A Canadian author, William Paul Young, famous for his novel The Shack gave an interview to Christian megaportal InVictory. The full text of the interview is below:
Please tell us about the period of your life when you lived in New Guinea. What are the special features of the Dani tribe? How did the life with the Dani tribe influence your life when the level of their life equaled the level of the Stone Age?
You must keep in mind that I was only 10 months old when I and my parents moved into the highlands of Netherlands New Guinea and experienced life as part of the Dani tribal culture. It was initially all that I knew, and every person first believes that the way they grow up is 'normal'. This culture had no metal implements and was classified as 'stone age'. They were a warring, animistic and sometimes cannibalistic culture, and comprised somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 people over 100 square miles, living in small village communities. New Guinea, now called West Papua, has over 800 unrelated language groups, with no common language at the time, so each tribe was rather isolated from the others. Strong social and familial ties gave the culture an enduring strength, but there was great fear of the spirit world. By the time I was five, I was the 'informant' for the linguists who worked at translating the language; the first person outside that culture to be fluent in both Dani and English. I thought of myself as Dani rather than 'white' and experienced my first culture shock when sent away to boarding school at the age of 6.
Your parents were ministers, have you ever had a desire to become a church minister yourself?
Not really. I have always had a little trouble with the institutional side of religion and there has never been a strong desire to make it a profession. I am not a good politician and often the religious machinery requires people to be politically adept. As long as we define Church in terms of people, that it is the people who are the Church rather than the system of program, then I have no problem. I love the Church, in that sense, but once you baptize the machine and call it the church...then I have issues.
There are many disputes around your book. What was your main goal when you were writing it?
There were many disputes around the life and person of Jesus as well, which ultimately led to the crucifixion. For me, the fact there are some people who are bothered by the book is a good sign that at least it is creating a conversation. We all bring to the table what we have, and all of us, including me, are in a process of questioning and changing. This is a good thing. My intention was never to be controversial. I never actually intended to publish the book. I wrote it for my children using 'story' and fiction to paint pictures of a different paradigm than the religious one I grew up inside of, where God was distant, disappointed and angry with my inability to perform. Plato's god never healed anything in my life. The question is, is the character of God good all the time and is this good, loving God involved in the details of my life? I believe the answer is 'yes' to both questions and use the life of Mack to explore what that looks like.
Who was carrying and offering the book to different publishers? Have you ever thought to leave the idea of publishing the book behind? What was the reason you kept going?
Since I had no intention of publishing the book to begin with, I was not at all disappointed when so many publishers turned it down. And because I believe that God is involved, I just figured that God had other purposes in mind than to do it the 'usual' way.
In the Russian speaking world your book became some kind of the apple of discord between believers. Some love it and some are strictly against it. What was the reaction of people around the world after the book came out? How did church ministers react to your book?
There has been a tumult of response to The Shack, the vast majority positive. In emails alone I have well over a hundred thousand stories sharing how the book has intersected the lives of precious people on wildly divergent journeys. From the ‘helping’ community, those who actually work in the arenas of healing with real people, whether psychology, spiritual formations, step programs, psychiatry, pastoral care etc, I have yet to receive one negative comment or review. What matters to these ‘healers’ is that something ‘actually works’ and is of value and aid to those they care for and treasure. Criticisms have come almost exclusively from ‘religious’ folk and I am not intending the term in a pejorative sense. Of course there are those who have taken position without having read the book for themselves, thereby discounting their right to even pretend an opinion, but there are others who truly feel the weight of responsibility to protect the ‘flock of the faithful’ and defend God against the intrusion of heresy or ‘seductive doctrines’. While the intention is honorable, it is a sad fact that among us religious folk it has always been easier to be right than to love.
In your book you criticize the church's social system. Does it mean that in your opinion we have to spend less time on organisational issues?
Jesus and the Bible are not soft on 'religious' systems, nor on economic or political systems either. Systems exist fundamentally as a way to control life and people, and therefore will be at odds at some points with the person of Jesus. But we live in a world of systems and we cannot avoid them. The question is, how do we live 'in' them and not be 'of' them. I am not an anarchist and I am no judge of how someone chooses to spend their time. That is between them and God and the people who make up the fabric of their lives. I will say that if organization matters to someone more than people, something is amiss.
What is your opinion on social networks and the Internet on the whole? Is this just one of the systems mentioned in the book or there are more?
As I was just saying, there are many, many systems in this world. Every humanly created system, if not watched carefully, will move people in the direction of dehumanization...it is just how systems function. And not all systems are equally destructive or equally capable of producing good. The internet is a good example of a technical advancement that has actually changed the face of this planet in a short time, both for good and for evil. It is useful to open up conversation and dialogue, to expose people to new ideas and concepts of freedom and yet is also being used to enslave and hurt and abuse. Human beings, apart from a truly living and dynamic moral compass within, will utilize the systems for self-centered agendas and the control of others. In the same ways, social networks can accomplish powerful good, and are doing so, but they can also hurt and maim and cause destruction.
