at 9:18 am
Eric, I really agree with you on the classic comments. As I said on Helen’s blog, the writing itself was not what I liked.
A lot of reviewers on Amazon talk about being gripped by the first half, the story, whereas my reaction was pain, but more just pain getting through the writing style. I’m a classic lover, and I rarely read popular fiction (if ever) so I struggled to wade through (and did so ONLY because my mother, grandmother and best friend all said it was worth the effort—if I’d read the book completely on my own, I never would have made it past the first couple chapters). For example, I wasn’t able to make it past two chapters of Left Behind. It’s just not *my style* of book. I hate popular fiction.
Once I got through the first half and “into the shack,” I was hooked—-the allegory itself was well worth the work, and I went from muttering about the writing style to commenting about the brilliance of the analogy. It was as if it were two different books, to me.
Did I think the author presented a full and complete image of God? No. But, hello, has anyone (but Christ Himself)???? That is what annoys me with the negative review by Colson, et all. Do *they* present a full and complete image of God in *their* writings? No. Because you can’t. But you can give people a glimpse. And I think the author gave people a glimpse into God that is rarely seen.
Keeping in mind that the glimpse was of God dealing with one of His children in a time of the child’s deep pain and hurt, the author gave readers a picture into the way God heals us, internally. I think it was wonderfully accurate, in that it resonated with some of my own experiences, etc. I recognized the Voice, if that doesn’t sound too terribly weird.
Posted by molly on May 20, 2008 at 9:20 am
PS.
And I bet Tommy would hate it…don’t you think? Say hi to your cute wife for me and give her a squeeze from Alaska.
You can come dominate my blog anytime, you old Greek nerd.
Posted by Maureen E on May 20, 2008 at 9:38 am
And what’s this business about telling Christians what they should and should not read? Read between the not-so-subtle lines: “Christians: you do not have brains, and if you do, we request that you not use them. Critical thinking is reserved for leaders only, who will tell you what is on the approved reading list and what is not.”
I HATE THIS. Truly. You get it a lot with any sort of fantasy, including C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, both of whom were Christian. (Don’t believe me? Read Tolkien’s letters. They’re published. They’re amazing.) But people don’t take the time to read his letters or look into anything more deeply. They just spout out some argument from some leader or other and weep and sigh over the deluded people who read anything that doesn’t have the Leader Approved Seal on the front cover.
I think it’s partly because I’m an English major and books are my love, my escape, and my passion. I am perfectly okay with a parent telling their child that they shouldn’t read something right now, maybe when you’re older because each child is different–but that’s the point. Each child is different. For some people it might be totally fine. You can’t go around laying down a law for everyone because God made us all uniquely.
Sorry to go off on a tangent and a rant here, but it’s something I feel very strongly about.
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 9:52 am
“old … Greek … nerd”
*sigh*
Yes, they’re all true.
The interview w/Young at Steve Brown (my first listen to Steve) is very enlightening, and I like it better than that 3-part audio-video interview I watched/heard on the ‘Net a few months ago:
http://www.shermanlive.com/2007/12/04/the-shack-williampyoung-interview/
Now I’ll have to listen to Steve B’s interview w/Frank Schaeffer re: Crazy for God – maybe.
As for the “Trinity” versus “heresy” discussion at the end of the interview, I don’t think most Xians are equipped to discuss the Trinity, and that’s speaking from my own similarly-ignorant background, and is also probably true of even many seminary-educated pastors and others.
IMO, most Xians don’t know much at all about the Trinity and why the Nicene Creed arose and/or is to be preferred to Arianism, or why the Chalcedon Statement came about and/or is to be preferred to Nestorianism (Nestori-who?), or whether Mary should be called “Theotokos” or “Christotokos” and why or why not, etc. They just accept “the Trinity” as being Who/what God is and assume that “one God in three persons” is a sufficient and correct/complete description, but have no clue what ousia and hypostasis and prosôpon mean, or why they’re important (or not), or whether it’s important that Christ be homoousion and not homoiousion with the Father, and probably never have wondered if the filioque addition to the Creed that the West inserted and continues to use is right or a bit off-kilter or maybe even completely heretical and why (or why note), etc.
