Replies

Actually, I disagree that the book does not have a very Biblical understanding of The Father nor of The Trinity.

I think it enlarged my understanding and that it did so in very very Biblical respects and ways.

I am reminded . . .

I was all set to be outraged at GODSPELL before I saw it.

Instead, God said, essentially . . . see . . . it’s a pretty good representation of some of my truth, of me. I had to admit I was wrong.

I found that Scripture related rather straight forwardly to THE FATHER presented in THE SHACK as well as to THE TRINITY.

When I read Roland Buck’s ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT after hearing him speak . . . I’d heard him speak much earlier while the experiences were still going on. . . .

anyway—I was all set to be wary with that book too. However, I found instead, a very blessed, uplifting, encouraging and BIBLICAL PRESENTATION OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE I’D LOVED ALL MY LIFE.

I found that true in THE SHACK, too.

God will simply not fit in anyone’s tidy little box.

He even knocked out the sides of the boxes HE HIMSELF instructed to be built.

"Instead, God said, essentially . . . see . . . it’s a pretty good representation of some of my truth, of me"

thats the problem. God doesn't want a pretty good representation of some of His truth. He wants an accurate represenatation of all The Truth.

God the Father is never represented in the Bible as a woman, neither is the Holy Spirit. To do so is take away from the Truth. The author explains in the book why he chose to represent Him that way, but his explanation does not jive with Scripture.

Take Job. God didn't reveal Himself to Job, who went through much worse than Mack ever did, as something approachable or something that Job could handle. When God appeared to Job, He appeared as the Creator of the Universe and put Job in his place. God does not change Himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is.

The real issue I have with the book is on the issue of authority. In the book, Papa (God the Father) tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion.

"Mackenzie, we 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. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us."

However, Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father, and He does the will of the Father. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that not His will be done, by Thy will be done. Jesus submits to the authority of the Father. These are not the results of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission.

There are clear examples of authority and submission throughout the Bible. The book of Matthew is focused on the authority of Jesus Christ. The angels have rank and levels of authoirty. Wives should submit to their husbands and we must submit to the authority of God and Jesus Christ.

I understand the book is a work of fiction and it should be approached as such, but when people start treating it as the gospel truth or Scripture, then trouble can arise.

JM