-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Shack Author is Christian Universalist
- Thread starter Marcia
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Marcia said:
In human terms the masculine has historically been associated with authority to gender neutral God is to diminish his authority.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
THEOLDMAN said:
Not he's not but the word God come from an old english word associated with Lord. As in feudal lord. The term is associated with authority. So when referring to God Masculine terminology is used to emphasise authority.
In terms of male or female, God is always referenced as He in the Bible. Just randomly picked two verses to show this:
Deut. 3:[22] Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.
Psalm 100:[3] Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Deut. 3:[22] Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.
Psalm 100:[3] Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
The bible teaches us to call God father, masculine, Jesus taught us to call God Father, masculine, this is how God has told us to approach Him, this is our relationship with Him, as Father, masculine. This is what God Himself has said to us. Anything else is not scriptural, and violates what God has said.
Marcia
Active Member
Thinkingstuff said:
But of course, the word "God" is not Hebrew nor derived from Hebrew. "God" is just a generic term from, I assume, old English and Germanic languages.
God gave names for himself, "I AM THAT I AM" being most notable (and that interpretation is somewhat approximate as the Hebrew term does not translate well into English), and also titles such as Redeemer, Lord, the Rock, Father, etc.
In contrast to the pagan gods such as Dagon and Molech, the true God does not have a proper name.
Marcia
Active Member
donnA said:
I agree. Many people say we can see God as Father or Mother due to Him being spirit and not having gender. But God does not tell us he does not have gender. We are made in his image and so both genders are somehow rooted in God's character (but I am not saying that makes God like a woman). And God is not neutral since He clearly has shown us we are to think of Him as a "He," though not a man, of course.
This is one of the big misunderstandings of the author of The Shack, who fails to grasp that God being spirit (actually, a sentence in the book says that "God is a spirit" which may be a typo - I hope!) does not mean God can therefore be either masculine or feminine. Nor does it mean, as the author has God say, "I can appear any way I want to," thus jutifying God as a woman in the book.
God is not like the Greek and Hindu gods who takes on disguises nilly-willy, as he does in The Shack. I fail to see how so many Christians, including people on the BB, think this is such a great book when it is not presenting the God of the Bible (not to mention God says in the book that he incarnated with Jesus!).
I have read the book a few times and have met and spoken with the author and the publisher. I have purchased many copies of this book for family and friends. I think it is a great book, and have found that the people who don't like it are either very legalistic in their religious views or hold on very tightly to their man-made religious doctrines over the relationship with the Father that Christ came to bring us.
Which is a central theme in the book so your position is no surprise. But the book as have you fails to present those man made religious doctrines. But good luck with that.
The book is completely heretical. It may be fiction but its intention as described on the back cover is:
"In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant THE SHACK wrestles with the timelesss question” Where is God in a world filled with unspeakable pain? The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You will want everyone to know you have read this book!"
Its genre is irrelevant, its intent is primary.
A great book that looks at "those man made religious doctrines" is Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, but I know you probably think that "book is completely heretical" as well.
It is not just me that sees this. "The Shack" at this point has been completely discredited.
Gup20
Active Member
Next lets discuss The Matrix movies and their parallels with Christ.
Now this is actually a rhetorical statement. My point is the book was clearly a fictional book. It should be given about as much authority over "spiritual matters" as the Wachowski brothers' movies.
I didn't enjoy the book (more for the writing style than the content) personally, but some did. As long as people don't start getting their doctrinal stances from works of fiction, I think it could probably be classified as an acceptable Christian alternative to any "worldly" fictional book.
Now this is actually a rhetorical statement. My point is the book was clearly a fictional book. It should be given about as much authority over "spiritual matters" as the Wachowski brothers' movies.
I didn't enjoy the book (more for the writing style than the content) personally, but some did. As long as people don't start getting their doctrinal stances from works of fiction, I think it could probably be classified as an acceptable Christian alternative to any "worldly" fictional book.
The wachowski bros. did not claim the matrix was a christian movie, the claim has been made about the shack, makes a big difference. there are obviously people who can not see anything wrong with it, and when others(christians) endorse it, to them they endorse the false teachings in it, making it ok to believe it as truth. fiction is one thing, but when it claims to be christian fiction, the facts about God need to be correct, the fiction isn't God, but the rest of the story surrounding what the author says about God or bible. writting what is claimed to be a christian book and writtings untruths about God is not christian.
Well, I've spoken to numerous people who ARE taking their theology from the Shack. One person on another board was explaining the Trinity and said that the Shack had a good explanation of the Trinity. From what I can see, the Shack's trinity is unBiblical. So there ARE those who think the Shack is a Christian book and will take the "parable" as truth. It's not.
Yes...if a book is to be labeled as Christian Fiction, then it should adhere to the facts as presented in the Bible. If a book does not wish to adhere to Biblical facts, then it should only be labeled as Fiction and should drop the Christian part of the label.
Does the book promote universalism?
Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.
Source: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html
Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I don’t know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion.
Source: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Does it distort or demean the Trinity?
One of the concerns expressed about The Shack is that it presents the Trinity outside of a hierarchy. In fact many religious traditions think they find their basis for hierarchical organizations in what they’ve assumed about the Trinity. To look at the Trinity as a relationship without the need for command and control is one of the intriguing parts of this story. If they walk in complete unity, why would a hierarchy be needed? They live in love and honor each other. While in the flesh Jesus did walk in obedience to the Father as our example, elsewhere Scripture speaks of their complete unity, love and glory in relating to each other. Different functions need not imply a different status.
This extends in other ways to look at how healed people can relate to each other inside their relationship with God that defines authority and submission in ways most are not used to, but that are far more consistent with what we see in the early believers and in the teaching of Scripture. It is also true of many believers around the world who are learning to experience the life of Father’s family without all the hierarchical maintenance and drama that has plagued followers of Christ since the third century.
People may see this differently and find this challenging, if only because it represents some thought they have not been exposed to before. Here we might be better off having a discussion instead of dragging out the ‘heretic’ label when it is unwarranted.
Source: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html
Last edited by a moderator: