Be the Spark!

contribute now

Relationships and Religion

AIR DATE: Friday, August 1st 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.
What does The Shack's success say about northwest Christianity?

William P. Young of Gresham wrote a religious allegory as a gift for his children in 2005. Three years later, The Shack debuted. Without a standard marketing plan, and put out by a small, private publisher established specifically for that purpose, it's been a phenomenal success. (It's currently number one on the New York Times' trade paperback fiction list.) Reviewers have given it both ecstatic praise and condemnations of heresy for its humanizing portrayal of the Holy Trinity -- one in which God appears is a black woman called "Papa."

Locally, The Shack has struck a chord with many Northwesterners who are drawn to its portrayal of a more personal relationship with God and Jesus. Among these are members of the "emerging church," a loosely organized movement that breaks radically from tradition -- including holding services in pubs and at yoga sessions. The emerging church has sprung mainly from Evangelicalism, and has many varieties, but many of them share an abiding interest in fostering "relationships, not religion."

Have you read The Shack? Do you have experience with the emerging church movement? How do the concepts of "relationship" and "religion" shape your spiritual life?

GUESTS:



Tagged as: christianity · religion

Nearly four years ago I was a heartbroken college freshman, having just lost my high school sweetheart and first love. In my desperation to replace some of the companionship I had lost, I threw myself into a church loosely affiliated with my campus. My life shifted from revolving around my boyfriend to revolving around the church. I didn't grow up Christian, and traditional churches always made me uncomfortable, but this one met in a member's living room, had family dinners on Thursdays, and made me feel like a loved and valued friend, not an outsider.

The devotion that had been so unhealthy in my previous relationship I simply transferred to Jesus. I read the bible often and was especially interested in the interpretations of God as a jealous lover of his church. This was a relationship I understood, and one that comforted me. It was a wonderful time of feeling truly loved by someone who would never abandon me.

But it didn't last. Around the same time, I became close to another student, and although I knew I wasn't ready to be someone's girlfriend again, I was pulled toward him like the tides to the shore. My pastor and friends at the church cautioned against this relationship, in part because they, too, knew that I wasn't over my last one, but mostly because he wasn't Christian. Only newly Christian myself, I was torn between people who were supposed to be my spiritual advisers and a man I was increasingly convinced I was falling in love with.

After a spring of vacillating I made my choice. That man and I are now married and living happily in Beaverton. I no longer go to church, and am no longer sure what I believe. I simply don't know if I truly believed in God and Christ, or if I simply wanted to feel loved so badly that I convinced myself I did. I don't know that I could ever go back to a church after this experience, not after all the pain it caused myself and my husband.
sarah.truher —
Thanks for sharing that, Sarah. I am truly sorry that you have had such pain.

I would encourage you to take a little time to read a pretty straight forward little book, ?Mere Christianity? by a guy named C. S. Lewis (he was one of the best explainers of what our core beliefs are from the last century). I would personally hope you could read it together with your husband... sounds like you both got some confusing messages from this experience.

If I can help or answer questions in any way, please feel free to email me (my eddress is in my profile) and I?ll do what I can.
tpohara —
You were hurt by people with good "intentions" but people none-the-less. The show did touch on that about what a "Christian" is. A lot of people have done, are doing and will do many unchristlike things in the name of Him. I suggest that is the reason for communion...to remind us of what Christ did for us...to remember our personal debt that He paid for on the cross and thus reach out to others with the same love and understanding. It's much harder to point fingers at people when you've first looked at yourself.

I think you did experience the love of Christ through His Word and the actions of others, but you also experienced the shortcoming of believers and they ruined Him for you. The Shack totally addresses that issue in the way the trinity is portrayed. God is a black woman because Mac would not have accepted an old man with a white beard. The Spirit is a small asian woman because of the gracefulness in which she moved and the softness of her voice. And Jesus...well, He was who He is. God's character is revealed throughout the pages of scripture...along with the shortcomings of man. But in Christ, He became flesh so that we could relate to Him with what is familiar to us...a human body...but see how different God is than us because He was without sin and He loved perfectly and sacrificially.

