I think someone once said about the doctrine of the Trinity that..."If you try to understand it you will lose your mind, if you try to deny it you will lose your soul." Though I have not really met any Christian that denies the Trinity I think secretly many harbor that it is a confusing idea that is largely irrelevant to authenitic faith. The Trinity for some, though admittedly orthodox, is little more than a confusing math quandry: 1 (deity) + 1 (deity) + 1 (deity)=1 (God) Huh??? Christian have historically been accused by some as people who cannot count. (In fact the popular pastor and author T.D. Jakes denies the Trinity. For many evangelicals this is not a major strike against him.)


In contrast, I believe that one of the greatest contributions of The Shack is that is helps us to conceptulize the Trinity in some very profound, relational, and...YES...biblical ways. Further, it articulates the utterly profound importance of the doctrine. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is the distinctive view we as Christians (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) hold of God distinct from the great monotheistic faiths of Islam and Judaism, and specially distinct from the non-monotheistic faiths of Hindusim, Buddhism, etc. Yet, there are important areas where The Shack gets the Trinity wrong.


In this writing I want to examine how The Shack can serve to bring a fresh revival of this vital doctrine.


What is the Trinity? Mack gives us somewhat of a definition...

...there are three of you and you are all one God.
(p.101)

This is an acceptable definition, but it is stated with more clarity from the lips of Papa (Himself??? Herself???).

Mackenzie...We are not three gods and we are not
talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father,
and worker. I am one God and three persons, and each of the three is fully and
entirely the one. (p.101)

This is a very good defintion. First it denies "modalism." Modalism is the idea that God is simply one God who shows Himself in three ways or expressions. This is a common misconception held by too many evangelicals (specially T.D. Jakes) and The Shack serves as a corrective.


But, of course, the "one God and three persons" idea is still very confusing for most. I will be the first to admit that with our own minds we know as much about God as a fly knows about mucleur physics. But for me, if I may be so bold, the Trinity isn't confusing. I don't believe it is meant to be so hard to understand. It is the way I have come through the years to more and more think of God. I believe that if you think of God in a trinitarian way, just as you familiarize yourself with a foreign language, guess what??? the Trinity will not as foreign or strange of a concept.


What about the math of the Trinity? It is confusing for some because 1 deity + 1 deity + 1 deity=3 deities. But we emphatically say the Trinity is one God not three. What we don't realize is that when we do that kind of math we are using the wrong connection symbol. The math of the Trinity is 1 x 1 x 1=1. Let go to the beginning...

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)

Notice that when God created He did so as one God, not as two, three, or any multiple of numbers. Yet He also uses the personal pronouns that are in a plural form..."us" and "our." God does not say, "Let me make man in my image." What is important to realize about this passage is that in the preceeding verses (1:1-25) they refer to what God does, His works in creation. Verse 26 stands in distinction in that it refers to who God is. When referring to who God is it refers to Him as a "unity (One God) within plurality (multiple persons)." At this point people have a cerebral knee jerk reaction and respond, "This makes no sense!" What a minute? In our national Pledge of Allegiance we refer to ourselves as "One nation under God, indivisible..." This concept contains the idea of a unity (one nation) which exisits in plurality (50 states).


But what does this plurality within unity have to do with God? Where does the three and the one come in? How can God be three and how can God be one? Isn't this a mathematical contradiction? The answer to this is simple...the way in which God is three is not identical in the same respect with the way God is one.

So, in what respect is God one? Let's look at Ephesians 4:2-7.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of
all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace
has been given as Christ apportioned it. Eph 4:2-7

Notice all the plurality of persons. All persons of the Trinity are mentioned and are separately referred to as "one Spirit," "one Lord," and "one Father." But they are also given the designation of "one." This is a practically and theologically important truth. How are they one? They are one in two very important ways: 1) The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in divine nature. They are equally divine and equally eternal, equally God. 2) They are completely one in unity: purpose, thought, feeling without any friction or difficulty. So what does this mean? What does this look like? The reason the Trinity is so hard for us to understand is not an issue of logic, it is an issue of experience where we are so marred by sin and selfishness. But we do have glimpses of the trinitarian experience. Pastor Kevin Miller writes: Maybe a family when it was at its most healthy and loving. A sports team when people stopped worrying about their own egos. A support group where you felt cared for in spite of your brokenness. A music group when you finally got lost in the music. Because to experience the Trinity is to experience a community of love.

