The last chapter and afterward raise some interesting questions.  Mack was in a car accident and finds out that it happened on Friday, not Sunday as would have been the case if he’d left the Shack on Sunday as things seemed.   So did he ever really visit the Shack?   Even if he did go there, did he actually meet the Trinity?  What do you think?

More importantly, I’d like to get some bigger reactions.  Having read this book hopefully it’s impacted you in some way.  It’s meant to be about how relationship with God changes a person on a daily basis.  Do you feel any such change? 

I love one of the closing quotes about God’s desire for revolution and it’s with this quote that I’ll close the series on The Shack- “This is not a revolution that will overthorw anything, or if it does, it will do so in ways we could never contrive in advance.  Instead it will be the quiet daily powers of dying and serving and loving and laughing, of simple tenderness and unseen kindness, because if anything matters, then everything matters.”

God keep us all pursuing such a revolution.

Mack knows that along with God, he would join his daughter who had been killed, Missy.  If he chose to go back it would be to return to his family and life, but also the pain associated with such an earthly life.  Mack struggles with what is a hard decision.  He knows God will be with him if he returns, but it will be different.   I’m reminded of the story told by a pastor who speaks of going to heaven and coming back in his book, 90 Minutes in Heaven.  Say what you will about such experiences, but what do you think you would do.  The man in the book says it was one of the hardest things to come back.  Mack does choose to return.  I think I’d want myself to return, but having experienced God face to face, I’m not sure if I could do it.

This also makes me think during Advent of the way we talk about Jesus coming again.  That’s one of the main Advent themes, but I think it’s a hard one for us to connect to in today’s culture.  How often do we really yearn for Jesus to come back?  What does that say about us?

Just a few thoughts from a quick chapter.

So often we talk about forgiveness in churches, but we don’t acknowledge the process, how hard it is, or give people a helpful way to walk through something that is difficult.  I think the word “process” is what’s most helpful here.  You can say you forgive a person, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you feel it right away and that’s ok.  Rather than summarize in my own words what this book says, I’m just going to let little excerpts speak for themselves (I jump around a little to keep things shorter than the actual book).  The context is that Papa finally confronts Mack with the hardest topic imaginable, not just forgiving God or himself for Missy’s cruel death, but even the man himself who did it.  Listen to these powerful words.

Mack- “Redeem him?”  “I don’t want you to redeem him!  I want you to hurt him, to punish him, to put him in hell!”  His voice trailed off.  Papa waited patiently for the emotions to ease.  “I’m stuck, Papa.  I just can’t forget what he did can I?”

Papa- “Forgiveness is not about forgetting, Mack.  It is about letting go of another person’s throat.” . . . .

Mack- “I just forgive him and everything is okay and we become buddies?” Mack stated softly but sarcastically.

Papa- “Forgiveness does not establish relationship.  In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship.  Mackenzie, don’t you see that forgiveness is an incredible power- a power you share with us. . .”

Mack” I don’t think I can do this”

Papa “I want you to. Forgiveness is first for you, the forgiver, to release you from something that will at you alive, that will destroy your joy and your ability to love fully and openly.” . . . .

Mack, “I do not love him.”

Papa, “Not today, you don’t.  But I do, Mack, not for what he’s become, but for the broken child that has been twisted by his pain.  I want to help you take on that nature that finds more power in love and forgiveness than hate.” . . . .

Mack, “So does that mean that if I forgive this man, then I let him play with Kate, or my first granddaughter.”

Papa, “Mackenzie, I already told you that forgiveness does not create relationship.  Unless people speak the truth about what they have done and change their mind and behavior, a relationship of trust is not possible.  When you forgive someone you cretainly release them from judgment, but without true change, no real relationship can be established.” . . . .

Mack, “Help me, Papa.  Help me!  What do I do?  How do I forgive him?”

Papa, “Just say it out loud.  There is power in what my children declare.” . . . .

Mack, “So is it all right if I’m still angry?”

Papa, “Absolutely!  What he did was terrible. . . It was wrong, and anger is the right response to something that is so wrong.  But don’t let the anger and pain and loss you feel prevent you from forgiving him and removing your hands from around his neck. . . Son, you may have to declare your forgiveness a hundred times the first day and the second day, but the third day will be less and each day after, until one day you will realize that you have forgiven completely.”

