Okay I want to address what is an obvious point in the book. Both God and the Holy Spirit show up as women. I actually liked this idea. Mack wasn’t ready to see God as a Father so God chose to reveal himself as a motherly figure. In doing so he blows up some stereotypes that we have that God is masculine.
And this construct helped me realize that the way God reveals Himself in Scripture, as a Father, has more to do with role and perception than gender. He reveals a limited construct for the sake of me, not because that is what He is. But it also helped me realize that God is much bigger than I give him credit for.
I really had to check myself when I was reading this… Would God be offended if He was portrayed as a woman? But then Genesis 1:27 came to mind… “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Both male and female were created, distinctly, in the image of God. And yet (Gal 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”) we are all one in Christ Jesus… there isn’t a divide once we believe.
God is above and beyond the confines of gender. It’s a magnificent reminder of how awesome that He is – how God that He is. No?
I’m with ya, Jonathan.
I think it borders on blasphemy. I almost put the book down at this point.
I think that if God wanted to be portrayed as a woman, He would have done so in the Bible. I think this author takes liberties on this point.
As far as the literary work goes, I think Jonathan hit the nail on the head. Would Mack receive God if he presented himself as a father? God wants us to receive him and I think he will do what is necessary to help us come to him with all of us–not holding back.
“How God that he is.” Yes.
The author continues to do a good job of exposing the boxes that we put God in.
And, Verity, in Matt 23:37 and Luke 13:34, Jesus says that he would love to gather Jerusalem’s children like a hen gathers her chicks. He is not above making a parallel of his personality and desires to a female chicken, do you think he would not do so with his ultimate (human female) creation for the sake of bringing one of his children closer to him?
The issue is not whether God is male or female or if he has those qualities, but that males and females each have qualities of God. He surpasses gender. Gender adds bounds and limits and God is limitless.
He is God.
So get this (I learned this in Seminary and it blew me away). Like most languages, besides English, the Hebrew (OT) language has all three tenses: Masculine, Feminine, and Neutral. In Genesis 2:4-21 the word we translate as “man” is actually the neutral tense (if the author intended a specific gender, such as male, he would have used the masculine tense), meaning neither male nor female, but human…a “genderless” being (which is totally bizarre to imagine seeing how we have no point-of-reference…but I’ll let your imaginations run wild). It is in verse 22 that the first reference for separate genders occur, it reads like this, beginning with verse 21:
“So the LORD God caused the [human] to fall into a deep sleep; and while [the human] was sleeping, he took one of the [human's] ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a [female] from the rib he had taken out of the [human], and he brought her to the [male].”
CRAZY!! But those are the words of the original author. It allows us to imagine a Genderless God.
I love the picture of God being spirit encompassing both the male and female characteristics. That out of God’s being, two separate genders were created, each with their own aspect of God. It was a trip, I must admit, to hear Mack calling her, “Papa”. Even though I am OK with God’s feminine aspects, the author did a great job shaking my box. What a fun ride.
Was the [he] took one of the ribs also genderless?
funny that you write that Jeromy because I was looking into rumors that the words for Holy Spirit being neutral and sometimes feminine. And, from what I could come up with, it’s true.
But I wonder if it’s feminine in the same way, though. Like in Spanish, una persona (a person) appears feminine even though it makes no distinction. Does that make any sense at all?
Good question, Verity. Don’t know…I’ll see what I can find.
Do you think God is a male?
That I do not know. But I don’t believe He is female.
“Our Father, who art in Heaven…”
“I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me…”
“baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…”
I believe he is neither…but Spirit. And that in his power and sovereignty he could choose to reveal himself however he wishes. Just thinking of him outside our definitions is a stretch for our little minds, huh? I’m feelin’ ya…
Last night we were sitting around the dinner table and my son (who happens to be enamored with his father) took his turn for our nightly question, ‘How did God work in your life today?’
He looked at my husband and said, “Well me and Daddy got to play Fifa together…. and me and Daddy did dishes together…” I smiled, knowing that I would bring his answer here.
My son isn’t familiar with the term “Father” for God because we just don’t use the term often when praying or talking with the kids. But somehow, my little guy proved that when we look at our earthly fathers, we are looking at God the Father as well. Whether we like it or not, we relate God to our Dads. And it’s beyond a title, as my son displayed last night.
berry inter-estink
Hi everyone. I think the whole uproar about The Shack portraying God, the Father, initially as Papa, a large, loving, Black Mammy, has missed the entire point.
