One Last Question - What do you thing about Young's portrayal of the Church?

Seems like the blog has run it's course.

I have one other question.

I came across this yesterday in Christianity Today:

"I have one caution for Young and all those who read The Shack: Let us be cautious of speaking too harshly about Jesus' bride, the church. She has stains on her dress, she often embarrasses him, and she has hurt many throughout history. Yet Jesus loves her still and gave his life for her. The local church is still the hope of the world by being his witness in the midst of broken humanity"

That sparked a problem that I did have with the book - I know that the church is an easy target. But what do you think about Young's portrayal of the church?

Question #5 Mark Driscoll's Definition of Heresy Part 3

If you have not read Questions 3 and 4 - go back and read the background. If you have not listened to Mark's arguments - go back and listen.

Mark quotes from the book:

They say of the trinity "We are in a circle of relationship - not a chain of command - a hierarchy would make no sense among us."

Mark says that this violates an essential part of the trinity - equality but deference.

So the question is:

Does "The Shack" present a view of the trinity that violates one of the essentials of the trinity? If the answer is yes please provide evidence from scripture that the trinity:

• Is not "in a circle of a relationship"
• Is a chain of command
• Has a hierarchy

Please define your terms as well.

BTW - thanks for all the good input so far

Question #4 Mark Driscoll's Definition Of Heresy Part 2

If you have not read Question 3 - go back and read the background. If you have not listened to Mark's arguments - go back and listen.

One of Mark's statements is:

"If we represent God the father as a woman - it's goddess worship. It's modalism."

Let me see if I can simplify the question without stripping it of its weight.

If, in a story, we represent God the Father, as a woman - is it goddess worship? Is it modalism?

This is a different question than the first - everyone agreed that it was okay to represent God as woman - but what about God the Father. Is there a difference?

Question #3 - Mark Driscoll's definition of heresy

Background
Mark Driscoll is someone I respect. I am very surprised at what he has said about The Shack.

“Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical … It’s teaching modalism and goddess worship and graven image-ism and even denies any sort of deference within the ontological Trinity, and Christians lack the discernment to even see that as a problem”

Let's agree on a definition of heretical. How about:

"characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards"

If this doesn't work - please provide a better one.

So, in the next four questions I would like to address Mark's four charges of heresy -

Today - "graven image"

Mark has said the following concerning The Shack around 2:30 minutes into the video

"What is making a graven image of God? It's taking the invisible God and making him visible. It's taking the creator God and making him part of creation. ... The Bible teaches that God is a spirit. He doesn't have a body... "

I could use some real help on even coming close to agreeing with this? Mark in not a nut case. I am always troubled when I cannot even make a poor case for a particular point of view.

So the question -

Can anyone make a case for The Shack promoting making a graven image of God? Even if you don't believe the argument, can you help me understand where Mark is coming from?

Question #2 - God's Healing of Mack

Although there is much in this book about the nature and character of God, much of the book is about God's healing of Mack's Great Sadness as well as the healing of the relationship between Mack and his father. I have had, as many of you have had, the privilege of seeing the kind of healing Mack experienced with similar kinds of great sadness. Paul Young (the author) experienced this kind of deep healing over a number of years. But, in Paul's case, it took many years and God's intervention was probably much more obtuse than experienced in this allegory.

My question is: "Does a story of this kind give people a wrong kind of expectation about how God heals?"

Let me elaborate just a little. A dear couple I know lost their daughter very tragically. God visited the wife shortly after the daughter's death in an amazing and intimate way - and gave her strength and hope to carry on. The husband, for many years, longed for God to visit him in that way. From my very limited perspective, I felt that he was looking for God to come in a particular way. (I am reminded of Oswald Chambers: "Do not look for God to come in a particular way, but do look for Him"). Does the book set up a kind of false expectation? "My hurt is so deep - If you came to me the way you came to Mack - I'd be healed. But Lord - you are silent."

There is another book that sounds almost as hoaky as The Shack entitled Dinner with a Perfect Stranger. In spite of a kind of hoaky premise (Jesus invites a busy father to dinner at a fancy restaurant and presents the gospel to him) it presents an apologetic for the gospel that is as good as I have every heard. In this book, the busy father (Nick) turns his life over to Jesus. But the same question applies. If Jesus manifested himself like that to me, even I would have become a Christian.

In the real world - real and fallible people are instruments of God's healing and God manifests himself through the vale of tears. In the real world - real and very fallible people share the gospel with us.

I hope you get the gist. Let the dialog continue

Bob's Welcome, introduction and the first question.

Welcome to MicroTools' blog where we can dialog about The Shack.

I will attempt to pose the questions and invite comments - one question at a time. I want to attempt to limit the discussion to issues the book raises concerning the nature of God. Obviously people like Chuck Colson and Mark Driscoll have real problems with the way the book portrays the nature. It might be well for you to check out their comments. Just click on their links.

Also for those who haven't read the book - here is a link to the first chapter

Summary
Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever. In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant "The Shack" wrestles with the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?" The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him.

What others have said positively about The Shack from people I deeply respect
"When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!" Eugene Peterson

"The path to God is paved with questions—sometimes frightening and deeply painful ones. While reading The Shack I realized the questions unfolding in this captivating novel were questions I was carrying deep within me. True freedom is born from facing those things we feel we don’t have the courage or strength to face. The beauty of this book is not that it supplies the reader with easy answers to grueling questions, but that it invites you to come in close to a God of mercy and love, in whom we find hope and healing." Jim Palmer author of Divine Nobodies

The First Question
In the book, Mack meets God in the place of his greatest pain - The Shack. He meets the Father, Son and Holy Spirit manifested in human form [we'll get to that in a later question]. In the case of the Father, he meets a very large African-American woman who is called "Papa." When asked why the Father is portrayed as a woman, Mack is told that his image of his own father is so painful that if God manifested himself as a father, Mack could not receive the healing. (Mack was brutally beaten by his father and eventually killed him). Mack admits "Maybe, it's because I've never known anyone I could really call Papa."

So here is the question - Do we see anything wrong in an allegory (keep John Bunyan in mind as well as the many stories that Jesus told where God is portrayed as a farmer, etc) portraying God the Father as a woman?

Start the dialog.