Did anyone read The Shack?

Yah, I would agree with you there. That's what I meant about it being too simple, really, to represent an encounter with God. The author, who is nowhere near as smart as God, had to think up things for God to say ... so you know it's not going to be what it purports to be ...

And yah, I would hate for people to think the book was Scripture, somehow, and take what he said for God as God's actual Word.
 
yeah, but for a work of fiction it is pretty good. it has touched so many people's lives, and if it gets people to rethink Christianity or their relationship with God, that's a good thing.

they just need to remember that the bible is the most important!
 
My own Shack

This is my very personal experience:
I had some troubles as a christian during last weeks. Of course, I've always known, since I was a little girl, about God and Jesus. But I couldn't really feel he loved me. And about the Holy Spirit?? I barely thought he was a nice dove, flying whenever the poor and desolated people needed it.
Yes, I said it because I didn't think it would be a person.

I gotta confess I thought "What the heck?" when I started reading it, but then, as inkspot said, the fact was very clear: They had taken th shape of two women for the circumstances, but it's not one of those things like "God is female!" I personally hate that phrase too.

As I was reading the Shack, I realized there was NO moment I wasn't crying. It is all fiction, of course, but many of the things I've read there made me SEE and valore what Jesus paid for me, and how this wonderful, beautiful, lovely and perfect God turned to be one of us, limiting himself, humilliating himself... that was too much for me. And it was because he wants us back to the relationship we were supposed to be involved with God (The three of Them) since the beginning of the world. I love my Papa!

Not a chain of jerarchy, but a circle of relationship.

I've read many critics of "The Shack" and I can make my own. It impacted my life and I can firmly say that it changed my view about God completely.
Many made the mistake of saying it was better than the Bible itself, but THAT'S NOT true!! I wouldn't think such a thing! Gosh!
I've read the Bible many times and I still find it fresh. I love it.

This is only my opinion :) it is a great book.

Oh, and about the thing "blaspheme" cuz He appeared as a woman...
Do you think it's better a lion than a woman, a human being? Besides, it was to break the theological structures Mack had on his mind about the LOTR Gandalf.
I love Aslan, but if we come to talk about it, it would be kind of the same thing, whether you like it or not. God's been personificated in two ways. And yeah, Aslan's Jesus... but Jesus is God too. ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing your story, Ginny Jillpole. Your story illustrates why it so important that there be both objective and subjective realities. In other words, ideas and ideologies are good, but until they intersect with a personal experience of God, they can be left wanting.

I'm so glad you've had the experience you've had reading THe Shack, i.e. that it has drawn you closer to God.

God works in mysterious ways. Alleluia!
 
Yah, thank you for sharing that, Ginny Jill Pole! The reason I read the book was that my girlfriend Lisa, who lost her daughter in a car accident last year, said she had found all kinds of comfort in the book. So it's good to know, the book can make a real, positive impact on people. :)

I agree with you about the idea of God's appearing as a woman: I don't find it to be blasphemy, particularly when He appears later in the book as a man, when the guy needs a father-figure with him. It's the same like God appearing as a lion in Narnia, as you say. Bless you, sweetie.
 
Ginny_JillPole said:
Oh, and about the thing "blaspheme" cuz He appeared as a woman...
Do you think it's better a lion than a woman, a human being? Besides, it was to break the theological structures Mack had on his mind about the LOTR Gandalf.
I love Aslan, but if we come to talk about it, it would be kind of the same thing, whether you like it or not. God's been personificated in two ways. And yeah, Aslan's Jesus... but Jesus is God too. ;)
Click to expand...

Jesus referred to Himself as "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah"..and also in the male gender.

Just my 2 cents..:o
 
Yes, but think that if Jesus would appear as a lamb too (Like aslan did in VDT), it'd still be making structures. He's the Lamb of God. He can be appear as a Lion as well. Couldn't God do the same? as none has trully seen him, would you judge Him to appear as a woman?
Of course, still talking about a great work of fiction, it made me think that God is beyond our limits. We can only think about genders, male/female. God is even bigger and greater than all that. He may be neither. He may be better. In all the ways, actually, He is better.

But thanks for your two cents! :D lol.

Aww, thanks, Inkspot and Songsoflife. It means a lot to me.
 