I think that your feelings are very similar to Mac's in The Shack and to many others...thus the reason for the success of the book. For now we see through a glass dimly lit...for following god is a "faith walk" and faith is not seen but is hope yet realized. I pray you will not reject the living God as if He were one of the men or women who hurt you.
Julieb —
I?ve though all night about how to address this one, but not having read the book, I have no frame of reference. I noted on their site that Peterson recommends it, but still, I really don?t know where it goes or how it gets there.

My experience with Jesus depends on relationship with Him and with His church (the group of believers, often called ?the body? by Christians). I?m not locked into a given denomination or building, but I do believe in being involved and active in a local congregation (I can elaborate if it?s desired). I do like the emphasis the Evergreen Community has on sharing the Apostle?s Creed as a base; I can agree with that without question.

Beyond that, I think it best serves my Lord to hold off on this thread until I see where the show goes. Sorry, Dave, no questions from me this morning.
tpohara —
It's so wonderful how religion has been watered down, again and again, to make it more palatable to the modern times. The bigotry in some faiths has been removed, the hard work, the strict rules, everything stripped to make it A-OK for the modern sucker. It's all still the same bag of tricks, from the Mormons to the hippie Christians.

By stripping away all the easy targets of religions they are attempting to insulate themselves from attack. Well we aren't bigots, we are faith for all! We don't discriminate! Oh, okay, let me sign right up! It's all the same hooey in new packaging.
scottmil —
Oh. No. I haven't read the book. Oh, well, you can't say anything then. Get lost!
scottmil —
Oh. And there is an affirmative action god! Yippee! A black god is just so much better. Haven't black Americans been persecuted enough? Silly---it's meant to be edgy.
scottmil —
The reason God the father was portrayed as a large black woman in The Shack was because if He'd been portrayed as your stereotypical old man with a white flowing beard, He would not have appealed to Mac. Mac had been severely abused by his own father...so he could not relate to a "loving father" or "Papa" like his wife would call God. And that is very much why it is so hard for people to grasp the fullness and goodness of God...because we've really not experienced such perfection and often were hurt and or disappointed by those who were supposed to love them. It is easier to turn to legalism with a God stamp on it rather than open oneself up to relationship with the Living God and those He created to be loved.
Julieb —
ScottMil:

I don't think this show easily lends itself to a referendum on religion in general. It seems to me to be more focused on a particular discussion about what a wildly popular book says about a growing strain of Christianity.
David Miller —
Oh okay Dave I will make a note of that. It seems to be pretty broad to me. Um, yeah and I don't really care either way. Your half-baked censorship, steer the ship back in the right direction is really not very modern.

We can bash anyone, just not the religious!
scottmil —
Here's the full comment from Bob Hyatt's blog that I just read.
David Miller —
I have, for most of my adult life, thought that whatever "God" is, it is so far outside human understanding that putting any sort of label on it or trying to put it in human terms only brings us away from spirituality. A a lifetime Oregonian I think one of the reasons that Oregonians have less traditional view of religeon is because so many of us have a strong connection to the outdoors and what is more spiritual than being away from human civilization under a night sky.

