Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 5: Theological Problem – Understanding of the Incarnation)

The Shack does fall into major theological error in its undersanding of the Incarnation. Since my Master’s program, I have noticed some pretty major errors in the interpretation of Phillipians 2:5-11 by various Evangelical preachers.

5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, 6 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name a that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, a to the glory of God the Father (NAB).

One enthusiastic radio preacher saw the words "found human in appearance" and proudly proclaimed that Jesus was not human, but only appeared to be human because that is what the Holy Bible says. This preacher was attempting to revive an ancient heresy called Docetism, which held that Christ’s human nature was only the appearance of humanity, but that Jesus was fully God and not truly human at all. The Shack almost goes toward the opposite error by almost denying Christ’s divinity.

After using the analogy of a bird with its wings clipped, which continues to be a bird but is limited in its faculties of flight, Papa explains,

“Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded. tha tis why his name is Immanuel, god with us, or God with you, to be more precise

“But what about all the miracles? The healings? Raising people from the dead? Doesn’t that prove that jesus was God – you know, more than human?”

“No, it proves that Jesus is truly human.”

“What?”

“Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can’t. Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he as never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationsihp with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost — the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regarding or appearance or consequence.”

“So, when he healed the blined?”

He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (99-100).

The radio preacher thought he had the right to interpret the Bible by himself, and he ended up repeating an ancient heresy. William Young likewise claims the right to interpret the Bible individually, and he too enters into heresy. The passage above opposes the constant understanding of who Christ was, verified by the Fourch Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis (see Catechism of the Catholic Church article 467).

The same truth has been taught in the Church’s liturgy throughout history:

“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed,” sings the Roman Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: “O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!” (CCC 468).

This Christological error is critical, but it should not be surprising that belief in Sola Scriptura and the rejection of a teaching authority that offers an authentic interpretation of Scripture would lead to such an error. That brings me to the last and greatest problem with The Shack.