Wow, that’s some good stuff.  Read through it again, and reflect on what it means for you. Are there any people in your life to whom you need to apply these words?

In it, Sarayu reveals to Mack people on a deeper level, where they are viewed through colors which reflect their traits, emotions, etc.  On some levels, this is kind of cool.  After all, it works for me that to God sees, feels, smells, and hears everything on a deeper level than our senses can presently take in.  This is almost like a little peek into that perception.

At the same time, the use of colors to reflect the truth behind a person is a little new-agey.  I know I’ve heard people talk about what colors a person is, how that’s something that was revealed to them, a special knowledge God has given them and select people.  That can start taking a person in some strange directions, none of which center themselves on Christ and his love as revealed in The Word. 

What kind of a feel did you get from it?  Peaceful, happy, or a little strange?

I found another topic a little more interesting and controversial.

Mack has an interesting interaction with Sarayu, especially as she spoke about Revelation.  Mack was asking her about how he would know and see her in the future when she wouldn’t be appearing in human form and actually speaking in words to him.  Her answer was something you hear as a common undercurrent in conversations about knowing God.  You’ll hear me in your thoughts, you’ll see me in art, music, silence, people, the Creation, joy and sorrow.

There’s some truth to this.  God is in all of his creation and does reveal himself in things like art, nature, people, etc.  We do, however, have to be careful how far we take this.  God has given us something special in his Word, especially the words of the Bible.  He has given us his own words and he’s written them down so we can go to a place and know with certainty his thoughts and stories.  While there’s obviously much debate over their meaning, there is some clarity.  And most importantly of all, we can see clearly that the focus of his Word is The Word, Jesus Christ.

When we go to things like art or nature, things are a little murkier.  They don’t speak so clearly, and they don’t always point us to Jesus Christ.  You may learn of God’s majesty or his ability to design, but you will not be able to look at a tree and from it understand God’s desire to save you from sin and evil.  I think this is where people get off a little soemtimes. They are so swept up in things that give us hints of God, that they miss his clearest and best Revelation in The Word.  And what’s sad, is they speak of The Word like it’s crusty old stuff that’s just a bunch of old mythological stories and rules, rather than something living and active which is always revealing a new side of God and his righteousness and grace. 

That’s where I’m glad Young says we’ll find the Holy Spirit revealing itself in the Bible in new and fresh ways.  That acknowledges that the Bible is alive.  Though even with this comment we need to be careful.  The Bible is alive in that it continues to reveal God’s design for us today.  Some people take this a little farther and kind of reverse the order.  They look in the world today and then read back into the Bible to interpret there what they desire.  Here we have to keep the order correct.

Where have you run into this discussion yourself?

First, God corrects Mack on a point that is very important to understand.  Listen to this quote, “Mack, just becuase I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies.”  (185)  Many times, and often out of good intentions, people wonder if God caused something bad to happen in their lives to bring about something good.  “Maybe God let our daugther die so we would pull closer together as a family”.  Or, “If you hadn’t lost your job and struggled so long, you would have never gotten low enough to finally put your faith in God.” 

There’s a very important nuance here.  Does God work good out of bad or even evil circumstances?  He certainly does!  But, and this is a big, “but”, does he actually cause the bad things to happen?  Does he desire bad for you that he might bring about good?  No.  We see throughout the story of Scripture that God likes to work in the muck to bring about better things for us and that he tells us suffering and pain can lead to growth, but that does not equal God’s causation.  Now God is over all and does control all, so maybe his allowing these things to happen and his using these events seems like a small nuance from causation, but this is still an important nuance and helps us go to the nature of a good and loving God.

Second point that must be discussed.  Mack asks another big question- what did Jesus’s death actually do?  Papa/God essentially says that Jesus’ death did everything, was the center of what the world is about, and has reconciled all to him.  Mack responds by asking if God actually means only those who believe.  God replies that Jesus’ death did it for all, but that reconciliation is a two way street and God has done his part.  This leaves the implication that the only work left is for us.

Now some of what’s said here is right on.  Yes, Jesus’ death is the center of everything and yes Jesus’ death was for all people and has won forgiveness for all.  There is no sin left unforgiven on the cross.  Even the sins of those who don’t have a relationship with Jesus were paid for by Christ’s death. 