Jocelyn Reed,
Bend OR
yoshibird —
I've read most of The Shack. To be honest, I lost interest when God became a man again and have yet to finish the book, but I read it because everyone I know was reading it and a friend gave it to me because she wanted me to read it. Whether I liked it or not, I just want to say that we should take what Mark Driscol says with a grain of salt, because he is always controversial in some really bothersome ways. He may be the pastor of a mega church with a lot of young people, but that doesn't mean he has good theology.
krcarson —
I have been astounded at the sheer number of acquaintances and friends who have responded to the content of this book. I read it because of a personal search for a more intimate relationship with God other than my experienced with institutional churches. Paul Young's partners in publishing also blog on the subject of relationship with God outside the box of religion. I was intrigued that there was a set of people who were thriving outside organized churches and programs.
fanchon —
Oh my gosh, are there going to be people from the Evergreen Community church at the TOL meet-up? It seems to be at the same pub! Is this a coincidence? I hope so. Because that is really going to make people stay away. Icky.
scottmil —
Pure coincidence. And anyway, would you really have a problem with folks from a church being there anyway? I'd like to remind you -- and everyone -- that everyone is invited.
David Miller —
No I wouldn't, I mean they are such nice people. With their big smiles, so friendly with their happy eyes. To bad they are all going to heaven and I am just rotting in hell. They are so superior to me, I would be so bashful in their company.

My whole family is chocked full of fundamentalists with the exception of me. I think I can weave gracefully in-between a crowd of the faithful.
scottmil —
As a person whe joined the Episcopal church after many years of being "unchurched", and is now seeking ordination - the individual path of a person is as crucial as the community that a church offers. The Trinity is beyond human comprehension - therefore how a person chooses to perceive them is really an individual "illusion" of something that we cannot fathom except to create our own images that work for us. Faith is what matters, regardless of visualization.

Church is community, a sense of corporate faith and philosophy that allows a person to worship in a way they feel most comfortable. Episcopalians are famous for the breadth of thought that they are comfortable in dealing with - but in all cases, each person is a church unto themselves because no one believes identically to anyone else.
rjhstorm —
Paul, have you read by Christopher Moore? If so, is there anything to compare about it with your book? I can't wait to read your book.

PS: My experience with traditional religion has been with people that I considered to be hyprocits.
Claudia —
Thanks for hosting Paul Young on OPB - I have read The Shack and am a fan of the book - seconding the view expressed by Pam Hegeweide. For me personally, the "Church" has not been a source of relationship with God, rather a place to go because that was how I was raised and somewhere along the line I missed out on the personal relationship available with God. I pray to God, I talk to God, I go through the motions, but until I had an epiphany about the Trinity by reading The Shack, I was a lost soul. Now I enjoy striving to get my relationship with God at the level portrayed in the book and for that I thank Paul for writing his story.
LostSoul —
The "church" was never intended to be a place or a thing you do, but a belief or a foundation. When Jesus asked His disciples who people were saying He was in Matt 16, Peter responded "you are the Christ, the Son of God". In the greek Christ is Christos...or Messiah, savior. Jesus commended Peter on his statement based not in the afterglow of a witnessed miracle, but by the revelation in his heart from God. He then says "on this rock shall I build my church". What is the rock...not Peter for he was a man...but on the statement or truth of which he just proclaimed...that Jesus is the Messiah...the one that would save all men. It's John 3:16 at it's finest..."for God so loved the WORLD He sent His one an only Son..." Jesus didn't come just to save "Christians", He came for the World as Messiah. The church's foundation should always be about Jesus...they talked about that on the show. Christianity should not be about what we do, but about what He did, is doing and will do for those who choose to accept Him as Messiah. And that is precisely what the Shack was getting at.
Julieb —
It would nice to hear the conversation opened up beyond Christianity, which is an inherently patriarchal system...
olivegreen —
According to Dave the show is about this: "It seems to me to be more focused on a particular discussion about what a wildly popular book says about a growing strain of Christianity."

Sorry. No go!
scottmil —
Growing up, I was exposed to two very extreme ends of the faith spectrum - my grandparents, with whom I'd spend a month each summer, aggressively indoctrinated and criticized me in an attempt to mold me into a perfect fundamentalist Christian with a Southern Baptist flair and my dad who bitterly denounced all Christianity and told me one day he loved me because he didn't think I'd ever believe that "mumbo jumbo." It was his comment that revealed how conditional his love was and revealed my deep desire for a relationship with God. My faith took on it's own shape, totally different from the narrow view of my grandparents and other "church folk." It was shaped more by God himself than the beliefs of others.

