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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't agree with Mark that The Shack promotes "goddess worship." As discussed in question 1, the author is not actually claiming that God is a woman. However, after finishing the book, I still think there is an underlying assumption here that is problematic. The book presents The Father as merely one way in which God appears to humans, one that can be interchangeably replaced by mother or perhaps something else. Again, the problem with this is: if God is not actually Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then who is God really? Can we really know God through the revelation of Jesus Christ? And does God appear in many different forms through many different religions? (The author suggests that all religions, Christianity included, are man-made structures that often prevent people from knowing God, and that followers of Jesus are found in every religion. It is not clear exactly what is meant by these comments, but this sounds uncomfortably close to pluralism.)
Wikipedia has a good definition of modalism: definition in Wikipedia is quite good: "the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself." Instead of the three distinct persons of the Trinity, you have one God wearing three different masks for the purposes of relating to humans.
I don't think The Shack is Modalist. It places a great emphasis upon the relatedness within the Trinity, something which cannot exist in Modalism. However, The Shack does sound awfully modalist when talking about the cross, and this is what Mark's complaint focused on.
Traditionally, redemption is what the Son accomplished through His sacrificial death in obedience to the Father. The Son took the punishment that we deserved, being forsaken by the Father because He bore our sin. He was then raised to new life by the Father.
The Shack seems to deny this narrative of atonement. God is portrayed as not angry about sin and not needing to punish humans for sinning. Papa states that the Father did not forsake the Son; instead, the whole Trinity was on the cross, and Papa even bears the wounds of crucifixion. I find these statements quite problematic; they are not compatible with an orthodox understanding of the atonement. The book is not consistent, though. It elsewhere makes statements about Jesus achieving reconciliation and forgiveness for sin. Actually, one of my biggest problems with this book is the vast number of theological statements it makes. It is willing to step into every theological minefield that exists and take a position, often in ways that are unnecessary to the story. It would be a better book if it focused on the (very well done) story of healing and reconciliation, only bringing in the theology that is necessary to make that point.
I am very late in joining the group since I thought we were supposed to have read the whole book before making comments on it! Oh well. I am almost finished with it, and unfortunately, because of all the "negative forecasting," (not from you guys) I keep waiting for something awful to happen (theologically speaking). I grew up in an Episcopal church so I am very familiar with the trinity. But that did not help me to know Jesus. So I am not at all bothered by the author's attempt to make the trinity more "understandable." It seems to me that he is trying to help people connect to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by using parables in the way that Jesus did. I don't think we're supposed to take it all so literally - it's a story. And the purpose seems to be to draw people in to a deeper understanding of the "width, breadth, and depth" of who God is (as opposed to who we make him to be). I vaguely (sp? where's the spell check on this?) remember years ago hearing a speaker claim that the Bible could not be true because it portrayed God as a chicken (the part where He gathers the chickens under his wings like a mother hen). I think Jesus used parables and metaphors to help us understand Him (or them). I am really enjoying the book (as well as all your comments)and am finding it helpful. Dan asks, "If God is not...then who is God really?" I'm not sure any one of us totally understands how "God" can actually be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We accept it, I think, because we have a relationship with Jesus - not because we understand it and it makes sense. We are entering a time where Muslims have a special time of prayer and fasting (Ramadan?)and I know that in the past some of them have met Jesus in a vision and have come to know him as Lord and Savior. They were not looking for him, as such, but through God's grace they found Him. That is how I interpreted his statement that followers are found in every religion.
This is the very first time I have ever "blogged" so please bear with me. I really don't know what the protocol is :)
Sharon, thanks for your perspective. Although I don't like some aspects of how the author portrays the Trinity, I agree that making the Trinity more understandable through a story like this is a good thing, and some of the ways The Shack does this are great. I like how it shows the love and interaction between the three.
As far as the issue of the book's position on other religions, I think it is kind of unclear. I agree that some statements could be taken to mean that people of other religions encounter Jesus. However, the thing that makes me wonder is not so much these statements, but the author's statements on the church and being Christian. According to The Shack, being a part of the earthly institutions of the church has nothing to do with following Jesus (see pp. 73-75). Even being Christian has nothing to do with following Jesus. He says: "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims,...I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved." What does it mean to be transformed into sons and daughters of God, if it does not involve being Christian? I understand "being Christian" as following Jesus as revealed in the Bible. Does Jesus have no desire for this? Or does the author mean something else by "Christian?" I'm not really sure, but I don't feel too comfortable with some of the statements that are in there.
That statement about having no desire to "make them Christian" also bothered me. But today, the term "Christian" or "born-again" can have such a negative connotation that it made me wonder if the author was just reflecting the terminology that can be so loosely thrown about these days. Then further on in the book, the author writes, "It [the Bible] is a picture of Jesus [Papa is speaking]. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in him and in no other." And even further on Papa talks about how he doesn't want just a piece of Mack, he wants all of him and "all of every part of you and your day...I want to be at the center of everything. When I live in you, then together we can live through everything that happens to you." There is such an emphasis on "relationship" which, I believe, is essential. I don't think there is any other "religion" (or whatever you want to call it) that centers around having a relationship with God. It is our love that separates us from others, and at the same time, draws others to us. But it isn't the love we have as mere humans that sets us apart. It is the love of God working in us that enables us to love. Without God's love, as demonstrated through Christ on the cross, and without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, helping us to love others, we are no different than anyone else. Because it is not "us" who are different, it is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in us that makes us able to be different.
I wholeheartedly agree with the things you have said about the Christian life, and I agree that this is one possible reading of the book. I hope that it is what the book is really saying. But I still think it is possible that the author may be saying something else. At one point, Jesus says: "Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda." This and a few other statements sound as if the author conceives of following Jesus as "living genuinely" apart from any specific structure or belief system. So, for example, a Buddhist could be influenced by Jesus to live more authentically and lovingly, while remaining a Buddhist. Some people interpret the Bible's picture of Jesus in this way, and sometimes the author sounds as if he thinks this way, although at other times he sounds more conventionally Christian.
I think Bob J. is really asking two separate questions here, as it appears to me that Mark Driscoll is treating the charge of goddess worship and the charge of modalism as two separate charges under the umbrella accusation of idolatry.
Is it goddess worship? It appears to me that Mark Driscoll thinks that the goal of The Shack is to make us think of God the Father as a mother instead (or as some kind of either/and/or). If so, then yes, the book replaces "god worship" with "goddess worship" (or some combination of the two).
Is it modalism? Yes, if it denies the unique roles of the different persons of the Trinity. God the Father was not crucified.
Perhaps the author of The Shack didn't intend for people to walk away from the book thinking it taught goddess worship or modalism. But enough people do... I mean, maybe it's not really false teaching, and it's just poor teaching. Maybe it lacks clarity enough that only a few people get what it's really teaching, while the rest of the people are confused and misled by it.
Post a Comment