Sending Subordinationism Out to the Archives?

Continuing a series of links to posts on Euangelion re "subordinationism" in Trinitarian theology, with a view to removing Trinitarian underpinnings to certain "complementarian" arguments re subordination of women to men, I note today Michael Bird posting the following from leading Durham patristics theologian, Lewis Ayres:

"I’m not going to duplicate what Michel has said, and I am going to comment only on what Bruce has said, not the other posts to which he responds. Though I will say, in case anyone asks, that what Wayne Grudem says about eternal generation is just plain daft. I gave a paper – I’ve never published it – at ETS some years ago just exploring how Origen talks about eternal generation, largely in order to show that, surprise, surprise, the term “monogenes” plays very little role in the argument. Wayne was there and we had the opportunity to speak about this at Southern Seminary 3-4 years ago at their Trinity conference. He was very friendly and polite, but I don’t think he even listened.

So, Bruce. While I was at Southern I got to spend some time with him, and we got on well. I say this only to think that I don’t think there is any intentional deception at all when he says that he is thinking about the Trinity itself and not only about gender questions. I do think that he may not have noticed in his own thinking how deeply and unhelpfully intertwined these two have become. But let me make just a few points, arguing that I think Bruce’s theology is just a bit too simplistic. I won’t make these points historically, so much as dogmatically. But throughout I am heavily Augustinian (and Thomist).

There is indeed a certain order in the Trinity (like Michel I would point to Augustine’s trin . 4 as an exemplary text in this regard): Son and Spirit reveal and lead us to the Father. But how is that order presented to us? There are number of reasons, logical and scriptural why we have to be careful about how we speak of it. The first follows from the principle that the divine three are each the fullness of deity and yet there remains one God. It is not enough to say that each possesses the fullness and leave it at that. Rather each possesses it in such a way that there is still only one God, one fullness of deity. This most certainly defeats the intellect (and from this stems the ultimate hubris of much written about the Trinity by recent “analytical theology”). But it also has consequences when we find ourselves placing too much faith in sentences of the form “the Father sends and the Son goes.” Let me draw out perhaps the most important.

All our speech about intervals and succession here may be necessary for our frail minds, but we should at least recognize that it is necessary for that reason, and hides a reality that we barely grasp. Inseparable operation, in other words, is pointing to a considerably more complex truth than simply saying that everyone has a distinct role in each divine action. One consistent way of expressing the doctrine is certainly such language as the Father working through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit, but that is not the only way it is expressed and certainly does not really get to the heart of the mystery of which it speaks. Such language is not wrong, and finds biblical warrant easily enough, but it is not enough (and it is not enough because of other patterns of Scriptural speech). Here, I think John Webster was certainly right to insist that meditation on the divine attributes and the unity of God is rather lacking in modern writing Protestant or Catholic.

Along the same lines, we should not forget texts such as John 5:26 “as the father as life in himself, so he has granted the son to have life in himself.” The Son has been given an equality in power to the Father: theologians from Augustine to Aquinas have recognized that we must say both that the Son is sent, and that the Son sends himself – rather as the Spirit is sent by Father and by Son and yet blows where it pleases. It is true enough I think to say that, risking saying far too much given the state of our knowledge this side of the beatific vision, the Son’s mission is founded in his procession, but one of the fascinating things about the processions is the gift of the fullness of divinity and the eternal maintenance of the unity of God through the generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit. This has consequences that I don’t think Bruce’s theology has even begun to tap – consequences for what our thought may accomplish and where it may be certain that it misses.

So there are not only two alternatives: The Trinitarian persons are equal or eternal subordination. It is much more interesting than that. But, at the same time, we are recognizing that the scriptural witness itself demands of us this subtlety and recognition of complexity. We might even bring in here the doctrine of “appropriation” – the principle that scripture appropriates to particular Trinitarian persons terms and actions that belong to all. Thus, Augustine most famously makes much of the Son’s title of Wisdom. The Son is wisdom, but who would deny that Father and Spirit possess the fullness of wisdom if they possess the fullness of deity? Appropriation is a practice, a doctrine that exists not to take account of scriptural evidence that doesn’t fit, but it is a practice that takes us to deeper depths of scripture where the failures of the human intellect are laid bare in the face of the true unity of God and the mystery of what it means for there to be a Trinity.

I am with Michel also on not really being convinced by those who are desperate to use the Trinity to come up with a pattern of human existence – as community or as relations between the sexes. Of course, John 17.21 demands we do something like this, and the question of divine unity is at the fore there as is divine love and mission. I have had a little to say about this is the paper I did for the volume from the conference at Fuller a few years ago, but I need to keep thinking about this.

