New Book: Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application

"As a Trinitarian scholar, where do you stand on this doctrine of Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission?"

In various forms, this is a question I have repeatedly faced in hallways, conference rooms, and classrooms in diverse venues. The question typically comes from academic theologians, students, and church leaders. Usually, I have to pause the conversation and first explain the way one should go about trying to provide an answer to such a question. This is why I contributed two essays to a recent publication that functions as a "three-views" book.

Our new book considers why and how one should approach the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly in relation to the doctrine of humanity. Since Scripture maintains in its very first chapter that human beings are created in the image of God, a connection is firmly established for Christian theologians. The debated issue today is how exactly should one perceive the connection between God and humanity, especially with regard to gender relations. It was a privilege to work with Matthew Emerson and Luke Stamps, as well as Bruce Ware, as well as with our editor, Keith Whitfield, who conceived the idea for this book. Each of the contributors are both Trinitarian and complementarian, but there is still great diversity between us.

The title of the text is Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application. Immediately below is my concluding paragraph. However, if you want to know how this claim was argued, and you really should want to know that, then you will need to read both of my essays first. These two chapters may be helpful to theologians in other ways, too, since they focus on theological method, divine attributes, and theological anthropology. From an historical perspective, the two pieces interact with the Ecumenical Creeds as well as with more recent theologians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Stanley Grenz, and Scott Swain, among others.

Of course, you will definitely want to read the contributions from the other writers to this volume so that you might see things in different ways. Finally, review again the biblical passages under consideration, pray for the Spirit to guide you in your interpretation, and come to your own conclusion. But, since you asked a definitive question, here is my definitive answer:

Based on the above scriptural exposition of divine perfection, buttressed by these creeds, I can only conclude that there is no “eternal relation of authority and submission” between the Father and the Son if that claim requires us to diminish in any way the fully and eternally perfect possession of authority and power by the perfect Son and the perfect Spirit as well as the perfect Father. While my theology of perfection and the creeds’ theology of power may not convince, because admittedly all creaturely theologies lack perfection, the One God the Lord remains nevertheless simply, eternally, and immutably perfect.

The book is currently available for electronic purchase through Amazon Kindle and Wordsearch Bible. The publisher, B&H Academic, will have print copies available in the new year, for which the other authors and I are grateful.

While we are speaking of Trinity, gender, and theological method, please check out the excellent new book by one of my brilliant PhD supervisees and a revered colleague at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Hongyi Yang. Her work is A Development, Not a Departure: The Lacunae in the Debate of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Gender Roles and has been widely and properly lauded as a major contribution to the debate. I find it particularly delightful that it was a Chinese woman, converted from atheism to faith in Christ, whom God used to bring together a gaggle of male Christian theologians in order to demonstrate kindly yet soundly where the holes in their arguments reside.

What is Real Biblical Manhood?

Evangelicalism is undergoing a crisis of manhood. By turning our attention to the perfect man, Jesus of Nazareth, we can sort through the confusion and recall a compelling biblical anthropology at a time when men—and women for that matter—require a heroic model for life.

“Biblical manhood” is a term often bandied about today in the church as a foil to the inanities of secular liberalism. Secular liberalism lauds the perverse, excuses the obsequious, and demands fealty to the false gods of sexuality, socialism, and status. We correctly point out the problems with the world’s perversity, but is this ever an excuse for bringing in and exalting our own perversity in the guise of being “biblical”? Have too many looked at our representation of Godly manhood as involving gold, guns, and gross historical fallacies, and seen not healthy manhood but hypocritical mysticism?

In his novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn pointed out that the real problem we face as human beings is not in the communities who oppose and oppress us. The real problem we face is in the heart of every man. If you think your real enemy is out there, such that if you could only get that laser pointer on his chest and eliminate the threat, then you fundamentally misunderstand the true war in which we are engaged. The enemy is not on the political left or on the political right of you; your true enemy is right in the middle of yourself. Your true opponent is your own heart. Our real enemies are sin, Satan, and death.

In his famous commencement address before Harvard University in 1978, Solzhenitsyn stunned his audience, not by praising the West, but by pointing out its spiritual weakness and vulgar materialism. “The West should not preen at its victory in the Cold War,” he said, “for it lacks ‘manliness’ and courage.” (Never invite a prophet to give a panegyric!)

