THE SHACK

One of our local churches recently went through a very rough time just because the pastor publicly endorsed the book The Shack. Apparently one of the key lay leaders in the congregation took offense and made his displeasure known to the pastor and then angrily led his family and others to leave the church. How sad.

I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding the book and its phenomenal sales. I’ve read many of the criticisms and heard the words “blasphemy” and “heresy” thrown around and used against this book and the author.

Late in the fall of 2007 a very dear friend asked me if I had read the book and I told him I had never even heard of it. My friend asked me to get a copy, read it, and then let him know what I thought about it. I trust my friend and so I bought the book. It sat on my desk for several weeks before I started reading, but after I got started, I finished it in a couple of sessions.

I was captivated by the narrative and the unfolding drama and then, WHAM, it hit me fully in the face. The writer was describing God as a jolly, fat, “loves to cook Cajun food,” black…are you ready for this…woman! Now that caught me off guard—I was totally unprepared. In fact, the first time I read that chapter, I put the book down because what I had read jarred me and I needed to think about it.

The first thing that came to mind is that this is an allegory, a long parable very much like Pilgrim’s Progress. Parables were very familiar teaching tools when Jesus was ministering in Israel and He made great use of the technique. At least one-third of all Jesus’ teachings are in the form of parables.

Parables are illustrations of truth and are not meant to be used to build or define doctrinal positions, and the same is true of a book like The Shack. Every time someone attempts to use a parable to define a doctrinal position, they get into trouble. St. Augustine tried to use the parable of the Good Samaritan to build a doctrinal position sixteen hundred years ago and theologians are still arguing about it. Those who attempt to define allegory as heresy or blasphemy are simply not on solid ground. Put down your stones and realize that God is bigger than the little box you have attempted to put Him in.

I was comfortable after I thought it through on this first point and I went back and finished the book—and I am glad I did!

After reading The Shack, I continued to be challenged by the illustration of God as a woman until I did some study of my own on the character and nature of God. One of the Scriptures I came to was Genesis 1:27 (and also Genesis 5:1-2).

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

The nature and character of God is such that it cannot be described as male or female, for God’s nature is comprised of the qualities of both. Sorry, guys, but God cannot be described just as a male. Too much of Scripture describes God as having the qualities of both the mother and the father. In Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God uses the imagery of an eagle caring for its young, and it is a mother eagle.

“As an eagle stirs up its nest, hovers over its young, spreading out its wings, talking them up, carrying them on its wings. So the Lord alone led him, and there was no foreign god with him.”

Not only does Genesis 1:27 describe the male and female qualities of God but there is a compelling argument against same sex marriage and homosexuality…..but that’s another discussion for another day.

I realized that I was guilty of having too small an understanding of the greatness of God. I thought I was a pretty progressive thinker but I realized that I had read Genesis 1:27 possibly hundreds of times and had never allowed that Scripture to speak to me. I had always viewed God as the total man and I had ignored the idea that God was that and more…that He also had mothering qualities to Him.

To those who are now convinced that I am a heretic and are gathering your stones, all I can say is…Get in line!