So if you are not reading Bruce Ware, what should you read about the Trinity? The literature on historical material is extensive, for short essays Michel’s “canon” essay is a key piece before anyone starts shouting about homoousios, and that essay and my Nicaea book both point to a world of other literature. For exposition of the resulting range of doctrines I would certainly point to my Augustine and the Trinity (which explains such matters much better than the Nicaea book; my old Augustine and the Grammar of the Trinity paper doesn’t do a bad job of conveying some stuff – I think its on my academia.edu page along with the paper I did at Fuller), I would point to Gilles Emery’s book on Thomas (or his smaller intro to the Trinity), I would point to Scheeben’s Mysteries of Christianity, and Matt Levering’s Scripture and Metaphysicsalso has much for an evangelical audience that might be really interesting. I have a current student Blair Smith, who is taking up a position in systematics at RTS Charlotte this summer; his thesis on divine Fatherhood, when finished will make an excellent addition to this list."

Peter Lineham prophesying (!!) in Christchurch 2 July 2016

Following up my post from last Friday, later that morning I received the following advertisement for Professor Peter Lineham speaking in Christchurch, 2 July 2016. Although his advertised topic is different to the Wellington lecture mentioned in the previous post, I imagine he will touch on the question of "survival by sectarianism" (that's my phrase). Here is the advertisement:

Will Christianity survive in Christchurch beyond 2020?:
a diagnosis and a realistic prognosis

Presenter: Prof Peter Lineham

2^nd July 2016

Peter Lineham

One of New Zealand’s leading scholars, Peter’s specialist subject is New Zealand's Religious History and current religious patterns. Peter is frequently used by the media to speak on Christianity and Religion today.   He is also an active leader in his local church.

Morning Programme

  9.30   Coffee

10.00   Presentation Prof Peter Lineham

10.45   Short break

11.00   Panel responses

11.30   Questions and exploration of the topic

12.00   Finish

Panelists

-        Rev Stephanie Robson, Associate Dean of the Christchurch Anglican Cathedral

-        Matthew Gardner, secretary of the Canterbury Interfaith Society and is an active member of the Roman Catholic Church.

-        Rev Melema’u Molitika Parish Presbyter, Beckenham-Sydenham Methodist Parish

Where?

St Marks Methodist Church corner of Barrington and Somerfield Streets. Parking is available off Barrington Street

Registration Contact: Andrew Donaldson stmarks7@clear.net.nz or phone 980 5002.

Quo Vadis KiwiChristianoi?

Two underlying questions through all the years of this blog have been "quo vadis?" or "which way" is (a) Anglicanism headed and (b) Christianity in Kiwiland headed?

I note to you, therefore, in respect of the latter question, two public lectures advertised thus:

"You may be interested in attending one or both of these lectures host by the St Andrew’s Trust for the Study of Religion and Society held at St Andrew’s on the Terrace Church, 30 The Terrace, Wellington.

The C-Word and Secularisation in New Zealand

Tuesday June 14, 12:15 – 1pm

Dr Geoff Troughton

“New Zealand Christianity underwent a series of remarkable transformations during the twentieth century. Notably, and perhaps most visibly, support for the historic “mainline” shrunk and these churches waned in influence. The public reputation of Christianity also took a battering. This talk seeks to understand these changes to the social role of Christianity in New Zealand in the context of wider debates about secularisation. It focuses on certain patterns within early twentieth century discourse and piety that may help to explain at least some contemporary attitudes.”

Is the future of Christianity a sectarian one?

Thursday 14 July, 12:15 – 1pm

Prof Peter James Lineham

“The types of Christianity which flourish in New Zealand in some respects seem very sectarian. They take a very narrow approach to faith and they are exclusive in their membership and they are not particularly interested in interacting with wider social and political issues. Is this an indication of the future of Christianity, increasingly locked into a narrow cultural backwater? There is another side of the argument that certainly the religious landscape is becoming much more pluralist, but at the same time even the most sectarian of faiths – Pentecostal, Mormon, even Jehovah Witnesses and Exclusive Brethren – are being reshaped so that sectarian is not as narrow as it used to be.”"

Unfortunately I will not be in Wellington on either date so I can only hope that these (very apt, interesting and timely) lectures might be made available soon after for public reflection.

I am particularly interested in Peter Lineham's lecture topic. It looks like it is engaging with the observable phenomenon that as census numbers for Christians decline we see the congregation in the church up the road increasing its numbers.

