The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
by William P. Young
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.71 You Save: $12.28 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
Book Review: Now the #1 Best Seller--for good reason
Summary: 5 Stars
By habit, I am suspicious of books that are popular, especially in the Christian market. I read The Shack guardedly expecting for Oprah's New Age type religion/philosophy.
I was pleasantly surprised with this stirring and unforgettable story about God's love and spiritual healing.
This is a fiction book. Missy's death is a metaphor for an ugly, dark place hidden so deep that it seemed beyond God's healing reach. Mack spends the two and a half days with the Trinity learning about himself and God and relationships in the shack which is transformed into a mansion in an Eden-like garden for the weekend.
I smiled, cried, pondered, prayed, and repented as I read this over two days. The main focus of this book is on God's love, God's mercy, and the importance of us loving and forgiving others. I came away from the book refreshed.
Once I felt comfortable the author believed in salvation by faith through grace and that Jesus being the only way, I let down my guard and basked in this well written book full of hidden treasures. This is a novel you read with a highlighter.
Those who view Christianity only as a religion with rules to follow will learn that faith and love don't come from theology or rules they flow from a relationship with God.
Why is The Shack so Popular?
Young approaches the popular topic the love of God and human suffering in a story. Jesus taught in parables and object lessons becasue we learn well from stories. Young's story is an attempt describe a God's character to his children. But God's character is essentially indescribable. We can only understand a part of God's characteristics by what we know and experience in human relationships.
People in our culture have a need to connect with God as a personal God beyond the holy and omnipotent. Our reverence and wonder about the presence of God make hard to grasp God in terms of intimate family relationships such as God as Papa (instead of an unseen force or an abstract will).
Young presents an easy to relate to version of the trinity of three persons with unique personalities spending a few days casual friendly folksy conversation and home cooked comfort meals. Easy enough for a child to understand, loving, warm and rich.
If you have been hurt in your life through church or religion or experienced the pain of legalism or rejection of judgmental attitudes this book will especially touch you. I have been hurt a lot in churches so I was profoundly impacted.
There is such a chasm between God's holy being and our imperfect world that it is simply hard to understand God's mercy and loving actions with unworthy man. The Shack gives us a grasp of the depth of the love of God and it is beyond comforting, it is exhilarating!
The Controversy
Any book that includes conversations with God is bound to receive criticism. How can anyone put words in God's mouth? But the critics seem to forget the book is a fiction story by a man telling a story about God's love to his children, not a book on theology. It is Young's perception of God.
I was not in total agreement with The Shack (I am not in total agreement with several of my favorite authors). I don't expect any book but the Bible to be perfect. Books are like watermelons; you have to be willing to spit out a few seeds.
I read many of the heresy hunters posts and some of them say some things that just are not true. The article "Is the Shack Heresy?" by Wayne Jacobson addresses each of the problems the critics bring up.
The predestination folks (particularly Tim Challies) seem to have the most problems with the book (the teachings in The Shack--God loves everyone-- do not agree with predestination. See the video series for a full explanation).
A Feminine God?
I imagine the hardest part for Christians to grasp is God being first presented to Mack as a female. Its easy to understand a knee jerk reaction. I was cautious when I read this but not completely turned off I have a limited understanding of the masculine and feminine parts of the image of God(becasue of my studies in Hebrew roots). When Adam was first made, he was both male and female, formed in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
The Shack is not trying to reinvent God as a female, but revealing that God is beyond race and gender. The main character in the story Mack was abused by his father so the author presents a comforting mother type at first, later in the book (once the earthly father issues are solved) God is presented as the Father. Harper's Bible Dictionary explains the Bible uses both male and femal imagery to show the charter of God:
Although masculine images for God dominate (e.g., king, judge, father, brother, shepherd, etc.), it must be recognized that feminine images are also frequently used to describe God's activity. Among these are images related to feminine anatomy (e.g., womb and breasts) and feminine function (e.g., conception, pregnancy, childbirth, maternal nurture, etc.).
In the story, Papa explains that there is no hierarchy in the holy trinity--there is no need becasue each serves each other. It is a thought provoking description and my jury is still out on this section. But I have no problem questioning this and gleaning from the rest of the story.
Turkey Bacon
I was very disappointed that God served bacon for breakfast. My 30 year old son helped me with this. When we discussed it he said (tongue in cheek) "Hey mom, it is probably the same turkey bacon you serve." I was enjoying the story so much I didn't want this part to ruin it. So in my mind--it is turkey bacon.
Christians can agree to disagree in non-salvation issues and still love each other.
To fairly critique the book I would ask the question: What did Mack learn from his weekend with God?
The Shack is not about theology or religion, but about the sweetness of an intimate relationship with God through Christ.
Mack is reminded of basic truths found in God's word that he allowed forgot during his great sadness. The truths are given in an unconditional casual conversation format that may make some people uncomfortable.
Mack learns that he doesn't really trust God and "Trust is the fruit of a relationship where you know you are loved" (p 126).
Mack discovers that God's desires an intimate love relationship with each of us. He learns God wants him to spend time with Him and intimately communicate with Him, to enjoy fellowship with Him, to trust and follow Him, and to give his life meaning and purpose. He learns that God can use all things, even sin and evil to develop this relationship for good (Romans 8:28).
Mack discovers the depth of God's grace (Ephesians 2:4-5) . He learns that he can not be self-sufficient and realizes he has been made acceptable through Jesus Christ and Him alone. He learns he will not find God through guilt or condemnation. He understands God is lovingly and patiently waiting on Him to submit (1 Peter 5:7).
Mack is reminded of the two most important commands--to love God and love others (john 13:35). Mack already knows he must forgive others as Christ forgave Him but in the shack he is helped through the process.
Mack learns God works through everything including our brokenness and sadness (Philippians 3:8). When we are separated from our prideful flesh (the carnal, corrupted life) through grace and allow the Holy Spirit to work in us He will gradually bring us to the restful place of humble dependence, wherein we can consistently receive the grace that leads to intimacy. Beautiful, loving intimacy!
Mack learns God wants us to be made complete in Christ (John 6:44-45). God wants us to be of one mind with Him. God wants us to make His ways our ways, His thoughts our thoughts.
I came away from the book feeling loved and secure with a strong desire to cultivate my relationship with God through His Word. How can that be a bad thing?
Book Review: Could have been a five star book!
Summary: 3 Stars
I just finished the book Monday and have quite conflicting feelings on it. Most of the time I was either thoroughly entertained or engrossed in deep tear-jerking emotions, but I also found some things in the book that I had to pass over as antagonistic (i.e. "edgy") or simply untrue/baseless. I will admit that fiction is not my thing. But when truth claims are introduced into the public arena, the genre simply cannot become a shroud and thoughtful analysis is warranted.
I instinctively felt very coerced as I was reading. I understand what the author(s) was trying to accomplish in challenging preconceptions and stripping away all the traditionalism and dogma of some people's faith to reveal an empty "religion", or strictly performance based habit that leads to nowhere, 'being before doing', yadda yadda, but I also felt that he/they overstated his/their points and drove them home with mainly mushy, seductive emotionalism and sappiness over substance.
So I can see why some are alarmed, as the book certainly does contain some things that contradict scripture and are clearly derived from a subjective, eclectic take instead. But then again, that was obvious from the early going when Young made the statement that "they" didn't want "God in a box, only God in a book" .. "properly interpreted" and "trimmed with gilt edges, or is that guilt edges(?)". I knew after reading that landmine that I would have to pass over some things that may hinder Young's message, but it served as a proverbial red flag nonetheless.
It's also clear to me that this man has baggage from his experiences of the past and this seems to vault many into this type of spiritual odyssey. It smacks of victim mentality a little too much and doesn't provide a middle ground where faith can be traditionally rooted and yet full of strong, loving relationships with God and fellow man. So even if it was unintended, a false dichotomy arose in my mind. But, then again, I suppose this is nothing new and I don't claim to have all the answers either. Perhaps if I had the bad experiences so many seem to have had with the traditional evangelical Christian church I would be more impacted (?)
So in essence, I found this tale to be the author's concept of God which seems overly casual and overemphasizing grace and love: "God as servant is always to be emphasized over the Almighty", etc. This seems to come from the mutual submission of the Trinity that's espoused over and over as well as the choice to limit oneself as an act of respect, submission and service. God is here to please you, and don't even try to please him seems to be the main message. I also found the anti-institutional/revolution bent echoed throughout almost Marxist. This is humanistic philosophy to the core. The evil, man-made trinity is said to be politics, religion and something else, but I would instead suggest it's pride, egocentrism and autonomy. No doubt the author would agree with autonomy as he rails against trying to control throughout.
Furthermore, lack of expectation seems to be a nice way of being lazy to me. I see danger in those who don't feel compelled to be a part of the body saying "Amen! I don't want to be around all those intolerant hypocrites anyway!!". I know them, and it breaks my heart. James, brother of Jesus, states clearly that faith without works is dead, so much like the duel-sided coin of God's nature & being, we should resist overstating works or "performance", as it was put, without faith.
Please don't misunderstand, I am fully aware of the pitfalls of empty rituals and going through the motions i.e. "performance treadmill" (a chief point driven home ad nauseam in the book), but all of it leads to a very focused view of self over God if left unchecked. Lord knows that MANY evil and even more apathetic things have been done in His name, but that does not mean we are to swing so far the other way as an overcompensation. Perhaps the broken man writing this book needed to, but it's NOT a panacea even though we are all broken in some respects.
That being said, the author does indeed present important lessons, to be sure, as the book is chocked full of spiritual truths where I found myself nodding in agreement, usually through tears. The importance of relationships, the power of authentic community and true love are only a couple of examples. The awesome wonders of reconciliation and forgiveness and of course, amazing grace. We are missionaries wherever our sphere of influence takes us in our daily lives and we are to share God's love and mercy and live in close, meaningful relationships forming authentic community. Amen to ALL of that! There is real healing power here and perhaps that is what was intended most (?) For that I applaud the book. All of the above are music to my soul and I enjoyed the author's portrayal of it, and yet, the other stuff kept haunting me as I read.
I think what it comes down to in reality is that Young, et al exposes our finiteness in trying to grasp God as he truly is, i.e. the holy trinity, and it's taken a step further to depict "them" as unoriginal and stereotypical anthropomorphisms. Clearly it was meant to be somewhat humorous and trendy, for the seeker or causal believer perhaps, but it wound up shedding light on the author more so than anything Eternal or True.
So I think that although the intentions are good and the story is also riveting at times, we find in the end exactly what I believe we have largely lost in modern times--namely a sincere reverence for the Almighty and proper perspective on His character and being, which defines Truth. From this we form our beliefs, or worldview, and this in turn dictates our behavior. I fear we have exchanged an overly tyrannical god full of wrath and judgment who's busy measuring our performance and legalism like a mean-spirited Santa Claus with a lovey dovey pushover who makes no demands and bears no judgment. We are free to do whatever we want to and the key to it all is being in relationship, which spurs us on to be with God. This is the party host god portrayed so colorfully by Curt Cloninger in his "God Views" series. She's inviting and warm but incomplete and largely the product of wishful thinking. So with that taken into account, the overwhelmingly positive perceived revelation of God's nature here is but an illusion. It's what people want to hear.
It's sort of ironic that the only reason I was even aware of (and purchased! ;)) the book was in seeing it on one of Dr. Michael Youssef's emails. "Ironic" indeed, because his purpose was to warn about the book's claims, but I suppose he's decided that the free publicity for Mr. Young is outweighed by his noble obedience to prophecy. As this book gains popularity, and eventually becomes a full blown movie, it will become part of current pop culture lexicon anyway. Dr. Youssef will have been ahead of the curve, even if I disagree with some of his critique.
It's a shame really, because this book had so much potential and as I stated earlier I am left torn! Unfortunately, I feel, the author(s) overindulged to voice his biases and personal opinions a little too loudly and in the end wound up ruining some of the pearls I was gleaning. Some of it could be overlooked, but in retrospect there was too much to endorse the book outright for anyone other than a few who would see through it. But please understand, I did enjoy the book and it is very provocative. I am not slamming it or the author(s) at all but simply trying to remain grounded in a world where it seems the church of Jesus Christ is ever moving toward exchanging God's will for our own.
Well, sorry for the 'book about a book' but I guess this really affected me. I welcome thought provoking items like this one and hope & trust that God will use it as a tool for His purposes. If nothing else, "The Shack" will get these types of discussions going anew.
Sincerely,
-Doug
Book Review: New Age crap
Summary: 1 Stars
THE SHACK
Review by Dale Brown
When I was given a copy of The Shack by William P. Young I must admit I was a bit skeptical for a number of reasons. I have never been much of a reader of fiction. Someone once said if you get your theology from a novel, you will likely end up with novel theology. So often the people that give me religious/Christian fiction are those who are short on critical thinking and most often come from Christian circles where they have never been exposed to any form of biblical apologetics, and at times are looking to create a god in their own image. The cover jacket has glowing statements by many popular names, and leading the pack is Eugene Peterson who claims the book to possibly be the greatest thing written since Pilgrim's Progress. Wow! Over the years of dealing with cultists I have come to put some degree of trust in this inner alarm that goes off in my spirit when something appears out of whack, much like when I pick up a Book of Mormon and begin reading it. It usually means buyer beware.
The book tells the story of a guy named Mackenzie Philips, or "Mack", whose daughter Missy is abducted and murdered. When evidence is found of the grisly ordeal in a wilderness cabin "shack" in Oregon, Mack is understandably devastated. What happens next opens the door for the rest of The Shack story to unfold. A few years later Mack receives a mysterious note from what appears to be God (or the killer) which leads him to go back to the shack to investigate. Here is where it gets weird. At the cabin he meets a black woman who comes to be known both as Elousia and Papa "God", then an Asian woman named Sarayu "the Holy Spirit", and a Middle Eastern guy, you guessed it, whose name is "Jesus". So here we have the Trinity appearing in the form of three earthlings. Anyone who has read the Biblical accounts of manifestations of Deity immediately recall God speaking to Moses out of a burning bush, and out of a cloud, and John the apostle falling as a dead man before the glorified Christ in the book of Revelation. So this bit of fiction starts out with a different Deity from the beginning. The names are suggestive of hidden meanings. Elousia, is Greek for tenderness as used in regards to Mary and her Son. Sarayu, comes from the Sanskrit which means wind, and is a mythological river in Hindu mysticism.
Next, we see the words that the author puts in the mouth of this Deity enough to get anyone under early Jewish standards stoned to death for false prophecy. This female Papa God fits well with those who have degendered God in some of the modern liberal Bible translations. We see a hint of the modalism heresy with Papa having nail scared wrists (pg.107) It is even more clear on page 99 where "we [the three persons of the Godhead] became fully human". In the Biblical Trinity however the Father never became human. Jesus became human yet continued to pray to His Father who remained Spirit. The author's understanding of the Trinity hierarchy and the relationship of each member is misrepresented in numerous places. "We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command. . ."(pg. 122) The Bible however clearly teaches authority in heaven and on earth. The Father never submits to the Son. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing" (Jn. 5:19). It is the Holy Spirit's job to glorify Jesus, not the other way around (Jn. 16:14). Apostle Paul taught to obey rulers and all who are in authority, "Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:2). The Bible even says the saints will judge angels. In heaven, authority is also seen by warring Archangels. They clearly exercise authority. The very word for church speaks of authority and structure with rulers who are to govern the flock. Paul wrote pastoral epistles in order to give guidelines to Timothy a young pastor who was to teach, reprove, rebuke,exhort,etc., "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths."(2 Tim. 4:2&3)
The Shack Jesus claims that "I don't create institutions - never have and never will"pg.178. So apparently Paul was misguided to give us so much instruction about how to set up church government.
Mack's understanding of righteous music is understood to included even the Mormon tabernacle choir (pg. 90).
God's role as judge and the nature of sin is misrepresented by claiming,(pg. 120) "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." The Bible clearly teaches that God created hell for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41)and God will send upon those who continue in sin a deluding influence that they might believe a lie and thus be judged (2 Thess. 2:11&12), in that place where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth(Matt. 25:30). Though this is a book about a murder yet there is no reference to Satan who the biblical Jesus says was a murderer from the beginning. On page 145 God supposedly claims "Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way." Isn't that something? We have created a God in our likeness and He even bows down to us. The Bible however clearly teaches that Jesus "humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross"(Philip 2:8).
On page 182 is the most glaring error. "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons Baptists or Muslims. . . I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved." The Bible clearly tells us that no one can go to the Father unless they are followers of Christ, for He is the way and the door. All others are thieves and liars(Jn.10:1).
Page 202 continues with the rebellion theme. The Shack Jesus claims we "are not under any law. . . All things are lawful" Laws and rules only give us control, the author claims. "It grants you the power to judge others and feel superior to them." Paul wrote an epistle to the Corinthians addressing this very issue. The Corinthians had sin in the camp and they were not addressing it. He was furious. He even turned one man over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh (1 Cor. 5:5). In his second letter he wrote, "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete(2 Cor. 10:5&6).
The author continues with New Age aura and Hindu chakra type illustrations in the chapter "A Festival of Friends" where beams of colorful spears of light shine out of a variety of living beings.
In summary: The Shack, published by Windblown Media, is full of theological problems and a danger to all of those sheep who have no shepherd and are blown here and there by every wind of doctrine because their theology is as shallow as a wading pool. Yes I understand this is supposed to be fiction. The Book of Mormon, Dianetics, Science and Health, and a host of other fictional books with heretical teachings have become major religious cults. Thus the danger of using God as a form of entertainment. The devil can take this kind of material and cause all kinds of division and confusion. I thank God I didn't pay money for it.
Book Review: Like putting manure in the brownies
Summary: 1 Stars
Much of what the author has to say is good and right. However, his stance on bringing God down as some sort of external, supernatural apparition is of some concern. I realize there is ample record of God (or at least holy angels) appearing in the Old Testament. But that was before the New Covenant. For those who are in the New Covenant, Christ is in you! Read and study your Bible! Beware of external manifestations. I'm not saying such things can't (or won't) happen (there are many modern accounts of Jesus appearing to unevangelized peoples). But why do you (if He is in you) need to revert back to external things when you have come into the internal reality of Christ in you? The devil, after all, comes to us as an angel of light. We know we are children of God by the inward witness of the Spirit bearing witness with our (redeemed) spirits. Furthermore, the fact that God is depicted as a woman does not bother me (though it does bother me) nearly as much as the way she carries on. I half expected her to cuss. God came down from heaven in Jesus Christ to meet us where we are and to lift us out of our depravity. He became like us in that God took on human flesh...not in that He took on our sin nature (He did take on our sin nature in one way, nailing it to the cross. But He did not take it on so as to live like us).
The Holy Spirit, as Comforter and the One who was brooding over the face of the waters (as a hen incubates her eggs) in Genesis, does possess woman-like attributes. But God is not a woman. He wasn't even a man until Jesus became one. The whole idea of God being a woman is an ancient heresy that was brought into the church in 325 A.D. by the delegation from Egypt to the Nicene Council.
What's more, if God needs to appear to you in some sort of external, supernatural way, it seems you might be an unbeliever. Or maybe He is trying to get your attention? Or maybe it isn't really Him? Believers have Christ in them! And if God does appear to a believer for some reason, we might expect the reaction to be like that of John or Isaiah. When Jesus appeared to John he fell at His feet as a dead man. Isaiah was completely undone at the throne of God. It seems any outward manifestation of God needs to carry His character. It needs to jive with what we know of Him inwardly and scripturally. He is holy and awesome. The Shack depicts Him as casual and nonchalant...just one of us. Chuck Colson (on his website) has some good things to say along these lines.
Anyway, the point is this: how does the character in the book know this apparition of the God-head is really God? Is it because it says things that make a little sense? Or is it because it is a supernatural being? Satan quoted scripture to Jesus. He knows how to reason. Romans 8:16 might shed some light on this.
Furthermore, here are just a few of the many theological assertions in the book (albeit fictional) that concern me. The words Young puts in the mouths of the members of the Trinity do not hold to scripture:
"You know what I'm talking about." Mack was a little frustrated. "I am talking about who's in charge. Don't you have a chain of command?"
"Chain of command? That sounds gastly!" Jesus said.
"At least binding," Papa added as they both started laughing, and then turned to Mack and sang, "Though chains be of gold, they are chains all the same."
"Now don't concern yourself with those two," Sarayu interrupted, reaching out her hand to comfort and calm him. "They're just playing with you. This is actually a subject of interest among us."
Mack nodded, relieved and a little chagrined that he had again allowed himself to lose his composure.
"Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity."
But here is what Scripture says about a chain of command within the Trinity:
John 8:55. "I do know Him and keep His word."
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and my judgement is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me."
John 5:19 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing..."
John 4:34 "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."
1Co 15:28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.
Here is another theological assertion that is disconcerting:
"I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it."
It's the line "I don't need to punish people for sin" that I think is most damaging. It's true... God does not take pleasure in punishing our sin. However, He does punish it. Of course sin has built-in punishments, but God punishes us too. The Bible is full of God punishing people for sin. Parents punish their children out of love and God punishes us out of love. So I believe the quote above is misleading at best.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
The Jesus character says "I am the best way to relate to Papa or Sarayu. To see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you. And believe me, Papa and Sarayu are just as real as I am, though as you've seen in far different ways."
Again, this is misleading for those who don't have a deep revelation of Who Christ really is or a solid foundation in Scripture. To say "I am the best way" is to subtly imply that there are other ways to relate to the Father. But of course we know that there are no other ways...
John 14:6 "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me."
And here is yet another:
"'Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In Fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."
Here is what scripture says, John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another.
What's more, why does the author feel he has the right to redefine words? "Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience..." What? This is unthinking at its best. According to The Oxford American Dictionary, Submission means "the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person."
It seems this book opens the door to confusion and deception. Because people are not grounded in Christ and in sound doctrine they will believe all kinds of stuff. My advice is not to bother reading this book. Instead, read the Bible and pick up something like The Inward Journey, by Gene Edwards. Edwards will help you begin to untangle the mess The Shack has created in your mind. God gave some as apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. William Young is an entertainer. Woe to the one who gets their theology from The Shack. Sanity is being able to separate fact from fiction. Young unfortunately blends the two...like putting manure in a batch of brownies. It doesn't matter how good the good part is, it is defiled by the manure. No thanks.
Book Review: Dark Night of the Soul Turns Stupid
Summary: 1 Stars
Because this book encompasses a large number of topics, I will approach this critique with different perspectives:
As a Reader, for Pleasure -
3/5 stars. William Paul Young is passable in this area.
Though I object to a lot of the ideas that are presented at the heart of the book (and found it so ridiculous to be almost laughable), it was a fairly quick and acceptable read (I read for two days off and on to finish the book). The beginning and ending do a superb job and engaging the reader, and one does start to feel for the characters. The middle abandons some of the strong characterizations of the children that interested me so much at the beginning however, and doesn't do much at the end to cleanly wrap those lines up.
But all-in-all, not a terrible book. Passable, but not great.
As a Reader, for Emotional Impact -
3/5 stars. Young is passable in this area.
One does not have to be a Christian, nor indeed religious, to see the emotional power of a story like this. The love-loss-redemption cycle feels real and true, though there are plenty stories that deal with the same situations better. What happens to the main character and his family is disastrous, and the issue is handled with fairly deft emotions, but not incredible authorship. There is attachment, love, and indeed, rectitude, to be found here.
Well enough played.
As an English Major/Teacher, for Literary Significance -
0/5 stars. Young spectacularly and completely fails in this area.
Structure:
Well, I can use a nice term here: we begin "in medias res". That's about the best this novel can attain with regards to the literary. Young is proficient enough with description to paint realistic and powerful pictures that do their job to serve as a vehicle for the story; however, it oftentimes feels like Young is just listing colors, instead of evoking them. Young's prose is fairly simplistic, but that's certainly better than being inaccessible. The bookends of the story are engaging and pass quickly. The middle of the story slows the book considerably, though (I suppose) that is much of the point.
Content:
While personally, in terms of actual content, I found much of the book tedious, that was mostly due to my atheism, which I will address later. However, putting that aside, it was fairly difficult to begin in realism, and then have to put logic aside once the protagonist makes it back to the shack. Mixing fantasy with reality, as in speculative fiction, takes talent and I wasn't convinced that Young had that talent.
The different "god events" that occurred throughout the middle seemed haphazard and lacked thought into their context or order presented. While it espoused to be the thoughts of "God," I couldn't help but feel the human creating it. What little narrative there is is shattered by a lack of editing and poor ability.
Characterizations fail in many areas where they are most important - I feel that the children are the most valuable characters, but they are abandoned 80 pages in. Much of the story is racialist while not quite racist, sexualist while not quite sexist, and prejudicial while not quite prejudiced - none of which I mind, but they will turn off those looking for "Truth in God".
Dialogue. Holy crap. This book has some of the WORST dialogue imaginable. The utterly laughable phrases uttered by "God" and the protagonist alike were PAINFUL. I had to set the book down every time the main character said something like, "By golly gee, that sure does seem neat!"
And everything is just so right and beautiful and everyone is just so happy and hugs everywhere and I just wanted to vomit throughout the entire midsection of this book.
Significance:
While the book seems amateurish on the premise of any literary value and is marred by some of the above-mentioned problems, much of the supposed significance that this book is supposed to have is philosophical. The deep philosophical issues do however devolve into theology, and the literary impact the book could have had (like saying something valid about society) falls apart with things like, "independence is bad," and, "evil CAN exist in a world with God," and so on.
A systematic failure in its purpose makes for non-literary success.
As a Former Christian, for Theology -
1/5 stars. Young widely fails at this point.
What was supposed to be religion became a spiritual clutter of not-quite-formed ideas. In my 20-some odd years of Christianity, I had heard 95% of these new-age concepts and reformations of the Christian mind by youth leaders, pastors, and laypeople alike. Nothing truly new was brought to the playing field, and the ideas that had the possibility of powerful evocation (such as evil, reality, purpose, and love) were broken by the storyteller's need to physically represent "God" and his sophomoric understanding of philosophy. Imagining "God" as your buddy is a cool enough thought, but a childish one.
A quick look to [...] shows that some of the more conservative Christians have taken Young to task with accusations as deep as "heresy"; while it matters to me not one whit what these people have to say about orthodoxy, it is notable that they (and not just I, who used to represent the more progressive nature of the church) have considerable problems with Young's theology.
As an Atheist, to Indulge a Friend and Test the "God" Claim -
0/5 stars. Young spectacularly and completely fails here.
I received this book from a very close friend for Christmas, and genuinely wanted to read it, if not to create debate on the issue, then to serve my friend's interest.
The shift from powerful family moments to scenes of insane ridiculousness read to me like an acid trip. The impetus of the plot is based, after all, on the main character falling and hitting his head on some ice, and when he finally gets to the shack, I couldn't help but think about the round table rants of "That 70's Show," because that's how it read. Throughout the book I wasn't sure when to laugh, when to put the book down because I felt I was loosing brain cells, and when to shout, "That's retarded/not logical!" to the author.
None of the claims asserted for the existence of "God" are addressed, and simply assumes "God" exists and the Bible is the means to Truth. One of the great problems atheists have with religion is that religions are "asserted without evidence," and so we dismiss them (I mean, at least tell me why it's the Christian "God" and not "Allah"!). This book does nothing to make me "crave the presence of God," nor does it seem at any instance "spiritually profound".
The big question of evil existing in the world is roundaboutly addressed, without a real answer, other than the already tried and tired "evil exists because you have free will, and I want you to have free will, so evil has to exist" crap. Even many of the simple questions raised by the most amateurish atheists are not validly or adequately tackled, much less answered. Extreme failure to the challenge.
Overall -
1.5/5 stars (downgraded to 1 for Amazon.com). Powerful failure of storytelling.
What could have been a powerful look into the "dark night of the soul," turned out to be a laughable and absurd shamble through inadequate and broken writing. Severely NOT recommended.