Just the forward of this book invites discussion. In this little note we hear that Willie, a friend of Mack, will put into words Mack’s story. You are carried into this world and what I find interesting is that it’s very easy already to blur the line between what is fiction and what’s not.
First, you have Mack. We hear the description of Mack with some specifics, the wrenching story of his boyhood and abuse at the hands of his father. We hear about his ambiguity towards religion, thanks to that father’s influence and I’m sure other factors as well. We hear hints about other adventures around the world and the pain and hope that those have instilled within Mack.
Doesn’t Mack seem very real? He’s supposed to be a reflection in some ways of the author, William Young (for a little bit of background on him, read his story here). Even more than this though, you get the feeling that this fiction is meant to transcend fiction in a way. It’s a story and all the details ultimately are a story, but even if that’s the case, in some way they’re true. Just look at the last paragraph of the forward, “memory can be a tricky companion at times”. In some senses, this is what he’s saying. Even within this fictional world, the jist of the story that’s being retold will be true, even if within that same fictional world, the details aren’t exactly as they happened.
How do you react to this? Can stories be true in a sense, even if they aren’t factual? How far can you take this? How might some people apply this to the Bible and where do we have to then be careful?
Also, any reactions to the character of Mack as first presented would be interesting. We’ll probably do more on him next week as we delve into the background story.
Tags: bible, fiction, Nonfiction, The Shack
One of the common refrains we hear from liberal “scholarship” is that the Bible is true (little “t”) but not factual. The Bible may give us insight into what was true for people of the ancient Near-East, but it certainly isn’t Truth with a capital “T”.
This sentiment would have been completely foreign to the biblical writers. As believers, we need to be able to demonstrate that the Bible is trans-cultural, historical and evidential.
I’m not sure how often people think about it, but one of the most unique things about our faith is how much it’s wrapped up in narrative. Most faiths are attached to books that are primarily teaching. The Bible has plenty of that, but the bulk is actually narrative. The narrative drives us and as you point out, we depend on the veracity of the narrative, not just as being true, but as being The Truth. As Paul says, if Christ hasn’t risen from the dead, our faith is in vain. Our faith is deliberately attached to such narratives and historical facts.
The resurrection is the final and ultimate telling of many salvation stories and any of them being merely stories with a ring of truth could deeply undermine our faith. E.g. the Exodus. Does this need to be true? I’d say yes. It’s one of God’s greatest salvations and it’s enacted in history to help people understand the future salvation. If it didn’t actually happen, then what was God giving his people to help them understand grace?
The author claimes that the story is true. He claims to write exactly as his friends experience tells him. I’m am heart broken at the deception to his readers!!!!!
Great site template