It is interesting to read the comments for and against the book. Chuck Colson wrote that he thought the author took "a low view of Scripture. For example, Mack is tied to a tree by his drunken, abusive father, who 'beats Mack with a belt and Bible verses.' "
I never for once thought that as I read the book. It is amazing how people can read the same thing and get something totally different. Theologians I guess read with a fine tooth comb trying to find faulty doctrine. The book certainly was not written for theologians. From comments of those seeking God, they seemed to have received great encouragement and a whole new perspective on what a relationship with God could be.
Just wonder about your thoughts on the book's theology. There is a ton of it in the book.
For example one of the thought provoking concepts the book brings up that I had not considered was the hierarchy in the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mack assumes the Father is the leader or head but is told that there is no need for a hierarchical relationship when the relationship is in perfect unity and harmony as it is between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We only need a chain of command in the world because of its fallen state.
From Papa..."Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you."
"We (the trinity) have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierachy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours."
Think about this as it applies to the husband and wife relationship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hey John, just one note - I would not call Chuck Colson a theologian. As a seminary student studying theology, I think this book is exactly what theology is about. Developing metaphors to describe things that are indescribable. Papa in the book even says that her representing herself as a black-woman is a metaphor for Mack. Augustine write in his seminal work "On the Trinity" a concept of God that seems to be borrowed in this book, namely the metaphor of love that represents the necessity of the Trinity. There are so many concepts in this book that seem lifted right out of a Systematic Theology class, that to read anything else in it is to commit isegesis instead of exegesis. I believe if reader will take off their evangelical goggles and read the book with an heir of charity and a mind desiring to know what the author is trying to say, the reader will inevitably see a flawed by beautiful metaphor for how we can understand some of the most profound mysteries of the Holy Trinity. - Ultimately God is the only truth, and every attempt of man to understand the eternal will fall short, but we are called to try nonetheless.
I've never posted here before, and I haven't read the book. I own it, my wife is reading it, and I plan to soon. I neither affirm nor rebut the previous post, but instead affirm the dialogue. And I want to affirm there are many things God has revealed about Himself in the Word, and out of love for God are compelled to recognize them.
I just want to make 4 comments I think I can make without having read the book, since my comment speaks generally. I'll omit detailed biblical comment in the post, and interact in person if anyone would be edified.
1. Order of male-female relations was established before the Fall in Genesis 1 & 2. In fact one of the curses in Genesis 3 relates to a distortion of relationships within this order. Wayne Grudem has done good work in this area.
2. The Fall did not affect or change the nature of the Trinity since the relationship is eternal and unaffected by man or sin. In the NT, the relationships within the Trinity include a subordination of persons in function, while maintaining an ontological equality, equality in nature or essence. Bruce Ware has done excellent work on this.
3. The NT order of functional subordination imitates the pre-Fall male-female functional relationship, imitates the Lordship relationship of Jesus and Church, AND ALSO imitates the Trinity as alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11. Family and Church are tools to reflect the glory of God to the world for redemptive purposes. There are good papers available on this in JETS and other journals.
4. What you believe will almost always be revealed through your speech, writing, attitude, and actions. The author, seems to not affirm ontological equality and functional subordination within the Trinity or else he would not write it. Groups like "Together for the Gospel" have illumined the centrality of this issue.
There is a larger polemical debate within the church regarding the complementarian view and egalitarian view of "multiple person, oneness relationships". I think it is fair game for a Christian who is called to polemical ministry to criticize what he considers bad theology masked in fictional narrative. Story is a powerful tool to influence many.
Personally, I am called as a missionary, not as a reformer, but I thank God for reformers. If it weren't for the passion to speak out in reform according to God's trustworthy revelation of Himself--His Word--today I would be planting a kiss on the ring of a Pope instead of planting a gospel-centered church (smile).
with joy for Jesus and people... ryan
When I was younger I really thought I had it all figured out. I knew the answers to most of my theological questions and thought I knew all the answers to what God would do in the future. But the older I get the more I understand how little I know or understand the majesty and greatness of God. He reveals Himself one layer after another as I grow older. That is one reason I loved The Shack. It messed with my understanding of God, opened my eyes to seeing God and understanding the Trinity in a unique way. I think those that have trouble with the Shack can not fit it in to their theological box. For many if it doesn't fit exactly then it is heresy. And even though it is a different take on what we traditionally think of the Trinity, I would think most everyone would be drawn to Jesus after reading The Shack. Too bad some just can't read and enjoy a wonderful love story.
It is always difficult to discuss theology in a fiction situation. Remember the allegorical discussion of the Matrix a few years ago? If we appreciate the fiction and the descriptors of the interaction of God with man and Self rather than the details of the theology.
We can appreciate the literature, discuss the theology, but how has God spoken to us through the writer's faithfulness to God in laying out this story?
John 14:28 seems to indicate a hierarchy.
Galatians 3:23-29
Post a Comment