Quote - Inexcusable Hubris

Sorry Tim, no cookie.

…your guilty of hermeneutically cherry-picking to support your Isogetical Presupositionalism…

Your right - but your also wrong, because your argument ignores the full theological context of the Word and what it says about the nature and how we can see and understand God in creating your “idolatry argument” against The Shack

This argument reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a friend who feels very strongly that women are prohibited scripturally from being in ministry leadership positions, especially from being pastors. It is my own opinion, that the arguments which are generally used for such doctrinal posturings, essentially arise from a juvenile or shallow exegesis, which is actually more-so often passive isogesis masquerading as “deep theological thinking” when in fact it is shallow and pressumptive. Allowing the full context of the scriptural voice to speak, as well as taking into account contextual relations, the arguments break down. Of course you can preach great sermons by telling people what they want to really hear and ignoring all those ‘inconvenient little details’ in leu of “smooth things” (Isaiah 30:10, Mica 2:11) . You essentially have to have an oversimplified understanding for it to work. Allowing the scripture to speak ‘with all it’s colors and subtexts’ the truth is something quite different. A good detail of this issue is the Assemblies of God position paper on Women in Ministry which goes through and - and though it does not use the terms - shows the ‘brute force isogetical presupositionalism” of those who try to argue against women in ministry. (http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4191_women_ministry.cfm)

We have used brute force isogetical presuppositionalism to argue for Prohibition and a lot of other “isms” that fit our own securities and assumptions. Waltke is correct to remind us these truths, but if we ignore the fact that Proverbs does speak of the wisdom of God, as a woman, and that a good theological study of Gender concludes that both are mirrors into the Divine nature in respective ways - if we focus on the “emphasis” (what ever that might be) and ignore the surrounding additive and balancing contexts/essences, we will potentially inadvertently fall prey to the trap of Isogetical Presuppositionalism.

Trying to “beat the ‘Shack’ up” - a book a lot of people don’t like, just because they were told they should not like it, using this argument, seems great, but, sorry guys - you are creating a straw man argument, and you are pushing yourselves into KJVonly-like mentality territory employing weak arguements like this. Armchair theologians and some parisioners will cheer you on - but the Word is always the final authority - and your arguement is not airtight. The counterbalances of the scripture are there and you have to acknowledge them in this situation to speak correction against this sort of heavy handed handling. When you ignore the full context and voice of scripture then you risk making yourself a liar - because the Word will always be self- authenticating, self-balancing, and TRUE.

The truth is - most of you here, don’t like the book and you never will. A couple of you will read it, and you will find a sovereign God that used something unexpected to change your life and possibly even heal you. A smaller percentage of you will have the ‘brave humility’ to break rank and say - “I was wrong.” If you are a member of this small minority who allowed the Word to break through previous isogetical-political/cultural assumptions and operative norms, then contrary to what people will tell you - you have the makings of a true student of the Word, even a great theologian - because you have accepted and implemented a radical manifestation of truly allowing the Word of God to manifest it’s Lordship in your life, at the potential cost of your pride, and potentially, even the respect and acceptance of your peers. And personally - if God is really calling you into ministry, then, I beleive, this will happen to you in some dimension or other. God will test you to see who you are really following, The “Religious Bandwagon” - or His Word.

Remember guys, Calvinism is “all about the Sovereignty of God” and if you actually believe that - it means that God can use stuff like this book to do tremendous things for the kingdom of God.

Respectfully Submitted,

matthew lipscomb

Ok, I’ll back up and “repunt” and reillustrate this issue for you a second time, and in a second way; perhaps in terms some of you can grasp more easily.

The largest majority of you here are adent Calvinists, and a number of you have actually studied the theologian’s work for youself and not just sat at the other end of an idologicial spigot.

Those of you who have read his works recall his discussion of God’s “condescension” to his creature - that His own revelation of Himself and Glory, Truth, and Power is essentially “baby talk” for lack of a better term. I believe that Calvin says that God speaks with a “lisp” when He communicates to us through His Word.

You guys are all bent out of shape because an author utilized the female gender aspect of the nature and essence of the Godhead - and you can only see him through the masculine aspects. Who has the hangup? God is not a woman - BUT HE’S NOT A MAN EITHER. He is God and, ultimately, He is as Tillich suggests - ‘wholly other.’

God gives us explicit instruction that we are to approach him and worship him and in large part understand him though Masculinity - but do not confuse how God reveals himself and instructs you to approach Him as something that you can explicitity state has a completelness and a finality in terms of the totality of His actual essence - because it is essentially a relational abstraction and not His true nature which is independent of any aproachable understanding. He is not a man - He is beyond a man - and he is not a woman - he is beyond what a woman is. These are just archtypical abstractions that are ultimately condescending lisps.

