The Shack

[FireDragon76]

One thing the Shack seems to do in endorse Patripassionism, the suffering Father idea that has usually been rejected historically. Traditional Trinitarianism denies this. If you read even mystical theology such as that of Julian of Norwich, there is a paradox or dialogue between the suffering of the humanity of Christ, and the perfect blissfulness within the Trinity. In fact this is a central aspect to her Christus Victor theme. Without this passionlessness of the divine nature, I'm not sure we are left with the same message. We seem to be pointing away from the Christ whom the Father sent, more towards things that have not been clearly revealed.

 

[Resha Caner]

So your concern is propriety and respect? I think that's appropriate. There is often a lacking sense of awe and majesty concerning God in some pop-Christian spirituality.

Yes, but I'm also concerned about the theology of it all. People seem to drift toward an "everything goes" position.

What do you think of C.S. Lewis where he creates a thinly veiled allusion to God through a talking lion? Is this different from what the Shack is doing? It seems to me imagination to some extent has always been an important part of western spirituality, going back to at least the middle ages.

Not that I agree with everything Lewis wrote, but I have great respect for him. He had Luther's ability to understand theology in great depth, and yet could express it in simple, concise terms.

From a theological perspective, I'm OK with Aslan because the connection was allegorical. I would be OK with a female character in fiction displaying Christ-like qualities if, again, the connection were allegorical. You could say Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games fits that mold. Some will say I'm splitting hairs, but to me there is a huge difference between saying a character is Christ-like and saying they are Christ. The Shack tries to address that with the car accident at the end of the book, thereby implying the whole thing was just the MC's imagination - that it wasn't really God ... if you prefer to think of it that way. IMO that's a cop out and bad writing.

In that regard, even though I respect Lewis, I don't think he was very good as a fiction writer. So, while I'm OK with the device from a theological perspective, I'm not a fan of Narnia.

Another issue with The Shack is it's poor resolution of the problem. Young obviously knows the pain of loss, and he expresses it beautifully in the first half of the book. That is what drew me to read the book. I was going through a loss of my own at the time. But his resolution is just pathetic - reminiscent of the hippies I so despised in the 1970s - nonsense that doesn't resolve real pain. If you want to read books based on religious themes from great writers that know about pain and deal with it honestly, try Ahab's Wife or The Poisonwood Bible. If you think my issue is misogynistic, I'll note that both of those books were written by women and have female MCs. If you think I want to ban "bad" theology, both of those books express very unconventional theologies (and as such I would only recommend them to mature Christians who are secure in their faith). But I still think they are excellent books that deal with deep pain in a very honest way.

 

[Resha Caner]

One thing the Shack seems to do in endorse Patripassionism, the suffering Father idea that has usually been rejected historically. Traditional Trinitarianism denies this. If you read even mystical theology such as that of Julian of Norwich, there is a paradox or dialogue between the suffering of the humanity of Christ, and the perfect blissfulness within the Trinity. In fact this is a central aspect to her Christus Victor theme. Without this passionlessness of the divine nature, I'm not sure we are left with the same message. We seem to be pointing away from the Christ whom the Father sent, more towards things that have not been clearly revealed.

That's a new term for me, and very interesting. One more way people have invented to misunderstand.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Shack tries to address that with the car accident at the end of the book, thereby implying the whole thing was just the MC's imagination - that it wasn't really God ... if you prefer to think of it that way. IMO that's a cop out and bad writing.

That sounds like a bad cliche, but I can see why he'ld do that, a way for the reader to not take him too seriously. Which makes his book more an attempt at therapy than serious literature, perhaps.

But his resolution is just pathetic - reminiscent of the hippies I so despised in the 1970s - nonsense that doesn't resolve real pain.

Now you've got me curious about this story because I always like to keep a finger on the pulse of what the culture is doing with religious ideas. Especially after seeing the reception that Silence got.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now you've got me curious about this story because I always like to keep a finger on the pulse of what the culture is doing with religious ideas. Especially after seeing the reception that Silence got.

Uh oh. If people are going to see something because I say I don't like it, I'll have to rethink my methods.

 

[FireDragon76]

Uh oh. If people are going to see something because I say I don't like it, I'll have to rethink my methods.