The man I married sees the modern church in much the same way as me and it was his connection to God independent of membership, perfect doctrine, or pretense that drew me to him so strongly. Recently, a fellow Christian gave us a book of apologetics - that's the discipline that seeks to explain away every question about scripture and faith, boiling down these questions that are so worth asking into a simple retort with "infallible" logic. God isn't about perfect, inarguable logic! I'm excited to hear about this book andhave temporarily dropped my morning work to look into it. Perhaps the emergent church is where Christians like us are gathering, thank goodness we're not alone!

And to the gal from Beaverton who posted below, maybe we can have you over for dinner sometime, we might be neighbors:)
catsloanis —
We have, over the centuries, decided that we can authoritatively decide on the proper interpretation of scripture. My own reformed tradition reminds us that any human statement is incomplete, and so inaccurate. We do the best we can, but must always remember that we aren't always right. Our hubris makes us forget our limitations and allows us to claim correctness. New images and ways of describing the indescribable God are always inadequate, just as the old ways are inadequate. But all our images can be useful in learning about God.

A comment was made on the air that there is a hierarchy in the trinity is not orthodox theology. The Nicene creed, one of the very earliest ones we have insists that there is an equality between Father and Son. The heresy of Arianism says that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

I haven't read the book, but the conversation makes me think that it's theology is right on.
David C. Hampton —
A couple of things that sound interesting about the book (I haven't read the book yet): the godhead as three different nationalities - this could remind us that God is the father of all people in the world. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nickname: Mormon) I believe that God the Father has a glorified body of flesh and blood and we are created in his image (just as the Bible says)and that Jesus also has a glorified body of flesh and blood. The Holy Ghost of course doesn't have a body so that we can feel His presence within us.

The other part that is intereting to me is the idea of letting go of how we'd like to "appear" to be. That is a humbling thing to do. I feel it's important to remember that none of us are perfect. We don't go to church to be among perfect people - we are all imperfect and we go to church to worship Jesus Christ. It is through Him alone that we are saved.

I believe The "Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" to be true. It is a wonderful book. I find it to be a true book of God because I've taken the time to read, study and pray about it.

The book being discussed today is bringing up some good conversation. I should be regarded as a book of fiction though.
Maria in EO —
Oops, meant to say "It" should be regarded as a book of fiction. That was good!
Maria in EO —
I am not religious or spiritual. Science is my religion and it makes perfect sense. Even questions that cannot be answered now, will eventually. I've no desire for something bigger than myself. In fact I see institutional religion as a threat to that freedom. If given the chance, ANY religion would change law to conform to their beliefs. This is frightening to me.
shaneprychun —
But science is just as much of a human construct as religion is. It's just as likely for Science to lead to tyranny as it is for Religion.
skeptictank —
What a poor, poor, comparison. Cause science is, well, based on, um, yep, science. If nothing else it is at least an attempt at being logical. Even when they get it wrong, it is wrong by intelligent design.
scottmil —
"Cause science is, well, based on, um, yep, science."
So your argument is that science is better because it's based on science?

How many times did the atomic model change during the 20th century? How many times will it change this century? The emerging field of epi-genetics is turning much of what was the received wisdom of deterministic genetics on it's head (and it even sounds a bit LaMarkian - heresy!) Those are just two examples. The point is that scientific theories are continually evolving - what's orthodox today, could be heresy tomorrow. Not that that's necessarily bad, it's just that science is a human endeavor.