So, what is true “manliness”? What is biblical manhood? I think some have lauded biblical manhood but have substituted their own ideals and their own foibles for that which is biblical. Fallen Adam is not the exemplar of true manhood! Don’t take Abraham’s self-preserving lies, Judah’s perverse sexual escapades, or Saul’s proud death-dealing efforts as exemplary male virtue. Rather than looking to the First Adam, look to the Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:45).

Real biblical manhood is not about demanding what you want, dominating over others, or dallying in selfish sensuality. Being a real man is about obeying God, leading others into excellence in Christ through hearing the Word, and being respectful to the leadership of the Spirit in others. A real man is like Jesus. He doesn’t put others to the sword like Mohammed. No, he climbs up with courage onto the cross that God gives him just like the Lord, Jesus Christ!

And when you look to the teaching of Jesus Christ for who he thinks is an exemplary leader in the faith, prepare to be shocked. Jesus does not laud a son of Israel, a choice man among the chosen people. No, he points out their problems—Even John the Baptist, whom he follows and adores, is classified as being among the “least in the kingdom of God” (Luke 7:28). Instead, Jesus praises one of the occupying soldiers, and a high-ranking one at that. It is this Gentile, this Centurion, who Jesus praises as an exemplar: “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Luke 7:9).

What does real biblical manhood look like? By the way, human beings were created by God to rule (Gen 1:26-28). Both men and women have been given real yet limited power and authority. And God will hold each one of us responsible for what we do with the gift of authority. So, what does male leadership, courageous manliness, entail?

Luke 7:1-10 gives us what Jesus, the only perfect Man, thought real manhood looked like. In this passage, the Centurion displays seven characteristics of true manhood, biblical manhood, redeemed manhood—the type of manhood of which Christ Jesus approved:

1. The Centurion is a man characterized by great “faith” (Luke 7:9). Real manhood cannot be grasped except through faith in Jesus.
2. This real man honors Jesus Christ. He does not see himself as a Messiah, for he sees Jesus as his superior (v. 6). There is no “Messianic complex” at work here.
3. The Centurion uses power, but not for selfish ends. He does not abuse, misappropriate, or glorify self. He does not see himself as “worthy” even to be in the presence of Jesus (vv. 6-7).
4. This real man “highly valued” those other human servants whom God gave him to lead and care about (v. 2). He seeks out Jesus to heal his servant (v. 3). He continually serves those who serve him by doing all he can for them.
5. The Centurion leads a life of unparalleled virtue. He is “worthy,” as even his natural political enemies testified to Jesus (v. 4). (The significant Greek terms translated as “worthy” in this passage, axios and hikanos, indicate “fittingness” and “sufficiency,” respectively.)
6. This real man, whom Jesus lauded as possessing unparalleled faith, loved those who were different from him. This Gentile loved the Jews (v. 5). This man showed no evidence whatsoever of racism. He had a deep appreciation for other human beings who were different.
7. The Centurion built houses of worship (v. 5). His legacy was to build up the people of God, all of which was ultimately for the glory of God.

Why did the Centurion not want to be in Jesus’ presence? Because he did not feel “worthy” enough. It is not that this man of dignity, authority, and power possessed an inferiority complex. Far from it! He was not a wimpy wallflower. Rather, he understood where true authority lies. True authority, like true glory, begins and ends with God. The Centurion’s assessment was correct, for Jesus in his manhood is worthier than the Centurion ever could be.

If you want to see what a real man, the perfect man, looks like, don’t look to fallen men. Don’t gaze at the screen or the pulpit or the podium. Instead, look toward the Man of perfection—look to where He is. The real Man is there, on the cross, providing for and protecting others, and preaching and practicing love. Christ Jesus on the cross provides us not only with our salvation but with our definition of real biblical manhood.

(Republished from the Theological Matters blog of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)

On Reaffirming the Full Dignity of Every Human Being

The last three or four weeks have been among the most emotional and intense in my adult life. However, I have also felt an incredible peace and leadership from the Holy Spirit. One of the first actions I prayerfully undertook was to ask Keith Whitfield to help me co-author a resolution asking Southern Baptists to reaffirm their existing theological anthropology. We both believe strongly that a lack of recent emphasis upon this doctrine is where so many of the problems afflicting contemporary evangelicals arise. Keith and I understand very well that passing a resolution on the key doctrine of 2018 is not an end but a beginning. I also want to thank Jason Duesing and the Resolutions Committee for passing it substantially verbatim to the Southern Baptist Convention. Finally, thank you, Southern Baptists, for reaffirming this key theological claim. May God lead us to study Scripture's teaching about Christ, the perfect Image, and about the human beings made in his image more carefully and enact it more perfectly. The text of the approved resolution follows:


