While I admire the intentions of William Young to try and make the concept of the Trinity accessible to a wide audience, there are some major theological problems with the book.
Before we get into theoogy, I first have to say that the book is just a bit weird! Mack goes to an abandoned shack in the mountains and it somehow transforms into an Eden-like setting where God lives. God the Father appears as a black woman whom Mack calls "Papa", the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman named Sarayu, and Jesus is just a Middle-Eastern man named Jesus.
If you can get past all that and continue reading, there are some clear and accurate themes that emerge, such as God's desire for relationship with mankind and his abundant love for us. But there are also some concepts that are questionable in their theology, and some certainly are contrary to the Bible.
Below are some theological errors I noticed:
1) The Members of the Trinity cannot morph into one another.
p. 96: Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus, and Mack notices the same crucifixion scars on Papa's hands that Jesus has.
The three persons of the Trinity are not interchangeable. They cannot take on the forms of each other. Jesus was the only person of the Trinity on the cross. God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. Jesus was born of a virgin, God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. The Trinity is not one person who takes on three different forms, but three distinct persons.
The theological term for this heresy is modalism and it has been around since the 3rd century AD.
2) God really did forsake Jesus on the cross.
p. 96: As mentioned above, Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus. Mack disagrees, in that Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Papa says, "You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him." [italics in original] Papa goes on to ask, "When all you can see is your pain, perhaps then you lose sight of me?"
The idea that God did not turn his back on Jesus when he was on the cross is contrary to Jesus' own words (Matt. 27:46). To disregard Jesus' statement is to propose that Jesus was somehow deceived because of his intense pain, that God the Father was actually still with him but Jesus was blind to it.
God did not forsake Jesus because he was in pain. God had to forsake Jesus on the cross because Jesus had become "a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13) and "sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). God turned away from the sin that Jesus was taking on our behalf so that we might obtain Christ's righteousness. Jesus got what we deserved (separation from God) so that we could be reconciled to God.
However, the point remains that when we are in pain, God does not forsake us like he had to with Jesus. We are not bearing anyone else's sin. God is present even in our greatest pain. It is just not acceptable to make that case by arguing that Jesus was deceived.
3) Jesus does not continue to choose to be human.
p. 110-112: Jesus explains to Mack that he is fully human and fully God: not in the sense that he was fully human while he was on earth, but still is. "I choose to live moment by moment fully human. I am fully God, but I am human to the core."
While Jesus was certainly fully human and fully God while he was on this early 2000 years ago, to argue that he is still choosing to be human daily is a strange proposal. The point that Jesus can relate to us because of his experience as a human is absolutely true, but stretching it to mean he continues to become human repeatedly after his ascension into heaven is peculiar and unbiblical.
4) God will condemn some people to hell.
p. 162: The book is a bit vague on this point, but it seems to strongly intimate that God is too loving a father to send anyone to hell simply for sinning against him. It completely ignores the justice of God. Hell was not originally intended for people, but rather the demons who rebelled against God. However, Rev. 20:10-15 is clear that everyone will be judged and those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be given the same punishment as the demons.
5) There really is authority within the Trinity.
p. 122-3: Sarayu says, "We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command .... 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 .... Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you."
There are a number of presumptions in these statements that are misleading.
First, authority is not contrary to unity. There can be authority in a relationship and unity. That was modeled during Christ's life on earth.
Second, authority is not always synonymous with power. Authority can exist without forcing obedience of another. In the Trinity, authority works through submission as opposed to enforcement. The concept of submission is entirely lacking from The Shack, but is essential in understanding true Godly authority and relationship.
Third, authority must be legalistic and is therefore contrary to relationship. Legalism is deadly, and contrary to the new covenant. However, William P. Young seems to think that authority is impossible without legalism. Again, willing submission permits authority to exist alongside loving relationship without any legalism required.
Jesus clearly demonstrated that he was not in a "circle of relationship" with the God the Father. He did what his Father in heaven wanted. The Father sent Jesus to earth, and sent the Holy Spirit after Jesus ascended. Jesus asks his Father for things in prayer, but never commands his Father. There is clear authority in the Trinity, and it is not circular.
6) There really is the concept of "responsibility" in the Bible.
p. 205: Sarayu says "you won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures."That statement is technically true for the King James Version of the Bible, but the concept of responsibility is clearly there. The NASB has 4 instances of the word responsibility, and the NIV has 13.
The term is used in a few different situations:
- The responsibility of the Levitcal priesthood to oversee the tabernacle. (E.g. Num. 4:16, 27)
- The responsibility of the Levitical priesthood to oversee the temple. (E.g. 1 Chr. 9:26)
- The responsibility of the seven deacons to oversee the distribution of food to the widows. (Acts 6:3)
- The responsibility of church leaders to take care in the laying on of hands, so as to not "share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Tim. 5:22)
The concept of responsibility is found in many more passages, even though the word itself may not. According to Merriam-Webster, responsible means "able to answer for one's conduct and obligations" and "marked by or involving ... accountability." Jesus' parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) clearly shows that we will be held accountable for the gifts God has given us to steward during our lifetime. God commended Abraham because he "kept my charge" (Gen. 26:5 KJV and NASB), meaning he looked after that which God had placed under his care. Lastly, we will all be held accountable for our lives after we die and face judgment (Heb. 9:27).
Our relationship with God is certainly based on love and acceptance, but it is also one of stewardship. We will never hear God say to us, "Well done good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21) unless we have been responsible stewards.
Being in relationship with God is more than hanging out together, although that's part of it. It is a relationship with a purpose. Jesus' life on earth demonstrated what a purposeful life in close relationship with the Father looked like. Jesus did not just live to sit back and relax with a cold drink while experiencing the Father's love, but to fulfill the work the Father gave him to do (John 5:36). Our love for God is our motivation to be obedient to him and fulfill his purposes rather than our own.
We don't carry the burden of responsibility out of legalism, but out of our relationship of love with God.
Conclusion
Attempting to make difficult Biblical concepts easily understandable to the crowds is a worthwhile goal, but mixing error and heresy with truth is destructive. I would not recommend this book to anyone, except as a practice exercise in discerning Biblical truth from error.
I've asked myself how this book might have been improved. What if it were rewritten, avoiding the blatant theological errors?
The problem is, the entire premise of The Shack is part of the error. Presenting the three persons of the Trinity as humans is doomed to failure from the start. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not and have never been human. Projecting human traits on them is not helping us understand their nature. Instead, it is making God to be in our image rather than the other way around.
