THE SHACK AND ITS FALSE VEIW OF THE TRINITY

THE SHACK AND ITS FALSE VEIW OF THE TRINITY

In recent months there has been a book that has swept the nation as being the next great Christian work. Eugene Peterson who is Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., also famously known for the The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language, says that, “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!” Famous Christian recording artist Michael W. Smith said, “THE SHACK [sic] will leave you craving for the presence of God” and television co-host Kathy Lee Gifford says, “The Shack will change the way you think about God forever.”

So it is no wonder that this book is growing so fast in its popularity. People who once felt as though God was far off now feel like He is right next to them. However, the problem is that the god of The Shack, by William P. Young, is not the God of the Bible. He may appear to be the trinitarian God explained in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, but what we will see is that this god is far from the same; which is why Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church, says, “Regarding the Trinity, it's actually heretical.”

Therefore the purpose of this paper will be to discuss the trinity of The Shack and the Trinity of the Bible. To do so we will discuss the nature of the hierarchy within the three members of the God-head (and in doing so give a definition of the what the true nature of the Trinity is), to see the idolatry of Young's trinity, the distinction of the members in relation to the incarnation, and lastly our response to the Triune God and how we relate to Him. Thus this paper should not be understood as a comprehensive analysis of the Trinity, nor a solution to all the false teachings of The Shack, but rather it is a brief discussion of a few of the errors it makes in regard to the triune nature of God.

The Loss of Hierarchy Within the Trinity

The first endeavor we must take in this paper is to clearly define what the Trinity looks like. It should be understood that this portion of the paper is not meant to be a theological paper on the Trinity, but an introduction to the Trinity which will give the basis for which we can show the trinity of The Shack to be false. And there is probably no better place to start than the Nicene Creed. Even though it is not canonical or authoritative itself and therefore remains second order, it is the most trusted creed of the church's history.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

One area of trinitarian theology that The Shack gets right is that all the members of the Godhead are completely equal in being,

Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense to us (122).

Thus Young does well to notice that there is no since of hierarchy of being among the members of the Trinity. The Father is equal to the Son and the Son is equal to the Spirit and the Spirit is equal to the Father in since of being. They are all God and of the same substance.

Where Young fails and leads to a false trinity is in his understanding of the roles within the Trinity. Later on in the paper the nature of the Godhead in the incarnation will be discussed, but for this portion we will discuss the fact that the Father is superior to the Son and the Father and Son are superior to the Spirit in an economical sense, but not in a ontological sense. There is no “circle of relationship” that does away with hierarchy and hierarchy does make sense to the Trinity.

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul sets out to show the proper authority structure of all things. By them there is a precedence for the order of how the world should be ordered. But notice what Paul says in verse 3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” In biblical language it is clear that when one is referred as the head of another that implies authority. Now, one could argue that head does not mean authority in the relation between God and Christ. They might even like to make that argument between man and woman, holding that there is no hierarchy between the two. But almost no Christian would make the argument that Christ and man are equal. Therefore, it is clear that Christ is in authority to man, man to woman, and God to Jesus.

Even Jesus made such statements referring to the Father's authority when He said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28) and “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me” ( John 6:38). Therefore, the true Trinity has an economic hierarchy that does not interfere with the ontological nature of each member.

It should also be noted that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. This shows further hierarchy within the Trinity. For this reason He is called “Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11), the “Spirit of His Son" (Gal 4:6), the “Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7) and the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9). The fact that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus makes since because Jesus himself said that He would send Him (Jn 15:26). Therefore the Bible is clear that a hierarchy does exist between the members of the Trinity and to do away with it causes a false trinity, which is worthy of no worship or praise.

The Threat of Idolatry in a False Trinity

In The Shack, the image of God is falsified and limits the omnipresence of our Lord and Savior. From the first encounter that the main character, Mack, has with god, until his visit is complete, the author has God in an appearance and also changing appearances that are not found in Scripture and are indeed actually going against what Scripture says about the God of the Bible. There are many dangers in doing this type of action. By doing this, we are attempting to put our Creator in and as a part of His creation. We are also then, making a physical image of God which is forbidden by Scripture as well. We see Mack having open conversation, joking, laughing and even cursing in front of God without a mediator. This image that we see of god through the Author’s eyes, is not the same god as the God of the Bible.

In Mack’s first encounter, god (the Father) appears to him in flesh as a large beaming African-American woman. Later in the book, he then changes appearances into a gray haired man (incarnation issues to be discussed later in the paper). Yet, in Scripture it tells us that God must not be portrayed in an image, that be statue, flesh, etc. John 4:24 says, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." God is the Creator. Therefore, He Himself, can not be created into a creation (i.e. a fleshly image). Isaiah 64:8 says, “But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.” Again this is making the distinction between the Potter (Creator) and the clay (creation).