ON REAFFIRMING THE FULL DIGNITY OF EVERY HUMAN BEING

WHEREAS, In the beginning, the Triune God chose to create humanity in His image and according to His likeness, such that “God created man in His own image; He created Him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:26–27); and

WHEREAS, God judged His creation of humanity to be very good indeed (Genesis 1:31), crowned humanity with honor and glory, making them rulers over the works of His hands (Psalm 8:5–6), and put eternity in all human hearts so we might seek after Him (Ecclesiastes 3:11); and

WHEREAS, God’s precious likeness and image was passed down from Adam to his posterity, the human race, through generations (Genesis 5:3); and

WHEREAS, God sent His own perfect image, Jesus Christ, into the world (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), intending through the sufferings of Christ (Hebrews 2:10) for human beings to become conformed, renewed, and transformed into the same image of Christ (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:9–10); and

WHEREAS, God intends to bless human beings to “bear the image of the man of heaven,” Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49; cf. 1 John 3:2), and “wants everyone to be saved” through hearing and believing His gospel (1 Timothy 2:4; cf. Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9); and

WHEREAS, Significant challenges threaten the dignity and worthiness of human beings who do not possess power or advantage, including but not limited to the heinous murder of the unborn child in the womb, the enforced withdrawal of life-sustaining medical care from the ill or infirm, the prejudices and discriminations of racism and ethnocentrism, various abuses of other human persons, the denigration of opposing political groups, and persecutions of religious minorities; and

WHEREAS, Article III of The Baptist Faith and Message clearly affirms that human dignity is an inviolable status, stating, “The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love”; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 12–13, 2018, reaffirm the sacredness and full dignity and worthiness of respect and Christian love for every single human being, without any reservation whatsoever; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every unborn child and denounce every act of abortion except to save the mother’s physical life; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being, whether or not any political, legal, or medical authority considers a human being possessive of “viable” life regardless of cognitive or physical disability, and denounce every act that would wrongly limit the life of any human at any stage or state of life; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being of whatever ethnicity and denounce every form and practice of racism and ethnocentrism; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being, whether male or female, young or old, weak or strong, and denounce any and every form of abuse, whether physical, sexual, verbal, or psychological; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being of whatever political or legal status or party and denounce rhetoric that diminishes the humanity of anyone; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being of whatever religion or creed and denounce any unjust violation of the first freedom of religious liberty; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm that the full dignity of every human being can never be removed, diminished, or modified by any human decision or action whatsoever; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we affirm the full dignity of every human being and commit to model God’s saving love by sharing the eternal hope found in the gospel, to call all people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19–20; 2 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Peter 3:14–17), and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39; Romans 12:10, 15; Philippians 2:4–7).

Adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 2018

Resolving the Uncertainty at the Crossroads: The 2018 Southern Baptist Convention

During the past few months, it has become apparent that while Southern Baptists say we want biblical truth to drive our efforts, we are somewhat conflicted amongst ourselves as to how that looks. Southern Baptists have arrived at a crossroads, and the future for our common work as a Christian people is uncertain.

Some of us pine primarily for a revival in that aspect of our piety characterized by evangelism; others among us argue for a renewal in that aspect of our piety characterized by justice. These two tendencies coalesce for a third and ultimately decisive middle group in a desire for expressing well the Lord’s commands to engage in both gospel witness and gospel practice. (I personally believe our choices are, providentially, not as much in conflict as the political conversation suggests, but more anon.)

Nevertheless, as with civil voting patterns in the United States, the middle group may feel forced to choose between one way or the other, for we have created a unitary power structure that funnels authority through the office of a single leader. The wisdom, or lack thereof, of the American proclivity, through both its civil and religious political democracies, to grant overarching power to one officer demonstrates itself once again in a polarized people. As a result, we sense intense heat even as we hope to see great light moving into our annual gathering.

For several weeks now, I have been encouraged by a number of good people to declare my views publicly on critical matters facing Southern Baptists as we head to Dallas. Yet the Lord has not released me to address matters that reach their cruces in judgments regarding particular persons. Friends would have me address persons, but God has laid on me the necessity of addressing principles.

