|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman Random
Thoughts On The Shack I begin with chapter 6 because that is where the
theological issues of the book begins.
The author begins in chapter 6 with a quote
suggesting that we view God, not as the all-powerful supreme
one of the universe, but as one who loves us and has come into humanity
because of this love. Well,
the loving aspect to God is true, but the first revelation of God in
Scripture is that of the all-powerful creator – that's Elohim.
From that revelation of God, throughout the Genesis account we
learn more about God, example – Yahweh, "I AM" – the God of
the covenant. It seems
to be a progressive revelation. In
short, I question the quote that begins chapter 6.
In my thinking of late, western Christians should see God more in
the light the quote suggests we shouldn't see Him.
We really don't fear the all-powerful God as we should, and as the
Bible says we should. That's
one of our biggest problems. I really don't like the idea of God appearing as a
woman, although I understand that the God of the Shack wants to
disassemble Mack's humanized view of Him.
The God of the Shack says that Mack's view of God is a "good
Mack", and that shouldn't be. I
agree with that, yet at the same time, the author of the Shack is
presenting his own very human view of God in the book, something the God
of his book suggests he should not do. The author does a pretty good job in chapter 6 of
describing the orthodox view of the trinity, although, I'm not 100
% convinced that God can be defined in the simple theological statement we
call trinity. He does appear in Scripture as being triune in nature, but
somehow I think it might be a bit more complicated than our somewhat
simplistic explanation. Don't
get me wrong, "I do believe in the trinity".
The author's point about God not forsaking Jesus on
the cross is good. We need to
understand that the Father turned His back on Jesus, that is, did not
rescue Him from the cross. The
Father did not, or could not leave Jesus, or else at that point, Jesus
failed to be God, and I don't believe that is possible. In
the long run, Jesus did get rescued, that is, after His work on the cross
was finished. The author of the book wanted God to appear to Mack
in order to have him understand better that He is his poppa, or father.
If that is really the case, then there is no logic in God appearing
as a woman. It only confuses
the issue. But I know why God
came to Mack as a woman, and that is so Mack's humanized view of God would
be dismantled. But still, if
God wants us to understand Him as our father, becoming a woman fails all
logic. I'm not even sure I like the term "poppa".
I know about "Abba father" in Romans 8, and I know how
charismatics have interpreted that.
Yet Hebrews says that our God is a consuming fire.
There is a dichotomy here
that I have written about. See
my article at http://stevesweetman.com/articles010/papagod.htm
The author says that God appears in Scripture as a
man because He, or they, knew men needed a father more than a mother,
because of Adam's sin. Well,
we don't know that. The Bible
doesn't say why God speaks in terms of Himself as being a male, and a
father. Some, mostly liberals,
would suggest that it is only the culture of the day when the Genesis
account, and the rest of the Bible was written.
Men were more important than women, so the Bible speaks in terms of
God being male. As aside, I
also don't like the new neutral gender
Bibles. The author says that God is both male and female.
I've heard that before, and have leaned in that direction, but as I
listened to Dianne reading the Shack to me, I'm not convinced of that as
much as I was. God may not be
male and female. He may
be neither. He might be God,
something totally different to humans.
Male and femaleness might well be a product of God's imagination in
creation. I know we were made
in His likeness and image, which means from the Hebrew text, that we were
created similar to Him and a mere shadow of Him.
Still, that is not conclusive evidence
that God is both male and female. Chapter 7 The author does a good job when he speaks of the
reality of the Holy Spirit. Chapter 8 I don't like chapter 8. The author de-emphasizes the justice and wrath of
God. The book of Revelation
clearly states that God will pour out His wrath on the unrighteous.
God is more than a God of love. Love
without justice is a worldly way of thinking these days.
This chapter should be loved by the new age guys. The author is constantly putting His own human
thinking into the mind of papa God in the book, something he tells us we
shouldn't do. This is
fiction, and I'd suggest that some of the things God says in this book is
fiction. I weigh everything
with my understanding of what the Bible says. The author speaks of
"the circle of unity" in the Godhead.
