..The Shack: a review (pt. 2)

I’ve taken a couple of weeks since part one of my reviewing The Shack. This has given me ample time to step away from the heat of initial reactions and think about and distill what it is that really bothered me about the book theologically. In order to keep things short, I will only expound on the part that made me stop reading and exclaim out loud, “That is not okay!”

Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way… we want you to join us in our circle of relationship” (p. 145-146). —Papa to Mack

So, here goes: hierarchy. Say the word to any person who considers themselves to be “postmodern” or “emergent” and they will squirm. We (yes, I said we, but please consider me a light weight) have our reasons for despising the term. From my own experience, this is due in large, if not most, part to the abuse of power and the abuse of the Scriptures by people in hierarchical authority within the church. This abuse of authority has birthed in this generation of evangelicals a disdain for authority, even the good kind. This is part of what I believe to be the appeal of The Shack (remember, I am only focusing on this one thing).

In The Shack, Young presents the Trinity as three equal parts of one whole. Fine, that is orthodox Trinitarian belief. Three persons of the same essence. The move that makes The Shack’s Trinitarian theology unorthodox is when Young strips it of any hierarchy. Now, this is splitting hairs a bit, but I think it is important because of what it implies for the relationship between God and humankind. According to Eastern Orthodox theology (i.e. the earliest church fathers and those closest to time of Jesus’ life on earth) God the Father is the head of the Godhead. From him, as the Nicene Creed states, the Son of God is begotten and the Spirit of God proceeds. They are one with him in essence, however, God the Father is the chief among equals, as it were.

The picture of the Trinity that Young paints is that there is no chief among equals, and all are constantly submitting to each other. If I recall, it is even asserted in the book that hierarchy is a ruiner of relationship. Yet, without God the Father, the relationship between the parts of the Trinity would not even exist. I think, contrary to how I have read Young, that proper hierarchy gives birth to proper relationship.

Now, here’s where this affects humankind’s relationship with God and where I believe a serious danger lies: in the quote above, Papa tells Mack that “we want you to join us in our circle of relationship”. Now, he has already asserted that within the Trinity there is no hierarchy, and this assertion is followed by an invitation to humanity to join that relationship. The logical conclusion then is that humankind becomes equal in essence and equal within a submissive relationship with the Godhead. This is a problem, because this type of theological belief results in humankind being placed on the same level with God. He is no longer other, no longer transcendent and no longer holy.

Let’s take this absence of hierarchy thing a little bit further. There is within many segments of the evangelical church a move from hierarchical leadership to a socialistic community when it comes to structuring how a group of people “do” church. This is due in part, as I have already mentioned, to the abuse of hierarchical power within the church. Hierarchy is a bad word, so let’s get rid of it altogether. But, if we get rid of it altogether where lies our authority? Who is leading? Someone has to lead. Even if one is a part of a more horizontal form of church, someone is still leading. Now, if those leaders attempt to remain true to the horizontal/socialistic style of church, they will welcome any opinion from any person, any interpretation of the Scriptures (which are purported to be authoritative) and in the end the whole thing will collapse into a universalism (which equals a powerless and pointless gospel). Please, don’t hear me say that this is what all such church communities are doing, but that there is a danger when we throw out hierarchy or pretend it doesn’t exist.

This post has exhausted me, but I think it is important enough that I should devote a large chunk of my Saturday (and my brain) to it. I don’t think I have it in me to say more right now. I do, however, want to finish this two-part review by mentioning the problem in the American church of the uncritical consumption of “Christian” goods and services (I use quotes because Christian is a noun not an adjective). I am guilty of it, but am working on being a better consumer. Doctrine matters. Orthodoxy (right belief) matters. Yet, so much bad doctrine and unorthodox belief goes unquestioned and unscrutinized because of the myth of “Christian” nice and the American fear of causing offense or being labeled “narrow-minded”. Whether it is a novel, a work of non-fiction, a praise song or a film, we owe it to the creator of the thing, to each other and to those who have walked the path of faith before us to critically examine it against sound doctrine and the authoritative Scriptures.

grace and peace.