home forum audio about
Home » forums » Discussions » Theology

The Shack/Barney's message

Hi,

I wanted to discuss Barney's message in light of the book The Shack. I especially would love to hear from Anne as I know she is a fan of the book.

To me what was offensive about The Shack was not so much that God was represented by a woman, but that they called her Papa. I REALLY didn't like that mixing of genders. Also, the name of the main character - Mackenzie - is usually a female name - that bothered me too. It made me think that in the author's view - gender didn't matter. To me, gender matters very much.

In thinking about God as a mother, in Matt 23:37 Jesus says - 'how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings..." This shows me that God is not afraid to give himself female characteristics..God is neither male nor female but he did choose to send a son and in that I think gender is important.

The Shack is a story. Does every story have to reflect exactly what the bible represents? I agree with Barney that when people saw God the father in the bible - it was a majestic, fall on your face experience. Are we bringing God down, if we represent him as a black woman? I don't know, maybe. The way we are to see God is through His son. Can we see God and connect with God as represented by a woman? Is that blasphemous? Can God come to us in different ways? I remember one time Jor had a vision of Jesus and he was wearing jeans and a T-shirt.Is that blasphemous because Jesus wore a robe in the bible? I don't think so.

But what about trivializing the majesty and glory of God the Father? I personally wouldn't want to mess with that and I think it can be dangerous to represent God the Father in any other way.When Jesus taught the disciples to pray he said 'Our Father in heaven' so that must be important.

I think one of the tensions in Christianity is the intimacy of God and the glory of God.What I liked about The Shack was that Mack really "got" God's heart of love. And God's heart is that we receive His love, if someone experiences more of God's love by reading this book I think that is good.

Another thing I thought of is that one of the ten commandments is to not take God's name in vain. By representing God as a woman, is that dishonoring Him or misusing His name. I don't know.

I look forward to hearing from you all. Thanks for reading this.

By Helen at 2008-10-26 13:30 | Theology | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Bump

I thought this blog had died. No one responded to my post so I'm bumping it up.

~ In Him, Helen ~

By Helen at Mon, 2008-12-15 14:54 | login or register to post comments

A thoughtful review of The Shack (not mine!)

After hearing Barney talk a few weeks ago, I had closed the door to reading The Shack. Then, at Thanksgiving dinner, our southern California relatives handed out loaves of banana bread and...copies of The Shack! Since those gifts were given by our believing relatives to our non-believing relatives, I didn't receive a copy (but I did receive a loaf of delicious banana bread!). I thought I had dodged the bullet of reading a gifted book simply in gratitude. Not! My unbelieving mother in law, who is about as wonderful a specimen of that particular species as a husband can hope for, read the book and phoned my wife a couple times to share how it was impacting her. "I can see how Jesus might have died for me". So, now what I am going to do, stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at the book because it depicts the Trinity in a way I find uncomfortable? The book caused a movement in a person close to me who has been intransigent regarding the Christian faith. I was missing out on the opportunity to engage in a discussion with my mother in law because I didn't want to "mess" with the book (or let it mess with me!).

So I was feeling a degree of inclination to read the book (but not enough to buy my own copy - Julie, may I borrow yours?) Then I came across an article reviewing The Shack by one of my favorite theological thinkers, Jim Fowler. He just posted his review that had run in a magazine that he writes for occassionally. Jim presented some valid perspective on the book. I want to share that with everyone here because his comments may bring some context to the target audience for the book and for the writer's original intentions. I know that Jim has conversed with the author and has some casual acquaintance with him doing a group radio interview together.

After I read the book I will try to offer some commentary. Here is the link:
Link to the article

By DavidAvilla at Sun, 2008-12-21 20:45 | login or register to post comments