Remember at the beginning of the book, the savage abuse that Mack witnessed and experienced toward himself and his mother, all by a Bible weilding father who showed up to church every Sunday and then did horrible things to his family the rest of the week in the name of God? That’s the point!
Mack, as with many, many people in the world, had had a hard time trusting and relating intimately to a God who was a male called Father because of the severe abuse. Because God wanted Mack to see that He was approachable and safe, in order to get Mack to a place of revelation about God’s true heart, He chose to temporarily reveal Himself through an image that wouldn’t scare or intimidate Mack. God can reveal Himself to any individual the way He cares to in order to draw that person to Himself. Paul himself even said that he “became all things to all men in order to win some over to Christ. “Well, if the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible through men, then Paul got this mind-set from God (of course “all things” is still within the parameters of the principles of the Word).
For those who have not read the book, everyone seems to forget to mention that towards the end of the book, Papa turns back into a man after Mack’s heart is healed. The healing had to take place in order for Mack to feel like he could trust a father image again. This is pretty basic and obvious and I wonder why it goes right over many people’s heads.
I think Mark Driscoll had a few great comments on this book in his recent message entitled the Trinity. His concern with Papa being presented as female is two-fold.
The first being that God never revealed Himself in female form in the Bible, ever. If God wanted us to think of Him as mother, Jesus would have prayed “our mother who art in heaven.” He did not. It is taking a liberty not found in Scripture.
The second point being that the second commandment includes not making a carved/graven image. I agree with Driscoll – that while Christ appeared in human form, and the Spirit appeared as a dove, it is a sin to try and create a bodily representation of God the Father.
While I understand the point you are making regarding Paul becoming all things, I do not see that being carried out in God as well. I think so much of what is wrong with Christianity in our day is the lack of a God centered focus. We begin with man (Mack) and think that God needs to change who He is (a father becoming a mother) in order for Mack to accept Him. God is the same “yesterday, today and forever.” We need to instead go to the God of the Bible, and reconcile our thoughts and ideas around who He is, and not the other way around. If you need to change the God of the Bible (even if it be temporarily ie. till chapter 15) in order to love Him, then you have made a god in your own image.
I would offer that this is where we differ. Are we to say that God can’t do something just because he doesn’t do it in the Bible? I would offer that within the framework of love God would do just about anything to reach us.
This was the ridiculousness of the cross. It was absurd. Are we to limit God to the image He can create for himself if He were to speak to us? This was the point of the chapter. It is us who limit God because we cast him in our own limitations.
And God does provide us with an image in Jesus. In Him we found the true Imago Dei, which was love.
Jonathan,
Of course God can do something outside of the context of the Bible. However, would He do something that disagrees with who He is? Would He refer to Himself as “Father” and then switch it up to “Mother” on down the line to better suit our understanding?
I dare to say that the people I know who are comfortable with referring to God as a mother have father/male issues… If our dads aren’t safe, good, firm, loving, gentle, ect then why would we want to refer to God under the same title? ‘God isn’t abusive, neglecting, and cold. Why would I want to put Him into the same catagory as my earthy father?’
But the best part about our heavenly Father is that He is the best Daddy that we will ever know. He’s the best father-figure, the best lover, the best discipliner, the best of the best! I know that my earthly father fell WAY short – but that doesn’t change how God did not. It doesn’t change how God CHOSE to use the terms He did (of course, one must beleive that the Bible is inerrant to agree with that last statement).
Raquel, you are validating the point of the book. Mack had issues. And God works with him to resolve them and shift his image.
The point yes, but the path – no.
So I would ask then if what you are saying is that God can’t, won’t, or wouldn’t reveal himself as a female image for the sake of our restoration because he doesn’t in the Bible?
How is that not limiting God?
God is neither female or male, but spirit who has both male and female characteristics. I think this is ultimately what the book was trying to get at by referring to Papa (male) as a she (female)—it encompassed both genders in one metaphor. To me, it is not all that complicated. God, by nature, is ultimately genderless. Is this a stretch for us who are living in gender-land? Yep. As it should be.
“So I would ask then if what you are saying is that God can’t, won’t, or wouldn’t reveal himself as a female image for the sake of our restoration because he doesn’t in the Bible?”
“I would offer that within the framework of love God would do just about anything to reach us.”
