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.

Does God Look More Like Aunt Jemima or Gandalf? (The Shack)

I have been accustomed to think of Aunt Jemima as simply a lady on the bottle of my pancake syrup, but that has changed. The Shack portrays God the Almighty and Eternal as an apron clad, dress wearing, hip shaking, ipod listening, bread kneading, hefty black woman. Since reading The Shack I find it hard to think of pancake syrup the same way again, or at least the figure on the label. Is this portrayal of God or "Papa" a legitimate picture of how He could reveal Himself? Does this image of "Papa" help break down some of our Eurocentric "stupid white male" (phrase from Michael Moore) preconditioning about God? Or is that uneasy hesitancy that some of us feel with the idea of an Aunt Jemima deity a welcome caution?

Let's start the exploration with Mack. He is invited by "Papa" through a note in the mail to come back to the nightmarish scene of his daughter's murder. As he approaches "the shack" it turns into a transformed and glorified log cabin surrounded by a Thomas Kincade type setting. Coming near the door of this miraculously transformed cabin he encounters the completely unexpected...

"Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he
raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly
into the face of a large beaming African-American woman. Instinctively he
jumped back, but he was to slow. With speed that belied her size, she
crossed the distance between them and engulfed him in her arms, lifting him
clear off his feet and spinning him around like a little child. And all the
while she was shouting his name-“Mackenzie Allen Phillips”-with the ardor of
someone seeing a long-lost and deeply-loved relative. She finally put him
back on earth and, with her hands on his shoulders, pushed him back as if to
get a good look at him." (p.82)

In view of the deep pain Mack carries. this is a very welcome and healing scene. The figure he encounters, "Papa," is extremely likable, winsome, and overflowing with love. Mack is intrigued and delighted with the presence of this surprising figure but he still has reservations due to his religious and theological conditioning. Young explains...

"Mack was speechless. In a few seconds this woman had breached
pretty much every social propriety behind which he had so safely entrenched
himself. But something in the way that she looked at him and yelled his name
made him equally delighted to see her too, even though he didn’t have a clue
who she was." (p.83)

Again...

"She picked up the wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort
of batter. 'Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both
genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or
a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and
suggest that you call me Papa is simple to mix metaphors, to help you keep
from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” She leaned
forward as if to share a secret. “To reveal myself to you as a very large,
white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply
reinforce your religious stereotypes, and this weekend is not about
reinforcing your religious stereotypes.” Mack almost laughed out loud and
wanted to say, “You think? I’m over here barely believing that I’m not stark
raving mad!” Instead, he focused on what she had just said and regained his
composure. He believed, in his head at least, that God the Spirit, neither
male or female, but in spite of that, he was embarrassed to admit to himself
that all his visuals for God were very white and very male." (p.93)

Now that Mack realizes he has been duped into thinking of God as "very
white and very male," Mack begins to throw of the blinders of his religious
training as Papa further explains the theology of God's gender. Asking Her/Him
(Papa) why He/She had always revealed Himself as "Father" in the Bible, here is
Papa's answer...

"Well,” responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the
kitchen, “there are many reasons for that and some of them go very deep. Let
me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering
would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are
needed-but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its
absence."
(p.94)

If I'm reading this correctly, and I think I am, the idea is presented that God could have revealed Himself as "Mother" but chose not to because of all the single parent families without dads, or something like that. Therefore to fill in the social vacuum God revealed Himself as Father. In partial defense of The Shack three truths are implied and accurately reflected in this dialog between Mack and Papa:

1) God is spirit. He does not have gender. (He is "Other" than His creation.)

2) Male and female come equally from the image of God.

3) The Bible does, at times, use feminine qualities when referring to God...