My point isn't that science not a worthwhile endeavor - it's part of the human search for truth. Religion is another kind of human search for truth. Both can become fundamentalist and claim to have a corner on that truth.
skeptictank —
Science is science. We pursue it and give it a name but the conclusions we make were already made since the beginning of time and before. Religion and God can be traced back through our own books. If anything is a human endeavor, it's religion and supernatural beliefs. I do understand the need to believe in something bigger than yourself, but do not confuse science with some kind of NEED to explain things. Real science is simply about discovering what already exists, and real scientific conclusions are ALWAYS open to change.
shaneprychun —
"Science is science. We pursue it and give it a name but the conclusions we make were already made since the beginning of time and before." Yes, that's the Platonic view.

However the process of science is very much a human endeavor.
skeptictank —
How warped this country has become that so many of the faithful warp reality and turn the systematic study of science into a dirty word. Why? You ask? Because they are afraid if science explains things in a logical fashion it will negate the faith. Even if science should explain everything---you can still have your faith, it won't be any more or less ridiculous then it is now! It is faith after all.

Science is indeed the study of the physical world. Maybe one day all the faithful will be proven correct by science and then we can still call that discovery science. Even a little Oprah appearance by god, a little wave and a "hello," might just make everything so much easier. Oh I forgot this is all a test. Little rats.
scottmil —
Absolutely! My background has put me in close contact with the most fundameltalist Christians who FEAR science and especially anything that "threatens" a strict view of creationism. Meanwhile in college, while these relatives prayed for my soul, I studied Anthropology and did research in evolutionary psychology & behavior... in these classes I encountered faculty and students just as defensive and threatened as the most narrow-minded church-goer. They have so much in common and don't realize it! I eventually revealed to a few profs that I was able to comfortably reconcile both sides and no amount of knowledge on either side threatened my core values or beliefs, leaving me free to dive in and fully engage in research and discussion. One professor in particular was so puzzled by this and couldn't figure out why I wasn't troubled when I presented such a critical eye to everything but I think he started to understand that for me faith was personal and not something to use as a weapon, a novel idea to someone who had been berated and attacked by Christians his entire career. Science and faith (for me anyway) are harmonious ways to approach truth and understanding.
catsloanis —
It's frightening to me too. Please don't assume that anyone with any sort of faith or spiritual life agrees with the destructive views you speak of, we tend to keep quiet about our faith out of respect for others and for fear of being lumped in with Christians who confuse power with faith. Whether it's faith in science and humanity's ability to discover scientific truth or faith in a god, true faith demands skepticism and asking the hard questions. If simply asking a question or considering another perspective is so unsettling - is it really faith?
catsloanis —
I agree. There are many who are faithful in their own way and are not associated with a large potentially overprotective group. But I ask these people the question, why? Why do you need to find this larger meaning? Isn't saving our world for our children, ending war, defeating hunger, and fighting corruption enough to worry about? With all these troubles in the world do we really want to settle down into some false sense of security that keeps us content? Wouldn't we rather be so saturated in the hells of this Earth that we would fully act to eliminate them? Knowing for a fact that I am solely responsible for this Earth and mankind's future is what helps me to make good moral decisions and to be involved. Thinking that someone is watching over my family and I, and making things better for us at the expense of others would certainly keep me happy and comforted, but it's just untrue. For me. ;)
shaneprychun —
I thought it was interesting (even a bit funny) how that woman called in (forget her name) and was all on her high horse about how the book was "bad theology" and "unorthodox" and her criticism was that it didn't show hierarchy in the Trinity (?!) The orthodox creeds all teach that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, that all three members are co-equal.
skeptictank —
Another book by a person who was damaged by religion about returning to the religion that damaged him.

"Businesses may come and go, but religion will last forever, for in no other endeavor does the consumer blame himself for product failure". Naldo Dantini.

Tom D Ford —
If you strip it down, the only difference between people of religion and non-religious people is a belief in some supernatural being, all the rest is common to all of humanity.

So, I can applaud and support promoting human relationships because that is Humanism, respect for human beings.

