I had pondered about maybe going to church this morning (well it is Easter and it has been a while since I darkened the step of an ecclesiastical enterprise…and when I say a while I mean years); but whilst Christ may have risen this glorious morning, 1iz didn’t quite manage it.
Which is rather pathetic isn’t it?
On the compensatory side I won’t be eating any chocolate eggs either.
Also, on the urging of others, I have started reading The Shack, but I’m not really sure which bit of it is supposed to be revelatory let alone revolutionary.
So far gone I can't even spot what things some might suppose heretical.
Ho hum.
2 comments:
I thought the shack was interesting but very cheesy. And I think a lot of people found it revolutionary because God was - gasp! - a woman - I suspect some of them thought that was why I would like it - but I felt it didn't go far enough, in that God was a woman because that was what Mack needed at the time, rather than any real idea of gender-neutrality. I also thought the writing style was a bit painful.
Totally agreeing with what you say. It comes across as rather twee and schmultzy and well, to me, 'safe'.
So the supposedly controversial/revolutionary bit is that God the Father appears to Mack as an African-American Woman is it? Really?
Ah well, funny what spooks the horses these days ;-)
Is the author somehow 'acceptable' in certain circles that makes the presentation of such a concept more remarkable or something?
I really am out of touch aren't I? Can't really say that worries me overly...
Ah well, I'll endeavour to plough on with the second half.
Post a Comment