It wasn’t till I started exploring Orthodoxy that I was confronted with the centrality of the Trinity and its nature for a large segment of the Body of Christ. I mean, a whole huge segment of Christianity (2nd-largest group in the world, after the RCC) has as its focus and defining (and intricately-defined, too) doctrine an aspect of the faith that is for most practical purposes largely irrelevant to the bulk of evangelical/protestant/non-denoms. Who’d a thunk it?
Lord, I was born a ramblin’ man, wasn’t I?
Posted by Shauna on May 20, 2008 at 10:09 am
I just read Colson’s article and although I don’t agree with his reasons for saying that Young holds a low view of scripture, I think motives are being ascribed to him unfairly and that some are reading things into the text that aren’t there (e.g., that he’s telling you what you may or may not read or that you aren’t able to think for yourself).
That is not to say The Shack is without merit. The centrality of Christ and God’s breathtaking, costly love come through loud and clear. But these truths are available everywhere in Scripture, everywhere in Christian literature. You do not have to visit The Shack to find them.
FWIW, I agree with him here. Some Christians who love this book and are trumpeting about how wonderful it is (and getting their panties in a wad if anyone dares to criticize it or urge that it be read with discernment) imply that unless you read The Shack, your understanding of God’s love, forgiveness, and his nature will be incomplete. It reminds me of when so many Christians pressured everyone to see The Passion of the Christ and stressed that unless you watched it, you would not be able to fully understand Christ’s intense suffering and death. I would urge readers on both sides of the debate and the few (like me) who neither loved the book nor hated it to remember that it’s a work of fiction.
Posted by Atlantic on May 20, 2008 at 10:16 am
I haven’t read either book, but I just read the first chapter of Jesus Has Left the Building on the author’s website. Obviously, there’s a lot I disagree with, but I am particularly unimpressed by his mention of Martin Luther “crawling up the stone stairs of the cathedral, paying penance for his sins. With bloody knees, he asked himself, ‘Why?’”
There are twenty-eight marble steps to those stairs. You can see a picture of people doing this today, at that link. One doesn’t get bloody knees doing that. Vieira’s hyperbole on that point gives me the first impression that he is a drama queen who is happy to rely on loaded but untrue appeals to emotion, not to reason, despite the fact that the point of the passage is an appeal to reason – i.e., to answer the question “why?”
Worse, the actual story about Martin Luther is that the question he asked was not “Why?” but “Who knows whether it may be so?” That is, he knew perfectly well the reason for doing it, he simply doubted whether the reason was true. The fact that he knew the reason is at odds with the picture that Vieira is painting, of people who have “learned to just accept the world that we have inherited, lulling us into a deep sleep of passivity and stagnancy.”
Overall, I don’t agree with the false oppositions and straw men that Vieira sets up in that chapter. Organic is not the opposite of organised. If anything, organic and organised go together.
There are no doubt people who are conforming with a Christian church organisation solely out of external reasons, and possibly there are even church organisations which make this external-only easy, and might even be made up mostly of such people. However, I wonder if Vieira is overreacting to such people and organisations, and to hyper-organised mechanistic structures, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater (there’s that metaphor again!). I feel like he’s correctly identified the fact that skeletons, as we usually think of them, are dead, but then extrapolating to the idea that healthy organic creatures simply don’t need skeletons. If you’re a vertebrate, that’s a recipe for trouble.
I’m also reminded of the related analogy of C.S. Lewis – who certainly did write popular theology. In fact, this extract is about objections to discussing theology:
Posted by Atlantic on May 20, 2008 at 10:16 am
Let’s try that again.
I haven’t read either book, but I just read the first chapter of Jesus Has Left the Building on the author’s website. Obviously, there’s a lot I disagree with, but I am particularly unimpressed by his mention of Martin Luther “crawling up the stone stairs of the cathedral, paying penance for his sins. With bloody knees, he asked himself, ‘Why?’”
There are twenty-eight marble steps to those stairs. You can see a picture of people doing this today, at that link. One doesn’t get bloody knees doing that. Vieira’s hyperbole on that point gives me the first impression that he is a drama queen who is happy to rely on loaded but untrue appeals to emotion, not to reason, despite the fact that the point of the passage is an appeal to reason – i.e., to answer the question “why?”
Worse, the actual story about Martin Luther is that the question he asked was not “Why?” but “Who knows whether it may be so?” That is, he knew perfectly well the reason for doing it, he simply doubted whether the reason was true. The fact that he knew the reason is at odds with the picture that Vieira is painting, of people who have “learned to just accept the world that we have inherited, lulling us into a deep sleep of passivity and stagnancy.”
