Comments on: God as “a big black woman” in THE SHACK, a new million copy bestseller

By: Kelly Conley

Kelly Conley — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:52:39 +0000

Hi Susy. I’m checking our your blog because I just started one. Regarding the Shack and the black woman portrayed as God, I think it was God himself who presented himself as a woman due to the “father issues” that Mackenzie had. yes, I agree that God is God and He is male. but, I know that He does meet us where we are at. And who knows, maybe God would do this for someone. I know that my understanding of God is limited. I know that He does have both a masculine and feminine side, per the scriptures. Plus at the end, once Mackenzie did deal with his father issues, God then presented himself as a man. I think I saw this book as a true fiction for the most part. I didn’t put too much stock into the “facts” of the book. Although I did love how relational the book made God out to be. My husband and I read it together and I actually cried through the whole book. Thanks for your comments.

By: flower garden

flower garden — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:13:01 +0000

Really clear internet site, regards to do this post.

By: Norris Shannon

Norris Shannon — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:42:52 +0000

As a Christian I disagreed with many things in this book, however there were things that made me look at my relationship with GOD in a new light. Mainly the love HE has for us. My main problem with the critics though is that GOD can’t possibly be a BLACK WOMAN, not that there is only one road to HIM. I think you saying GOD cant be a woman is what is limiting. How do you place any limits on what GOD can do. I don’t think cant is something you can associate with HIM.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:34 +0000

At first, I was disturbed by thinking about the hierarchy of the trinity, and their physical appearances in such I different way. But by the time I ended the book I respected what it had made me ‘rethink’ about. I didn’t really leave the book thinking about God as a mother-goddess, or as a shape-shifter to meet our needs … but rather the fact that He is so much more than our Papa. He is divine and is not limited to the realities that we are. We’ve personified Him into a finite, human-like being … but I wonder if we won’t all be surprised and in awe when we finally get to see Him, and the wonders He can probably do with very little effort. After all, he’s not just our ‘papa’. He’s our creator – the maker of worlds! Yet, I truly believe He does care about each of us as a proud ‘papa’ would … and grieves with us during tragedy. And that was what the Shack was essentially about. Trying to make sense out of why God can let bad things happen … Worth reading, just because it made you think!

By: Kirsten

Kirsten — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:25:01 +0000

so my issues after reading all these posts is this: once again (as in The Da Vinci Code) modern Christians are forgetting that this is FICTION!!!!!
Did you know that Young wrote this to leave as a legacy for his kids?
I am impressed!
*****************
Hi, Kirsten.
I think I’m detecting some sarcasm here.
Of course both books are fiction, but don’t forget that words are powerful and can, and do, change the world. Both books are dealing with life-or-death topics (at least for those of us who center our lives around our faith) and deserve thought, reflection, and discussion.
They might be fiction, but don’t deserve to be so easily dismissed. Sit down, have a cup of tea, and give us your thoughts. We’d love to hear them.
Susy
Unmasking the Goddess

By: KR

KR — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:47:35 +0000

Oh! How I wish we could discuss this in person! I didn’t like picturing God as a woman, but I appreciated that Young was trying to demonstrate how loving, gracious and comforting God is. I think, had he depicted God as a man, he wouldn’t have been able to portray those characteristics as well without making the man effeminate. And I really appreciated how he showed his readers that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit love us so completely. So many people, Christians included, think of God as this great big bully in the sky who wants to control us. But what I really, really liked about the book is how Young kind of put the church on its head. Up here, the habits and rituals of church attendance have replaced relationship. People go to church because they’ve always gone to church. Church leadership are put on a pedestal above those they serve. And denominations have segregated the body of Christ. All of these things are a result of man’s sin, man’s arrogance, etc. But many people are hurt in/because of church and then figure if that’s the way God wants it then he isn’t someone they want to know. I loved that Young emphasized relationship. I could go on and on. I liked the book a great deal, but mostly because it reiterated what I already knew to be true.(i.e. God doesn’t care whether you have communion on the 1st Sunday or the 3rd, He cares that you do it at all and with the right spirit) I think that saying the book could link to goddess worship is a bit of a stretch and a reader would ahve to be leaning in that direction already in order to make that leap. One thing that really upset me about the reviews I’ve read is how some Pastors are attacking Young’s character (adultery, etc). To them I say, he who has no sin can cast the first stone.

