Mark quotes from the book:
They say of the trinity "We are in a circle of relationship - not a chain of command - a hierarchy would make no sense among us."
Mark says that this violates an essential part of the trinity - equality but deference.
So the question is:
Does "The Shack" present a view of the trinity that violates one of the essentials of the trinity? If the answer is yes please provide evidence from scripture that the trinity:
- Is not "in a circle of a relationship"
- Is a chain of command
- Has a hierarchy
Please define your terms as well.
BTW - thanks for all the good input so far
3 comments:
The traditional formulation of the Trinity affirms both equality and deference, as Mark points out. The Nicene Creed affirms that Jesus is "of one substance with the Father," i.e. they are both equally divine. Equality of divinity has also traditionally been extended to the Holy Spirit, though the creed doesn't state that. On the other hand, the Nicene formulation states that Jesus is "begotten of the Father before all worlds" and that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father [and the Son]" (the Eastern Churches not affirming the "and the Son" part).
Throughout history, when the Church has spoken of the Trinity, the equality aspect of this formulation has been emphasized the most. This is mainly because the doctrine of the Trinity took shape in opposition to Arianism, which claimed that Jesus was a lesser, created deity.
Looking in Scripture, Jesus' subordination to the Father is emphasized much more than their equality.
We have Jesus' statements such as "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and Jesus' constant deference to the will of the Father. Of course, one could argue that this is a temporary subordination based on Jesus' earthly existence.
However, a number of things suggest this is an eternal subordination:
-The very titles "Father" and "Son" suggest a relationship of subordination.
-The New Testament theme of the Father sending Jesus.
-Passages about Jesus' agency in creation always state that the world was created "by" the Father and "through" Jesus.
-From Philippians: "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is one of the highest statements that Paul makes about Jesus, yet Jesus' exaltation is caused by the Father and is ultimately for the glory of the Father.
-"Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power." (1 Cor. 15:24) Another Pauline statement about the reign of Christ, which once again makes the Father the ultimate authority.
All of this leads me to believe that Jesus' obedience to the Father is an eternal reality. It is also the foundation of our own obedience to the Father. Through the Holy Spirit, we are united with Christ and participate in His relationship with the Father.
"The Shack" is clearly reacting against human institutions and hierarchies. And of course, there is much to lament and much to oppose in these things, pervaded by sin as they are. However, sin is always a corruption and distortion of the good. If our reaction against a corruption leads us to reject the good original, then we have things backwards. We are letting sin control the way we view the world. Instead, we should be letting God's reality (i.e. the REAL reality) replace all of the cheap imitations that so characterize fallen life.
A view of divine reality in which there is no place for deference, obedience, or hierarchy misses so much that is good. Notice how little "The Shack" has to say about human obedience to God. Yet obedience is the primary way we lovingly respond to God's love. No matter how much we chafe against it, it is a wonderful reality that we do not have to interact with God as "equals" (an absurd and frightening prospect), but we merely obey His commands. When we properly do this is when we thrive.
Neither is complete egalitarianism the proper ideal in human relationships. We ought to show deference, even obedience, to one another based on experience, knowledge, qualifications, age, etc. And notice how radical Jesus was in this area. If He had come to abolish hierarchy, one would expect Him to tell His disciples that they no longer had to obey anyone but God. But in fact, the New Testament teaches mutual submission, becoming a servant to all, obeying leaders in the church, even obedience to the occupying Romans. Yes, there is a polemic against corrupt hierarchies contained in these things, but the New Testament certainly doesn't teach the abolishment of all hierarchy. It teaches that even the Church, the foretaste of the new creation and the witness to God's Kingdom, contains hierarchy.
In conclusion, the subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity matters.
First of all, where are all you other bloggers? I really enjoy reading what you have to say.
Dan, I also enjoy reading your responses because they make me think! In attempting to answer Bob's proposed question, I realize that the word "trinity" isn't mentioned in the Bible (am I right?). So I don't think we'll find evidence to support either point of view. I do think the Bible supports the idea of God being foremost - but His relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit is unique. There's really nothing to compare it to. I think "The Shack" tries to communicate that by emphasizing relationship rather than hierarchy. Even though Jesus is the son, he does not relate to God as a little boy - it's a mature relationship that a grown man/woman might have with his/her father or mother. As our children grow and mature, we want them to relate to us as equals (not as little children). I value my children's gifts, personalities, and talents just as I hope they value mine. I see that in the relationship between Jesus and Papa in "The Shack.: They hold true to the relationship depicted in the Bible. There is deference and equality both. In "The Shack," Papa seems to take pleasure in his/her son the way any parent would. Parents and children are equal in worth and value - but that doesn't mean they are the same or that they have the same gifts/personalities/characteristics. In "The Shack" Jesus says, "Mack, I don't want to be first among a list of values; I want to be at the center of everything. When I live in you, then together we can live through everything that happens to you. Rather than a pyramid , I want to be the center of a mobile, where everything in your life...is connected to me but moves with the wind..." In John 17:20, Jesus says, "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me." That's a pretty difficult concept, and when you throw in the Holy Spirit it makes it even more challenging. Jesus has a way of turning the tables on our way of thinking. Even though Jesus is subordinate to the Father (as Dan states), Jesus is the one who sets the example of equality (the whole thing about Jews, women, slaves, etc.) in the way he treats and relates to others. It is Jesus who says we must wash each other's feet - but I don't think it's out of obedience, I think it is out of love. Yes, we must obey, but I don't think Jesus wants a forced obedience. We teach our children to be obedient but when they reach maturity, obedience becomes a choice. Personally, I don't think I have ever obeyed God because I "had" to. My obedience comes out of the relationship, built on love, that I have with God. The Holy Spirit is a mystery. It is Truth - and functions like the wind. I think it's hard to nail down and that's what I like about Sarayu. I think he/she is very true to how the Holy Spirit is portrayed in the Bible. And how do you separate the wind or air from that which it gives life to?
Well said, Dan. I don't think there's anything more that needs to be added to that.
Post a Comment