I think your overall focus seems distorted. Man is not at the center of the universe – God is. Piper/Edwards provides the most amazing and comprehensive book on this in “God’s Passion for His Glory.” The God of the Bible is motivated for His namesake and for His glory to do what He does. He is of supreme value and worth in this universe, and knows that. We diminish the significance of the Bible, when we suggest that God would reveal Himself elsewhere contrary to it. Jesus put great emphasis on the Word. He said that heaven and earth would pass away, but His Word would by no means pass away….
Changing who God revealed Himself to be in the Word, in order to connect with people 2000 years later, is to add to the Word. How are we to test the spirits, if God reaches all of us as WE need Him to? God is who He says He is in the Bible, and we must come to it, and Him, and reconcile our preconceived notions of Him with who He actually says He is.
So you’re saying God has a gender and it’s male?
Nicole, if God is sovereign and can do whatever God wants to for God’s glory, why CAN’T God show up as a female is GOD wants to? Or is God limited to what God has only done in the past?
So “male” and “female” were not created in the image of God? “Female” is not an aspect of God’s image?
I am saying that in His Word, God has not given us the liberty to refer to Him as anything but male. I worship a God, not a goddess. As HE chose to reveal HIMself to mankind, it was as Father, Son, Him, He…..
I don’t like hypothetical questions. If God wants to, He could…… is not a good road to walk. I think it is dangerous to WANT to add anything to the Bible. We already have the divine, eternal inspired Word of the Lord, should that not be sufficient? Why not worship the God of the Bible? Our distorted view of love and holiness as reflected by humans should not leave us craving a God who is so desperately in love with us that He is willing to meet us wherever we are at…. If God wanted me to worship Him as a fat black woman in a kitchen He would have presented Himself as such in the Bible – as opposed to what actually happened with Moses – no one can look upon God (the Father) and live…. We mock His Godhood, His holiness and His unknowableness when we try to present Him in human form – male or female.
Limiting God… I would say that seeing God as whom He’s presented Himself to be in HIS Word isn’t limiting, rather it’s accepting what He’s given me and allowing Him to speak for Himself.
As Jeromy knows, if God used a bird to speak to me I would happily listen (and quite possibly sing along). But this isn’t contrary to what God’s done in the past. Does that make sense? God used donkey, fire, smoke, ect to speak to His people – it doesn’t contradict what He’s done in His Word.
There are a million things, right now, that God is using to show me His love for me. Sunrises, a mortgage that gets paid even though the numbers aren’t there, a husband who loves me far more than I deserve… just to name a few. Does God need to contradict Himself to “reveal Himself…for the sake of restoration?”
I think that my part in the relationship is receiving joy in what He’s already doing all around me (as well as seeking His will). He gives us the air we breathe, the clothing on our backs, the food in our mouths. What more do we need to see His love? To say that we need more than what He’s already proven Himself to be (in His Word and in our lives) seems limiting those that call themselves Christ followers. It limits us and our potential to be content. It makes the relationship about what He’ll do for us rather than what we’ll do for Him.
I could be way off, but it feels like the attitude turns God into a fawning servant rather than the Almighty Creator who deserves our complete adoration.
I am not saying God is a Godess, but that God has femaleness as part of God’s image, God’s character. No? So when God appeared to Moses, God was a male? As opposed to something entirely different, perhaps a Spirit that encompassed both male and femaleness?
“God used donkey, fire, smoke, ect to speak to His people – it doesn’t contradict what He’s done in His Word.” But each of those things were NEW ways he spoke to them; different from what he did in the past or to THEIR revealed word. See? So has God changed? God does not—or cannot—use NEW ways today to reveal himself or speak to us such as he did then? Such as a big black women?
yah, but the examples aren’t actually GOD changing… He wasn’t a burning bush. And He wasn’t Balaam’s donkey…
Why get so defensive over something that is not backed up in the Bible (God the Father being a woman)?
Good point about Balaam’s donkey.
God is not a women. God is not a man. God is God, and God has both maleness and femaleness as part of God’s image (see Genesis). But I’m done…
Nicole, and he wasn’t a woman either. The book doesn’t say he’s a woman. It says he appears as a woman. The form was simply God choosing to reveal himself in some specific way that served a present purpose. If he can do it one way, why can’t he do it another. And if does it as an ass why is that somehow affecting his sovereignty. Help me with this one.
Again, God the Father has never revealed Himself to man. To make an image of the Father is to step beyond the bounds of the Bible.
