Okay, just a warning...the first part of the book is the hardest to get through. So just sit down and make it through chapter 5 in a sitting or two (and know the book really changes once it hits chapter 6).
So here is how we will at least start this thing- we will post a few questions and thoughts from the chapters- you respond on the blog and we will go from there and see where conversation leads. Once done we will move on or agree we are all utterly confused.
For these chapters, focus on these areas:
- How does God communicate with us today? Does God still communicate with us? How would we respond to a note from God?
- Why do we keep our dark secrets or Great Sadness buried within?
- What does this quote have to do with these chapters: "We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for extenuation. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgment as to invalidate evidencethat does not confirm us in it. Nothing that deserves to be called truth could ever be arrived at by such means."- right or wrong?
Go....
It's That Time Again...
10 years ago
7 comments:
I remember starting the book and wondering if I would actually be able to finish it. This part of the story had a profound impact on me because I could all-to-easily imagine myself in the same situation with one of our grandkids.
I'm pretty much convinced that I would not have responded to a "note" from God. I really can't bring myself to believe that God actually communicates with us that way. He certainly could (being omnipotent and all), but I just don't think he does. I guess I am persuaded of the rightness of my judgment.
It seems to me that a person can't function without this kind of basic belief. If we continually had to consider, investigate, and evaluate any and all kinds of evidence, we'd be paralyzed.
Mack, in anger, gives more creedence to the note than I ever would have. It most likely would have been filed away with the rest of the "direct mail". Which is why I think that is such a good metaphor for how God does communicate to us.
The mail is so mundane, so constant, so expected, that we know how to sift through it to find the pieces we are looking for and discard the rest. We don't even give the other pieces of mail the chance to catch our attention.
God speaks to us constantly in many different ways, but we miss the majority of it.
I think your last two questions somewhat lend to each other. We keep our dark secrets buried away within us so that they will simply go away. Whether it be how we were disciplined as children, habits/addictions some have that others should not know about or even the pride and envy that engulfs us everyday, we don't want it exposed to anyone... including ourselves.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
I agree entirely with Jimmy. I think God constantly communicates with us- but we are so busy, that we miss most of it. Or even worse, we ignore it (look at the importance or lack of importance many of us place on Scripture- I can confess to that). I actually have often had the thought of has God ever given us speaking directly to us- since we so often ignore what He has already said and continues to say.
Christian history shows God communicating in two ways- general and special revelation. Most theologians have held to general revelation being God in creation, the 'divine spark' within us from Creation, etc. Special revelation has been Jesus and Scritpure. Is there really any more we need?
Where do I begin? God is a big black woman and the Holy Spirit is a tiny Asian woman?...
I am through chapter 5 (and a half) and I am finally becoming engrossed in this book...my dog barked and I almost jumped out of my skin! I kept looking up to make sure that the room around me had not morphed into a spring meadow suddenly.
To answer your questions...
1. Maybe God communicates with us in any way that He knows we will listen. For us He may use scripture more because that is where we are comfortable. However, someone who was raised in the middle east may be more open to direct communication, visions or dreams. Maybe Mack was open to this form of communication so God used it.
If you are asking me how I personally would respond to the note if I were in Mack's situation...as a parent who is desperately seeking answers I know that I would want to believe that God had sent me a note.
2. I think this goes back to Griff's sermon Sunday, we don't want anyone to see our "real" selves. And maybe the truth is (even within the church) that we don't want to see others as they truly are.
3. I know a little something about being persuaded by the rightness of my own judgement...we should always be open to God's communication but should also call on God when trying to decide if something came directly from Him.
Speaking of...I thought that it was interesting that Mack destroyed the note from God...sound familiar (golden tablets much)? Maybe that is too harsh...
I find that one of the negative side effects of being a woman is that I feel emotionally invested in these people's lives, I found myself praying for this family even though it is clear that the story already has a definite ending even though I am not at that point in the book yet. Weird.
How does God communicate with us?
The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that God is easily able to know exactly how to communicate something to me in the way I will understand it best. After all, he knows me better than I know myself.
If God knows this, then I must conclude that I miss none of God's communications to me. I receive them all, because it's impossible for God to fail to communicate. I'm never too busy to hear, and I never misunderstand.
The only way I don't get a message God has sent me is by intentionally, deliberately, on purpose ignoring Him. I never miss his messages by accident, just like I never get drawn into sin by accident. I'm always actively involved.
Two words: dangerous theology. Does God communicate with us? Definitely. Are we going to get mail from God? Nice thought and within the realm of God's omnipotence but probably not going to happen. But even if it did we would need to be cautious about what matched up with scripture when we met God at the shack and conversed with him. Remember, the devil can masquerade as an angel of light and present a false gospel. So just because we've had an intensely personal, spiritual encounter like Mack does in the book, doesn't mean that it is from God. For instance (and this is just one example. I could give lots more), in the book Papa says "It is not my purpose to punish [sin]. It is my joy to cure it." This is in direct contraditction to Ex. 32:34 and all the teachings on hell.
I agree with Rob that we cannot function on the idea that we must consider, investigate, and evaluate every basic belief. This is the influence of postmodernism in the book (which is just as dangerous as the influences of deism, panentheism, and other false teachings) and it is that which must be evaluated, not the special revelation of God in scripture.
As you can probably tell, I like the premise of the book, but I don't like the presentation. Let us be careful we do not silently condone the messages in the book through the agreement to discuss its philosophical propositions.
Been meaning to respond to this for quite awhile, so will respond to each post following mine.
Griff - I think you and Rob are actually saying the same thing about our missing communications from God, though I don't think yours is as absolute as what Rob says. You both use "ignoring" him as a means of us not hearing him. Meaning, we make the choice not to hear him... unless of course he is telling us what we want to hear.
I definitely agree we choose to ignore in many instances. How many times do we go to the Bible looking for the verse that supports our views rather than one that would teach us something new?
Kristin - I didn't even catch on that he destroyed the note. That is interesting to me. I do think this author did a good job of alluding to events in the Bible, but as far as getting emotionally involved, I hope it isn't unique to women, because I definitely had some emotional investments in the book as well. I think that is what the author really wanted to accomplish, so that when Mack gets to discussions at the shack, we are putting ourselves into the situation rather than reading from the outside.
Rob - I think I see where you are going, but I am still struggling with the absoluteness of your language in your post. Maybe it's me not wanting to admit to what you are saying, but I feel that we are allowed to make mistakes and that we do miss communications on accident in some cases. However, whether we miss the message on purpose or on accident, it is nice to know that God knows we will make mistakes and not only loves us despite it, but loves us for it.
I do like the idea that both you and Kristin put out that God knows how to communicate to each of us individually. It will make me think twice when I start to judge "young people's" music or speak out against Books or Movies or Political figures. We just never know how God is trying to communicate to others. Just because it doesn't speak to us, doesn't mean it isn't reaching someone else.
Mark - I hope you continue to post, because you touched on something I am very interested in hearing others' views on and that is how Papa in the book compares with God in the Bible. Absolutely agree the presentation of him was not the greatest. I can't imagine God and Jesus insulting each other, even if only in jest, but did make reading more enjoyable.
So, my question to you and Griff, mainly because you guys went to school to study this, is God completely different in the New Testament than he is in the Old Testament, or is he exactly the same, and it is only Jesus who now provides us with grace?
I felt like the author was coming from a New Testament perspective and that is how I read the book. However, is there the possibility that God's attitude toward us is the same in the Old and New Testaments, and the only thing saving our souls or keeping our world from being flooded is Jesus' sacrifice?
Post a Comment