I have chosen, therefore, not to focus upon persons for the sake of principles, but upon principles for the sake of persons. Perhaps God will allow us to see that these principles can, true in themselves and truly utilized, help us discern and deliver God’s will regarding the persons around us. Today’s relevant theological principles themselves preeminently concern us as human persons.

There are two principles which currently require our attention, at least as far as I can see. The first principle concerns our divine authority; the second, our divine imagery. Perhaps both will garner our people’s hearty affirmation.

Our Divine Authority

Evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, know that God has chosen to reveal himself in his Word. But while we emphasized the Word of God as Scripture in the late twentieth century, we appear to have drifted from that concern in recent decades. At one time, the dependability and trustworthiness of the Bible compelled both our dialectics and our rhetoric. Alas, however, biblical inerrancy may have become less a principle and more a talisman.

Like passersby glibly burnishing the shiny toe of David Hume’s bronze statue on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, have we begun to treat Scripture’s dependability as something of an obligatory if largely meaningless charm? The language of inspiration and infallibility is no longer used as much in our speech, and sadly its deep meaning seems increasingly lost to our cognition. We say we believe in God’s Word, and most of us even refer to it in our sermons. But are we really allowing Scripture its proper formative role in our thought, speech, and practice?

Recognizing the importance of the doctrine that compelled and legitimized the Conservative Resurgence in the first place, Dr. Owen Strachan of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary worked with me to craft a resolution for consideration by the Committee on Resolutions. Dr. Strachan, Associate Professor of Christian Theology and Director of the Center for Public Theology at our Southern Baptist seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, is a rising young theologian with an impressive record of addressing critical issues in speech and in text. It was a privilege to work with him for a second year in a row. (Last year, we worked together to affirm Penal Substitutionary Atonement.)

My personal hope in submitting our Resolution Affirming the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture is that by returning to our first principle regarding the authority of divine revelation, we might again know the leadership of the Lord in our common effort as a denomination. Psalm 111 reminds us, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and "All who follow his instructions have good insight."

I believe we will see the way forward to real unity and proper action only through serious Bible study and passionate Bible proclamation. Without constant referral to the divine basis of our authority, we will perish. We absolutely must restate the importance of biblical inerrancy.

Our Divine Imagery

The second resolution summarizes a doctrine with profound implications for a multitude of practical issues. It undergirds today's most popular news headlines and dominates our social media discussions. What dogma lies at the center of our concerns with the problems of abortion, euthanasia, racism and ethnocentrism, sexual abuse, political demonization, and religious persecution?

The biblical doctrine of humanity orients the nexus of these critical ethical issues. The real sickness we have concerns a misunderstanding of who we are as human beings; our ethical crises are symptoms of a more fundamental problem. Humanity is under sustained demonic assault, and the social traumas originating from that warfare demand a faithful witness from God's people concerning God's highest-placed creature. The created dignity of human beings is a doctrine which Southern Baptists have long affirmed, but we have too often overlooked it during other discussions.

Recognizing the church's responsibility to address the anthropological deficiency of this day and age drove recent discussions between Dr. Keith S. Whitfield and me. Dr. Whitfield, who is Associate Professor of Theology, Dean of Graduate Studies, and Vice President for Academic Administration at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, has a gentle heart and a keen mind. I believe we would do well to wear his winsome words. Dr. Whitfield and I previously collaborated in a book on theological method, but we now try our hand at collaborating in a resolution on anthropology.

My personal hope in submitting our Resolution Reaffirming the Full Dignity of Every Human Being is that by reminding ourselves of God's creative and redemptive gifts of identity to humanity, we might help reverse the horrible denigrations of humanity occurring in so many areas of contemporary life. Especially vulnerable in our culture are those persons who lack sufficient political or economic power to require recognition of themselves as worthy of life and liberty. There are two major theological parts to our resolution:

First, as Christians, we believe it imperative to affirm the sacredness, the full dignity, and the worthiness of love which belong to every human creature as a special gift from the Creator. Our dignity as human beings derives not from other human beings. Too many human institutions arrogate to themselves an authority to pronounce decisions about things regarding which they were never given authority to define. Because our dignity as human beings derives from the Creator of all human life, every human life belongs to God alone. Human powers must submit to this universal anthropological truth or find themselves damned for their despicable actions at the final judgment.

Second, as Christians, we also recognize that being created in the divine image is not the end of the story. After we were created in the divine image, humanity abused his image through sin and suffered debilitating damage. To solve this problem is why the Perfect Image of God became a human being, and through the Spirit's gift of faith, the human being's image can be renewed unto conformity with Christ. Thus, we call people not only to respect the full dignity of all human persons, but also to have their own dignity renewed unto perfection by the perfect Word of God.