By: Mrs.Flam

Mrs.Flam — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:52:44 +0000

Thank you for writing this article , I have been eying this book for a bit now , didn’t even know what it was really about.
I am often to pagan to be considered christian , and to christian to be considered pagan , so I like looking at things of this nature.
I am appreciative.

By: molly

molly — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:47:40 +0000

Did you hear the interview on Steve Brown Etc of the author, Paul Young? (google it). It’s incredible, and really helps explain his vision and intention for writing the book.
I wasn’t pleased with this and that in The Shack, but as a whole, I absolutely loved it. What an excellent (though, yes, fully human) picture into who God is and His heart towards us. I can’t tell you how many non-Christians I’ve heard reading it and talking about it. That is truly wonderful!
Also, I agree on concerns about believing the Trinity operates in hiararchy. No Trinitarian creed (see Nicene, Athanasian, Second Helvetical Confession, etc) says that the Trinity operates in hierarchy. It’s a very new concept to Christendom, now popular but NOT in any sense orthodox.
Jesus did submit to the Father…*while on earth.* All orthodox believers affirm that. However that was a temporary thing, not an all-eternity-before-and-after thing. The thing about saying that His submission is eternal is that it totally messes with the concept that the three members of the Trinity are all equally God. They can’t be all equally God if one is in charge of the others.
The early church fathers fought against the idea of a hierarchy, and for good reason. It opens the door to a host of problematic views about God.
Warmly,
Molly

By: Jinx Clark

Jinx Clark — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:58:09 +0000

Susy…your review is so helpful. Informative, insightful, and easy to understand. Thanks so much for doing the homework for me. Blessings…Jinx

By: Nonnie

Nonnie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:32:39 +0000

I had not planned to read The Shack but was asked to do so by an online acquaintance and then to tell him what I thought of the book, so I did. My comments to him were quite lengthy, but I have read the resonses that you have receive here and some of my concerns are not mentioned. I have greatly reduced my comments to these:
The book puts much emphasis on “relationships”. Certainly God is NOT impersonal and He truly wants to be a part of every facet of our lives, but relationships are not the end of the matter.
“Papa” says that He wants everyone to have independence. Yet Almighty God will have us to lean on Him. That’s ambiguous.
Mack does some “flying” in his dreams (page 115-116—“As odd as it sounds, Mack had learned inside his dreams to fly…”) and “Papa” later advises him to continue his “flying” after he returns home. This sounds like “soul travel” as embraced by those that follow Echankar.
“The Festival of Friends”—chapter 15—describes a big “party on the lawn” that is attended by children and adults that have previously died, as well as many animals, and finally flanked by a myriad of angels —it was beautiful by description and appeals to all of us that one day such a thing might happen. However, only Jesus has ascended to the Father. (John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.)
Try every spirit and daily search the scriptures whether these things be so. (Acts 17:11)
Be careful, little eyes, what you see. We must try every spirit and measure every word we read and hear against the truth of the Word of Almighty God. God does not wink at sin. The enemy will come at us with sweet words and beautiful images of a paradise where everything moves and operates as we would like. But that is not truth. Beginning in the Garden of Eden Satan began to twist the Word and cause mankind to try to remodel the God of the Bible into one they could rule over, rather than to serve. (Gen. 3:1-5) When the scribes and Pharisees confronted Jesus, His response to them was this:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The “all forgiving, all tolerant” god of The Shack is NOT the Almighty and Holy Only-God-That-Lives of the Bible! Yes, He wants to be an integral part of our lives, but He is also righteous and cannot look on sin. There will be judgment when He comes to judge the living and the dead.