Over at the Karis blog, a local Acts 29 Church plant, head pastor Kevin Larson had the following to say about The Shack:
I’ve posted this before, but I keep hearing people recommend The Shack, so I wanted to put it up here again. People argue that the author is just using metaphors, but the point of metaphors is to accurately represent the realities to which they point. To be clear, God is not an elderly African-American woman. And, no, I haven’t read it. Sorry if that bothers you. I have too many books to read and too little time. [Video of Mark Driscoll]
The following is my response. I’d love to get your input on the issue (or head over there and talk about it):
I have no problem with you not reading the book – I know I don’t have the time to read it either (even though I want to do so). However, why exactly does the portrayal of God the Father as an African American woman bother you so much? From what I understand God (in the story) shows up as a n African American woman because of the main character’s deep wounds from his own father.
I am sure that we both agree that God the father is not male nor female. Genesis 1-2 teaches us that the image of God contains both the female and the male aspects. As such, the "fatherness" of God the Father is more a social description than a sexual description. God the Father as an African American woman displayed these social aspects, but in the gender of the female. As a matter of fact, I think that God the Father shows up as a male later on in the book. (I am not sure, however, I am only going off of descriptions of the work by students of mine that have read it and statements by the author during and interview at Catalyst this past month.) Any description of God in English (or any language for that matter) can only possibly give a flawed and partial picture of God. The finite can not contain fully the infinite.
Given this and the above, I don’t have a problem with God the Father being described with this metaphor – and that is how the author intended the book – as a metaphor. The book is designed to get the read to ponder the mystery of the Trinity and push the reader into repairing their relationship with God. It is meant to be purely metaphorical – not a systematic theology. The author is fully aware that this is not an accurate description of the trinity – and that a fully accurate statement on the trinity is impossible.
I guess what worries me is the aversion to a book that you have not read and statements that seem to contradict the author’s intended purpose. The fact that the only stated problem with the book is its depiction of God the Father as an African American woman concerns me. I know that your role as a head pastor means that you are responsible for the teaching of the people in your church and that you need to ward off false doctrine. I just want to encourage you to reevaluate you stance towards this book.
But, with that said, the work you all (Karis) in the community is inspiring to other churches – keep up the good work of growing and cultivating the Kingdom of God!
Thoughts?