True humanity comes as a result of creation and of redemption. Both stages of the human condition must be reaffirmed by those who believe in the truth of God's Word as the basis for our teaching today. On the one hand, without recognition of humanity's universal created dignity, we face the specter of continually repeating the horrors of our world's past denigrations of precious children, women, and men. On the other hand, without recognition of humanity's universal need for a renewal of that dignity, we face the specter of God's righteous final judgment upon us for our sins. The biblical doctrine of the image of God puts evangelism and justice in correlation rather than in conflict.

In Conclusion

My purpose in submitting these two resolutions is to call us back to God's Word as the basis for our approach to reality and to call us to see every human person's proper place of dignity within this reality. May God use my brothers' excellent labors upon these resolutions for his glory.

(We trust the collegial wisdom of the Resolutions Committee to bring forward in the proper form the common messages the Lord would have Southern Baptists speak regarding the critical issues of our day. Thus we will not repeat our proposed resolutions verbatim online. Nor do we presume the committee will see exactly what we see in speaking about these great truths. So we pray.)

The Cross Is Everything!

The following was written in support of the great works being done by all at the convention, on the floor and on the platform. I am proud of our Resolutions Committee and of our messengers, real proud, and I stand fully behind the resolutions, including the upcoming Resolution on Alt-Right White Supremacy:

While I skipped the Southern Baptist Convention in order to polish an overdue essay responding to my recently deceased friend, the Reformed theologian John Webster, my heart has been unable to escape the profound events occurring in Phoenix, Arizona. So many of my living friends and colleagues in ministry are there, and I have watched them with love and concern, exchanging messages with good people who are under both public and personal pressure to do well. With the incredible responsibilities placed on their shoulders, I want them to know they are doing well in spite of the heartache and disappointment all around. The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention are working together slowly but carefully toward the future that God has planned for them. And the men leading the way are in a pressure cooker, and it hurts.

I have one word of advice to the leaders of the SBC and to every convention messenger and every spectator. It is an idea that could be taken contritely as a mere mantra were it not central to everything occurring this year: The Cross is at the center of everything the SBC is doing. But we may be somewhat oblivious to it. Some have glibly dismissed the resolution on the atonement that Owen Strachan and I offered as so much window dressing, but that is utterly wrongheaded. The Cross of Jesus Christ is at the center of everything that the SBC is doing this year. The Cross makes sense of the other significant resolutions, such as the ones on the Alt-Right and on Planned Parenthood. The Cross makes sense of the mission board reports and of Steve Gaines’s proposed task force. The Cross is everything!

As Leon Morris and John Stott demonstrated years ago, the Cross of Jesus Christ provides the meaning of the biblical text. The Cross is both center and circumference; it is both pervasive and without parallel; it is both paradigmatic and problematic. Open any New Testament book and before long, the Cross will dominate the discussion. For Paul, a highly educated Biblicist with pristine religious credentials, the Cross which was earlier a scandal to him subsequently became so big that he could see nothing else. In Galatians 6:14f, he stated,

But as for me, I will never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The world has been crucified to me through the cross, and I to the world. For both circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing; what matters instead is a new creation (Christian Standard Bible).

Paul, the inspired apostle, finally learned not to boast about how faithful he was to God’s law, or how many converts he made, or how many disciples enrolled in his ministry program. Success for Paul was upended entirely, such that he could boast in nothing, nothing except for the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Boasting in anything else was at an end. He did not boast about how pristine his doctrine was, though it was now. He did not boast about how other ministers looked up to him, for many did not, but he no longer cared. He did not boast about what his political party was doing, or not doing.

Christ and the Cross of Christ were everything to Paul; the world carried no ultimate meaning for him anymore. The world itself—the world with all of its physicality and its spirituality, with all of its culture and its intelligence, with all of its blessings and failures—the world was nothing. It had been put upon the Cross and had died in his eyes. “The world has been crucified to me through the cross, and I to the world.” When the Cross of Jesus Christ becomes the only filter by which you can think, speak, or act, everything else dies. And only in such a death lays the potential of life.