It is here that The Shack lends us much conceptual help. Look at Mack's description of the Trinity as he sees Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu (Indian term meanining "air" or "wind"). On one occasion as the divine trio is preparing for a meal and are engaging in light hearted humor, Mack observes...

They passed the food to one another and Mack was spellbound watching and listening as Papa joined in the conversation Jesus and Sarayu were having. It had something to do with reconciling as estranged family, but it wasn’t what they were talking about that captured Mack, it was how they related. He never had seen three people share with such simplicity and beauty. Each seemed more aware of the other than of themselves. (p.120-121)

Again, during the preparation for the meal, Jesus drops what Mack perceived to be some type of batter or sauce. This occassion becomes the opportunity for teasing and horse play amongst the Trinity and Mack responds...

So this was God in relationship? It was beautiful and so appealing. He knew that it didn’t matter whose fault it was-the mess from some bowl had been broken, that a dish that had been planned would not be shared. Obviously, what was truly important here was the love they had for one another and the fullness it brought them. He shook his head. How different this was from the way he treated the ones he loved! (p.105)

Personally I see this as a very beautiful and compelling reflection of who God is...He is a community of mutual and self-giving love, a divine family.

And though God is one, He is also three. In what way or respect is He a plurality??? Let's suggest two ways: 1) They differ in roles, and 2) as distinct persons of love who first and foremost love each other. The Shack certainly brings out the love that the Trinity has for one another. But it seriously misrepresents the distinctions that are in God's triune relationship. The Shack adopts too much of a bland sameness in the divine persons, rather than the brilliant distinctions of orderly submission. In fact The Shack says there is no ordered distinction in the Trinity. For example...

“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 among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.” (p.122)

"That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him or Sarayu to me or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the
same way.” (p.145)

These statements are simply incorrect. For instance, we never read that the Father submits to the Son or takes any direction or guidance from Him. The Son always submits to the Father because the final position of authority rests with the Father.

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the
Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have
life in himself. (John 5:26)

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be
holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be
adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure
and will. Eph 1:3-5

...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things
came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Cor 8:6

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

In all of these passages God the Father is the one who is in leadership (headship) authority over the Son. Look at the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son...

If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the
Spirit of truth. (Jn 14:15-17)

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. (Jn 15:26)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he
will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from
what is mine and making it known to you. ( Jn 16:13-14)

It is clear from the Bible that there is a relational distinction and ordered unity in the Trinity. The Shack blurs this and does so for, I believe, politically correct and liberal ideologies. This is an infortunate aspect of the book. Despite this here are some great areas where The Shack suceeds in its portrayal of the Trinity.

1) It makes a great case for the fact that God as Trinity is a being of boundless and stable love. In fact God could not be love unless He is triune. Look at how The Shack profoundly explains this...

“Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself. (p.101)

"You do understand,” she continued, “that unless I had an object to love-or, more accurately, a someone to love-if I did not have such a relationship within myself, then I would not be capable of love at all? You would have a god who could not love. Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature. That kind of god could possibly act without love, and that would be a disaster. And that, is surely not me.” (p.102)

"If there's only one God but not three Persons within the one God, then we would expect that the ultimate reality behind the universe could be silence. It could be power. It could be peace. It could be domination. It could be any of those things. But there's one thing that it could not be. The ultimate reality could not be love. Because for love to exist, there has to be a sharing, and there has to be a communication, and there has to be a self-giving. But if there's only one, there's nothing to give the self to." (???)

The way God is pictured in The Shack is in many senses biblically accurate. He is a being of boundless and overwhelming love that runs over to His creation. He is love from eternity because He is an eternal relationship of love. All that He has done is born out of the creative power of His love.

2) In that God is a God of boundless love He desires to expand His circle of love by inviting people to join in it. He desires for more people to come into a relationship with Himself because it increases His joy.

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in
order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in
them.” (John 17:26)

3) The Shack I think rightly shows that the Trinity is the model and ultimate goal for the new community of love, the church. What else are we to look like? What else are we to aspire? What else is life all about? It is God...God specifically seen and revealed as a triune being of love. Toward this end I think The Shack does the Christian community a great service.