Going to the Shack, Part 1

A lot of people have reading The Shack. As it deals with religious themes and our relationship with God it comes up a great deal in discussions I have with people. So I decided to take a little to time to reflect on some of the concerns and questions people have shared with me about the book. I shared these reflections in a sermon recently. This is a highly modified version of the sermon. Also, I have decided to break it up. Some of the larger issues such as Pluralism and Universalism are not addressed in today’s sermon. I will look at those issues later in the Easter season.

First, remember that The Shack is a work of fiction. Like many religious works of fiction it is framed in a particular theological viewpoint. For example, the Left Behind series is written from a conservative Baptism, premilleniel pretribulational viewpoint which is outside of mainstream Protestant and United Methodist beliefs, yet you could find the novels to be entertaining. Some people like the Mitford series of novels — a series set in the present day but picturing a romanticized 18^th & 19^th century Anglican notion of parish ministry. Remember the WWJD craze? “What would Jesus Do?” is based on the Christian humanistic novel In His Steps. Others read and enjoy the Joshua series written by a Catholic priest.

I commend all of these to you as works of fiction. If you enjoy them, read them. They are certainly better than some of the trashier novels I see at Walmart with the pictures of bare-chested men with long flowing hair like Fabio.

Today I want to address some of the questions people sent me about the book The Shack.

Question 1 — “How do you feel about calling God the Father, Papa?”

Three people emailed me asking about the rather familiar term used for God the Father — Papa. What we need to remember is that in the New Testament Jesus and Paul both call God Abba which is a term of familiarity and affection (e.g., Mark 14:36 & Romans 8:15). [See note below on abba]

Many of us grew up with the King James Version of the bible which uses the words thee/thou when referring to God. We have been left with this since of speaking to God with a more formal style of speech. But, let’s take a moment and consider the history of this usage. Before the Norman Conquest (AD 1066) the use of thee/thou and you/ye was a difference in number. Here is a rough chart demonstrating the difference in usage...

Plural	Singular
I will come to you.	I will come to thee.
Ye are coming this way.	Thou are coming this way.

We no long make a distinction in number in formal English today, but in colloquial English we do. Here in the South we make a distinction in number with you and y’all. Other colloquial forms of the plural you would include youses and you’uns.

Now, one thing about language is that it is always evolving — always changing. All languages change and evolve (except for French, because I believe they have passed laws against that!). Oftentimes we may listen to a younger generation and with they would learn to speak English. Well, they are. The British wish we Americans would learn English. We don’t even agree on how some words are to be spelled (e.g., color/colour). Consider the difference in our language usage from that in Shakespeare or the KJV (early modern English). God back further and try reading Chaucer (Middle English) without constantly referring to the footnotes. Forget about trying to read Beowulf in the original Anglo-Saxon or Old English.

After the Norman Conquest this usage of thee/you changed from a difference in number to a difference in informal and formal address similar to the practice of other languages (e.g., du/Sie use in German). Thee was the informal that would be used in addressing a family member or close friend. You became the means of addressing someone formally, such as a schoolteacher, a priest, or a lord. This is the usage that became a part of the King James Version (AD 1611). The fact that the informal use of thee/thou was used for our address of God is then significant — not because it was a formal address, but the opposite — one used with equals or inferiors. God was addressed as a family member because of the intimacy we share in our relationship with God.

Next we will look at the second question: How do you feel about God the Father being depicted as a Black Woman?

------------

Note on abba —

There is some debate on the issue of interpreting abba. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this definition: “ab'-a (abba, ‘abba’, Hebraic-Chaldaic, “Father” ): In Jewish and old-Christian prayers, a name by which God was addressed, then in oriental churches a title of bishops and patriarchs. So Jesus addresses God in prayer (Mt 11:25,26, 26:39,42, Lu 10:21; 22:42; 23:34, Joh 11:41; 12:27; 17:24,25). In Mr 14:36; Ro 8:15, and Ga 4:6 ho pater, is appended even in direct address, in an emphatic sense. Servants were not permitted to use the appellation in addressing the head of the house.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary includes the idea that “[i]t is a term expressing warm affection and filial confidence.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament say that Jesus “applies to God a term which must have sounded familiar and disrespectful to His contemporaries because [it was] used in the everyday life of the family.” Eugene Peterson uses the word Papa in The Message. The Anchor Bible Dictionary mentions James Barr’s article “Abba” Isn’t “Daddy,” (JTS 39:28-47) to bring to light that the term was used not only by children, but by grown men in addressing their fathers. Of course, this argument doesn’t diminish the familiarity of the term. On a personal note, while I do not address my father as daddy, I do address him as dad even though I am over 50 years old.

Read Part 2