The larger issue behind this - is the way that you react to abuses of these same concepts “in the other direction.” Yes, there are a plethora of examples of people who only want to see God as a merciful woman, and these do violence to the apprehension of God as we are instructed to possesss and seek it. But if you react to an abuse with an abuse yourself - then you are no better then the Racist who became a Racist because they were racially descriminated against or the man who grows up to abuse his kids because his father abused him. This is a dimension of the brokeness of Adamic Sin, manefest through total depravity: that you will intrinsically try to manefest an equally wrong sin, even if it is diametrical in nature to that which sin which orginially offended. When I watch all of you guys here leap into error in your attempt to speak correction to what you see as an abuse I can only think: how ironic; your total depravity at work.

The question that separates those of you out here who are astute students of the Word/budding theologians vs. those who are just out cheering their side of the football game is all in the response to this ‘percieved’ error or any actual error otherwise.

Do you respond by affirming that God is positionally approached via masculinity but that he is not necessarily a man? There is a big difference between The Shack and The Reimaging Conference which deliberately sought to discard the Patriarical approach. Or do you just emphasis one aspect and slash and burn everything that states otherwise.

I can poke fun of all the lilly-white pictures of Jesus that I see all over; ones in which he looks like he could be the front man in a boy-band ensomble. Jesus was Dark skinned and UGLY. His tribe was the darkest of the Jews and he was not ‘that which you would want to gaze upon.’ If you want to talk about widespread idolatry - talk about that.

The Shack is not a systematic theology tome. It is a fictional story about a man who has pushed God out of his life and God’s attempt to break back into it, in a way that He will not be pushed back out.

You have idolized the Condescension of God over the fullness of His revealed nature which is much more then a Gender. Gentlemen, in the words of J.B. Phillips - “Your God is Too Small.”

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof

Dear Joel,

In regards to your decision to not read the book - that is certainly understandable, but I do find that unfortunate. Regardless of the fact that you may well be like myself, in that I find considerably more joy in reading dusty old theological books culled from used bookstores - I would still encourage it; because no one can judge what God can and cannot do with something such as it. The book does tend to deeply impact people who have delt with great tragedy, and a number of people whom I have tremendous respect for, have wept through the entirety of reading it. But I am not going to belabor any invitation to it’s reading. Lives are being changed by it - regardless of what you think of it. And at least two of those lives are people very, very close to me. And I am deeply greatful for the fruit and the healing that I have seen in their lives.

1) ” However, this is not particularly relevant” Yes it is. The Shack is not a Systematic Theology manual. It is the fictonal story of God reaching out to damaged human being in a uniqe way. Your stated objection (or at least the inital idea of this thread) is that it is unallowable to think of God in a femine dimension, inasmuch as one could write a story in which God choses to manefest himself as a woman. Tim Challies has repeated the charge that Mark Driscol asserted: that this is “Idolary” I assert that such a charge is bogus as it is not a scriptural assertion, as I show you here.

2) Please refer to the previously provided link to the Assemblies of God Position Paper on women in Ministry. This is more then adequate in that regard, as it is thourough in it’s nature.

3) Sorry, you are wrong. Please read Proverbs 1:20-33 This verse clearly illustrates God as female in at least this verse. You have to deal with this verse. God used the motif of a woman, long before the author of The Shack did. If you are offended at the shack then you need to be very offended at this verse in Proverbs. Perhaps you are - but that is good thing. It is good to confronted by the Word and to be corrected by it. It is actually beautiful and liberating. Please don’t take this a contest of wills. It’s a process of transformation.

4) No - I submit that it is you who are influenced by the rigidity of populist thinking - after all; you are the one who said you allowed your own decisions to be made for you. You jumped on the anti-shack bandwagon and you’ve parrotted inaccurate theological criticicms that don’t hold exegetical water.

Thinking of God as a woman is not Heretical Idolatry, as long as you maintain a context within your thought. You denying Proverbs 1: 20 - that God can only be though of in terms of Maleness - is like radical feminist theologians who deny a primarily masculine approach. My Point has been all along, just what matthew neal says, you are trying to speak correction and you are going too far. Church history is full of people, such as Nestorius, who became heretics themselves in trying to fight other heretics. I know that this sounds judgemental, but I think alot of “big names” jumped the gun on condemming the book - and they’ve essentially been called on it, and they are having to resort to very weak arguments to try to say, “Hey I’m still right” I hope that this is not the case. I hope these people are not so prideful they cannot say the magic words - “I was wrong.”

5) Please examine the box of God describing himself as a woman in Proverbs. It is now safe to discard your old box.

======================
Proverbs 1:20-33

‘she’ = GOD

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, [saying], How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.