My main reaction after reading this book was to wonder what the controversy was all about. It was very in line with most of what I've heard in church for ages. It seems that most of the criticism is coming from Calvanist/Reformed folks (which makes sense), but it's confusing to hear people from a Wesleyan background criticize it at all.
I really enjoyed The Shack. When I read it, I took it in primarily at the experiential level rather than at a theological level. I appreciated it for two mains reasons. One, I am a kinesthetically oriented person so reading about a guy who encounters the divine in embodied forms was utterly fascinating to me. I kept wishing I could find my own shack because it would be so much easier to be in relationship with a God who was actually physically present. The other reason I enjoyed it was because two of the three god figures were feminine. I am so tired of the divine being talked about with exclusively masculine pronouns and images. God is not male. Yet the image in my mind most days is a male God. The shack helped to free up my imagination to welcome in female images of the divine. When the Christian community is more open to female images of the divine it will be a better community for all people, especially women.
I havee just finished the book and I am still in the process of distilling my feelings however I think that Darcy has made three very interesting points... 1. By reading the book experientially and not theologically I beleive that you havce disarmed many of the critics of book who seem very hung up on the fact that people are finding Truth within its pages. I think that many people are threatened by ideas that rattle their own theological cages and when presented with throngs of people touting a "new" idea they naturally react out of fear. I think most people are reading this book experientially but lack the semantic equipment to express it in that way. 2. I agree that having a physical connection to God would be amazing! Have you ever had a drean that felt so real that it actually affected you when you woke? Thats how I felt at times reading this book...excitement followed by a little disappointment that I was not truly having the experience myself. 3. I had wondered how women would feel about a book that I felt had a very masculine vibe. As a very unemoptional person I could totally relate to Mack's difficulty with much of his emotional journey, a trip that I think would be very different for a woman. I did, however think that representing two aspects of the trinity as females tempered the masculinity in an intriguing way.
Has anyone read this book? What are some thoughts, positive or negative, about it?
ReplyDeleteI read this a while ago, so I'll have to go back and re-peruse it.
ReplyDeleteI like that it was more praxis based. But it doubled back on itself with substitutionary atonement talk, which I have a difficult time abiding.
I'm sure people are unhappy with the trinitarian representation, but I say who cares, it doesn't make sense anyway. Ha!
My main reaction after reading this book was to wonder what the controversy was all about. It was very in line with most of what I've heard in church for ages. It seems that most of the criticism is coming from Calvanist/Reformed folks (which makes sense), but it's confusing to hear people from a Wesleyan background criticize it at all.
ReplyDeleteANDY! God is a BLACK woman! If that doesn't make you angry, I don't know what would.
ReplyDeleteAt least he turns back into a white dude at the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed The Shack. When I read it, I took it in primarily at the experiential level rather than at a theological level. I appreciated it for two mains reasons. One, I am a kinesthetically oriented person so reading about a guy who encounters the divine in embodied forms was utterly fascinating to me. I kept wishing I could find my own shack because it would be so much easier to be in relationship with a God who was actually physically present. The other reason I enjoyed it was because two of the three god figures were feminine. I am so tired of the divine being talked about with exclusively masculine pronouns and images. God is not male. Yet the image in my mind most days is a male God. The shack helped to free up my imagination to welcome in female images of the divine. When the Christian community is more open to female images of the divine it will be a better community for all people, especially women.
ReplyDeleteI havee just finished the book and I am still in the process of distilling my feelings however I think that Darcy has made three very interesting points...
ReplyDelete1. By reading the book experientially and not theologically I beleive that you havce disarmed many of the critics of book who seem very hung up on the fact that people are finding Truth within its pages. I think that many people are threatened by ideas that rattle their own theological cages and when presented with throngs of people touting a "new" idea they naturally react out of fear. I think most people are reading this book experientially but lack the semantic equipment to express it in that way.
2. I agree that having a physical connection to God would be amazing! Have you ever had a drean that felt so real that it actually affected you when you woke? Thats how I felt at times reading this book...excitement followed by a little disappointment that I was not truly having the experience myself.
3. I had wondered how women would feel about a book that I felt had a very masculine vibe. As a very unemoptional person I could totally relate to Mack's difficulty with much of his emotional journey, a trip that I think would be very different for a woman. I did, however think that representing two aspects of the trinity as females tempered the masculinity in an intriguing way.