In Exodus 20:4 we read, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” We are told repeatedly in Scripture not to think of God in any form or image and to simply worship Him in spirit and truth. Many times Mack describes the clothes, the size of the body and human mannerisms that the god of the book has.

We are told by the Apostle Paul what happens when humans try and do this. In Romans 1:22-25 Paul says,

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

We must be aware that this is what is taking place in this book and the dangerous implications it can have on our own walks with Christ if we are to compare and say that the god in this book is the God of the Bible.

Mack is seen in the book as having open, face to face communication with God. However, we know that this is also spoken against in Scripture. 1 Timothy 2:15 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” As children of God we are able to approach the throne of God with boldness, however we are able to come and do this through the blood of Christ Jesus who is our mediator. Jesus Christ has the authority to be the mediator due the fact that He is the One who by His death and resurrection, has been found worthy to fulfill this task. He is our only way to God. Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Sin separates us from God. God can not look upon our sin. Isaiah 59:2 says, “...but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that He does not hear.” We might be able to commune face to face with the god of The Shack, but to commune with God we must approach Him through the Mediator, Jesus Christ. Therefore we should be weary of the idol The Shack has made for us.

The Biblical Understanding of the Trinity in Relation the Incarnation

Another disturbing theological error found in Young’s book is the idea that God the Father and the Holy Spirit took on human flesh. While it is true that God the Son took on human flesh at the incarnation, Young’s presentation blurs the biblical distinction between the persons of the Trinity. In the book, Papa (a female representation of God) says concerning the Godhead, “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed…we now became flesh and blood” (emphasis added, 99). It is important to first understand that the persons of the trinity are of the same essence, as the Nicene Creed and the testimony of Scripture affirm (Jn 10:30). However, the Bible makes it very clear that each person of the Trinity has a separate and distinct role. This is especially true in the incarnation and the work of redemption.

All four Gospels record that before he began His public ministry, Jesus went to the Jordan River, where He was baptized by John the Baptist. The Gospels say that after Jesus came up from the water, the Spirit descended and remained on Him. After this, Matthew, Mark, and Luke write that God’s voice came from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mat 3:17). While God was here declaring Christ’s messianic sonship, these texts also show a clear distinction between the persons of the Trinity. But according to Young, there was no distinction, as all three persons were made flesh at the incarnation. This is a clear distortion of the biblical presentation.

Further testimony from Jesus himself is also recorded in the Gospel of John, showing a clear distinction of roles within the Godhead. At the last supper, Jesus is explaining to his disciples what is about to take place in the days after he is betrayed, crucified, and raised. Here, he says to the disciples, “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (Jn 16:28). Jesus makes it clear here that he came into the world from the Father. In fact, he says the same thing about the Helper who was to come after him, that is, the Holy Spirit who also, “…proceeds from the Father…” (Jn 15:26). While God is definitely omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10), Jesus makes it clear in these passages that there is still some sense in which the manifested presence of God resides elsewhere, that is, in heaven. So, while Jesus was on the earth to do the will of God, the manifestation of Father was in heaven simultaneously. Once again, this is not to diminish the omnipresence of God. However, it clarifies the separate roles and persons of the Trinity.

Furthermore, Jesus says to his disciples in John 16:7: “…it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” Here, Jesus comforts his disciples in the face of His departure, promising that the Holy Spirit will be sent to them. A clear implication of this promise is that the Holy Spirit had not yet fully manifested Himself, even though Christ had. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said, “…if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you”, for, if the Helper was fully present with Christ, then he would have already been there because Christ was there. Thus, there was a sense in which the Helper was not yet fully present with the disciples. A different manifestation of the Holy Spirit was yet to come. The Holy Spirit had not been made into flesh with Jesus.

In regards to the Father, Young’s view of the incarnation is clearly in opposition to what Scripture says. For God told Moses, “…you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). In light of this passage, one might say that the only way to make sense of Jesus’ coming is to conclude that Jesus was not fully God. However, this denies Christ’s divinity and thus, his sufficient atonement. Rather, in trying to understand the great mystery that is the Trinity, one must be willing to conclude that it is simply beyond our understanding, for Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). The only way to relate these passages is to conclude that while Jesus was fully divine, he himself was and is a distinct person from the Father, as is the Spirit. The only other alternatives are to deny the divinity of Christ or to go against Exodus 33:20 as Young does. Thus, Young distorts the biblical presentation by blending roles within the Trinity in the incarnation.

