Posts
For me, this is where the book begins. For me, 'The Shack' is a book of ideas; theological ideas. All that has come before, and the story line as it continues on from this point is merely the picture frame, the context, that is necessary to provide a foundation on which to set some very interesting ideas about God and man. And if you can read beyond this chapter without getting your mind stretched you are a very unusual person indeed. I wrote elsewhere that I almost consider the book a litmus test of how constrained our thinking is. Paul Young begins in this chapter to really stretch it.
The first few pages continue the stage setting. Still, he begins with an idea. How does the notion of rational, irrational, and suprarational sit with you? Can you give any examples of where you see those concepts in the world around you?
How do you feel about Mack's whole process of preparing for the trip? His keeping it a secret from Nan "for her sake"? Do you think that sort of thing has any place in the life of a practicing Christian? When? Why?
Top half of page 71; Mack is talking about the note, does God send notes, does He care enough? And then Missy's death as retributive judgement on Mack. How would you address those topics if you had a non-Christian friend who was reading the book? ("Always be prepared to give to any man an answer for the hope that is within you...")
This chapter presents us with two very comprehensible images of God. Before he gets to the Shack Mack's image is of a grandfatherly Gandalf (p.73). After he gets there he sees "Aunt Jemima". ;-) It seems a lot of people are comfortable with Gandalf -- a very mortal image -- but they're very uncomfortable with Aunt Jemima -- an equally mortal image. What images can you recall God using, either in name or in actual image, in scripture? Which ones do you find most helpful? A lot of the reaction against the book has stemmed from Aunt Jemima. Other than the obvious -- she's a woman -- what do you think might be other reasons for this?
Page 78; have you ever raged at God like Mack did? How do you think God reacts to that? How did it make you feel after you were done? What happened next for you? I wrote in the margin at the bottom of the page, "The details may vary but the pain, the experience, is always the same." I do not relish the times when I've been at The Shack. But, by the same token, I pity the person who has never been there. It is only there that God can come to meet us in full force, it seems. The image of Mack, on the floor, tracing his fingers in Missy's blood stain are so powerful. I wonder if Papa stooped down to trace His fingers in the blood at the base of the Cross.
Page 80-81; I love the breaking out of spring. It reminds me of Paul Young's description of how Sarayu's name came to be. (On the MP3s from his talks at Capital Christian Center, 1/25/09.)
The rest of the chapter is LOADED. What is the protocol for meeting God? Mack struggles with this on 82. What's yours? God has numerous names in Scripture. Here He is "The God of the Unexpected". How many ways can you find that coming to the fore? What characteristics do you see of God's person set out in this final stage of the chapter? How do you see God "stooping" to Mack? How does this fit with the rational/irrational/suprarational? What strikes you about the specific portraits of the three persons of the Godhead?
Macks a priori assumptions about God get pretty thoroughly blown away. What are your assumptions? What would a complete and accurate image of God look like to you?
Let's discuss. (And thanks, Janine, for the priviledge and honor of filling in. I know I did it different -- we're different people -- I hope I did it half as well. Now you lay down and get better. ;-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OK, I am jumping in. And don't think it's just because my brother wrote the initial post. (Thought that doesn't hurt.) It's more the case that like Tom, this is where the book gets interesting to me. It was slow reading until here.
ReplyDeleteThe question I want to reply to is the "Aunt Jemima" question. The first time I read anything ABOUT the Shack, the reviewer mentioned that God the Father was a large black woman called Papa, and I immediately knew I was going to read the book on that basis alone. And immediately I knew there would be reactives in the conservative side of the Christian world that would freak out for that reason alone.
Premise: God is not female.
Premise: God is not black.
Premise: God is also not male.
Premise: God is also not white.
Seems like one for the "duh" file, but a lot of people seem to get awfully riled up about this. I recognised intuitively that, since most people, if they visualize God at all, visualize Gandalf - or the guy Michelangelo painted on the Sistine ceiling - but no one points to the Sistine ceiling and says "Hey! God is not male!"
Male and female, black and white - these are categories of creation that do not apply to the Creator. I was very young, 12 years perhaps, when i reflected on this and thought, suppose I make some pottery, some out of red clay and some out of white. And imagine my pots sitting on the shelf one evening pondering, arguing, about whether I was red clay or white clay. I am neither; those categories refer to the world of clay, but not the world of the potter.
I think Young's intent is to get us out of the little boxes that confine our thinking far too often.
More later. Peace to all and esp. to you, J.
Granted your point, Rick, but we have 2,000 years of tradition, not to mention scripture itself, that presents God as 'Father'. Is it so easy to just throw all of that overboard? Why would the Bible use those images if God didn't intend for us to think that way?
ReplyDeleteI could approach your question, Tom, from several directions. One, refer you to Psalm 91:4 - He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge. So God's a bird now. OK, obviously not - we have here a case of scripture using familiar language to describe one who is outside of the natural realm of experience and language. God will protect us and care for us in way beyond anything we've experienced, but if we've ever been moved by the tender image of a mother hen's care for her chicks, we're going to get a good idea of what God's care for us will be like. God could use other-worldly language - but then it would fail to communicate. So God accomodates to our human images. The Father image is dominant, but not exclusive. (Check out Isaiah 49:15, where God is self-described in female terms.)