"You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth." Dt 32:18

"From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the
heavens." Job 38:29

"As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of
a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God,
till he shows us his mercy." Ps 123:2

“For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself
back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant." Is
42:14

Here are some other things to balance the above considerations, and why I think The Shack would have been better served to cast a more Gandalf like figure for Papa:

1) There is no place in the Bible at all where God is given a feminine title or name. There are "ungendered," impersonal titles or descriptions of God (e.g., Rock, Fortress, Shield). But there are no feminine terms or pronouns (Mother, Sister, Bride, She, Her) used to describe God. Why is this??? Papa of The Shack informs us that it is in order to compensate for the lack of a father image which is in shorter supply in the world. But is this historically true?

2) Consider that the pagan world believed that the gods were male and female. There were Asherah and Anak and Nut and Isis, Teomat, and the Queen of Heaven, Ademitur, and Artemis. In fact these beings were very sexual and had intimate relations with each other. Consider the added insight of Dennis Prager, the Jewish social commentator...

"The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations.
In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the
Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with
his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El,
the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was
sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men."

Though William Young appears to me to give a somewhat "politically correct" anti-white male statement, as seen above, in distancing God from "Gandalf," he begs historical and theological accuracy. The biblical portrayal of God as Father was unique in the ancient world and it still is. The God of the Bible reveals Himself as Father to, in part, infinitely distance Himself from the erotic, sexualized, and power hungry deities pagans worshiped in ancient cultures who saw the world being birthed out of various mother goddesses. In contrast, the God of Israel (Yahweh) is seen as masculine and Father so as to hold to the gracious balance of Him being a God who personally and lovingly cares for His created world, but is distinct and infinitely above it. This is a huge social and religious reason why God did not reveal Himself with a female title.

3) But the bigger truth to keep in mind is that God is called Father not mainly to be separate from the pagan deities of Canaanite and Mesopotamian culture, but it reflects His eternal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of
unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and
mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom
15:5-6

"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." Eph
1:3

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great
mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead..." 1 Pet 1:30

It is important to keep in mind that Christians have God as their Father through adoption. Jesus is the eternal Son of God by His essential nature. To be more clear, Jesus has always been Son to the Father before creation and throughout eternity. This is an even greater reason why we call God Father. "And a voice came from heaven:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Jn 3:16-17

Okay Anthony, but what about the scriptures you quoted above that give God feminine descriptions? Good question. These descriptions do not imply that we have a license to refer to God as "mother" or "she." Such language is simply a literary device that makes for a vivid description. For example, Paul said to the Thessalonians that he was, "gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children." (1 Th 2:6-7) Now, we wouldn't conclude from this statement that Paul was getting in touch with his feminine side. Hopefully we would not be so sloppy. So, when God is described at points with female qualities, that should not give us a license to attribute to God titles like "Mother" or pronouns like "She."

Unfortunately some evangelical theologians and pastors are doing this, and William Young has added a little strength and motivation to their cause with The Shack. Young indicates through the dialog quoted above that it is just as legitimate to picture God as Aunt Jemima as it is to picture him, as we traditionally do, like Gandalf. Perhaps we shouldn't picture God as either. But if we had to choose, look at this self-revelation God Himself given by Christ in Revelation 1...

"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I
turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,”dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace,
and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held
seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was
like the sun shining in all its brilliance." Rev 1:12-16

This looks more like Gandalf the White who resurrected after defeating the demon monster than the hip and shoulder shaking, syrup lady. Maybe our traditional prejudices of how we've traditionally pictured God are more enforced by the revelation of Scripture itself than Eurocentric "stupid white males."

So why all this time and digital images on this topic? Well, ideas have consequences. The further an idea is from where it should be when presented the further the idea can lead us astray is not corrected in time. Pastor Ben Patterson says, "It's a bit like the moonshot. When the rocket is aimed at the moon some 200,000 miles away, it has to be precise. What may be just a millimeter off within the first mile or so of the earth's atmosphere will be a huge miss when out toward the moon. Ideas have this same quality about them. They have their trajectories." Given that the Shack has been highly influential in people's thinking about God, I think there are ideas in the book that need to be reconsidered in light of the straight measuring stick of scripture. The Shack has much to commend. But when it comes to the description used of Papa, I'd prefer Young to have stayed more in boundary lines of biblical revelation, even Lord of the Rings.