Tom D Ford —
I do not believe that the only difference between people of religion is a belief in a supernatural being. That belief will become an obsession. It will completely change you as a human being. In fact, you become less human and more spiritual. You become more worried about the after life than you do this one. You become content to say that those who are dying around you are in better place. That they wouldn't have died if the supernatural being didn't want it that way. That they are now in a paradise for their suffering on Earth. What if death is nothing but nothing. How horrible would everyone feel about using cheap labor in China if we knew that by giving ourselves the good life here, we were giving them a horrible one. Once we die, we were happy, they were horrible. But I suppose the supernatural being wanted it this way for some unexplainable and mysterious reason. Please don't take my comments as offensive. I am really just trying to convey my own opinion in the spirit of conversation.
shaneprychun —
I agree with you.

You point out the problems caused by belief in some supernatural being.

I consider the idea of "original sin" to be a terrible libel and slander against humans, it is pretty much the same as "karma" the idea that you deserve to suffer in this life because of something that you did wrong before you were born. The only people who benefit are the rich and powerful who make their money from abusing the human rights of, well, humans, and of course that is why they promote religion. Babies are not born bad, they are just born and then treated badly.

I am not afraid of some imaginary "god", my fear is of what that "gods" followers do to humans in its' name.
Tom D Ford —
As a Unitarian Universalist, a buddhist, a pagan, an anthroposophist, a ceremonial magician and a taoist, I find all this talk akin to counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Doctrine is the moon in water.

Your experience of the divine in your life reflects your essence, your past, your progress.

There are as many ways to the godhead as there are atoms in the universe. Maybe as many as there have been quantum fluctuations since time began.

In a human context, community and relationship define who we are. The phrase "no man is an island", is never truer than in the context of spiritual practice. There are very few of us who spend most of our time alone. And none who worship alone-because even if you worship alone, the divine is there too.

BTW, the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is: "all of them-angels don't take up any space".
eric m allen —
"And none who worship alone-because even if you worship alone, the divine is there too."

Pickup the hint phone. The divine is you.

Doh!

How are you going to act now?

Ring, ...

ring, ...

ring?

Is there anybody in there? Is there an "I am" who will claim the name eric_m_allen"?

Namaste!

Even if you don't.

Google it.
Tom D Ford —
My "I" is arbitrary-a passing thing. It's all still the moon on water. What happens to that moon when a leaf falls, or a pebble is thrown?
A variation on the koan: what was my name before my parents were born?

Take another turn up: no divine, no I, no name. Choose your poison-religion or science? Is it better to believe or not believe?
eric m allen —
This is what I say: Your mind is spiritual and so too is the sense-perceived world. The spirit is timeless and it dominates all existence as the great law guiding all beings in their search for truth. It changes crude nature into mind, and there is no being that can't be transformed into a vessel of truth.

-Brahmajala Sutra
eric m allen —
I have read "The Shack" and I really appreciated your show today. Thank you for your civilized discussion, interesting questions and fascinating guests. I thought it was great.

As a long time Christ Follower and Gen Xer who has questioned the powers that be I found "The Shack" to be beautiful, profound and life changing. And I'm not alone nor have my feelings been limited to others in my generation. I am finding that it is resonating across the board - from my parents and their "crowd" to my nieces and nephews and their friends. I have found great freedom from reading this book.

It was a tangible stepping stone for me to use from struggling in an institutional "church" setting to breathing freely in relationship with Jesus. I still attend a church, but I can freely worship, grow and be in community because of my relationship with Christ and others. I love the freedom that my "faith" has afforded because of my relationship with Christ.

Thank you again for a great program. Emily Harris - you are a great host. I'm very impressed.

D. Stangeland
Bend
Christ Follower, Wife and Mom
funkiplanet —
This was a great program. Think Out Loud keeps getting better and better. I wasn't going to read The Shack because it seemed like just another Christian fad. But, after hearing this interview and discovering how humble and gracious William Young seems to be, I'm going to read it after all. I wrote about this episode at [url]burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com[/url].

Emily and everybody at OPB, keep up the good work.
frailtruck —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics