THE ORTHODOX SHACK

Finally this is Scott returning on 2/13/2010 to comment on what I believe are the Orthodox aspects of the story The Shack.

In this chapter Mack meets Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu at the transformed shack. Quite expectedly this would be where some Christians would start having theological problems with the story; Papa is a black women! I think Young has used this personification for a number of reasons, but primarily to to make the point that many of us Christians DO personify the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mack’s thought was, two women and a man, and none are white?) when we really shouldn’t. His purposely radical personification is to tweak the offended reader into realizing that. Do note that he tries to get Jesus right because Jesus is possessed of a fully human body, and still is. As one of the patristic fathers has said, “Flesh and blood sit on the throne of God”.

John of Damascus in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith says, “what the Father is in His essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable. For it is evident that He is incorporeal. For how could that possess body which is infinite, and boundless, and formless, and intangible and invisibvle, in short simple and uncompound? How could that be immutable which is circumscribed and subject to passion?” Obviously the personification of Papa is necessary for the story, the absurdity of a black woman I think is to make a theological point. However, as I comment later on subsequent chapters, I think the way Papa interacts with Mack (Papa’s “energies”) is consistant with JOD (John of Damascus) when he says, “we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the atrributes of the essence; just as we have not apprehended the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the atrributes of the essence. The true doctrine teacheth that the Diety is simple and has one simple energy, good and energizing in all things”.

Likewise for Suraya being the Holy Spirit, the personification as an Asian woman is probably to tweak our prejudices. The Holy Spirit is also incorporeal, but as the story unfolds, I believe the attributes of Suraya will in many instances be reconizable as those theologically speaking of the Holy Spirit. Even in this chapter I think “keeper of the gardens” is a metaphor for “brooding over Creation.”

In conclusion Mack asks, “which one of you are God?” “I am,” said all three in unison. JOD says, ” In the Trinity there the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through them having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind, and then being identical in authority and power and goodness – I do not say similar, but identical – and then movement by one impulse. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself; that is to say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in all respects.” As The Shack continues, I believe Young does a good job of capturing the ethos of that.

I am the Scott that Warren mentions who believes the Shack is a strong Orthodox presentation of the Trinity, salvation and deification or Theosis.
I have recently finished reading John Ziziopulas’ new book, “Communion & Otherness”, and many of his patristic themes have allegorical connections in the Shack. Zizioulas, who also wrote “Being As Communion”, is a leading contemporary Orthodox theologian. I believe no living person has a greater understanding of Patristic Christian philosophy.
I have no idea if Young has any Orthodox, Patristic understanding or knowledge, but I was amazed at all the ancient truths expounded in the dialogs between the Trinity and the protaginist. Truth is Truth, and Young may simply be plugged into the Holy Spirit as well as the Christian Patristic Fathers were.
Warren has asked me to comment on the Orthodox themes in the Shack. I plan on doing so by commenting on the dialogs in the Shack as they pertain to themes in Zizioulas’ writings. It will be a project in progress over the next several months.

Ed told me he had a book for me to read.

What is it?  I ask.

The Shack, he said.  Everybody at church is reading it.  Some like it and others don’t.  But I do, so I thought I’d see if you would like to read it.

I really didn’t want to, but I’d ask him to read a few books from my Church and he did, so I thought “turn about is fare play”.

Some time ago I had asked my Priest if he had read a book that I was reading and he told me “No.  I always look at the source pages in the back and if there isn’t any that are Orthodox or from one of the Church Fathers, I don’t waist my time”.

I knew I wasn’t going to like the book, but I told Ed I would read it.  So the next time he came over he brought it.  He said “Don’t forget to read the forward.  It sets up the book, so don’t for get to read that part”.

O.K..  I’ll read it.  I’m pretty slow reading but I’ll get to it.  I told him.

Well, it laid around the house for a week or two and he called and asked how I liked it.  I told him I hadn’t start it yet and he sounded a little disappointed.  I will.  I said, knowing I had to get to it.

So the day came to open the book.

I read the index, then I started on the forward, and it wasn’t long into it that I decided quickly I wasn’t going to like this book.  I don’t like this kind of fiction where people get hurt.  I guess because I know that too may times it’s not fiction.  People do get hurt.  It bothers me that kids, especially are the ones hurt.  Everyone thinks they’ll get over it and move on, but too many times they don’t get over it and they don’t move on.  That type of hurt is there for a long time.

Then at the top of page 10 everything changed.

Willie writes, “You probably wouldn’t notice him in a crowd or feel uncomfortable sitting next to him while he snoozes on the MAX (metro-transit) during his once-a-week trip into town for a sales meeting.  He does most of his work from a little home office at his place up on Wildcat Road.”

He What?  He lives Where?  On Wildcat Road?

I lived on Wildcat Road!

From 5 years old till almost 18, when I went into the Navy, I lived on Wildcat Road?

Sure they are about 3000 miles apart, but that didn’t make any difference, there was the connection.

Now the book meant something to me!  I had to read it now!

And so I did.

Most of the time through moist eyes.  But I did read it, and enjoyed it, well as much as I could when it was a fiction-religious book.  Hummm.

Almost a year later I was in Mickey D’s with a few people from Church, and Scott ask “Didn’t you say you read that book The Shack“?

Yup.  Sure did.

What did you think of it?  Did you like it?

Ya.  It was O.K. for a fiction-religious book.  It was a fun read.  I like the part in the garden.  I didn’t like the part about his daughter though.  Did you read it?

Scott said he did and we spent a few minutes discussing it, and then he hit me with “I couldn’t believe how Orthodox it was”!

What?  Orthodox?  What do you mean?

Then we spent the next two times we were together discussing the possibility that the author knew or had read some of the Church Fathers.

So here we are.  We would like to share some of the things that grabbed our attention.

Maybe you would like to leave your ideas also.

Thanks for stopping by and we hope you enjoy your stay.