"So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross, Till my trophies at last I lay down; I will cling to the old rugged cross, And exchange it some day for a crown."-George Bennard
Monday, April 20, 2009
Re-imagining God in the Shack-by Mary Kassian
I thought this article, which I bumped into over at Tim Challies, was something to hear, and to take to heart. There's so much apathy and deception within the ranks of God's holy people. I guess there always shall be. But we need to wrestle against these devils and spiritual wickednesses don't we? We need to wield the sword of the Spirit, which is God's Word. Satan can not stand against us when we speak the truth with gratitude and compassion. His lies, and half truths will not be able to blow through the Church if we have our foundation in the Apostle's teachings, and the Old Testament.
Jesus said, "Be warned. There will be many false deceivers, who, if possible, would even be able to deceive God's elect children." We need to listen to our Lord, don't you think?
About the Author
Mary Kassian, the founder of Girls Gone Wise, is an award winning author, internationally renowned speaker, and distinguished professor of Women's Studies at Southern Baptist Seminary.
Re-imagining God in the Shack
April 6th, 2009 • By Mary Kassian • Email This Post • Print This Post
What’s wrong with this picture?
This week, Christians around the world will commemorate Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It was at a Maundy Thursday service at the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan, in 1984, that a four-foot bronze statue of Jesus on the cross was unveiled. But to the shock of the congregation, the image of Christ on the cross was, in fact, an image of Christa. It portrayed Christ as a woman, complete with undraped breasts and rounded hips.
Betty Friedan, the main force behind modern day feminism, predicted that the question of the eighties would be: “Is God HE?” The Christa sculpture was the liberal church’s response to the question. And although Evangelical Christians have been much slower to consider female gendered God imagery, the recent phenomenon of the multi-million best-seller, “The Shack,” indicates that Evangelicals, too, are succumbing to the feminist pressure to image God in feminine ways. It’s a scenario that I predicted almost 25 years ago.
If you haven’t read it yet, and are amongst the un-Shacked evangelical minority, here’s the story in a nutshell. Mack’s youngest daughter Missy is kidnapped and murdered in a remote mountain shack by a serial slime, called the Daisy Bug Killer. Mack goes through a denial-grief-anger-bitterness cycle until he receives a letter in his mailbox from God who tells him to go back to the shack to confront his point of pain and suffering. When Mack gets to the shack he blacks out and awakens to find himself in a cabin complete with a manifestation of the Godhead. But this is no ordinary Godhead.
God the Father, called “Papa,” is a She. An Aunt Jemima pancake cooking Mother. Think Whoopee Goldberg in an apron. And Sarayu, the Holy Spirit with an Assyrian name, is a wispy urethral female. Think life-sized Tinkerbell emitting rainbows and sparkles. Jesus is a human “male” - the one the three members of the Godhead collaboratively spoke into existence as the Son of God (umm… go figure). Then, in a bizarre twist that defies the orthodox image of the pre-incarnate Christ, another woman, “Sophia” appears as the divine personification of God’s wisdom. And in the end, Papa contributes to the gender-bent confusing mess by setting aside his/her female cross dressing persona for a slightly more familiar masculine one- a grey haired man with a hip ponytail.
Forgiveness and healing from pain is a valid biblical motif - one to which I am profoundly committed. But the way we heal is by running toward the God of the Bible, not by killing off or altering the parts of his character that we find politically incorrect. Not by coming up with an image of a God that is more palatable to our modern-day sensibilities. Not by altering God-revealed truth about the Trinity. Not by thinking we need to “help” God with his image. Over the years, I’ve witnessed thousands of women come to a place of healing and wholeness through the redeeming power of the unvarnished foolishness of the gospel.
The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God. Plain and simple. If you think it doesn’t, then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church. I don’t think I’m overstating the case. In my book I’ve carefully documented the way it happened in mainline churches. The arguments used to justify their feminist Christa are the same ones the Shack uses to justify its feminized version of God. In essence, there’s no difference between the artistic image of a feminized Jesus (a.k.a. “Sophia”) hanging on a cross and the artistic image of a feminized Aunt Jemima Papa god in a book. If the latter doesn’t offend you, then the former really shouldn’t.
I’ve had good friends tell me that I’m missing the point of the Shack. Maybe I am. But maybe, just maybe, they are. Maybe they are getting caught up in the emotion of a heart-wrenching story and are failing to notice the horrendous theology that under girds it. The authors claim that “at its core the book is one long Bible Study.” This isn’t an ordinary story book. It’s a book that seeks to transform people’s ideas about God. The fiction is merely a vehicle for the theology.
