I must say the Father as an black motherly figure caused me to pause and feel uncomfortable. But I read on and was touched by this character. Many reviews express their discomfort as well, and address their distaste for it. John 1:18 “No man has seen God at any time” is oft half quoted in Shack reviews as an argument to this portrayal of God the Father, but when the disciples asked Jesus “show us the Father” He did not quote John 1:18a, but said if you seen Me you have seen Him (the Father)then He referred to the other half of John 1:18 –”the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]“. You want to see God? Look at me! Jesus is saying.
So what does God look like? Well, when I say the name ‘Jesus” what’s your mental image? For most it is the pictures we’ve seen since Sunday school. How bout the Father? It is Gandolf like for most of us isn’t it?
For Mack He needed to know God as forgiving, loving,serving, helping, kind, and mothering…thus the southern black mama image.
Our view of God is so often distorted. I doubt we will have a Mack experience, but the point of this portrayal is not for you to strive for such an encounter, but to experience the Father as your Papa, your Abba, your Mama in your daily living. Abandon the distorted images. Christ blood has brought you into this wonderful relationship. Your standing before God is identical to that of the Son. Amazing! Back to John 1:18 and chapter 14 where Phillip said show us the Father. Jesus in summary said,”You want to see the Father? Look at me always pushing into His bosom. My constant, interacting love relationship with Him. He is in me and I am in Him. Now through my work on the cross you will be in me, I in you, the Father in you and me, and we will be in the Father.(Wow!)The way I intimately know and see Him in this life, that’s how you will intimately know and see Him.
Thank you Jesus for giving us your relationship with the Father, and by your eternal grace help us to enjoy Him as you do: pressing into His bosom as a son/daughter.

My sister urged me to read The Shack. I read it in one night and went to sleep about eleven o’clock. As you know the killer is known in the book as the Ladybug killer. As I awoke the next morning after reading it I went into my sister’s living room and sat down on the couch to have my coffee. As I started to rest my arm on the side of the couch I saw something on the armrest of the couch. It was just a little orange dot. When I picked it up it was a tiny little ladybug right there inside the house in the dead of winter. I know that is not a scripture verse or a well-reasoned airtight theology. Frankly I do not know if The Shack is good or bad. All I know is I was once blind to the ladybug but then I did see it the very morning after I read the book inside a home in the dead of winter. I will leave all this disputation of the scrolls and what they say about The Shack to you professional scribes. To be honest most lay people like me are really bugged by it but for those who have read a great deal of religious history I hear much worse things have been done to the theologically untrained than to merely disagree with them verbally. This argument here will go on forever as theological disputes have always done. Why? The foundational assumptions of the two sides are different and thus the arguments that spring from them must clash. One side is blind to what other side sees. Both sides think they see. It is this sight and blindness that got Jesus crucified by the religiously orthodox. I think most here would probably agree that accepting scripture as the Word of God is a gift of grace and that knowing Christ in the heart is an even bigger gift of Grace. I hope that this does not bug you. When the light comes on the darkness has to have some place to go but I will be darned if I can see it. I am a sales person and need to go to work.

I guess I’m just still thinking about the senseless exchange we had on this combox…

It all comes down to trusting God for the understanding.

Have a good day…

Soli Deo Gloria….

The servitude that occurs amongst the trinity in this book is most revealing . The character is witnessing a simple meal amongst the Father, Son and Spirit. At every turn there is unselfish earnest desire to wait on one another and they enjoy receiving service from each other. They exhibit perfect love!
For example page 107-108 “To be in the presence of such love expressed…What was he witnessing? Something simple, warm, intimate, genuine; this was holy. Holiness had always been a cold and sterile concept to Mack, but this was neither.”
The trinity here is not weak nor attempting to be entertaining in its presentation, rather it is powerful and real. What does it look like to see the BELOVED interacting with one another? It is absolute perfect oneness, love, and holy interaction. And to think that we have been invited to enjoy this! To the praise and glory of His grace by which we have been made accepted into the BELOVED! Eph. 1:6
The triune God enjoys one another. Through Christ we are brought into that enjoyment.
Grateful we are for the doctrines of our faith, but they are not meant to be cut into stone, polished, and placed on the wall. The doctrine of the trinity is alive via Jesus. We have been brought into this fellowship. We can interact with them today. We have boldness by His blood to enter into that Holy place of fellowship. Cold, sterile doctrine makes us afraid, but this revelation of perfect love cast out that fear. Today may I express the nature of the Beloved as I interact with and serve others. By His life I can.

another good post; very thought provoking. I’ll go over it and the scriptures sited again to make sure that I “get it”…(I’m not very smart)

I would however, not expect much from our buddy Stuart. If you’ve spent time reading the amazing amount of posts here at this topic, and seen the utter inanity of some of the responses given by Stuart and others, you might not be so optimistic.

