Diminishing Glory

lisa »

Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Canuckster,
It is really a privilege to explore this with some one with your credentials.
Is the book a metaphorical parable, as I suggested earlier?
Aside from the literary questions, and my lack of background in that area, I still have some theological questions. I am going to try to nail them down a bit more, and post later with those. Thanks!

Diminishing Glory

lisa »

Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have been pondering the (apparent) conflict of God’s mercy, and His justice. Earlier, when I noted that I had some concerns that Gods attributes had been quartered off in the Shack, these were the two that were primary, though others were also in jeopardy.
I am not commenting on intent here, just some theological concerns.
In God’s multitudinous attributes, if I might digress for a moment, I do think there is one foundational point that must be made before we proceed with just these two polar aspects.
In His being, are attributes isolated or they integrated? Are all the persons of the Godhead endowed with all? The understanding of integration, as revealed in His Creation, and revealed in His word, is key here. Are we to see God as this or that at this time or that time, or eternally complete, intact?
Loving-kindness and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.Ps. 85:10
In this scripture, together is the word pagash in the original. It clearly is a word that implies joining, integration as does the word nashaq (kissed).
Our complete healing is based not on any one of God’s attributes. He, in all his completeness, has honored us with himself through Jesus Christ. Aside with our guarding His name by not limiting any attribute, we are truncating his fullness experientially, not appropriating His compete provision.
I am considering the forsaken Christ in this light, and will get back with you…
God bless!
PS Canuckster: no offense intended, and I do defer to your credentials. I am a sometimes nursing home housekeeper and aide.

Diminishing Glory

lisa »

Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Canuckster,
Are you an employee of the christianpost? I had to resubmitt my post after the post deleted it, and then you replied.
Thank you for your reply though.
Lisa

Diminishing Glory

lisa »

Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Canuckster, I will try to cover your concerns…
Literary devices: I heard the author state he used parable to tell his story. He said that when Jesus told parables, the stories were not real, but they were true. That makes sense, and I think that it was a neat way to tell his story.
Here is part of one of Christ parables:.
John 15
5I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
So, obviously, Christ is not a grape vine, and we are not branches with fruit hanging off of us. But, Christ carefully illustrates what our relationship is like and how His life expresses itself through us. He is using this device to reveal truth.
I understand that the book is a metaphoric parable, but I am not certain that it reveals biblical truth. I disagree with you that those who object to this message don’t understand metaphors, similes, or parables. The subject here is what is true, not literary devices. (Truth is important when we are dealing with the nature of God.)
Conuckster, here is a quote from your post: ///Don't like God portrayed as a woman? Take a look at Luke 15 and the parable of the missing coin and who God is represented by? Don't like the idea of God represented by a racial minority, then by all means feel free to take Jesus to task for daring to shock his listeners by invoking the image of a "Good" Samaritan.///Ouch. ad hominem argument (aka:personal attack.) You actually just hurt my feeling here. First, I am a women. Second, the large African American lady was very attractive to me because I have several large African American ladies that I hug daily, that enrich my life. An odd thing about the author and myself is that we have an enormous amount in common.
But, now I am falling into the trap of the ad hominem argument.
But, all is forgiven,
OK, now on to legalism.
Legalism is sin. Pure and simple.
2nd chapter of Ephesians: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what God has made us, created in Chris Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
If I could be circumcised, I wouldn’t be (well , maybe for health reasons).
Are you confusing legalism with the defense of sound doctrine?
Titus 1:99(A)holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in (B)sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Now onto the prison population…..
Ok, being a victim of abuse myself, I have a deeply felt compassion for the writer of this book. But, I disagree that I should reject some of God’s attributes in favor of others, to fit what I feel I need. That is truly putting Him in a box.
He, in all of His fullness, is what I need.
God Bless!

Diminishing Glory

lisa »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I am really responding to canuckster, because I am interested what he/she said.
I had, as Mr. Colson, been a bit concerned about the diminished glory of God in this book. I felt deeply for the author, and when I heard his personal story, was heartbroken for him.
The issue here, though, is the content of the book. Mr. Young has stepped away, not from traditional church teachings (though I think that was what he had a reaction too, the misrepresentation of God by some who really do "put him in a box"), that would be justified, but he has really stepped away from the God revealed in the scriptures and as confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
This is a grave concern.
But I want to understand the posters response. There seems to be an almost dedication to this book, and when many have rebutted some of our concerns, it gets a bit personal. Mr. Colson's insensitivity to those in pain comes into question in your post.
What is the source of the fervor for this book? I have seen this anger before, and it confuses me.