Working out on the bankout wagon gives me a lot of time to think and a little bit of time to do whatever I may desire (as long as I'm not away from the tractor). So I've been using the time waiting for trucks to read a book I received for graduation called "The Shack." This book has stormed the bestsellers lists with little or no advertising and has been a huge success for its author and its publisher, who expected next to nothing from it. It has received numerous endorsements from people all over the Christian community, who laud it's message and writing style. The book has been called "Pilgrim's Progress" for our generation, a must-read for all Christians, brilliant, one of the best books ever written, life-changing, etc.
Maybe I'm just too hard-hearted. The first time I heard about this book was on the Way of the Master Radio Show (a wonderful program available in podcast form) and it was not necessarily positive. Let me explain why.
The Shack centers around a man named Mack, who lost his youngest daughter to a serial killer, who was never caught, four years ago. The trail dead-ended at a shack in the woods, where his daughter's blood-stained dress was discovered. After that, he fell into the great sadness which has lasted for years. One day, he discovers a note in his mailbox. It wasn't delivered from the postman, and it is signed "Papa," his wife's favorite word for God. The note asks him to come to the shack this weekend and since his family is out of town, Mack goes. There he meets Papa, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Most of the book is concerned with this visit. This is where the book gets a little shaky. Jesus looks like I'd expect Jesus to look like, a middle-eastern not super-handsome Jew. Papa is a giggling African American Woman, and the Holy Spirit is a mirthful Asian Woman. Eh, wot?
The rationale Peterson (the author) gives for this is that God is a spirit, and therefore neither male nor female; showing God as female is just as ludicrous as portraying him as Male. Also, the book is about breaking stereotypes put upon God by mankind, and portraying God like that breaks all the stereotypes. Okay. I can agree with that, I guess. But it's just hard for me. I don't really like seeing my God portrayed as a giggling fat grandma. I'm still reading, and doing my best to not let that bother me. I'm only halfway through, so I'll post my final thoughts when I'm done reading. How about you? Do you think the way Peterson portrays God is respectful?
1 comment:
Negative.
God is ALWAYS referred to with the masculine in Holy Scripture, and (this is critical on MANY levels) is the husband in the marriage relationship with His church and Israel. Yes, He's a spirit, and that means that He is not male or female in the same sense that humans are male and female--i.e. biologically--but that does not change the fact that He plays the role in history and theology and salvation that the male is to play on the human level. And it is, I'm willing to bet, the idea that human males and females have different roles at their own level that the author is so uncomfortable with and is striking at. Perhaps not, but the most charitable I can be is to say that he's treading some dangerous ground and opening the doors for many who would all too willingly exploit the attack on human masculinity and femininity.
Post a Comment