This site is nothing, there are multiple blogs on this subject alone creating division among the saints. My mother in law was deeply drawn to the Lord through this read and sought to share her enthusiasm at her local fellowship. The reaction was disconcerting. To encourage her I began looking online for insight to help her. The arguing,bickering and name calling surprised me, but I was able to encourage her to trust the Lords speaking, not as to whether the book was good or bad, but was his life flowing in her as a result the truths that touched her. She is flourishing in Him!
As for me I find it ministering to rejoice in and share truths gleaned from this work without engaging in arguments. Praise God for your experience.
And don’t get to frustrated with it all. Most of whom we fellowship with in this matter are our brothers and sisters. Jesus said receive them as I have received you. MARVELOUS! Look at the multitude of believers on the earth who can connect so freely and fellowship via the web. May His oneness grow among us, and may we just use this forum to share the reality of Christ, and the peace enjoyed between the blood bought.

To the first question: It is a political move. Crisis politics is a power move, typical among liberals. If there is not a crisis, create one, propose a solution, blame the current conditions on a boogyman, implement the proposal when critical support mass is achieved, blame the failure of the new program on the boogyman, perpetuate crisis, mantain power.

To the second: I have asked this same question. I even asked why it was the case that if traditions and history were the standard, then why not adopt the doctrines prevalent among the men who are quoted as being the backbone of Baptist distinctives in the SBC historically. The response that I got at SBC Today is deletion. The rather think that soteriology is a secondary or tertiary doctrinal concern and exalt method and mode, form and fabrications concerning the doctrine of baptism to a salfivic sacrament. Fundamentally, it is not about doctrine at all, it is about question #1. Discussion is ended when it is suggested that there might have been more pride than perfection in the ecclesiology past. The “good ole boys” of the past are enshrined, but only the doctrinal distinctives that are a matter of pride for the “good new ole guys.”

I think the heresy of Molinism is of far greater concern than BI purity. But then, the names of those who hold to Molinism or support it, tend to show up among the BI cult. The quasi-open theists don’t really have to worry that their Roman Catholicisms might be noticed, especially if attention can be deflected by an appeal to ego attachment to traditionlisms and condemnations hurled at Calvinists. Interesting parallel in that the RCC defended itself also by an appeal to traditions and not according to Scripture, while trumpeting the crisis created by Calvinistic claims. At the same time, they didn’t attack the Arminian movement with the same vehemence. Cause why you suppose?

thank you for a good, thoughtful post.
bob

And having read this post, I feel like I must ask, Does the SBC consider itself the only true church? A lot of its people sure seem to talk like it.

Baptist thinking often throws me for a loop. I attended a CBA Bible college, and half the time I couldn’t figure out the insider jokes the Baptist guys all told each other, and the attitudes toward other evangelicals baffled me. Now here, 25 years later, I find myself feeling the same bafflement. The very ideas behind Landmarkism and Baptist Bride-ism still make me facepalm.

It’s this sort of peculiar in-house thinking that keeps me from taking D.Min classes at SBTS just down the highway, even though I support the Calvinistic perspective there. What is it about Baptists that everything is treated as “crucial”? At least it seems that way. And what makes Baptist lift baptism by immersion up to almost an equivalent level of importance to the Gospel? I’m not talking about the content of the doctrine; I mean the ferocity. I remember Frank Turk going on about this last year, and I couldn’t relate, or sympathise with, anything he had to say over there.

I think the popularity of this book among professing Christians is sad evidence of Packer’s summation of the state of Christianity in America. Packer said, “American Christianity is 3000 miles wide and 1/2 inch deep”.

Sad but true…

How could I not read the book with a recommendation like that and a free copy in my hand? At first I enjoyed the “concept” of the book, conversations with Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. I even started to think of people I would share it with. As I got into the “weekend” red flags started going up for me all over the place. During Jesus’ ministry on earth he kept pointing his listeners to the scriptures as God’s word. I thought “Jesus” in the Shack made light of the scriptures. I saw this as a real opportunity missed by the author. He could have tucked scripture throughout these conversations with Mack.

I also was disappointed that the plan of salvation was not laid out in a clearer manner. It certainly wasn’t presented as Jesus did during his ministry.

I just did not see this book as a way of sharing the gospel as the dear 55 year old man at our church did in his dying days. I would recommend it to a solid Christian as a thought provoking and heart warming story but not as a tool to share the gospel.

I recently learned our pastor had the book pulled from our church bookstore though honored the request of this dying man to pass it out at his funeral at our chruch.

Speaking as a husband who also has a wife who buys him books for Christmas (Christless Christianity and two of Piper’s), I can say that the appreciation for the support given by a wife to her husband who desires the things of God cannot be overstated.

Grace and Peace…