The subject of the Trinity is something we hold dear as Christians but have also had to hold our understanding of it loosely because the nature of the Triune God is in many ways too mysterious and too profound for our limited minds to grasp. Though we have some clear sense of the nature of one God in three Persons, there is much left to mystery over this plural relationship as Scripture does not thoroughly explain it and our minds cannot well comprehend it. Unfortunately, all of the analogies that have been assigned to this triune relationship have been found wanting so we are left having to use a bit of an imagination to fill in the blank areas.  And, therein lies the problem with the The Shack, let alone any investigation into or explanation of the Godhead.

Though there is much to be appreciated about this book, its attempt to “fill in the blanks” or explain the triune relationship of the Godhead falls short and perhaps only muddies the waters further for those who are sincerely desiring and pursuing to appreciate this divine concept. Some say that the author’s handling of the subject is so misguided that the material would fall into the heresy category and should be considered at very best Christian fiction. Though there are warranted concerns over some critical misconceptions within the book, I’m not sure that I would brush off the book simply as heresy or fiction.

Heresy as we have treated it throughout history seems to be either perpetrated by those who purposely intend to mislead others with false doctrines or by those who are too tragically incompetent in their understanding and expression of their beliefs to be taken seriously. I’m not convinced that the author of this book is either. It seems to me that he wrote the book with a sincere desire to explain some of the missing or confounding elements of the Trinity to his children (as he has stated that he wrote the book for his own children and not for the general public) and that his attempts to do so are not carelessly irresponsible because he appears to at least have a genuine appreciation for the sanctity of the Triune Godhead. So, I am writing this not to generate additional controversy but to apply a reasoned evaluation of what I perceive to be both strengths and weaknesses of this popular book.

First, let me say what I appreciate about the author’s attempt to grapple with the ever mysterious issue at hand. Whereas many have been either too fearful or too cautious to approach the matter in the past, the author of The Shack wades confidently into the issue in a way that we have rarely if ever seen. Never before in my life have I read any attempt to “incarnate” all three members of the Trinity in such a personal way, and though I consider the attempt to be quite risky, I am actually grateful for the way the author attempts to realize the relational attributes of the Godhead.

In particular, I appreciate the fact that he “puts a face” on the Holy Spirit so that we can appreciate His personhood and not just His divinity. Though we know the Spirit is without flesh, I see his attempt to put a body on the Spirit as helpful for those of us who long to know the Holy Spirit in a more personal way. For many of us, the Holy Spirit is the long ignored member of the Trinity who feels the most distant despite the fact that He happens to be the closest to us. So, I, for one, am grateful for this particular aspect of this book because it draws me closer to the Person dwelling inside.

And, along the same vein, I also appreciate the fact that the author successfully shows the reader many of the relational attributes of the Godhead that have too often been obscured and unexplained. For example, the sincere love and regard that each member of the Trinity has for one another is a beautiful and wonderful concept that so few of us truly comprehend or have even dared to explore even though it is modeled throughout Scripture.

As well, the loving relationship among the three has enormous implications for us in regard to our own relationships as it shows the very foundation and pattern of God’s design. We can learn much from the Godhead about how we ought to relate to one another as husbands and wives, as parents and children, and even as friends. The author of The Shack gives us a revealing and moving picture of this love and regard not just among the three but between the main character and the Godhead as well. So, I genuinely appreciate the portrait of relationships that the author has painted with his words in this book and have benefited personally from his insights.

At the same time, as a pastor and as a Christian, I want to be thoughtful and reasoned in my approach to everything making sure that I exercise wisdom and discernment in all things, so I do have some reservations about the book that concern me and are worth outlining in this post. For one, I fear that the author has erred in his attempts to “incarnate” all three members of the Trinity in two significant ways.

First, his attempts to “put a face” on the Father seem dangerously close if not over the line of doing the very thing Scripture expressly forbids us from doing. That is, God’s Word clearly tells us that the Father is spirit and that we must not fashion any images that would contain him. The Father has never looked favorably on attempts to explain or convey His presence in physical forms, especially in the form of a man or woman other than His Son. Because the Father is spirit and essentially unexplainable and uncontainable, His presence cannot and should not be incarnated into a human form as this constitutes idolatry and a violation of God’s expressed command.

Second, I think the author is mistaken in his choice to present the Father in the form of a woman, not that the Father does not “mother” as well as father us with masculine and feminine qualities, but it is significant that Scripture, as well as Jesus and His apostles, never refer to the Father as “mother”. Though I appreciate the author’s attempts to emphasize the Father’s feminine qualities, I think he errs in ignoring the fact that God always has revealed himself and expects us to relate to him as Father, not as Mother. If God had intended to be both to us, then He would have said so.

In my estimation, to personify the Father as a woman is to unnecessarily cloud the issue further for those of us who are already trying to reconcile a Father who is equally as good at being feminine as being masculine. As well, today there is much confusion over gender roles and distinctions and the Bible is clear about God’s intentions for roles and responsibilities both for men and for women, and this attempt on the part of the author may serve to further blur those distinctions. What we know throughout Scripture is that God wants for men to be men and for women to be women, and His intention is not for us to try to be or do anything different. So, given the unbiblical gender bending movement already taking hold within our culture today, I think the author’s choice is unwise and unhelpful.

Furthermore, I would add that there is one more critical blunder that the author makes in his book that ought to concern informed Christians. As he reveals the interrelationships of the Father, Son and Spirit, he seems to present a mutually submissive picture of the three. Though there is indeed evidence for mutual submission between the Son and Spirit in Scripture, we do not see evidence of mutual submission between the Father and the Son or Spirit. In other words, there is a clear hierarchy within the Godhead that is emphasized and illustrated in Scripture repeatedly in which the Son and Spirit submit to the Father but that the Father does not submit to the Spirit or the Son. Yes, the father does love and even defer to the Son and Spirit in certain circumstances, but He never gives up His place as Father among the Trinity, which always comes with constant reverence and honor from the other two.

As we read through the Bible, we see multiple examples of the Son submitting His will to the Father’s and we see the Spirit submitting His will to the Son’s, but we never see the Father ever submitting His will to either. Therefore, it is an inaccurate portrayal and ultimately a distortion of the Trinity to present them as three equals without distinction, and I think this is perhaps the author’s biggest and most costly blunder in The Shack.

The reason why this mistake is so profound and expensive is because it has incredible implications on our understanding of the biblical issue of submission both in marriage and in the church. After all, if there is no submission within the Trinity, then one could argue that there ought to be no submission in marriage or in the church either, and that is quite simply why this error is the fundamental problem with the book. The essential issue is that it undermines a critical aspect of God’s revelation about Himself and distorts His ultimate design for all of humanity.

Because of the aforementioned concerns regarding the premise and material of the book, I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. Though I do appreciate the spirit in which it is composed and the beautiful portrayals of loving relationships within its pages, it is my conviction that because of the fundamental errors in the portrayal of the Godhead and the enormous potential for broad negative impact on Christendom, I cannot recommend it to the church at large.

In my estimation, The Shack is an interesting and entertaining read for astute and discerning Christians who already have a formed and sound theology of the Trinity, but I am primarily concerned for the those who are inclined to form or reform their rudimentary understanding of the Trinity based upon their own experiences with and interpretations of this book.