I respect your thoughts.:)

But I personally believe with all my heart that God is Male and only male no matter what animal form He appears in.:o
 
God can use all kinds of things to touch people - like symphonies composed by Tchaikovsky (who was vehemently anti-Christian), poems by Lord Byron (hardly a model of morality), and even sunsets.

My first bible was a paraphrase called The Living Bible. I didn't know at the time, but learned later, that it wasn't the best thing for diligent study because being a paraphrase, it wasn't as careful about translation as other versions. (The same is true of other paraphrases like The Message.) It didn't matter, though, because for devotional use, it was great, and God used it powerfully in my life.

So if God used The Shack to help anyone draw closer to Him, great! The only thing I and some others in this thread were warning is not to start drawing too much theology from the work - that's not what it's for.
 
I don't believe God to be male.

Why would he need to be male? What service would it serve?

God is a being that created Male and Female.

I can name three instances in the Bible right now where God appeared as something that did not have a gender or was both genders.

When he appeared as the Burning Bush, he contained both male and female genders in the bush.

When he appeared as the pillar of fire he was non-gendered.

When he appeared as the pillar of smoke, he was non-gendered.

So why limit the capabilities of your creator? He certainly can take whatever form he wishes.
 
Basically I agree with you -- it's just that most often we're taught about God the Father, which implies the masculine gender, and never once about God the Mother. Part of this, I am sure, is that God didn't want the children of Israel getting their faith mixed up with any goddess-worshiping faith, and also I think there must be a reason in it, that this particular person of the Trinity embodies the masculine traits. That He is beyond gender must be true, because Jesus tells us God is Spirit, and so Spirit wouldn't have a gender the way a physical body has a gender.

And I agree with PoTW: if the book speaks to you, then praise God! Just don't get in the mindset that the book is actually Scripture or that God or Jesus actually said what the characters in the book say.
 
I suspect we do not hear of God the Mother (or as a female form) because of cultural norms. Even to this day, we have issues where women are not permitted to be clergy, with original sin being given as the reason why.

Can you imagine the response if the deity was Feminine or came to instruct as a Female? The culture of the time would have rejected it. It'd never have gotten written down.

In my one on one .. dealings.. with God as of late, I came to the conclusion that limiting God is a silly, silly thing to do. When you create the universe, you may dictate whatever terms you like.
 
Pardine, you're parroting the "cultural accommodation" argument so common these days. This claims in essence that when Jesus spoke of God as Father, He was accommodating cultural trends and norms of the time. The implication is that if the culture had been different, Jesus would have used different terminology.

This argument ignores one simple fact, which C.S. Lewis was swift to point out: God is the author and master of history. God had engineered human events to lead up to the Incarnation. Whatever Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, wanted to say, He made sure the cultural conditions were perfect for communicating it. He was not limited by the culture in any way - the culture had been bent and formed to be the perfect "megaphone" for His message.

Thus if the culture was exceptionally accommodating to the message, it was because He had made it that way. Perhaps the message of God as Father would not have been as well accepted in Navajo culture, or the ancient Minoan culture of Knossos (both of which seemed to be matriarchal). But He didn't come as man into those cultures - He came to the Jewish culture in the midst of the Hellenistic world.

The revelation of God as Father - as immediate, caring father (as opposed to remote, historical father - what we would call "ancestor") - was the truly new revelation that Jesus brought. This principle is so central, so critical, that St. Paul even says that "every family on earth gets its name" from the Fatherhood of God. This is a very different thing than the Motherhood of God would be.
 
Also, Jesus and the Apostles did not seem to be afraid to break cultural norms when it suited them, so if Jesus had intended to present God-Mother, I think He would have done it, patriarchal society or no.

While I agree that God is not a Man (except in the form of Christ), He isn't a Woman, either. We aren't limiting Him to call Him Father; He asked us to call Him that.
 
wow, potw, very apt response. i was very encouraged by that, i'm glad you posted!

how awesome the Lord is! i never thought of Him shaping the culture the way He wanted it to be. that puts God in the proper perspective for me again.
 
Quote:
What an awful book!It is just a misleading book.

I didn't think it was awful or misleading, not that i'm putting down your opinion.
When I read it, i kept an open mind and found it to be a little frustrating, but at the same time, it was his perspective and dream, what he felt like was a release to him. He needed to forgive himself, and we won't ever truly know, but that may have been God's way for him to find that forgiveness.
 
Back
Top