I was involved with an Emergent group (the Ooze) years ago just after The Shack was published, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the story, though I haven't read it. The Shack was big in those circles. I was involved with Emergents long enough to know it was not a place I wanted to stay, but at the time it was a necessary place to be.

 

[Resha Caner]

I was involved with an Emergent group (the Ooze) years ago just after The Shack was published, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the story, though I haven't read it. The Shack was big in those circles. I was involved with Emergents long enough to know it was not a place I wanted to stay, but at the time it was a necessary place to be.

I understand. It's hard to explain how, even though you know some of your past actions were wrong, they were necessary to make you who you are today. I'm glad you've moved on.

 

[mkgal1]

As @CrystalDragon used the word, no it's not a part of Christianity. As I said from the beginning, it's an expression of pantheism. Water in a glass doesn't mean water is the glass. Speaking to you through a computer doesn't mean I am a computer. Ephesians chapter 4 is speaking about the body of Christ, and so even in that case the meaning is only that the Spirit is in all Christians, not all human beings, not all things - further that the Spirit is in us doesn't mean the Spirit is us.

All of this is a digression from the original disagreement, but at this point I don't expect we'll return to that.

I'm glad you brought this up, because- - since I'm relying on Scripture - - I couldn't understand your opposition, so I looked it up. You're missing the distinction between "in" and a "part of" contrasted to "being the same as". It's a lot like the Trinity- - there's unity but diversity all at the same time.

From Wiki:

*Panentheism*(from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”[1][2]) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed *pantheism*of Baruch Spinoza.[1] Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[3]** panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.**

ETA: Oops. ViaCrucis was quicker than I was. I hadn't read that far when I posted this.

 

[mkgal1]

One thing the Shack seems to do in endorse Patripassionism, the suffering Father idea that has usually been rejected historically.

I'd never heard that term before, so I looked it up. I don't believe that's the intent or message that's meant to be implied. I think the message is that all 3 are distinct persons of one God. One can believe that without viewing the Trinity as "suffering" (is that your point?). The cross was out of love. It happened willfully.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oops. ViaCrucis was quicker than I was. I hadn't read that far.

Then you might want to keep reading regarding my reply to ViaCrucis, my exchange with FireDragon, and my comment that this all seems a digression from the original point.

 

[mkgal1]

Then you might want to keep reading regarding my reply to ViaCrucis, my exchange with FireDragon, and my comment that this all seems a digression from the original point.

I have.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have.

OK.

 

[mkgal1]

One thing the Shack seems to do in endorse Patripassionism, the suffering Father idea that has usually been rejected historically. Traditional Trinitarianism denies this. If you read even mystical theology such as that of Julian of Norwich, there is a paradox or dialogue between the suffering of the humanity of Christ, and the perfect blissfulness within the Trinity. In fact this is a central aspect to her Christus Victor theme. Without this passionlessness of the divine nature, I'm not sure we are left with the same message. We seem to be pointing away from the Christ whom the Father sent, more towards things that have not been clearly revealed.

I'm not familiar with that term or what is all implied (beyond the leaning towards Sabellianism--is that correct?)....but since Jesus was God revealed in the flesh....is it that far-fetched to think of God Himself as suffering along with His creation?

To me....much of the theme of the movie goes along with this, written by Richard Rohr. This seems to be the message:

Pain teaches a most counterintuitive thing: we must go down before we even know what up is. In terms of the ego, most religions teach in some way that all must “die before they die.” Suffering of some sort seems to be the only thing strong enough to both destabilize and reveal our arrogance, our separateness, and our lack of compassion. I define suffering very simply as “whenever you are not in control.” Suffering is the most effective way whereby humans learn to trust, allow, and give up control to Another Source. I wish there were a different answer, but Jesus reveals on the cross both the path and the price of full transformation into the divine.

When religion cannot find a meaning for human suffering, human beings far too often become cynical, bitter, negative, and blaming. Healthy religion, almost without realizing it, shows us what to do with our pain, with the absurd, the tragic, the nonsensical, the unjust. If we do not transform our pain, we will most assuredly transmit it. If we cannot find a way to make our wounds into sacred wounds, we invariably give up on life and humanity.

...that and at the very end, I love how in the narration Mac's wife says about him, "he's become almost like a child again".