Overall, I don’t agree with the false oppositions and straw men that Vieira sets up in that chapter. Organic is not the opposite of organised. If anything, organic and organised go together.
There are no doubt people who are conforming with a Christian church organisation solely out of external reasons, and possibly there are even church organisations which make this external-only easy, and might even be made up mostly of such people. However, I wonder if Vieira is overreacting to such people and organisations, and to hyper-organised mechanistic structures, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater (there’s that metaphor again!). I feel like he’s correctly identified the fact that skeletons, as we usually think of them, are dead, but then extrapolating to the idea that healthy organic creatures simply don’t need skeletons. If you’re a vertebrate, that’s a recipe for trouble.
I’m also reminded of the related analogy of C.S. Lewis – who certainly did write popular theology. In fact, this extract is about objections to discussing theology:
Re: “And what’s this business about telling Christians what they should and should not read? Read between the not-so-subtle lines: ‘Christians: you do not have brains, and if you do, we request that you not use them. Critical thinking is reserved for leaders only, who will tell you what is on the approved reading list and what is not.’”
Although I would definitely not apply it in this context, I would like to point out that the idea of certain ideas and topics being ‘beyond the pale’, to the point of being deserving of censorship, can be defended. There are two articles in particular (they’re long but interesting) – one discusses this issue directly, and the other focussed on an example (admittedly extreme).
The Future of Tradition
This article proposes the idea that for a culture to thrive, its key values may have to absorbed and passed on at a visceral level, and that to bring certain values into the realm of questionability may be to destroy them as actual living values.
A New Way to Be Mad (warning: unsettling content, lengthy discussion of unusual sexual desires.)
Posted by molleth on May 20, 2008 at 10:41 am
Quickly as I run out the door, Atlantic, there are a lot of things that the author of Jesus Has Left the Building says that have made me wince. What I am fascinated by is some of the dot-to-dot connections he’s making that I’ve never considered: the innoculation to religious thinking that the postmoderns have being a gift of God’s grace (not a curse, not something to “fight” in a culture war, but a precious gift), the sense that “church” as we know it is way off (something that I’ve felt for a while, but still have no real way of articulating, much less know for sure whether my gut feeling is right or terribly wrong), etc… I guess for me, some of the things he brings out are right where I’m at.
There are other things that do make me wince a little…sometimes more than a little…so, yes, it’s a humble work, not a classic in any sense of the word…but I’m liking some of the thoughts it’s stirring up and chewing on them…and sometimes getting really excited at the thought that this whole mass exodus is a move of God, not a move away from God.
Posted by Atlantic on May 20, 2008 at 11:01 am
I hear you, and I suspect that part of this may be the differing places from that we’re coming at this. What do you mean by “church as we know it”? (That’s a serious question – aside from the fact that I know that high-church Anglican and Lutheran services are very much like a Catholic Mass, and that Protestant congregations usually hire their own ministers, I really have no idea what a Protestant service is like, or how local Protestant churches are organised.) And what do you mean by “religious thinking”?
Posted by E on May 20, 2008 at 11:45 am
I really have no idea what a Protestant service is like, or how local Protestant churches are organised.
Go to a local zoo. Look at all the different kinds of animals there are. Imagine the varieties of habitats and behaviors all these animals have.
That is Protestantism.
Do you like reverent services? We’ve got those.
Do you like noise and light shows? We’ve got those.
Do you like ministers in suits and ties? Got those, too.
How about your pastor wearing a Hawaiian shirt while he struts on the stage and waves his Bible? Got that, too.
Elder boards? Deacon boards? Pastor’s wife running the show? Married pastor and wife in charge? We’ve got that, too, if that’s your preference.
Doctrine? We’re all over the map. Take your choice: Sabellianism, gay-friendly, Nicene, Word-Faith, Cessationist, Tongue-talking, snake-handling, ladies wearing hats/coverings, etc. You want it, you can find it.
Reformed? We can be that, too.
Do you like your baptisms with a dash of water, or a full dunk? One time or three?
No disrespect intended. I am/was/always-will-in-some-ways-be one.
Posted by Atlantic on May 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Now I have to clean tea off my monitor.
Posted by molleth on May 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Me too…