Our Relationship With the Trinity

In the first three sections of this paper we dealt with the nature of the Trinity, the danger of idolatry which The Shack creates in its false trinity, and lastly how the three members of the Trinity have different roles in the incarnation. This last section will be spent on how we are to relate to the Trinity and how it differs from the imagery of the shack. In The Shack, Mack goes into the shack and has a meeting with god. In the meeting, not only is god portrayed as a larger black woman, which we have already discussed to be idolatry, but Mack has no reverence before God. In all biblical accounts, when a man goes before God it is with great fear.

In Isaiah 6, the prophet Isaiah pronounces a curse upon himself when he saw the Lord. After seeing the Seraphim crying out, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3), Isaiah says, “Woe is me, for I am ruined!” (6:5) The prophet was terrified because he, a sinner with “unclean lips” (6:5) was standing before a perfect and holy God.

Moses, in Exodus 33, prays to see the glory of God (18). God tells Moses that he will let him see His face, but he must hide himself in the cleft of the rock and only see his back side, because God said, “You cannot see my face, for no man can see Me and live!” (20). Then in Exodus 34 the Lord does pass by Moses as He said and when He did “Moses made haste to bow low toward the earth and worship” (8). Even though Moses has asked for God to pass before him, he bowed before the majesty of a holy God.

The last one we will look at is John the Apostle's experience found in Revelation 1. In verses 12 through 16 we see Jesus come in and speak to John. John speaks of Him in such majestic terms that all John can do is fall down at His feet as though dead (17). Thus John is just like the other members mentioned in the Bible who have terrifying experiences before the Lord. Coming into the presence of a holy God is not something that the biblical members found to be all that enjoyable. It was horrible for them.

Now some would argue that such experiences were not the case during the life and ministry of Jesus. However, the incarnation is something completely different from what came before it and what has taken place since His ascension. During the incarnation Jesus emptied Himself (Philippians 2:7) of His divine glory. This is not to say that He emptied Himself of His god-ness, but that He did not appear as He did before the incarnation and as He does now (the nature of the incarnation has been discussed at length earlier in this paper so I will not deal with that discussion at this point). What we must understand is that no member of the Trinity is like Jesus during his life and ministry. All members of the Trinity are now full of glory and terrifying to all who come upon Them.

However, that is not the idea of God that we get from The Shack. The trinitarian god of The Shack is weak, overly emotional, without power, lacking all holiness, and without any since of self-righteousness (a trait that only God is worthy of). What we find in The Shack is Mack using foul language before god (140, 224), Mack getting angry at god (92, 96), which at one point causes god to weep (92). What we do not see is a man before a omnipotent and holy God, but a man among another mere man. So even though The Shack tries to portray the God of the Bible (and I think Young genuinely does), he fails miserably and in the end creates an idol to be worshiped.

It is also good for us to look at Young's false view of Scripture. Though it might be wrong to say that Young is making intentional statements to reduce the value of Scripture, in the end he does so by elevating the worth of other things. The Bible is clear that it is the primary source of revelation to God's people. It can be argued (and I think it would be correct to say) that God can speak (in a very generic and loose sense) to us through different means of His general revelation. However, that is not the same as God's special revelation to us. We are dependent on the revelation of God in the Scriptures for all areas of life and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

However, in The Shack, Sarayu, who is suppose to be representing the Holy Spirit, says,

You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or though people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles, look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us (198).

This is a completely foreign thought to the Scriptures and should be understood as a form of idolatry. God has spoken definitively in His Word, both in the written word and in the incarnate Word. There no longer remains any need for revelation from God (see Hebrews 1:1-4).

Conclusion

Thus, what we have is a book that has spread widely and quickly because what it does is lower the kind of God we have down to a god who is on our level. Moderns hate the idea of a God who has authority structures within Himself because that would make authority structures in our current social structure valid. It is simple to see why people would want to make God into an idol they can better relate to, which in the end is no god at all, so that they do not feel so inferior to His infinite attributes. Having a god who is like us makes him more manageable, but what you end up with is not God.

As for the incarnation, it is no wonder that Young wants to do away with the fact that the Son became flesh and the others remained as they were. For him, the other members of the Trinity need to be tamed, brought down to our level. And with his portrayal of the Son, we see that Young does not hold to a Son who has been highly exulted and praised. Jesus remains a middle eastern man to hang out with, not a majestic Lord who is awe inspiring.

Ultimately, what we must see is that The Shack is a book on theology, in which Young gives us his portrayal of God. Sadly, millions of people are being influenced by it and the god they are getting is trinitarian, but not the Trinity. Therefore, the reader must be ware of the dangers of this false god and make sure that the Trinity they worship is the Trinity of the Bible and not of some novel. The Trinity of the Bible is One of great power and majesty and all who seek to come to Him should do so in reverence and fear.