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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
In my experience, God communicates mostly with images that have personal significance to me. This principle is consistent with the incarnation. We also don't see Jesus speaking an edenic, pre-babel language in the New Testament. God wants us to understand.
Biblically, God uses mother analogies to describe [Him]self (sic). Isa 42:14, 49:14-15, 66:12-13. (As a Mother Bear in Hosea 13)
Jesus portrays God as woman in the parable of the lost coin.
Perhaps if Jesus had been born into a matriarchy we would have seen more Mother imagery.
In any case, I have no objection to the use of a woman to portray "The Father".
I don't have an objection per se to the idea of a woman representing God in an allegory. As Andrew pointed out, female imagery is sometimes used to describe God in the Bible. And I agree with The Shack's assertion that God is neither male nor female.
However, I think in The Shack there is an implied belief behind this that is troubling. Notice this quote:
"'why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.' 'Well,' responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the kitchen, '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.'"
This implies that Father is merely a metaphor for God or an appearance that God takes on, and that it is one of multiple possibilities. This is the same kind of assumption that was behind the egregious PCUSA Trinity paper of late, which proposed replacing "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with other, more PC terms.
But Trinitarian doctrine asserts that God IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our knowledge of God may be limited and imperfect, but the Trinity reveals, to the extent that we can comprehend it, the true character of God. There is no God behind the Father--the Father truly is God. If this is not true, then Jesus did not really reveal God, and we can't truly know God through Him.
Does this conflict with the belief that God is neither male nor female? There is some tension there. I think that the answer probably lies in the fact that our human understanding of "father" can only take us so far in understanding the true, divine Father.
All this having been said, I am only in chapter 6 of the book, so I'm not if these concepts have yet to be developed in new ways.
Hey, no fair, you read the book ;)
In agreement, I'll just add...It's hard to avoid that Jesus IS male without becoming a modalist.
You could argue that the human nature of the Son is male, while the divine nature is not. But then you might be bordering on nestorianism.
Dan - so great that you've joined the dialog.
Unlike Andrew (how I would like to be like Andrew however), I don't agree with:
"This implies that Father is merely a metaphor for God or an appearance that God takes on, and that it is one of multiple possibilities"
Papa said:
"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 think the author was very careful here (not so in other places as you will find). Remember that Mack had, "for now" a very distorted view of "father." I am thankful that at times, God says "For now, let's just say..."
If I couch anything I say in "for now," that should be a big clue to me that there is much more to be said - but it is not yet the time or the place for it.
I guess I should have been more specific about what I agreed. I haven't read the book, so I don't know the context of that particular passage and can't comment on it. I was agreeing with Dan about his statement about the Trinity, that "Father" is not just a mask God puts on for our sake, but actually reveals the nature of the first person of the Godhead.
Having said that I can't comment on the book, I can comment on the PDF article about the book. That author seems to misunderstand passages in the book fairly consistently. They also expect doctrine to be presented systematically and mostly complain when an emphasis is missing.
Where do you recommend obtaining the book? Is it available in electronic form?
First of all, I have not read the book. I did read the first chapter just now, but my only comments on that are non-theological: If the weather is such as he described, how could he open the envelope after walking 100 yards through freezing rain and spending another minute knocking ice off the mailbox... it'd take five minutes indoors before my fingers would regain enough manual dexterity to even attempt to open an envelope. Plus, the South Dakotan in me insists there's no such thing as a "midwestern accent"... it's every other part of the country that has an accent, not us.
I also have no interest in reading the book, partially because of the negative reviews by those I respect (Tim Challies is the friend of a friend, and WORLD Magazine at http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14137), and partially because I get the impression that this isn't the kind of book that I would either enjoy or benefit from (I'd rather go read some sermons by Edwards, Spurgeon, or Piper).
However, I think the question Bob presents is a legitimate and worthwhile question to ask and attempt to answer, regardless of whether one has read the book. A particular framework that could be helpful to answer the question would be that of distinguishing the main point from secondary details in parables (and allegories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, symbols, etc.).