How we image God matters. So the image of God the book presents matters. It matters a great deal. I seem to recall that God wasn’t terribly amused when his people imaged him in the wrong way, as a golden calf. If you’re not convinced that we should refrain from imaging God as female, and are interested in understanding more about the feminist theology rampant in the Shack, check into my book, The Feminist Mistake. If you take the time to understand the impact that feminism has had on society and church, then maybe you’ll understand my distaste for the Shack’s feminine god rendition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I read that too quickly at first. I thought Mary Kassian wrote a Shack spinoff, but I think I get it now... She wrote a blog entry, critiquing the Shack for it's theology and feminist slant.
I am a bit disappointed to see churches and Christians who do not embrace a fear of the Lord. It stems from a pervasive notion that God us just like "me," only bigger. That is not good theology. It is not enlightenment. It is not profound or useful--no matter what nutty professor or (ahem) distinguished clergyman might agree. It is idolatry and blasphemy, pure and simple.
Is there such a shortage of good material to read that Christians find the Shack to be a reasonable investment of time?
"Is there such a shortage of good material to read that Christians find the Shack to be a reasonable investment of time?"
That's a great question Craver. And why would Michael W. Smith think thi is such a terrific read? And Eugene Peterson as well? Whaasup wit dat!
There's something there that is meaningful to some Christians, and it makes me nuts.
And to share about life's experiences and my hearts deep thoughts is good, but Scripture is always Scripture, and the truth, when embedded into our hearts, lives, situations, and circumstances should help us see the truth of Christ and God in a clearer light.
This, The Shack, fogs things up I think.
I guess Christians like confusion and fogginess in there lives and minds.
I like crystal clear truth, and clear as can be. My flesh may rebel, but my inner man delights in the truth.
Is it really appropriate for a book to portray God in human form anyway? I mean, C.S. Lewis had originally intended to write The Screwtape Letters from the opposite perspective (i.e. angels corresponding over a human soul instead of demons). He gave up on the task when he realized that he simply didn't have the ability to write from a Heavenly perspective; he was far too flawed.
Thus, wouldn't you think that the author of The Shack would think similarly? Even if he portrayed every incarnation of God as male, he would still have gotten it so, so wrong. Our image of a bearded Santa-type figure is, to me, almost as offensive and inappropriate as an Aunt Jemima one.
(On another note, The Shack has also been criticized for its ethnic stereotypes. I would have to agree. It's a little offensive to fall back upon stock Mammy characters in this day and age, even if you aren't using them to portray the Lord).
"Our image of a bearded Santa-type figure is, to me, almost as offensive and inappropriate as an Aunt Jemima one."
I agree Jay.
Thanks for stopping by.
The Triune God of Scripture is who He is, and we need to know Him as such, not whatever image we decide, for that would be a false god. Commandment numero uno: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
I like this constructive criticism from Professor John Stackhouse, a Baptist professor and theologian.
I think the book is in part a response to a Christianity which in some ways has fallen short of the revelation we have from Scripture and in Christ. In fact I personally am sure it is!
That said, I bought a copy some time back, and personally I just wasn't enthused, nor did I even finish it.
I do think the author needed a theologian by his side. Just my few thoughts on it for now, but check out Stackhouse, and see what you think. I'd probably pretty much track with him on this, myself.
"How we image God matters. So the image of God the book presents matters. It matters a great deal." -Mary Kassian
I lean with Mary on her review, more so than John Stackhouse. Though his review was good.
I think this book is more dangerous then we think, in a church culture that doesn't like doctrine, and Bible study, and a microwave quick fix to my emotions, and of my self-esteem.
I think Mary is right when she said: " ..by coming up with an image of a God that is more palatable to our modern-day sensibilities."
Our flesh is weak, and our heart's are still desperately wicked, even with the Holy Spirit renewing our hearts, and so we want to feel good about ourselves, and anything that bothers us like God's wrath, and His being able to "throw both soul and body into hell", we want to lighten up, and remove if possible.
Like Carlton Pearson, who said God told him that there is no hell. God is simply full of grace and love for everyone.
Thanks for stopping by Ted. Always good to interact with you. Lord bless you brother.
"Ideas have consequences." I hear Chuck Colson saying that all the time. I wish more people agreed with him.
Consequences is a good word for the Church today; and every age really.
Chuck Colson is a solid brother in Christ, and his angel tree ministry is great. We differ on the death penalty, and ECT, but we have the same common ground at the foot of the Savior's Cross.
I have been influenced strongly by him because of this concept of "world view."
I don't know what Colson's position is on the death penalty, but I believe there is sufficient biblical grounds for capital punishment.
What is ECT?
Oh, I just found it. (Evangelicals and Catholics Together.)
Chuck is against capital punishment. He and RC Sproul argued it out one time, with Scripture, or so RC tells the story. RC sees capital punishment in the Bible as I do, and Chuck Colson doesn't.
Yep, you got ECT right.
Have a great weekend Craver.
Post a Comment