Well, here's my 2 cents. Overall, I liked The Shack and would recommend it, not so much for a study in theodicy as an example of how the imagination can be used to communicate truth. At the same time, I do believe it is good for those who are hurting and concerned with the "why?" question.I admit that when I first heard that God the Father is represented as a black "mammy" (I love classic black mammy's by the way) I was a bit put off because of the gender issue. Having now read the book, I realise that he is not trying to advocate a feminist position. Instead, he abides by the patriarchical revelation. Even as a "mammy," he (she?) is still called "Papa." Once the main character is emotionally able to respond to the Father as a father, The Father is represented in a pretty mocho male fashion.
I do have a serious problem with his blanket denunciations of hierarchy and "institutions." Young obviously needs some tutoring in the dialectic nature of God's revealed truth and in the problems of generalization and accidens. The condemnation of the name "Christian" is really bad. It is apparent from some comments that Young has at least read Lewis or Tolkien on myth - I wish he had read more of their works and less of whatever has mislead him.
The issue of the use of narrative, representing Jesus speaking on particular issues, is an interesting question. There is an authoritative power that comes across to the reader when, with imagination engaged, he reads Jesus saying this or that. It seems like an author should not put himself in the position of representing God saying something in an imaginative narrative because it really does come across as revelation to the reader - unless one is keeping up their attempt at discernment. However, when one preaches a sermon, he is also saying "thus saith the LORD," in a mediated fashion, which carries its own sense of authority. So, I would say that the narrative is much the same kind of thing as a sermon and in both cases one should keep asking "what saith the Scripture?" while under its spell.
As Lewis says, for any one new book, read three old ones (it was three, wasn't it? Maybe more). I'm sure Lewis's immediate recommendation would be Boethius and I must agree. But considering the sad state of literacy in this country, I would recommend The Shack, with some heavy caveats and a promise to follow up the book with a discussion so the errors could be ironed out.
Comments