I think I am going to do a little different post than I would normally do today.
A few months ago I read a little fiction book called "The Shack" by Paul Young (William P. Young on the cover). It is a story of how a man dealt with a tragedy, and through his pain, doubts, and despair came to understand the love of God in a fresh way. That's about all I will say about the story in the event you choose to read it.
This book has caused quite a stir it seems. Not only has it made the bestseller lists nationally, but it has been the subject of much criticism from some notable Christian leaders (while, I must say, it has also been embraced by many notable Christian leaders as well). As a result, I have been asked countless times what my thoughts are on the book. What follows are a few ramblings about that, and a brief outline and address of some of the major criticisms of the book.
First, I think it is very important that literature is read in its proper context. This is a piece of fiction and, as such, should not be read as a work of systematic theology. That was never the intent. In fact, according to the author, his intent in writing the book was to give it to his children to help them have a narrative that would help explain to them how their father (the author) made his journey toward healing from all of the tragedy, abuse, and deception that had filled his life. That said, the reader should discern the theology of the book and match it up to the revelation of God in Scripture as best they can to see for themselves what they think. Now, on to some criticisms of the book:
Criticism #1 - This book clearly breaks the 2nd commandment of not creating a graven image because it portrays God the Father as a large African-American woman. I don't think this criticism is altogether valid. The idea of the graven image was for the object of worship, and that is not the literal, or metaphorical, purpose of this character. The weakness of portraying the Trinity in the manner that the author chose is that now the Trinity is having a dialogue with the main character, Mack. Putting words into the mouth of a character who is a symbol of God is one thing, but it is much more slippery to put words into the mouth of a character that is supposed to be God Himself. But, the idea of breaking the 2nd commandment with this doesn't really hold water. I haven't heard those same critics address the character of Jesus in the book "Dinner with a Perfect Stranger" or criticize C.S. Lewis for his Christ-type character of Aslan in the Narnia series. This argument doesn't hold much weight - where I would note the weakness is in the dialogue that comes out of the mouth of "Papa" (my point is that this can be dangerous.......but I will concede that the author went to great lengths to make sure that the characters representing the Trinity spoke consistently with the nature of God......the author didn't get this perfect of course, but his effort is clear).
Criticism #2 - This book promotes goddess worship because God the Father is portrayed as a woman. I would have to say that this criticism is lame, to be honest. First, while recognizing that God the Father is Spirit and should rightly be portrayed as such, the idea that this book promotes a purely female God is ludicrous. Further, that it promotes goddess worship is even more ludicrous. As we know, maleness and femaleness both emanate from God, and I assume that was the goal of the literary endeavor to have a woman represent God whose name in the book was "Papa" (a woman named Papa may be a weird effort at it, but it is an effort at it). As well, it becomes clear at the end of the book that this idea takes on a new format (won't reveal anything for those that want to read it).
Criticism #3 - This book promotes the idea of modalism, i.e. - that God is not distinctly three persons, but is one person in three modes. At first, this may seem to be a valid criticism, but the more I looked and read, the less I feel it is so. Though "Papa" says that He was truly human in Jesus, I don't take this as a statement of modalism. If Papa were to say that He was fully human in Jesus, that would be another thing altogether. Orthodox Christianity has held to the idea of a Trinitiarian God, made up of distinct, eternally existent persons Who are One in essence. I don't think that this book does a great disservice to this foundational doctrine, though I would say that it does get a little messy at times.
Criticism #4 - This book denies that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity. I would say that this criticism is justified - whether it is correct or not would be up to your particular theology. The author does make the argument in the book that there is no need for a hierarchy in the Trinity because it is a community of love that always acts in concert and harmony. Those of a Reformed background would disagree. They would contend that God the Father is on top of the pyramid, so to speak, and that at no point does the Scripture ever note The Father submitting to the Son or the Holy Spirit. This would also give rise to their view of hierarchy in other matters of life - government, marriage, home, etc. I think that this criticism is overblown because there is probably much agreement (albeit with different semantics) on this subject. Functionally, since there is never going to be a rift in the Trinity, there really is no need for their to be a hierarchy in the terms we understand (like CEO, CFO, etc.). Yet, if someone were to ask if Jesus had every resource that the Father has, I guess I would respond yes and no. Yes, in that Jesus is fully God and He and The Father are one, and No in that He has limited Himself in scope to some things (No man knows the hour of Jesus' return, not even the Son, but only the Father - as an example). This one is a matter of the particular theology that one holds, but both sides of this debate are still on the side of orthodoxy in my opinion.
So, there are a few thoughts if you have any interest. If you want to read the book, by all means do. If you would prefer not to read it, then by all means don't. Whatever you do, keep your brain and your emotions engaged so that you can evaluate the reading through all of your person - not just one part of you.