 

[mkgal1]

The Shack tries to address that with the car accident at the end of the book, thereby implying the whole thing was just the MC's imagination - that it wasn't really God ... if you prefer to think of it that way

That's not what I got from the movie. I took it that God revealed to Mac what he needed in order to heal through him being unconscious. I didn't read the book, and maybe that was explained more thoroughly--but I definitely didn't take away that it wasn't really God. Or do you mean that the 3 persons weren't literal?

 

[Resha Caner]

That's not what I got from the movie. I took it that God revealed to Mac what he needed in order to heal through him being unconscious. I didn't read the book, and maybe that was explained more thoroughly--but I definitely didn't take away that it wasn't really God. Or do you mean that the 3 persons weren't literal?

IMO the book was trying to play all sides. After the accident Mac isn't sure anymore whether or not it was God, and the book leaves it to the reader to make that decision. But of course Mac walks away happier than a seal at a fish farm.

[edit] One reason I am so hard on this book is probably because the first half was so good that it was doubly disappointing that the second half was so bad.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's not what I got from the movie. I took it that God revealed to Mac what he needed in order to heal through him being unconscious. I didn't read the book, and maybe that was explained more thoroughly--but I definitely didn't take away that it wasn't really God. Or do you mean that the 3 persons weren't literal?

IMO the book was trying to play all sides. After the accident Mac isn't sure anymore whether or not it was God, and the book leaves it to the reader to make that decision. But of course Mac walks away happier than a seal at a fish farm.

[edit] One reason I am so hard on this book is probably because the first half was so good that it was doubly disappointing that the second half was so bad.

 

[mkgal1]

But of course Mac walks away happier than a seal at a fish farm.

I wouldn't call it "happiness"---more like "joy".

 

[mkgal1]

One reason I am so hard on this book is probably because the first half was so good that it was doubly disappointing that the second half was so bad.

Because it goes against your set beliefs =/= bad. That's just your opinion.

 

[Resha Caner]

Because it goes against your set beliefs =/= bad. That's just your opinion.

If you're referring to my literary tastes, sure. I'm willing to accept that people enjoy styles that differ from my preferences, and actually enjoy learning from people who can articulate why. Further, I'm acknowledging that Young proved himself a good writer. But not everything written by a good writer is always good.

If you're referring to my statements on theology, that is a different matter. That is not mine alone, but a tradition extending over millenia ... or at least as best I can express that tradition. I realize I won't be able to change one iota in your opinion, but I simply don't accept "anyone can believe whatever they want to believe." That there is often no insistence from those with liberal theological views that one can also believe whatever one wants about abuse, how to perform surgery, or the physics of jumping off a cliff says a lot to me about how those views of God sit relative to reality. That's been the issue from the beginning of this discussion.

As always, feel free to correct where you think I've gone astray.

 

[mkgal1]

If you're referring to my statements on theology, that is a different matter. That is not mine alone, but a tradition extending over millenia ... or at least as best I can express that tradition.

What specifically are your referring to here? There're very few Christian beliefs that have been strictly believed (without opposing or dessenting views) for millenia. That's why there are so many denominations.

 

[Resha Caner]

What specifically are your referring to here? There're very few Christian beliefs that have been strictly believed (without opposing or dessenting views) for millenia. That's why there are so many denominations.

That's not quite true. Now we're getting into an area related to my historical research, so I'll try my best not to answer you with a wall of text. Simply put, Confessional Lutherans (of which I am one) subscribe to an exposition of our faith called The Book of Concord. Though written in Luther's lifetime (and shortly thereafter), the ideas are not Luther's alone. Everything is based on sections of scripture accompanied by an unbroken chain of interpretations by church writers going all the way back to the earliest Church Fathers.

So, while there are some evangelical beliefs that can only be traced to the 19th century, all positions of Confessional Lutherans can be traced to the beginning.

That doesn't mean dissenters were nonexistent. But it does mean there has always been a significant contingent that supported those beliefs. Take, for example, the issue of Real Presence in the Eucharist. People can find early quotes from those who challenged the idea. But, there is also an unbroken chain of people within the church who have supported that idea ... from day 1 to the present.

The existence of dissenters long ago doesn't mean we can choose to believe whatever we please. Zeno (5th century B.C.) claimed motion was impossible. Citing that as justification to believe whatever you want about motion doesn't mean much when you meet reality.

