To Be!
“I,” she opened her hands to include Jesus and Papa, “I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb! I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am a being verb.”
….
“And as my very essence is a verb,” she continued, “I am more attuned to verbs than nouns. Verbs such as confessing, repenting, living, loving, responding, growing, reading, changing, sowing, running, dancing, singing, and on and on. Humans, on the other hand, have a knack for taking a verb that is alive and full of grace and turning it into a dead noun or principle that reeks of rules: something growing and alive dies. Nouns exist because there is a created universe and physical reality, but if the universe is only a mass of nouns, it is dead. Unless ‘I am,’ there are no verbs, and verbs are what make the universe alive.”The Shack, William P. Young, 204
I really didn’t want to like this book (I am contrary), especially when the author used the word “tussle” three times in the first 20 pages. But oh how incredible it turned out to be. I read it all yesterday, couldn’t put it down. The cover summary and blurbs on the back don’t do it justice (and the blurbs helped me not want to read it). But I am so very glad I did.
Really? I had mixed feelings about it.
The first few chapters felt like Young was making liberal use of a thesaurus just so he could make his words sound all fancy. I liked the story as it moved further in and the themes it presented (though I never could accept that “Papa” nonsense), and at times I even thought it was brilliant. Then at the end it all fell apart. It was like it wanted to be “Life of Pi,” but it wasn’t. It totally disregarded faith for an easy (and overused) ending.
Our “Sunday school” class was all encouraged to read it a few months ago, and ever since I’ve wanted to have some sort of group discussion about the book. Unfortunately, everyone has been going at his or her own pace, so there’s always someone who’s just started it.
Comment by Matt on February 23, 2009 at 10:21 am
Yeah, the first few chapters were rough. That whole “tussle” thing set me back and his use of points of ellipses in the introduction very nearly made me put it down. But I think somewhere around page 70 he just gave over trying to write like “Willie” and wrote what Mack wanted him to write and it got much better.
I haven’t read Life of Pi, so I can’t make a comparison there, but I found it moving and worthwhile. The ending, I thought, was not terribly overused, since I think the whole head injury thing casts a big pall of doubt over the whole proceedings. What was memory and what was conjured, if indeed any of it is real at all.
I can discuss with you, if you want. Although I think that this might be one of those books where you get what you need and/or want out of it, rather than it having many universal themes that all speak in the same way to everybody all the time.
Comment by Sarah, etc. on February 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
I was almost sucked in to reading this book just because of some of the controversy surrounding the work. I find it fascinating how it seems to have a polarizing effect on the faithful. Did either of you find it made you more or less willing to be part of a church? The same goes for the other side, do you feel more or less likely to find God on your own?
Again, without intimate knowledge of the book it is hard for me to discuss its effects. What I find interesting and worth my time are the arguments regarding fiction and its importance to Christian doctrine and the “faith” of the faithful.
I wonder, and this is completely without secondary motive, did the novel change your view or perception of your faith and how it is practiced?
Comment by Shadowhelm on February 23, 2009 at 11:45 am
I guess I’m glad you got saved from your near-miss? No, I’m just saying that.
I didn’t find that it made me want to be more or less a part of a church. I want to about exactly the same as I did before, which was “kinda, maybe, but not enough to really do anything about it.” As for whether or not it makes you more or less likely to find God on your own, that’s the only way there is. Not really something someone else can do for you.
What I find interesting and worth my time are the arguments regarding fiction and its importance to Christian doctrine and the “faith” of the faithful.
And those are?
and this is completely without secondary motive
You’ll forgive me if I’m suspicious. Amused, but still suspicious.
did the novel change your view or perception of your faith and how it is practiced?
No, I don’t think it did. I think I’d like to read it again, but I don’t know that there was a big change. Primary, maybe, among the many things I took away from the book is that I should probably say, “I love you” more and “I’m sorry” less, when communicating with God. Not that it’s not still important to say repent, but that it’s exponentially more important to love and allow yourself to be love. There’s a whole big theme on apologizing and forgiving, but it’s meaningless until you understand love, and where it comes from, and how it works, and how it is.
Comment by Sarah, etc. on February 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Ah, a little sarcasm, I like it! No really, I appreciate it even when directed at me. Hell, I see it even when it isn’t there!
You have every reason to be suspicious. However, these days if I feel like attacking an idea, any idea religion or otherwise, then I am just going to attack. No trying to be sly about it. I’ve realized that I am just not clever enough to pull off any kind of trick effectively.
What I read when I was trying to find out what all the hubbub regarding this book was about were several arguments about how something that is “just fiction” still should be debated seriously when it concerns doctrine. In other words, if people are reading a work and evaluating/re-evaluating their faith then it has to be seen as something more than just fiction.
I think I started with this article/opinion and then kept reading.
Mining Grace
I do see the problem though and it is intriguing. I like the Lewis information in the above article about “smuggling theology”.
Here’s the part where I would normally go off on a tangent but I’m getting better about that.
Comment by Shadowhelm on February 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Christians seem to like it, so it must be up to something!
I thought about reading it, but as a Dad when I saw it involved a dead kid I ran away. The Road was very upsetting to me.
Comment by Skillzy on February 23, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I agree with Sarah’s point that “you get what you need and/or want out of it.” The things I liked, I thought “yes, exactly!” And the things I didn’t like, I thought, “well, that’s just nonsense.” It’s easy to embrace or discount because it *is* fiction. Your church isn’t telling you it’s doctrine.
It didn’t alter my desire to go to church or have faith. My church does that for me. Same as before — this is just a work of fiction, not doctrine. I think it just presented a few very good ways of thinking about God and religion, love, faith, thanks, and forgiveness.
The “it was all a dream!” ending did turn out to make more sense, but that was my trouble with it. Mack no longer has to wrestle with explaining his story and accepting it on faith, because it didn’t actually happen.
As for getting fired up about it because it concerns doctrine, I have the same view of “The Shack” as I do of “The DaVinci Code.” It doesn’t rock the foundations of my belief system because it is fiction. Both books provide an interesting way of looking at things — but they’re both just made-up stories.
And Shadowhelm, don’t read it. You’ll hate it.
Comment by Matt on February 24, 2009 at 11:42 am
Right, after doing my research I decided it really “wasn’t for me”.
Comment by Shadowhelm on February 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm