The Shack by William P. Young (Review)

I read half of it. I tried to read the whole thing, I really did, but I couldn't do it. Maybe I'll read the last 100 pages eventually, but I'd rather spend that time on another book. I admit that my initial review (before I actually read the book) was too harsh. I wrote:

The Shack is much better than I expected, so I no longer plan to burn my copy in effigy. This is a fiction novel, and although the main character Mack is fictional and his actions serve a purpose in the plot of the book, I was still discouraged by the theological statements that Mack makes to his children, friends and in his inner monologue. Since Mack has a seminary degree, it's hard to separate his critiques of the church from the Author's voice. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the church, who has an isolated faith, will feel exonerated by Mack's theological statements. So liberal leaders of the emergent church like Brian MClaren or George Barna might like this book. I concede that Mack's theological dilemmas are a necessary predicate to his encounters with the Trinity. Still, I was discouraged by Mack's uncorrected attacks on church orthodoxy that are left unanswered, and considering his seminary training, it concludes that answers are not obtainable through the 2,000 year church tradition. So don't expect to obtain any profound theological truths from this book.

Everyone loved Space Invaders and Beauty and the Beast but sometimes when computer graphics are too real but still not perfect, the cartoons have an eeriness to them like ghosts or the undead that scares people. So, because this book is so close to perfect truths but misses the marks, it generates similar disgusting eeriness. I really enjoyed The Plague by Albert Camus and The Catcher in the Rye by Salinger but both of those books made much more horrible claims about God and life than The Shack. So this is why people who love pure orthodoxy are so abhorred by this book, and the fact that so many people love this book, there is a fear that people will believe the theological statements in the mouth of Mack or the Trinity.

Besides the Theological Flaws (that I won't list), the book isn't any better than other dramatic thrillers. If you like John Grisham novels, then you will probably like this book too.  I actually like John Grisham much more, because things actually happen in his books. Not much happens in The Shack. An event happens, and it talks about that event way too much without adding meaningful details. The main character is the only developed character until the Trinity is encountered. The Trinity isn't that developed either, and the only notable things about the Trinity are the theologically flawed descriptions of the Trinity that are different from what we know the Trinity is proclaimed to be like in the Bible. So this causes horror to people who have read the bible or intrigue to people who think the Trinity is a one-for-all and all-for-one pie-in-the sky being.

The reason I bought the book is that I wanted to know why so many people loved the book. I thought there was something magnificent about Young's writing style or scene descriptions that captivated his readers. I found that the pages turn fast without content and I now wonder if people are unable to appreciate books and will only read junk airport-stand books. I'm not good at writing fiction, and Young is a much better fiction writer than I am, but I really believe I could write something comparable to The Shack.

I am inspired by this book, because Young wrote it on a whim, and it was rejected by all the publishers. He self published and eventually landed on the best seller's list. It inspires me to write, especially since the book is so simple. I personally do not want to read any more books like this one, because there are so many wonderful books, but I do want to know what kind of books are effective today.

I don't recommend this book but I admit that I only read half of it, but from other reviews I've read, I believe the second half is like the first. So, I will leave it on my coffee table or by my toilet, and maybe I'll finish it eventually. I've invested 125 pages into the book, and those are 125 pages I'll never have back to spend on a good book. I don't want to waste anymore pages. Save your money, buy Pilgrims Progress instead.

By: Wyatt Houtz

Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright (Review)

Rather than jumping into the resurrection accounts in the gospels, N.T. Wright begins by studying Resurrection in Homer (the pagan Old Testament.) What did resurrection mean before Plato? What were the resurrection beliefs of the Egyptians and pagan religions outside of the bible? He studies these concepts in depth and defines what people believed happened after death and what they believed about resurrection. Also, N.T. Wright studies the dying-and-raising gods that were bound to harvest, and all the alleged origins of Christian resurrection. Some gods did die and were reborn but not in the same way as Christians believe resurrection will occur and no humans were resurrected. All humans who died, perished or ended up in a confused, semi-spiritual, disembodied existence in a land far away.  Odysseus's journey to the land of the dead and Hercules' ascension are studied in depth. There's no example of a human returning permanently to a bodily life after death. After the Greek Mythology of Homer, then Plato is studied with the background of Homer. How was Plato different than Homer? Plato's concept of the immortal soul is explained and contrasted against Christian resurrection.

The amazing conclusion is that outside of Christianity, no one believed in a return to bodily existence after death. N.T. Wright calls this "life after life after death." Even Plato's view of the eternal soul is distinctly different than bodily resurrection. The implications is that Christianity in no way evolved from adopting pagan beliefs but was completely novel to the first century.

Even more interesting is N.T. Wright's study of resurrection in Judaism. Does the Mosaic Law promise resurrection? He considers all the verses in the Mosaic Law (Genesis through Deuteronomy) that may be interpreted as promising "resurrection." The Hebrew behind Deuteronomy 32:39's "I kill and I make alive" suggests that the "make alive" implies "resurrection."

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Numbers 18:28
So you shall also present a contribution to the Lord from all your tithes, which you receive from the people of Israel. And from it you shall give the Lord's contribution to Aaron the priest.

Also the Hebrew words behind Numbers 18:28 suggest that Aaron is still alive because he is actively receiving tithes forever. Jesus makes a similar argument in response to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 by implying that since God is the God of the living only, then therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive today.

N.T. Wright makes the acute observation that the Sadducees were the conservatives and the Pharisees were the liberals, because the Sadducees stuck to a ridged interpretation of the Law that lead them to denying the resurrection. N.T. Wright suggests that belief in a resurrection of the righteous didn't develop until Second-Temple Judaism; specifically Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Various verses in Hosea 12, Isaiah and especially Ezekiel 37 were embraced by the Pharisees as proof texts for a limited resurrection of the righteous only. The Sadducees resisted these doctrines because there are no clear verses that teach "bodily resurrection" in the Mosaic Law. So the question of whether bodily-resurrection existed in the Mosaic Law is covered in depth by N.T. Wright.

Paul is N.T. Wright's expertise and his New Perspective on Paul is unavoidable during his deep exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4 & 5. (See my previous review of N.T. Wright's book, Paul: In fresh perspective) Never-the-less, Wright's methods for unpacking the Corinthian correspondence is highly revealing and productive! Especially considering the myriad of interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15 alone. I am now done with Paul and reading N.T. Wright's explanation of the resurrection in the synoptic gospels. Although 300 pages still remain, I already give this book a highly recommended stamp of approval! Put a copy on reserve at your local library today!

By: Wyatt Houtz