Anthropromorphism. I think it incredibly arrogant and naive to even toy with and suggest that God the Father should so condescend to man’s level. Or the level of an ass. We need to get over ourselves – and realise that the One who inhabits eternity is not fawning over us, or desperate for us, or about to reveal Himself to us in some new form beyond what He has already done. Christ is forever fully God and fully man – but the Father is not. It’s dangerous business making God to be something other than He has revealed Himself to be in the only infallible Word.
Tom Finger, a theologian, suggests that the Holy Spirit represents the femine side of God. I am curious why the author of The Shack would use a woman to represent Jesus. I think this is where many orthodox Christians would have a problem. I think that this was unnecessary (Literary license or not).
Wonder, Jesus is portrayed as a man in the book. Don’t know if you just missed that or not.
The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a woman likely because the OT term for Spirit is a feminine gender. The distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represented the family.
The Greeks changed the term to a neutered distinction likely out of concern for a male dominated society.
this issue here is not if God IS a woman, he is not(i cant seem to escape it!) male or female as we understand it. he is not a physical being, so he has none of the material distinctions that human males or females share. he does however have the role of father, and yet he nourishes like a mother, i believe the scriptures use the imagery of a mother hen or something like that to portray his relationship to israel as protector. God can use theophany and take whatever form he wishes, but he isnt actually these things, it is his way of showing himself to us in a way we can understand, like the book talk about, limiting himself out of desire for relationship with us. thats how i see it anyway.
if god had not revealed himself,we would not know of him.the father is in jesus and he is in the father…also, im not sure how theologically sound this is, but the personal name of god in the old testament is YHWH,i always assumed that it was the father in those instances, as it entails a self existing god…the bible itself uses anthropomorphism,matthew 23:37 does not show a God who is removed from human relationship. god exists in ways we cannot begin to imagine, he is beyond human language, so we have to use terms we understand to describe him(there!see?lol)
i dont think we are ‘fawning’ on ourselves when we say that god wants relationship with us, why else would we exist?
god did condescend to human level!he invaded time and space as a human fetus(someone said that,cant remember who though)
FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE , THE FATHER I SERVE , REVEALS HIMSELF IN MY EVERY DAY LIFE . EVERY TIME SOME ONE WALKS UP TO ME , WITH AN ANSWER TO WHAT I PRAY ABOUT , WHERE I SEND MY ENERGY , WHAT I LIT MY CANDLE FOR . I BELIEVE GOD IS SPIRIT , YOU CAN NOT SET LIMITS ON I AM. THE CLOSER THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AS,THE FATHER AS THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST , GOD , IS MORE CREATIVE THAN EVER . NO LIMITS WHOM EVER AND WHAT EVER , WHO GIVES YOU LIFE , GOD KNOWS WE ALL , I , AM SEEKING HIS LOVE . IT WAS NOT JUST BY COINCIDENCES . GOD KNOWS IT , HE WILL SEND ME , WHERE EVER I COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT , I AM , THAT I AM GOD IN THE FLESH . WITHOUT TRYING TO IMAGE WHAT FORM HE SHALL APPEAR TO ME TODAY . I HAVE NO THOUGHTS IF IT’S THE BIRDS , THE LADY OR MAN I JUST CROSSED , WITH A KIND WORD , DON’T GET CAUGHT UP IN THE APPEARANCE OF THINGS
Mickey… you’re yelling!!!
I don’t think the picture Young uses is a graven image. The story is more like a vision than a real experience, too (considering that time doesn’t change). I don’t think Young is saying anything about God being a man or woman, as the character herself/itself says that this is not me, only “Mack’s” view of Him. The images of Isaiah are in this same sense a “graven image” if one wishes. And we also assume that it is Jesus in Revelation 1.
In the burning bush, God appears as a fire (Hebrews talks about that too, and the bush is not even burning… maybe flaming bush would be a better term). The Shack is a book with a literary device that we can’t take theology from. The argument of non-existence is hard to defend – what is the principle behind it? How much of heaven’s description is metaphor, and how much is “physical” if physical is even what heaven is? Would God actually show up as a woman? I don’t know. He hasn’t yet. Maybe He will someday.
I guess I just love that this book was so spot on with what we humans experience and written from our perspective…even shaping God (all three parts) into characters we (Mac) could understand and relate to instead of just Jesus Himself. As for Papa being a black woman, I just loved it. The form was questionable, contradictory to our thought, and challenging…just who God is. He can be whatever form He wants to be, and this nuance only expanded my perspective of Him in my mind.