Shaq Attack

Well my friends, it's a busy time and I'm finding it challenging to get back to blogging about The Shack. Today's post will be short, but will give you more background to understand the next few blogs about this book. Thanks for your patience.

During the 1993 NBA Season Shaquille ONeal broke two backboards, and these acts later were declared to be "Shaq Attacks". The strength and force required to do this is pretty impressive, considering that you are flying through the air as it happens, with the other team's players trying to stop you with opposing measures of force. The end results are often, ah, shattering! Please forgive the cheesy play on words, but this was just too rich to pass up.

I have been quite pleased to receive feedback from many of you about the first two posts on Cheryl's World. Most have been positive, but there have been some who have disagreed with my assessment of The Shack. Let me say that this is exactly what this blog is about. I don't want to only hear from those who agree with me. I eagerly anticipate a diversity of opinions and perspectives from those who are kind enough to respond. What I hope I will not see is uncivil attacks. The results of that can, and often are, as shattering to relationships as those back boards that Shaq broke in the 1993 season. Os Guinness, amazing author and cultural commentator, says that it is time for Americans to engage in civil conversations about important issues. For too long we have attacked each other and not ideas. My hope for this blog is that everyday people will be able to share reactions to some ideas and topics that I put "out there". Thank you to those who have responded in agreement, and disagreement, because you have done so civilly.

By way of background information, I want to state that while I will value the opinions that others share, I hope to hold my own views to a very specific standard; the scriptures. I believe that God has spoken to us in the these Scriptures, even though these books were written by human authors. I also believe that the Old and New Testaments are without error in their original manuscripts. To the best of my ability this will be my guide in my posts and responses to you. God's revelation to man, the Bible answers major questions of life: "Why am I here?", "What's wrong with the world?", "What's wrong with me?", "How can I live with purpose and meaning?", and "What happens when I die?". Young, himself, tries to answer another one of those major questions, "Where is God when there's so much pain and hurt in the world?" While not all readers may agree with an orthodox Christian view, it is the sole perspective from which I will write. When I was teaching, and we were writing concept based curriculum, a final question we always asked was, "So what?" The final question I will come to again and again is, "Who said?" Authority, as my friend Laura commented, is always the bottom line". Who said it, and why is their voice to be believed above all others, will always find it's authority and bottom line in the Bible.

While The Shack is a work of fiction, it clearly intends to communicate theological truths (actually, when anyone speaks of God, his nature, and plan they are wandering into theological territory, it's just that not all opinions are equally Biblical). As Tim Challies, blogger, and editor of Discerning Reader, says, "...of course theology is not enough; it is a means rather than merely an end. We do not wish to only know about God, but also wish to show evidence that we know Him. We give evidence of this in the way we live our lives." Knowledge and God-honoring lives are interconnected, and should be inseparable. Mack experienced a great deal of pain at the hands of his father. Does Young make the father a non-religious person, clearly a deplorable human being? No, he sets up a straw man, making him a Bible quoting monster, implying that the people who know the most about God are the ones who live the least like Christ. As early as page 65, Young characterizes seminaries as teaching that God doesn't speak directly to people today, but they have reduced His voice to paper, and that His voice can only be correctly heard "if moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects" (page 66). This is contrasted by Mack, the man who swears in the presence of God, and who attributes to Him evil intent, as the one who receives personal communication from Papa. When Mack says, "Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book," it seems to me he is suggesting that the scriptures are confining and restricting, rather than liberating. In his own little play on words, he refers to the gilt edges of a leather bound Bible as possibly being "guilt edges", I think implying that the scriptures are about condemnation rather than the life affirming message that Christ came to share; that those words repress and destroy, rather than bring life and freedom. The irony that Young minimizes, or perhaps ignores, is that to experience this liberation he so desires, we must begin with knowing that it is available, and that knowledge is found in the scriptures.

In the next blog I'll look at The Shack's view of faith and how we can know God. Thanks for reading.