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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
At first I didn't agree with Driscoll, but upon reflection, I think I see his point.
The danger with images of God is that the picture that we create is inevitably our understanding of God, rather than the reality of who God is. Even if we have good intentions, this can lead us to worship an idolatrous representation of God that we created, rather than the true God. For example, when the Israelites created the golden calf they probably did not intend to create another god; they wanted a representation of YHWH to help them worship Him. But they inevitably put their own concept of God into the work--in this case, probably the bull was a symbol of sexual potency, which led them into immoral behavior. I think a fictional story about God has the potential to act in the same way.
Now, should this danger prevent us from making any type of religious art, stories etc.? People have answered this differently. Calvin believed all images should be prohibited. Roman Catholicism has embraced all types of art. The Orthodox churches allow icons, within a strict set of rules intended to prevent idolatry. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle. Yes, there are inherent dangers. But on the other hand, led by the Holy Spirit, we are called to use our minds to interpret Scripture. A painting or story can do this just as well as a sermon.
So for me, whether or not something is a graven image comes down to: is it an illumination and interpretation of what we find in the Bible, or does it portray God in a way that conflicts with or goes far beyond the Bible?
I think The Shack goes into graven image territory in its depiction of God. In particular, it is an extreme indulgence in what may be the great American heresy: that God is our buddy and would never get mad at us or anything like that.
This is explicitly stated: Papa denies getting angry about sin and says "I don't need to punish people for sin" (46). These are obviously quite unbiblical statements. In fact, when Mack refers to specific Biblical passages of God's judgment (e.g. the lake of fire), Papa basically claims that Mack is mistaken to think that this represents God.
But more than this is just the overall interaction between Mack and the Trinity, as well as the relationships within the Trinity. After seeing the human Jesus perform a miracle, Peter fell on his face and said "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke 5:8). But Mack, in the presence of all three persons of the Trinity, shows no signs of fear, awe, or reverence (at least he has yet to do so by chapter 12). Where is the God we see in the call visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, or who answers Job "out of the whirlwind"? Instead, we are presented with a Trinity that is basically three cool amigos who love to goof off.
And someone please tell me, what is the theology of the incident when Jesus drops the bowl, breaking it and spilling food everywhere? I know Jesus is human, but this is post-resurrection: will glorified, perfected humanity still be clumsy? I may be nitpicking, but it is clear that the author intentionally put this incident in there to make a theological point.
I think Dan has put it well. Images are useful, up to a point. I keep a photo of my wife on my computer at work. It's a good representation of Lara, but to say that it is Lara is something else.
To the extent that we treat the image as the exclusive represntation of the thing, or the thing itself (or person), we deny the reality, and thus, in a biblical context, create a graven image.
As a comical aside to illustrate this, shortly before it starts to rain, Bill Cosby's Noah is grousing with God and essentially denying that God is going to destroy the earth by rain. We disbelieve, until confronted with the reality.
Sometimes, people go beyond that and refuse to believe, even in the face of reality. God can take a St. Thomas. He is willing to recant when confronted. Think of Jesus' biting condemnation fo the towns of Gallilee and Judea for their disbelief in the face of his miracles.
Thus, to the extend that "The Shack" presents an inaccurate picture of God, which it certainly seems to, with regard to order, hierarchy, and the Judgment, and/or people choose to limit themselves to the image portrayed in "The Shack," as it does seem to be very much god in our image," then, yes, you have classic idolatry.
I'll agree with the general gist of Dan and Kevin's comments. I think Mark Driscoll may be overstating his point here, but if The Shack is presenting its image of God in the same way that the Israelites portrayed God as a golden calf, then the sin is analogous. If they're saying "this is what God looks like," then they're guilty of making a graven image. Jesus Christ is "the image of the invisible God" and "the exact imprint of his nature," not the three characters in The Shack.
But if the book is just using those characters in the setting of a parable, it's not making a "graven image," as the Biblical examples of metaphors and parables show. However, if the point of that parable is to deny that God is holy, pours wrath out on sin, and hates all evildoers, then it's still idolatry, even if it's not a "graven image."
Post a Comment