ReplyDeleteBut enough. Our fellow readers will think we've left the Shack and gone to the seminary classroom!
Peace...R
First .... thank you, Tom, for taking over. You did a great job ..... I may have you keep it for a while.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it might be very interesting for others to jump in and lead some of the discussions. Any takers?
Second .... Rick ---- it's about time!!! :)
As far as the idea of what God "looks like" .... I, too, was intrigued by the idea of God as a black woman. The first time I heard about it, my first reaction was .... "Whoa .... wait a minute! Is that blasphemous?!"
But then the more I thought about it the more intrigued I became ... and so I bought the book.
I personally know people who have read and rejected the book because of this notion. I'm not surprised.
But I'm so glad that I became more intrigued than repulsed and read it.
Because seeing my God as someone who is comforting, comfortable, loving, affectionate, full of life, a lover of good food and laughter, a "real" person ..... is a much better vision for me than a wise Gandalf. Both are good. Both are God.
But the vision of God as a large, comforting woman (whatever her color) makes me want to crawl right up into her lap and be held.
Especially this week.
Thank you Tom, for the Charles Schultz philosophy posted previously. While I know it, I forget it, and need to hear it occasionally!
ReplyDeleteIt is so interesting to think of God in "other terms" like being female. New Age spirituality embraces this notion in conjunction with God being "nothing but love", but this seems to break from Christian tradition of a male god and "forgiving if asked". I just wonder how this relates to traditional male and female roles in our society. Of course I have my own thoughts....but you?????
Thank you, Janine, but Rick can tell you, you should be careful what you offer. ;-)
ReplyDeleteRick, you make a great point. And, at the risk of furthering the “seminary” comparison, I think that your point about God having to communicate timeless truth in a timely manner is apt in another way. God knows the reasons, but He tells us that He acts “in the fullness of time.” And the time in which He chose to act was a time in which societies generally, and Jewish society in particular, were patriarchal. The notion of an ultimate authority figure, God, who was not masculine would have been cultural nonsense. And so God communicated in the words that the receiving culture would understand.
What is revolutionary is that Jehovah did not present “Himself” in exclusively masculine terms. In both Old and New Testaments we find God using both male and female characteristics to communicate His love and care.
And, Janine, here is where your comment really strikes home to me. Not merely as the image of the large, comforting woman – that immediately brings to mind my own grandmother who I loved dearly – but, perhaps more importantly, as Paul Young brings out later, Papa tells Mack that He appeared that way because He knew that Mack had a need to see Him that way; to be forced to think outside his own mental boxes. That is grace in action.
Leslie, you raise a great, and important, and interesting question. Since you ask, I’ll share my thoughts, but I’d also like to hear yours. I’d be inclined to say that our society’s traditional, historically, at least, male and female roles probably draw more from the OT than the NT. In Ephesians we’re told that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. For years I thought of this as, “If it comes to it, I’ll take a bullet for my wife.” And I suppose that’s in there. But I think far more common is the application, “I’ll turn off the football game and help my wife with dishes, or go shopping with her, or___ fill in the blank___. THAT would be giving up my life for my wife. (MUCH easier said than done!) What were you thinking?
Good discussion, people. Anyone else care to jump in? The water’s fine. ;-)
Tom
I'll bite...i may be one of the few people involved in this discussion who didn't like "The Shack." (although as I'm involved in discussions of it here and elsewhere, i see myself appreciating it more.) However...the one thing that i really DID like was the portrayal of Papa (except the name was disconcerting for me, don't really know why). But i liked the portrayal as a squishy, embraceable, loving and lovable, huggable being. and the reason i liked it is just what Papa said...God knew that that's how he'd have to appear to be accepted by Mack. i like the fact that as much as i try to put Him in one, God will not be placed in a box of my making. He is who i need, not necessarily who i think he is, or whom i may be seeking consciously. because oh so often i don't even know who or what to seek...and God knows my needs so much more than i know them myself.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, susan - I liked the name Papa very much. But then, my wife calls her father Papa; when we were engaged I asked him how he would prefer me to address him, and he invited me to use the family name, papa; and when my kids came along, I decided that they would call me Papa - which of course pleased my wife and her father - and since my father called his father "Pop", and he is called "Poppie" by my kids (just as I called my grandfather), it wasn't a stretch for me either. (And Tom is called "Poppie" by his grandkids as well.) So inmy family it's a natural.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tom that for me, this is where the story starts - and the previous chapters have been just setting the stage. I've really been looking forward to our discussions in this part of the book. Here are my thoughts after re-reading the chapter:
ReplyDeleteOn pages 78-79, Mack cries out in his anger at God, "You've never been around when I needed you"... and I thought, I can't even imagine how those words must tear the Father's heart out, to know that his son feels this way.
