On April 8, 2008 Mark Driscoll began a series on the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. He wanted to make sure that the people of his church were not deluded by what has often plagued by yet another fad.
In my last post I responded to the idea that The Shack teaches graven image worship. I mentioned that the idea of God being part of creation is exactly what happened in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. God in his fullness (Colossians 1:19) dwelled in Jesus and became one with all creation. It could not be any other way. The question of whether an image of God can be created and whether it is graven image worship was answered at the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD. Images CAN be used to tell the story of the Gospel. It has been a part of the theology of the Church for some 1300 years; and thank God for it! Without it we wouldn’t have Michelangelo’s great painting in the Sistine Chapel, which I saw in its magnificence in 1992. Pastor Driscoll’s pointing to the Puritans in his defense of his point denies the history of the development of the doctrines of the Church. Now don’t get me wrong. As I have named this series and stated in the first post I think Mark Driscoll, an otherwise wonderful minister, is sincere, but sincerely wrong. He is not ignorant except in his not seeing or understanding where our doctrine of the Trinity came from and what it actually is as stated in the Nicene Creed.
In this post I want to answer the charge of The Shack promoting modalism or Sabellianism. Sab-what?!! Sabellius was a third century priest and theologian. His major belief was that the only true God was God the Father. That is why some call modalism or Sabellianism Monarchianism, that God the was the one, true Monarch of heaven. Jesus and the Holy Spirit, were just modes or sides of God the Father manifested in different situations. However, Sabellius believed Jesus and the Father are united as one person. I know, confusing.
Right from the top it would seem that the charge of modalism in The Shack couldn’t possibly be true because of the manifestation of two or more of the three persons simultaneously. There are scenes of meals where all three are together with Mack. There is a communion scene where all three are together with Mack. It would seem to me that if modalism was what was being taught, you would never have more than one of them in a scene at a time.
How about the idea of them being “three”? One of the proofs Sabellians (the modern Oneness movement in some charismatic churches) use is that the only number used for God mentioned in the Scriptures is “one.” Now remember, Trinitarians believe that God is one. We also believe God is three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The concept of the Trinity took so long to develop as a doctrine is that they needed to make sure to maintain the concept of the one God as described in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6. However, the other thing they couldn’t deny was that God had manifested himself as the Son, the Father who loved him and the Spirit who is our Advocate. So how could God be both 1 and 3? I will try to explain.
In John 1:1 we see two images of God. One is called God and the other the Logos or Word. John the Apostle somehow knew that Jesus, the one whom he ate with and saw rise to the “right hand of the Father,” was also God. He knew it by what Jesus said. He knew it by what he witnessed Jesus do. He knew it because Jesus left no doubt that he was DIFFERENT than the Messiah anticipated by the Jews. He also mentions the coming of the Holy Spirit. So as Desi Arnez used to say, “You have some “splaining” to do.”
Enter the theologians. Over the course of the next 300 or so years men who spent their time reading and re-reading the Scriptures started to see that there was obviously a change going on in the idea and concept of God. Just having Jesus around made things complicated. Here was one who was obviously to be worshiped and was being worshiped, but the Scriptures said that none but the one God was to be worshiped.
Here is a sort of time line of development:
- John’s Gospel: circa 90 AD – defines Jesus as the Word, the Creator, become flesh
- Ignatius of Antioch: circa 107 AD states Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God (letters to the Ephesians and Symaeans)
- Polycarp, Bishop of Antioch: circa 150 AD states that to not confess Christ is to be at odds with God as is Satan
- Justin Martyr: circa 155 AD proclaims the Word made flesh is at the same level as God (On the Resurrection)
- Irenaeus of Lyons: circa 180 AD states that Jesus (as the Word) always existed, something that is only true of God (Against All Heresies)
- Clement of Alexandria: circa 200 AD attributes the forgiveness of sins with Jesus’ action on the cross when forgiveness is only given by God (see Exhortation to the Heathen, Stromata and Fragments)
I think you get the picture. I have not yet said anything about Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers or Hillary of Poitiers. I would recommend you read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word as a great expose on basic Christian belief of who Jesus is and what he has done for humanity. But suffice it to say that this section shows a clear, constant, historical development by the Church of the doctrine of the Trinity. So God is truly 1 in 3 and 3 in 1.
But the key issue is can the Father and Spirit be manifested among us along with Jesus. Only speculation is available. For one thing, the scripture from Colossians 1 I mentioned above points to the fact that where Jesus is, so are the Father and Spirit. Then there is the visit of the 3 to Abram in the desert, 3 whom Abram fell down to worship. Was that the Trinity coming to visit? Certainly there was a tie in to God. I’m not sure it was angels because Scripture also shows how angels will not allow themselves to be worshiped. But again, it is speculation, not abject fact.
The early church did talk in great detail about the concept of homoouision, or interpenetration of the Father, Son and Spirit into each other such that they are one at all times while each remaining distinct; that where one is, all are. By having them sitting in 3 chairs at dinner with Mack is Paul Young stating that that is how the Trinity exists in itself? That’s a stretch. If he did, I would have to agree with Mark Driscoll. But I think Pastor Driscoll used some mighty great spin to make his point, not theological reality. In fact, all Pastor Driscoll would have had to do is pick up the phone and call Paul Young, or Facebook message him to ask if he was saying that Papa, Jesus and Sarayu were each manifestations of God at some time. I’m sure Mr. Young would have said, “Absolutely not!”
OK. So we’ve shown that The Shack does not promote graven image worship. Nor does it promote modalism. I want to reiterate that while Pastor Driscoll’s concern that his church should stick to solid doctrine is a valid one, and while his passion for correctness is not to be disparaged or discounted, as is evident in some of the responses left at the You Tube location for the video, what I have been examining in the light of the Scripture and Christian theology are the charges he makes. Those charges lead to his central charge that The Shack teaches heresy. So in my final post in this series, I will take a look at the last charge, that of goddess worship.