For example, let's take a look at Luke 15, which includes the parable that Andrew referred to. In these three parables, God is portrayed as a shepherd with a lost sheep, a woman with a lost coin, and a father with a lost son. However, in all three of those parables, the particular physical description of God in the parable is *not* the main point of those parables. The main point of those is the joy in heaven over a sinner who repents (15:7, 10) and the ungodliness of the Pharisees' refusal to share in God's joy (15:1-2, 25-32).
Any of us could use our imagination and reinterpret those parables by treating secondary characteristics of those parables as if they were the main point, and it would seem that they teach all sorts of outlandish things: God leaves us all alone while he seeks other sinners (15:4), he loses valuable possessions easily (15:8), and he likes to eat roasted fattened calf when a sinner repents (15:23). But none of those details are the main points of the parables, so we shouldn't criticize those parables as if they were.
So the question for the book is whether the portrayal of God the Father as a woman is itself the main point or if it's a secondary characteristic in the portrayal of a different main point. Is the author of the book portraying God the Father as a woman in order to get us to start praying to "Our Mother in heaven" or is he portraying God the Father as a woman because it's a useful tool to illustrate one of his attributes, such as his compassion?
And I'll leave the answering of that question to the book's author and readers.
I'd say the author is portraying God as a woman to make the point that God takes compassion on people in their unique circumstances (in this case, a bad relationship with a father) and finds ways to successfully draw us.
Sorry for joining so late. I, too have not read the book, but have heard it highly recommended. Bob's comments on the MTI prayer newsletter prompted me to join in.
Several things strike me as I read your comments and the various statements i have read about "The Shack."
First, it is a work of fiction, and thus lacks the precision we might otherwise glean from a more systemmatic statement. The bible is rife with illustrations, parables, etc., but I don't think God, or their human authors ever intended them to be an exhaustive statement. Taking the Bible as a whole, God comes across as paradoxical, which makes any illustration less than entire.
Second, while the Bible is clear that God the Father is neither male nor female, as we understand such things, I would agree with CS Lewis that God is entirely father in that he is the one who impregnates us with life. It is uniquely his function, and not something a woman can do.
Third, I do wonder whether Young's characterization of God in "The Shack," is a freduian slip, as it comes across as a good example of theology in the Age of Oprah. It is about relationships, about healing, quite apart from any structure or hierarchy. I would be curious to know if anyone else caught this.
More to follow....
Like several others, I, too, have not read the book, so I wonder how useful my obserations may be.
Like the others, I have no particular issue with representing God as a woman. In various passages in both the Old and the New Testaments, God is desrcibed as a mother, or other feminine roles. For that matter, God spoke through the mouth of an ass, so who am I to choose what form he chooses to use.
But I think that there is an element of God's nature that cannot be eliminated that is lergely male. CS Lewis describes God as the one who "impregnates" us with life, sprit, et al. You can't get around that.
The question foremost in my mind, however, is whether Young's choice of a largish middle-aged black woman was a freudian decision, for all descriptions of the book left me with the feeling that we are looking at theology in the age of Oprah. The focus on relationshis, nurturing, healing, and the avoidance of judgment, are all hallmarks of Oprah Winfrey.
Fiction is necessarily fuzzy, missing the hard edges of more doctrinal statements, unless you thow in extensive lectures, a'la Ayn Rand.
The challenge for Christians is presenting a God who embodies so many paradoxes. He is gentle and loving, and yet he also smites people dead. I can't explain how it all matches up, but I know that both are equally true of Him.
Young seems interested in making very clear that God is not the person most people think he is. We need not seminary, or clergy, or heirarchy, or judgment. Certainly the church has abused these over the years. God should not be mistaken for his followers.
So, from that standpoint, it is a noble venture, trying to show us a part of God that may be hidden. People need to know that. But people need to know that there's a lot more to it than that.
Can anyone read my comments?
Post a Comment