There is no one in submission to another.
I wonder about that. Jesus
was clearly in submission to His Father when He was on earth. Acts 2:36
states that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Lord
suggests power and a chain of command, at least over creation.
Jesus will return to earth and He will rule over the earth, and we
will rule with Him. That
clearly suggests a chain of command, at least over man, that
the God of the Shack says seems to suggest is a humanistic
way of viewing God. The book
suggests that in God's mind unity without authority is His way.
That doesn't seem to be what is presented in the book of
Revelation, when it comes to the new earth.
In 1 Cor. 15:28 Paul says that a time will come when after
Jesus has put death under His feet, then He will subject everything to His
Father, including He Himself. Sounds
a bit like a chain of authority, or at least differing rolls in the
Godhead. Many people
fail to see this verse. The God of the Shack says that Mack does not
understand God, does not trust God because he does not understand the love
of God. That's only half true.
Look at Abraham. In
Genesis 22:12 God said that He now knew that Abraham "feared"
Him because he obeyed God. Real
trust for Abraham was a product of his fear of God.
Abimelech, in Genesis 21 obeyed God because he feared him.
The author is missing a very real point here. Chapter 9 I found this chapter, about creation, tree of good
and evil … kind of boring
and a bit too philosophical. I understand what the author is attempting to do. He is trying to simplify some complex Biblical truth in a fiction style of way to help us understand better. I just think that there could be a better way of doing this. He loses people right away by making God a woman and calling her papa. It is hard to explain truth with fiction, and sometimes I think he complicates the issues more than simplifying them.
Chapter 10 Okay, now people will think I'm being too critical
and judgment6al, and that's something we're not supposed to not do in the
today's church. At this point
in the book I'm beginning to get board, but I'll keep
going. I still think the author is over the heads of the
non-Christian. I still think
he's being too philosophical. The thing that seems to be bothering me the most is
that the author is acting as if he knows how God thinks, knows the mind of
God in all these things. But
what I think he is really doing is putting his own personal thoughts into
the mind of God as seen in the book. I think that is dangerous.
Once again, I have a hard time trying to put truth into a
fictional story as the author is doing.
Something doesn't seem right there.
This chapter is about walking on the water, marriage relationships… I'm not even convinced I see things the same way the author does in this chapter. He is equating his own thoughts as God's thoughts in the book. I wouldn't do that. What I'd do or say is, "this is the way I think, or believe .. the Lord help you understand."
Chapter 11 This is the chapter where Mack meets with a lady
judge, who I'm not sure who she is to represent.
One thing I do believe the author has wrong here is that God has
nail-prints in His hand. God
the Father did not die on the cross. I
don't believe He has nail prints in His hands.
I'm not convinced He even has hands.
I've heard some people complain about the emotionalism in this chapter. I have no problem with that. Many non-Pentecostal/Charismatics don't understand that our Lord can and does touch our emotions.
Chapter 12 I do like the point the author makes that death is
more devastating to man on earth than it is for God and for those who have
already passed away. We as
Christians often live as though death is final when the Bible says just
the opposite. Chapter 13 Live and love without an agenda the author says.
I think I understand what he is saying but Christians do have an
agenda. Jesus gave us the
great commission. That's an
agenda. Jesus loved because He
had and has an agenda. I
understand unconditional love, but love has boundaries based on Biblical
truth, and we do have an agenda. The author quotes Jesus as saying that He doesn't
want to make everyone Christians. He's
got people of all religious persuasions.
I'm not sure what is meant by this.
It sounds post-modern to me. He
does a poor job in explaining this. Chapter 14 The author says that God has no expectations of us.
I think God certainly understands our limitations, but I'm far from
convinced that He has no expectations of us, especially as Christians.
If this were not so, for example, why is He so hard on the seven
churches of Revelation. The book also says that God is never unhappy with us.
That's just not right. Once
again, the seven churches of Revelation shows that. I found this chapter way to philosophical.
I can't see any non-Christian understanding this.
to be continued... not
finished reading yet.
|