The Shack

[dysert]

If God is omnipresent, doesn't that mean that technically he is in everything?

No, because God is separate from His creation.

 

[CrystalDragon]

No, because God is separate from His creation.

But omnipresent means absolutely everywhere. Someone can't be everywhere and not everywhere at the same time. Either God is omnipresent or he's not.

 

[mkgal1]

If God is omnipresent, doesn't that mean that technically he is in everything?

Ah.....good point.

 

[mkgal1]

No, because God is separate from His creation.

Not completely, though.....God is immanent (and that's not a "new" idea). Also.....there are plenty of verses that use the phrase, "God in us".

 

[jimmyjimmy]

We need to respect God enough to take Him at his word, just as we would want someone to take us at our word when we reveal ourselves to another. For instance, if I were to say to you that I am a middle-aged man who enjoys playing chess, and you said turned around and said that you like to think of me as an older woman who enjoys skiing, would that change my identity? Would it not also reveal that you don't care about me, only yourself?

 

[mkgal1]

We need to respect God enough to take Him at his word

.....but that's the point. In this movie, any changes to typical mainstream Christianity is in the areas where we don't really have definitive knowledge. All we have in these areas are theories....conjecture (and lots of bias revealed through the years).

 

[Resha Caner]

I wasn't making the point that God = creation.

It appeared that way at first. Words have meaning, and if there is a misunderstanding part of conversation is clarifying that meaning ... which you have ... somewhat. If you're not going to be open about what you think, this isn't much of a conversation. If you don't think it's possible to be wrong about God, the gulf between us is probably too large.

I get this visual in my head when reading comments like the above--that there are people sitting on the edge of their seats *concerned*-- and even looking for--words that are just a bit out of the norm.

How about rather than superimposing the pre-made and unrelated visuals in your head, you actually get to know me. If you don't, aren't you doing exactly what you're objecting to?

 

[Resha Caner]

We need to respect God enough to take Him at his word, just as we would want someone to take us at our word when we reveal ourselves to another. For instance, if I were to say to you that I am a middle-aged man, and you said turned around and said that you like to think of me as an older woman, would that change mu identity, and would that reveal that you don't care about me, only yourself.

Yup.

 

[Resha Caner]

If God is omnipresent, doesn't that mean that technically he is in everything?

First, why should I accept that God is omnipresent? But second, no, even if you were correct that God is omnipresent it doesn't mean he is in everything.

But omnipresent means absolutely everywhere.

If you go to dictionary.com, you will see many examples of the word's use that don't mean what you're implying. However, if that's how you want to use the word, then my answer is no, God is not omnipresent. Again, why should I accept that God is as you propose?

 

[mkgal1]

First, why should I accept that God is omnipresent? But second, no, even if you were correct that God is omnipresent it doesn't mean he is in everything.

No one says you have to accept that God is omnipresent, but isn't that a foundational Christian belief?

Ephesians 4:6= "and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all."

The Bible teaches that God is everywhere present—omnipresent. In every place in the universe God is present. He is not limited by space.

The psalmist wrote:

Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you (Psalm 139:7-12).

David said that God's presence couldn't be eluded through space (verse 8), speed (verse 9), or darkness verse 12). In other words, nothing in the universe can hide a person from God.

God's Form Is Not Spread Out

This is not to say that God's form is spread out so that parts of Him exist in every location. God is spirit; He has no physical form. He is present everywhere in that everything is immediately in His presence. At the same time He is present everywhere in the universe. No one can hide from Him and nothing escapes His notice.

Nobody Can Hide From God [...] ~Is God Everywhere at Once? (Omnipresent)

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

I hope the movie is still out.

 

[mkgal1]

It is where I live (although not in as many theaters).

 

[FireDragon76]

It doesn't sound like a movie or book I'd like. There are plenty of other works that makes this point the author is trying to make without trying to draw a smilie face on a sacred mystery to ease his existential angst. Such as Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love (which I doubt the author has ever read). Maybe God condescends to him in the process, but I can't get over the "yuck" factor. It sounds like more pop theology from mainstream American evangelicalism.

Although there were "religious" books and "secular" books, they thought, there were no titles in the middle ground, no "spiritual" novels that cast God as a path to happiness without serving up dogma. The Shack is just that book, and its success proves not how much this country loves religion but how far from mainstream faith the nation's aspirations have shifted.

Why We Love The Shack, the Self-Published Novel by William P. Young

Is that a fair estimation of this story?

 

[Resha Caner]

No one says you have to accept that God is omnipresent, but isn't that a foundational Christian belief?

Ephesians 4:6= "and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all."