I am also interested in his topic re the Anglican church because, arguably, in certain ways, both at liberal and at conservative ends of the spectrum of theologies, we are becoming sectarian; to say nothing of the question of whether adherence to "books" as main apparatus of our liturgical worship makes us seem as "odd" as some "sects" appear to be to the general secular public.

How we are seen by the general secular public relates to the focus of Geoff Troughton's lecture and thus reading (or hearing) both lectures will be highly interesting.

UPDATE: ON MONDAY I WILL POST AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR AN EVENT IN CHRISTCHURCH AT WHICH PETER LINEHAM WILL SPEAK RE THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH ... IN CHRISTCHURCH!

No, the Homoians v Complementarians is not War Between Aliens [Updated]

ESCALATING?
Michael Bird offers a follow up post to the one cited below, after some correspondence with some of the field marshals. Everyone is very anxious not to be covertly or overtly on the side of the Arians :)

LATER: And now "Sydney" is responding. If I understand things correctly (and I may be wrong) this is kinda Sydney Anglicanism lining up with Eastern Orthodoxy's hierarchalism. Do tell me if I am wrong :)

ORIGINAL
Yes, I know "Homoians v Complementarians" sounds like a couple of opposing armies lined up against each other on the planet Zorg, but Michael Bird draws attention to a theological war breaking out among conservatives in this post on Euangelion.

Michael offers the following summary of the skirmishing to date:

"One wing of that movement has been arguing for a while that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father and importantly the way that the Son submits to the Father is mirrored in the way that wives submit to their husbands. So the hierarchy in the Trinity is said to provide grounds for a hierarchy in gender relationships. Since this trinitarian debate is not really about the Trinity but about gender and equality, it is no surprise that Complementarians have been arguing for the subordinationist view (e.g., Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem) over and against the Egalitarians who have been arguing for an equality of persons view (e.g., Kevin Giles, Gilbert Belizekian).

Yet it is worth noting that many Calvinistic Complementarians, especially one’s that know their patristic theology and doctrine of the Trinity, have always balked at the idea of postulating the Son’s eternal subordination and questioned the wisdom of using the Trinity to bankroll a particular view of gender. In their mind, Calvinist Orthodoxy is Nicene, it affirms the eternal equality of the divine persons, which rules out any hierarchical subordination. They are still complementarian in regards to marriage and ministry but they reject perceived tinkering with the Trinity by the Subordinationist Calvinists. This group of Nicene Calvinists has always been rather silent and never really offered vocal protest against the Subordinationist Calvinist. However, I think that is about to change."

He then posts a couple of thoughtful excerpts from theological bloggers and makes a few more comments of his own. In the comments to date on the post a link is made to a very erudite and challenging review of a recent book on (so to speak) Trinitarian complementarianism. This review is by Steve Holmes who draws this conclusion re bad Trinitarian arguments for complementarianism:

"If I wished to defend ‘complementarianism’, I would abandon the Trinitarian argument completely; there is a potential Christological argument available in Eph. 5; I do not think this works, for reasons I have explored elsewhere, but it is less obviously wrong than the Trinitarian position explored in this book. 

I reflect, however, that these continually-shifting arguments to defend the same conclusion start to look suspicious: by the time someone has offered four different defences of the same position, one has to wonder whether their commitment is fundamentally to the position, not to faithful theology. Judging by his essay in this book, Grudem is ready to throw the Nicene faith overboard, if only he can keep his ‘complementarianism’; other writers here are less blunt, but the same challenge may be presented. How many particular defences of a position need to be proved false before we may assert that the position itself is obviously false? 

In the case of the sort of Christian ‘complementarianism’ it defends, this volume makes me wonder seriously if we have reached that line."

The comments below that post are well worth reading and include comments from one commenter frequently read here! At risk of implying other comments are not quotable, I will quote just one of the comments here, by Gerald Bray (well known evangelical theologian, and frequent visitor to these shores):

"I have never understood what the connection is (or is supposed to be) between the Trinity and gender-complementarity and think that most of the discussion about this is wrong-headed to begin with. But at the same time, we should admit that all relationships are complementary by nature. This is not a denial of equality, but in many ways, an affirmation of it. As long as it is assumed that ‘complementarianism’ means that one party in the relationship is subordinate (and inferior) to the other, and that ‘egalitarianism’ means that all involved are interchangeable because that is what being equal means, we shall get nowhere. The church fathers worked out that the Father and the Son are equal and complementary. The Bible teaches the same thing, in a different context, about male and female. Can we not come to terms with this?" 

Steve Holmes has a good reply there.

So, a war in which shots are being fired but no one is dying, though perhaps some are feeling wounded?