There is a very strong idea of God's love in your book but the role and effects of sin in people's lives is missing at all. In fact the possibility of a person going to hell is eliminated. When Mack asks Papa if she would "throw people into the lake of fire" she answers "I am not what you think I am". Don't you think your book could lead to permissiveness?
Again, I disagree fundamentally with your question. The entire book is full of the effects of sin, this self centered independence that makes each of us the center of the universe. Mack has been deeply hurt by the sin of his father, as well as his own need to protect himself from relationship. God does not let Mack off on anything, but unlike Plato's god that many of us grew up with in Western Christianity, the true God is not one that must be pleased or placated through religious performance, but is the center of relationship, a relationship that has always existed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit and out of which all space, time and matter was created. It is a relationship of other-centered love that is the core of existence and reality, not a system of performance. If that were not true, then all of us who are damaged and hurt would never have a chance competing for the affection of this God. Fear, judgment, shame and condemnation have never produced one iota of righteousness, only the appearance of such. Transformation that is real always happens through relationship. The Pharisees were quick to accuse Jesus that the way in which he loved 'those sinners' was the road to permissiveness. The issue of hell is not eliminated, just not addressed in any overt sort of way. I believe that because God has such a greater respect for human beings than we do, that we will always have the choice to say 'no' to God but I also don't believe that death is the end of a person's ability to say 'yes' either.
Also the role of the Church in your book differs from the role of the Church in the Bible. Was this your deliberate motion?
You assume that it is different. I would have to ask you how you see the role of the Church in the Bible before I can begin to answer your question. I actually think that the Church is a community of 'people' as I have already stated, not institution or business and I think the Bible is in complete agreement with that understanding.
God the Father and Holy Spirit almost always are shown as feminine characters. Why such feminism?
I can understand why it is difficult for some to deal with the imagery that I have used, but that is exactly part of the reason to do so: to raise into question some of our presuppositions about the nature of God. For example, the use of female imagery for Papa, Sarayu and Sophia. Fundamentally, it is very orthodox theology to understand that God is neither male nor female, God is Spirit. We are created in the image of God, male and female, which means that maleness and femaleness are equally present in the character of God. This means that using male imagery is just as correct (or incorrect) as using female imagery and vice versa. God is El Shaddai (the breasted one) which is distinctly female, pictured as a woman who lost a coin, as a mother Eagle and Hen etc. Proverbs 8 is all about God as Wisdom as a woman, and on and on. Some folks have an aversion due to exposure to destructive kinds of new age thinking that would drive them towards a female (only) nature of God – which is obviously not true. But the solution is not to swing over to a male (only) understanding of God’s nature either. Imagery was never intended to define God anyway, but only helps us understand the character and nature of God.
Jesus in the Gospels always quotes the Bible. Jesus in your book never does it. Why?
Actually, the Bible is quoted a number of times throughout The Shack, but it is framed within conversation and if you are not familiar with the Scriptures you would miss it. I never wanted this book to be a religious Christian book. It is a parable, a fictional story that wraps truth inside the life of a real human being, who suffers true tragedy and experiences Great Sadness, like so many of us. The Bible has been so used as to hurt and shame people over the years that to quote it as a proof-text would have accomplished the exact opposite of what I intended. That is the beauty of story. It can find a way behind our watchful dragons and into the human heart without asking for permission.
To how many languages was The Shack translated? Aren't you afraid that inaccuracy in translating could distort the meaning of the book?
More than 40 so far and more coming. Yes, there is always the possibility of inaccuracy in translating and I am already aware of some instances. But that is just part of the process. Over time these will be corrected. In the meantime, the book has given people around the world a language to have a non-religious conversation about God, and that is wonderful.
Have you ever heard of the book's fan clubs?
Yes. There have also been myriads of book clubs and groups who have met to discuss the book and tell their own stories. I am thrilled by this. Always keep in mind that I never expected any of this. I made 15 copies at the local print shop for my family and friends and then went back to work. What has happened with this book, both the healing in people's lives and the challenge it has been to some folk's paradigms, to me is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a God-thing, that I have been allowed to participate with, and for that I am grateful. But none of this is anything that I asked for, or need, and so I am free to enjoy it and will remain free after it has run its course.
What is your next project? Will there be a sequel to The Shack?
No sequel at this point. I think The Shack stands alone well. I have always been a writer, so I continue to write and will probably publish more work in the future, God willing and I continue to live. But that is a mystery itself. What we truly have is just one day's worth of grace, intended to be spent on today's adventures and challenges, not on imaginations of the future. So my desire is to live in the Present or Presence of this good God, who is involved in the details of our lives and who has great affection for each one of us.
If you have an account
If you are a new user