Post Edited (Tom) : 9/22/2008 2:54:27 AM (GMT-5)

I traveled the emotional rollercoaster adventure of the Shack.   The book did a good job of stimulating the emotions that stirs up questions that most folks would rather avoid asking themselves.    The story brought back memories of our old “Carlie was Murdered—Where was God?” thread.   Understandably, I thought the book never really addressed the types of deeper questions of evil we struggled with on that thread. 

Interesting note, I thought the undertone of the authors theodicy steered towards universal reconciliation.

Overall, I thought the book perfomed awesomely in accomplishing what it set out to do, and that is, place all your trust in the love of our Triune God.

I’m glad to see the book doing so well, I highly recommend it.

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 9/22/2008 9:56:12 AM (GMT-5)

some thoughts:

1. I love how God says she is "choosing to show herself" to Mack as a woman. And then on page 94, Mack asks, "Why is there such emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself." and God responds with "Well, there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don't misunderstand me, both are needed - but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence."

I found that paragraph interesting!

2. When my son was about 3 years old, he said he saw "angels surrounding me" once when I was in a dangerous situation. I thought it was the kids imagination talking...so I asked what the angels looked like. He responded with "well, they look like colors, mom." Hmmm. Not the kind of angels with wings, huh? 

With that in mind, I thought the description of Sarayu (in ch. 9 specifically) was really interesting. "Her nature was rather ethereal, full of dynamic shades and hues of color and motion." See, color AND motion...just like what my son said he saw. cool huh?

selah 

Post Edited (selah) : 9/23/2008 5:34:46 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: You're kidding right?

Aesthetics. Diversity. New forms of expression take us into a subject through new passageways. That means, at least for SOME people, feeling and perceiving what the well-worn paths can no longer deliver. Kidnapper is the official, police report, perhaps 'sterile' definition. But child stealer? JUST BECAUSE it's different it forces us to PICTURE the event again and not pass by too quickly.

But maybe that's just me!

Brandon: Hey, I'm all for new and fresh ways of putting things.  I really like listening to some of the heavy metal stuff.  I use to hate that stuff, but my son was into it and because I'm basically open to all kinds of music and wanted to stay connected to him, I started listening more and have grown to like it in large measure for its intensity.  There are things that are said through that genre and the way that it is put that could NEVER be said through any other genre.  Like take this tune, (really, give it a listen) "Regime Change" by Christian rock group "Disciple."

http://www.myspace.com/disciplerocks

Build it up, I'll tear it down
My finger in the strings connected to your hands
I dance the mockery, a theme of decadence
Now I am sinking in this violence
This time, emancipation is my right

This is what I want, for you to die
This is what I want, to be alive

Scene of complacency, an apathetic mind
But when it's brought to light, I see a king on a borrowed throne
Right now, the violence taking over
This time, regimes are changing in my mind

I'm so sorry, my old friend, I'm leaving you tonight
So caught in this moment, the last breath of your life

--------------------

This song is basically about there being a "regime change" from the old life under the kingdom of darkness to the new life in Christ.  It certainly has warfare worldview implications in mind ie. "This is what I want, for you to die" (remember all of our talk about warfare language implications?)  I find the way they have communicated this spiritual reality to be very refreshing. 

The problem that I had with "The Shack" is that not only does "child stealer" not communicate much of anything of the event of the kidnapping that would jolt me but it sounded as if he was trying embarassingly hard by such descriptives.  I'm all for transporting the reader into another world, but I'm sure he will eventually do that if he eventually describes what happens--when he takes you into the event itself.  But at that point, "child stealer" doesn't do that because I don't know (even if she HAS been kidnapped).  Child stealer=kidnapper.  Kidnapper=child stealer.  Nothing more is conveyed.  It is only when he takes us to the event of the kidnapping, either by way of leading up to it, the kidnapping itself and/or after the fact that we are immersed into what is hopefully refreshing account.

I agree, Tom.  As a parent, I can intimately relate to the expression “child stealer”, it brings it closer to home. The mere thought of someone stealing one of my children tears at my heart.  A thief in the night that rips from my arms a precious gift from God.  A gift that I was so blessed to be the caretaker of, to watch over and protect from evil thieves hiding in the shadows of this dark world.  The spectrum of emotions, one could not even imagine, knowing that it’s not some abstract child abductor at work again, but this time, this helpless child belongs to me.  Right from under my own nose, me the guardian, the keeper, the protector and I let my family down.  My wife left me in charge and I fell asleep at the wheel.  We were personally violated and robbed of watching her grow, the future smiles, laughs and cherished moments that will now never belong to us, foreever stolen.