As @CrystalDragon used the word, no it's not a part of Christianity. As I said from the beginning, it's an expression of pantheism. Water in a glass doesn't mean water is the glass. Speaking to you through a computer doesn't mean I am a computer. Ephesians chapter 4 is speaking about the body of Christ, and so even in that case the meaning is only that the Spirit is in all Christians, not all human beings, not all things - further that the Spirit is in us doesn't mean the Spirit is us.

All of this is a digression from the original disagreement, but at this point I don't expect we'll return to that.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Bible does teach divine omnipresence. (Psalms 139:7-11)

 

[ViaCrucis]

As @CrystalDragon used the word, no it's not a part of Christianity. As I said from the beginning, it's an expression of pantheism. Water in a glass doesn't mean water is the glass. Speaking to you through a computer doesn't mean I am a computer. Ephesians chapter 4 is speaking about the body of Christ, and so even in that case the meaning is only that the Spirit is in all Christians, not all human beings, not all things - further that the Spirit is in us doesn't mean the Spirit is us.

This seems like a conflation of panentheism with pantheism; God's immanence and omnipresence is God's everywhereness; the Apostle says "He is not very far from us" and "in Him we live, and move, and have our being". CrystalDragon said that God is in everything (not that God is everything); which is a thoroughly orthodox statement to make: God is everywhere and pervades everything, the entirety of His creation. "The heavens, not even the highest heavens" can contain Him, because He can't be contained; but yet He is not some Deistic deity utterly removed from the cosmos; He fills all things, pervades all things, He is beyond all things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

This seems like a conflation of panentheism with pantheism; God's immanence and omnipresence is God's everywhereness; the Apostle says "He is not very far from us" and "in Him we live, and move, and have our being". CrystalDragon said that God is in everything (not that God is everything); which is a thoroughly orthodox statement to make.

Context, my friend. If I have misunderstood CrystalDragon, I am more than willing to admit it, apologize ... whatever is appropriate. However, we are in a Clintonesque morass of meaning here. What is the meaning of is? I have conversed with more than one pantheist who phrases their position as "God is in the tree. God is in everything." So, yes, it is a matter of conflation.

I asked for clarification, but have received none, so I don't know what else to do but continue with the impression I have.

The context, however, was my objection to expressing God in terms we choose - appropriate or not - rather than terms God has used to reveal himself to us. More specifically, we were discussing God the Father and how The Shack chooses to represent him as a woman. That is only the first of my objections to the book. Writing is a hobby of mine, and I've wrestled with the idea of putting words in God's mouth; I've discussed it with many other writers. I prefer not to, and think there is a large spectrum of creative possibilities for expressing Christianity in a story without resorting to kidnapping God. I realize not all agree with me, but it remains a view I promote.

 

[dysert]

Context, my friend. If I have misunderstood CrystalDragon, I am more than willing to admit it, apologize ... whatever is appropriate. However, we are in a Clintonesque morass of meaning here. What is the meaning of is? I have conversed with more than one pantheist who phrases their position as "God is in the tree. God is in everything." So, yes, it is a matter of conflation.

The context, however, was my objection to expressing God in terms we choose - appropriate or not - rather than terms God has used to reveal himself to us. More specifically, we were discussing God the Father and how The Shack chooses to represent him as a woman. That is only the first of my objections to the book. Writing is a hobby of mine, and I've wrestled with the idea of putting words in God's mouth; I've discussed it with many other writers. I prefer not to, and think there is a large spectrum of creative possibilities for expressing Christianity in a story without resorting to kidnapping God. I realize not all agree with me, but it remains a view I promote.

I have to agree that as a general rule it's good not to put words in God's mouth.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have to agree that as a general rule it's good not to put words in God's mouth.

Thanks. [edit] I will further add that it seems to me many fictional treatments of God portray God as a fictional person. To me it seems more appropriate that, when writing of God, we should use the norms of history or journalism and treat him as a real, living person ... which he is.

I cringe almost as much when Benjamin Franklin shows up in all kinds of pop-fiction shows about the American Revolution.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks. [edit] I will further add that it seems to me many fictional treatments of God portray God as a fictional person. To me it seems more appropriate that, when writing of God, we should use the norms of history or journalism and treat him as a real, living person ... which he is.

I cringe almost as much when Benjamin Franklin shows up in all kinds of pop-fiction shows about the American Revolution.

So your concern is propriety and respect? I think that's appropriate. There is often a lacking sense of awe and majesty concerning God in some pop-Christian spirituality.

What do you think of C.S. Lewis where he creates a thinly veiled allusion to God through a talking lion? Is this different from what the Shack is doing? It seems to me imagination to some extent has always been an important part of western spirituality, going back to at least the middle ages.