For myself, I am very pleased to see the link between a particular understanding of the Trinity and a specific understanding of gender relationships broken. I think it reasonable to generally see an analogy between the "diversity-in-unity" of the Trinity and "diversity-in-unity" of humanity (imago dei, etc) but unreasonable to draw analogies re hierarchies (not least because the imago dei theology of Genesis 1 is precisely a theology which posits male and female as equal participants not subordinated participants in the imago dei).

The Invention of Lying

Suffering cold turkey this weekend as there was no Super Rugby and the brief International Rugby Window in June starts next weekend, we watched a movie on Saturday night on TV, the Invention of Lying. Without giving too much of the plot and its contents away, this movie is a very good satire on religion, working from a clever premise, that the world might have been a perfect truth-telling world until someone had an epiphany about the possibility of telling a lie. With one lie leading to another, before you know it, religion has been invented (according to the film).

Now we can view such a film as straightforward comedy - that is laugh with the film and at ourselves as religious people who believe what, within the film's narrative world, is a lie. But we can also muse on these two challenges: whether or not (1) we might in actuality be believing a lie; and (2) the film tunes into Western culture at this time. That is, the film expresses what many Westerners believe deep within their hearts: all religion is a lie, there is no God or gods, the reality of this world is all there is to reality. We could describe the first challenge as philosophical and the second challenge as missiological.

I will by-pass the first challenge here and reflect a little on the second challenge. My connecting the film with the deep heart of Western culture is made because I have been in a conversation or two or been reading a note or two recently about the staggering lack of belief and surplus of ignorance about Christianity. Here, for instance, is Geoff Robson, TSCF staff worker at Canterbury University, writing about a conversation with a student friend, which reveals the depth of biblical illiteracy in Kiwiland:

" "Andrew" is from a completely unchurched background. He started coming along to Christian Union's lunchtime Bible talks early in 2014. He was fascinated by what he heard, but still had mnay questions, so we started to meet up semi-regularly during the year to get to know each other and discuss what he was hearing from the Bible. Near the end of the year we met up ... We chatted about plans for the summer. When I casually mentioned that I really look forward to Christmas as a celebration of Jesus' birth, he gave me a puzzled look. "What do you mean?" he asked. "Christmas - Jesus' birthday," I repeated, being a bit slow to grasp what he hadn't understood. He blurted out with genuine surprise, "Wait - Christmas is Jesus' birthday?!" [Canvas, TSCF Quarterly Magazine, Issue 77, Autumn 2016]

Geoff goes on to write that he meets students who have never even heard of Jesus.

Another aspect of the conversations I have been in goes like this (according to a respected colleague, about my age and ordained slightly longer than me): we have moved on from a period when we focused on "church growth". That turned out to be more about attracting Christians from other churches to our church than about evangelism. Now there are fewer Christians looking for a better church than the one they are in. For the church to grow, even to maintain current numbers of worshippers, it has to connect with the community around it in a different way than the methodology of church growth. It is tough. And we are not sure how to make the connections.

So, what are your thoughts? In a Western world either ignorant of Jesus or immune to belief in God because convinced there is no God, what does it mean to preach the gospel? What is the gospel for such a world?

Finally, and likely I will take up this question in a post or three in the next month or so, is the church generally in these islands, let alone ACANZP in particular grasping the challenge we face?

We could die, and it could be in less than 50 years.

We are in Acts 17. The toughest part of the otherwise triumphant story of the expansion of the Jesus' movement from Jerusalem to Rome. Athens didn't want to know about the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Neither, it seems, does Aotearoa.

Latest ACANZP development re same sex blessings

No, this is not a post about my views and thoughts on same sex blessings in the context of ACANZP. But I notice on Taonga today two items of great significance in terms of follow up to General Synod (May 2016). A timeline ... a chance to send in our ideas of what we think may or may not work structurally ...

Here they are.

Article.

Letter.

In the spirit of my recent declaration that I would not post on these matters for a while, I am not going to re-open discussion here. I will not take comments on these two items announced here. Comments are closed for this post.

It is so important that we get this next stage right, I am more than happy to draw irregular or non-readers of Taonga's attention to what has been posted today. But this does not mean I am ready to renew conversation on these matters.

What I may do, around 1 July 2016 is to post something and to see if we can have a constructive conversation which, God willing, might lead to something worth saying to the new working group.

Meantime I will keep thinking and no doubt you will too.

And praying.

Married people have all made a mistake

Alain de Botton has something interesting to say about marriage!
(No, I am not returning to the subject of same-sex blessing / marriage and I won't publish comments made to this post which raise or mention the subject).