I find it so interesting that God manifests himself as this matronly figure to Mack - and at how odd it seems to us! God is God after all...if he can show himself as a roaring wave, a rushing wind, a still, small voice, and a fire burning a bush, why should He not show himself as a big, black woman? It really does step on the toes of all the theology we've been taught, and force Mack (& us) to open our minds to all that God truly is & can be. I also think it's interesting to note that God knows that Mack does not relate well to father figures, given his own rather troubled relationship with his earthly father...so He chooses to begin this encounter by relating to him through a motherly figure instead.
On page 83, it just struck me how patient God's response to Mack was. When Mack was unwilling to let go of his emotions and deal with them right then, God recognizes that he's not ready & leaves it at that - "We'll do it on your terms, and in your time." How often do I respond to my husband or my child this patiently?
Isn't it funny, too, how we think of God as white??? It must be a big ego thing, like because the US is the center of the universe, of course God's white... :) I know I usually think of God & Jesus as white, for some unknown reason. :) But, of course Jesus was middle-Eastern - he was Jewish!
In thinking through the rationality/suprarationality discussion, I think that the suprarational category is necessary in addition to rational/irrational to define things like miracles described in Scripture, and some of the ways God relates to us now...there are so many things that He does that have NO rational explanation. Again, God is big enough to not be bound by what is 'rational'.
Rick, I love your analogy about the pots & wondering what kind of clay their potter is- great perspective to keep in mind!
Tom, in thinking about our society's traditional male & female roles, I think it is important for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving themselves every day sacrificially for them, as you said...but I also believe that God designed the husband to be the head of the home, and the wife is commanded to submit to him. (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18) Not to be subservient in every thing, but I take it to mean that when the two of them cannot come to a unanimous decision, the husband will make the decision that is best for his family, knowing he'll be held accountable by God for his decisions as the head of the home. I think in the past, our society has taken this submission too far, not allowing women to work outside the home, or vote, making women lesser citizens than men, and we have come a long way. But perhaps feminism has now taken us a little TOO far on this path away from the submission that God has designed between a wife and her sacrificially loving husband.
Susan, I so resonate with your comments about God; especially, "He is who i need, not necessarily who i think he is, or whom i may be seeking consciously. because oh so often i don't even know who or what to seek...and God knows my needs so much more than i know them myself." That is some great stuff. Now, if I could only keep that at the forefront of my mind when the pressure is on. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd Carrie, I couldn't agree with you more when you speak about the submission of the wife. I think there is no question but what you've described the Biblical pattern. I think that the problem, when it arises, is that that principle is interpreted in an American, business, managerial style. And so the husband takes on the role of "Boss". But I think that is not at all what is meant in the Ephesian, and similar, passage.
Jesus talked about the Christian style of "management": "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." And so, for me, as a man, I feel the need to really emphasize the servant aspect of leadership...especially when I speak to other men.
But I think you've nailed it. And I would strongly urge you, as a woman, especially when you're speaking with other women, to urge and endorse the importance of submission.
And if both those messages get out loud and clear to their respective audiences...it'll revolutionize marriages.
Taking this back to the book, I had an interesting conversation today with a woman who read the book on my recommendation. She made the comment that "God portrayed as a woman" made it easier for her to relate to. She also said that she thought that the book wouldn't have worked if Papa was portrayed as a man throughout. For everyone: What do you think about that latter idea?
Great conversation, folks.
Tom
For me ..... when I finally realized what submission truly was, biblically .... it was very freeing. And that's what it should be .... freeing and not enslaving. It's very difficult to explain that concept to non-believers ... heck, it's very difficult to explain it to believers sometimes!!
ReplyDeleteI would guess that it's much easier to understand the concept, as a wife, if you have a husband who understands it. That's where I see a lot of heels dig in .... when wives don't trust their husbands to love them as Christ loved the church, but to "lord" over them. I can't blame them, but Christ doesn't teach us to submit "only if" ......
As far as the book not working if Papa had been a man ..... I think that I have to agree with that statement. It was such a totally different perspective of God ..... that it really got my attention. And made me see Him in a new light. Seeing Him as a woman helped me to see many more of His characteristics ..... the ones that sometimes get overshadowed by the "all-knowing, Father, Wisdom, Omnipotent", etc. descriptions ...... the "softer" , yet just as wise, side of Him. The "motherly" side of Him, which is not something I had ever consciously seen before (even having read the "wing" verses before). So, for the first time in 40 years, I really saw God as both .... a Father, as well as a Mother .... and as more.
OK, the meds are kicking in and I'm starting to ramble ..... :)
Yeah, I agree with Janine & Tom about the book 'not working' AND I definitely think it wouldn't have gotten as much publicity/attention either & therefore might not be so widely read & known.
ReplyDeleteTom, I understand now what you were trying to say- our society is GOOD at the 'man being the head' part, but BAD at the servant leadership part, so husbands should focus on that. And our society is also BAD at submission, so wives should focus on that.
Janine, thanks for your thoughts on submission as well. As far as it being freeing, that's definitely true, when I remember that my husband has the responsibility for his decisions, as well as the leadership to make those decisions.
Good night from LaLa Land. Don't forget to turn your clocks ahead!
ReplyDelete