 

[mkgal1]

That doesn't mean dissenters were nonexistent. But it does mean there has always been a significant contingent that supported those beliefs. Take, for example, the issue of Real Presence in the Eucharist. People can find early quotes from those who challenged the idea. But, there is also an unbroken chain of people within the church who have supported that idea ... from day 1 to the present.

The existence of dissenters long ago doesn't mean we can choose to believe whatever we please. Zeno (5th century B.C.) claimed motion was impossible. Citing that as justification to believe whatever you want about motion doesn't mean much when you meet reality.

Well.....for one thing, since we do have free will--we *can* technically "believe whatever"---but I've never really been suggesting that.

One can also say that the dissenting views also have an unbroken chain of people within the church who have supported them.

What I'm wondering is, what beliefs, specifically, about this film are you against?

 

[Resha Caner]

One can also say that the dissenting views also have an unbroken chain of people within the church who have supported them.

In a few cases, but for the most part, no. As I mentioned, some theology has very recent origins (e.g. contributions from the Enlightenment, American Puritanism, Mormonism). In other cases someone rediscovers an idea, e.g. someone thinks up the idea that Jesus was created without ever knowing that Arius had the same idea in the 4th century. Or, in yet other cases they read about Arius a thousand years later, think it's a cool idea, and develop their own version of Arianism. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean examples where John taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus ... who taught Luther ... who taught Dr. David Scaer. It's similar to the idea of apostolic succession, but not as mystical. Only a few churches can establish such a pedigree - the Orthodox, RCC, and Lutherans being among those few.

What I'm wondering is, what beliefs, specifically, about this film are you against?

One of them is what launched this conversation: feeling the freedom to define God as we please rather than as how he revealed himself. If I, as a historian, were to do such a thing I'd be stripped of my credentials. Isn't God a real, living person? It's basically bearing false witness.

My memory has admittedly grown fuzzy, but I believe a few other problems involved a sense of universalism and the idea that love means God won't judge anyone.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not familiar with that term or what is all implied (beyond the leaning towards Sabellianism--is that correct?)....but since Jesus was God revealed in the flesh....is it that far-fetched to think of God Himself as suffering along with His creation?

God did suffer and die on the Cross. But in saying that, we are not saying the Father suffered and died.

God suffering along with his creation is too ambiguous, it could easily be process theism. He/she/it "feels our pain". Which is sort of the appeal of this kind of theism, but it's not fully compatible with orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Trinitarianism says that God-in-Jesus feels our pain (in a very real way). He is the mediator between the Father and this world. If we start focusing our devotion on speculative theologies of what God is like, we are making an idol.

 

[mkgal1]

feeling the freedom to define God as we please rather than as how he revealed himself.

I didn't interpret the film to be "defining God" (would He even be God if we could define Him?).

God revealed [a part of] Himself (and His lessons) to Mac, the way Mac needed (not literally---but figuratively).

All we have are metaphors for God--since there's only one God. The Bible (and Jesus) seem a-okay with metaphors. For example, God is:

"a potter"~ Isaiah 64:8

"my shepherd"~Psalm 23:1

"the bread of life"~John 6:35

"the Light of the world"~John 8:12

"the Lamb"~Rev 19:7

"the Rock"~Deut 32:4, 31,37 Ps 78:5, Ps 42:9, Is 30:29, 2nd Sam 22:32, 1st Sam 2:2, Is 44:8, Ps 144:1, etc

"beginning & end"~Rev 21:6

"lion's whelp"~Gen 49:9

"the vine"~John 15:5

Jesus knew that people often learn best when they are able to move from what is known (familiar) to what is unknown (unfamiliar). By using metaphors Jesus showed that He was the master teacher by using comparisons and contrasts of things that were familiar to His audience. He made the complex simple and easy to understand.

Jesus used an amazing ability to link familiar phrases with ideas that at first seemed difficult to grasp. The Lord shaped truth in ways that people could picture it in their minds and contemplate on its riches. Ask the Lord for the wisdom and diligence to communicate truth in a way that scratches people where they are itching through felt, perceived, cultural, family, personal, experiential, and historically contextual needs.~Paul Fritz