But what about the two way street comment.  In a sense, he’s correct.  God has done the forgiving, but forgiveness involves both parties, not just God.  If we reject God’s grace and forgiveness reconciliation is not complete.  If you want to read the comment that way, you’re fine.  But I don’t think this is quite what the author intends.  Given the rest of the context, there seems to be a typical, “God’s done his part, now you have to come to him/decide to accept him” undertone.  This is what’s called synergism.  God does his part, now you do yours.  The problem with this is that we can’t do part of it.  We’re God’s enemies and can only come to him through his acts of grace in the Holy Spirit.  The book seems to disparage this kind of a view as “forced” faith, but I simply call it incredible grace.

What are your impressions of these statements?

There’s a great discussion of how we deal with darkness, how we keep it inside because we think it’s safer there, that we’re best equipped to deal with it, while we would be far better off letting others, and especially God, in to free us of our burdens.

There are some intriguing comments about heaven.  Would about those visions of pearly gates?  What is heaven like now?  What will the new earth/new heaven be like when Jesus returns?  Will it be more garden or city?

And of course, there is the really provocative, but somewhat vague comment by Jesus, “those who love me come from every system that exists.  They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not party of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.  . . . I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their tranformation insto sons and daughters of my Papa. . .” Mack asks, “Does that mean that all roads will lead to you?”  Jesus responds, “Not at all.  Most roads don’t lead anywhere.  What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

Is that universalism?  Hard to say, given his comments about where people “come from” or that they “were” part of different beliefs, and that “most roads don’t lead anywhere”.  At the same time that does seem to be the tilt, that even if people are going down wrong paths, God in his mercy will go down the path to find them and redeem them even in their path is going away from them.  There’s definitely truth to the idea of God going out to look for us, but especially given his remarks on the Church in this chapter, I’d say my honest interpretation is that he’s leaning in the direction of universalism.  What you believe doesn’t matter because God loves you regardless.  What do you think?  How do you read him here?

Also, what do you think about his statements on the Church?  He’s kind of pushing the, “it’s ok to like Jesus but not the Church” agenda.  The Church is just an institution.  He seems to jump on this popular bandwagon, that the church is about manipulating people and does more hard than good.  Not the way God talks about the Church in the Bible.  Not the way he talks about his people Israel or churches that he had his apostles set up, which most certainly were institutions.  How do we deal with this negative perception of church institutions?  How do we own up to the failures, but help people understand that institution isn’t a dirty word, but that this is one way the body of Christ is expressed?

No, he is in fact the judge.  She places before him many of the judgments he’s made throughout his life and drives him to the big question.  Will he judge God for all that’s happened to him and especially to Missy?  If God is the creator of all that is in the world, if he’s in control, is he then to blame for all that happens, including those horrible evils we see perpetrated.

This is a raw, emotional question.  It’s once we all ask.  Just today I was reading an article about men who abducted a mentally handicapped boy, tied him up, and tortured him, nearly to death.  What do we do with this kind of evil?  What do we do with a God who would allow such evil?

It makes us mad.  At the men, at the people who twisted those men into what they are today?  At the generation before that.  And on down the line, but behind it all, there’s God who ultimately made all and controls all.  Will we judge him?

Mack asks what we ask, “why doesn’t God do something about it all?”  The response- he did, in the person of Jesus.  Mack comes back with the why still hanging out there, “but why does this all have to happen anyway?  Couldn’t there be a better way for the world to work?”  The response- this evil doesn’t have to happen, it’s of the world and of humans.  Why does it still happen? Why does God allow it?  You’ll just have to trust.

Just apply this conversation to whatever has been burning inside you lately.  It still doesn’t quite satisfy, but it’s the truth.  It pushes one to think back to Job.  Job asks the same questions of God and God is actually a little harsher with him, “Who are you to judge God.  You can’t see or understand.”  Job takes the rebuke and trusts as well.

I guess sometimes God needs to give us this answer gently, and sometimes he needs to give it to us in a little tougher way.  The why will never be answered this side of heaven, but we can experience trust with God in such a way that we know there is a why.

Any thoughts?

What do you think of the quote at the end about judgment, “Judgment is not about destruction but setting things right.” (169)  This starts to push some edges in terms of one of the other fringe items in this chapter, that of hell.  What bothers you about hell?  Can a loving father God sentence or allow some of his children to go to hell?  What is hell?  Another big discussion there.

h

Actually, most of the chapter literally takes place as Jesus and Mack walk on top of water, but the discussion goes into deeper places.  Jesus and Mack are again talking about relationships.  The focus this time is on the “s” word- submission.

First, he speaks about God’s inner relationships and relationship with man.  All parties submit to one another he says.  Well, this is already some tricky ground.  Certainly, their is submission within the Trinity, and God does serve man, but one must not take that submission to mean that all parties have the same amount of authority.  Within the Trinity, all are equal, but there is still an authority that is followed.  That’s something we can read all over the Bible.  In the same way, God may choose to submit himself, to serve man, to give himself to death for us, etc, but that does not mean he is giving up his authority.  It seems Young has an aversion to the word, “authority”, like it’s dirty.  Authority is simply the rightful power to influence or change others.  As creator, this is God’s right and one we see him exercise over and over throughout Scripture.

But would about authority and submission between men and women.  Again, we have to look behind the connotations associated with these words and take them as God would have us.  Young is afraid of any submission with authority attached to it.  That’s why he says things that are correct, but then is afraid of the ending.  He’s right that men and women were created equal.  He’s right that men and women were created different, in order to complement one another.  He’s wrong when he says that submission and authority should always be equal amongst men and women.  He’s on the bandwagon that says women submitting to men and men taking authority is the fall.  When we read Gen. 1-2, prefall, we see that man is already granted authority.  It’s a natural thing, a good thing.  After the fall he exercises it in a sinful way, which actually leads to part of the curse in Gen. 3, that women will often resent this ordering.

I always like to go back to Genesis 1 and 2. There we find God’s design for our world, that which we should desire, and there we see a vision where there is authority and submission, between man and women, between man and God, and rather than resent it, it is a beautiful part of God’s design.

Just a few quick thoughts on a complicated topic.

No, we’re not talking about that garden.  That’s a discussion for another time (By the way I’m always surprised hot how emotions run on that hymn both ways).

Regardless, this week we enter the garden with Sarayu, the Holy Spirit.  The discussion does focus on the nature of the Holy Spirit a little.  Namely, the unpredictable and yet orderly working of the Spirit.  Mack is brought to a garden that appears chaotic, but Sarayu indicates there is actually a pattern there.  Mack is told to uproot a portion of the garden that he sees as beautiful, but again the Spirit indicates there is a purpose to it.  Mack questions Sarayu about the need for “bad” plants- ones poisonous, etc, and is told that it’s hard for him to see the purpose or to judge what’s good and what’s truly evil or bad.

This is all pretty good stuff.  The theology throughout this chapter is pretty solid though I might take up issue some with the description of evil as merely the absence of good (p. 136). What I like best about this chapter though is its humility, especially the idea of having some real humility before God.  Who are we to judge God’s creation and tell him that he should or shouldn’t have made that or allowed this to happen?  Who are we to speak as to what is truly good and evil?  Our perspective is truly limited.  Standing before an awesome God, one who can look at the chaos of a garden and see a pattern, or who can tear it up and create something even better, who are we to tell him how he should or should not do things.  I love the humility that’s introduced here.

Have you noticed that humility is a characteristic largely lacking in our society.  We are so convinced that we can know the answers.  Even in our relativistic society where people argue truth is not necessarily knowable, we don’t make this argument out of humility.  We make it because we want to be able to determine truth for ourselves.  I’ll make my truth and you can have yours.  That’s not humility, it’s selfishness.

Sorry, that was a little soapbox moment right there.

And so when it comes to rights, we’re pretty convinced that we better defend ours to the death.  Well, rights may be somewhat necessary within the left hand of the kingdom, in a world ruled by laws, but there’s a problem when we go before God and start demanding rights too.  As Sarayu says, “Jesus didn’t hold on to any rights; he willingly became a servant. . . . He gave up everything, so that by his dependent life he opened a door that would allow you to live free enough to give up your rights.” (p. 137)

Now that’s some powerful stuff.  Who are we to demand rights before God?  Why would we demand them, when instead we can simply trust in a God who loves us?