The Cross of Christ is utterly different from the priorities of this world. It is antithetical to our very way of thinking. The atonement resolution was necessary because without penal substitution, the other important doctrines that undergird our entire worldview collapse into chaos, as seen in the cultural crises enveloping the West today. Without penal substitution, our God becomes an unholy, sentimental, and unjust weakling while fallen men are deluded into conceiving their own righteousness. Without the Cross, there is no salvation for fallen men—there is no reason whatsoever to consider sin or its solution. Without the Cross, there will be no human flourishing and no evangelism. Without the Cross, there is no reason for the divinely created churches to meet, much less a humanly created denomination. Without the Cross, our social and political thoughts recede into mere vain and fleeting opinions.

But with the Cross of Jesus the Jew, the Alt-Right is seen for what it is—a worldly and deadly way of thinking. For the Alt-Right is concerned about preserving a dying culture, the culture of white supremacy, a culture that benefited many even as it denigrated others. The Alt-Right is the antithesis of the Cross of Jesus Christ. The Alt-Right says that one man’s culture is superior to another and the other must submit to me, but the Man on the Cross says that, though He is superior to everyone, He will submit to death for the other. The Cross is the antithesis of culture war. And we all know that cultures are at war with one another today—Islam versus the West, Sunni versus Shia, Secularist versus Religious, Liberal versus Conservative.

Cultures tell men and women that they must dominate the other in order to survive, but the Cross invites men and women to die with Christ and serve the other. Cultural preservation encourages people to bear the sword against the other, but the Cross encourages the sacrifice of oneself on behalf of the other. Planned Parenthood tells women they must kill the child in order to flourish, but the One on the Cross tells women they must embrace their own crosses in order for both them and their babies to flourish. Racists tell their races they must dominate the other races in order to flourish, but the One on the Cross empties the races of all their importance.

When Paul said circumcision means “nothing,” he was speaking about his precious culture, to which he previously gave so much of his life. He had fought for and killed for the preservation of Jewish culture, but then he found that his precious culture was nothing. “Circumcision,” the defining external mark of Jewish cultural identity, no longer mattered to Paul. His birth culture no longer mattered. But neither did his missionary culture. “Uncircumcision” no longer mattered to Paul either. He didn’t stop being a Jew in reaching the Gentiles, and neither did he become a zealot for Gentileness. His previously misguided zeal for culture was transformed, for he learned that cultures are ultimately “nothing.” If he were in Phoenix today, he would cry out, “White culture is nothing!” Then he would say, “Black culture is nothing!”

Well, if the cultures are nothing, then what is important? If all of our languages and customs and practices and arts and sciences are nothing, then what matters? For Paul, human cultures are no longer germane, for now there is a “new creation.” God was making something new and unitive out of the old and divisive. In Ephesians 2, he spoke of a new humanity made out of warring cultures, a humanity refashioned in Jesus. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Jewish messiah who died for both Jews and Gentiles; He is the God who died for all human beings. It is His Cross that we preach and follow.

As a pastor, I went home after the 1995 resolution that was spearheaded by the old ERLC leadership and defended it. As a professor and Bible teacher, I will go to my church and my seminary after the 2017 resolution that is advocated by the new ERLC leadership and defend it. In my old church, the first resolution was not appreciated by some; in my new church, this latest resolution may not be appreciated by some. (Anyone who doubts the problem of racism is in the SBC should read of my own experience here.)

Whatever the opposition, we as Christians must do what is right. Why? Because we must embrace the cross, including the suffering of shame for not speaking when we should have (as in 1845), or the suffering of broken relationships with those who refuse to repent (as we may now). Well, you get the idea, the Cross of suffering is not only our only way of salvation in the world to come, the Cross of suffering is the true Christian’s only way of life in the world today. Grow up and embrace the cross, Christian! Have that baby, my sister, even with the suffering a child may bring, though honestly children are really blessings! Reject your inbuilt racism, my brother, even if it means you have to walk back some of your words and your ways, and your politics.

I stand fully with my brothers and sisters at the 2017 Phoenix meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, and I urge them to embrace the Cross, and embrace all of these resolutions with all their heart. If we do that, then we may be ready to see a revival, a revival to which our President, the wonderful pastor and evangelist Dr. Steve Gaines, is calling us. We need a revival, a revival that compels prayer and evangelism. But here, too, we will not have a revival in witnessing and resultant baptisms until the Cross, the only way of salvation, means everything to us, everything. 

The Cross is absolutely necessary to our doctrine, to our ethics, and to our mission. The Cross must no longer merely be the center our message; the cross must also be the paradigm of our life. The world is nothing; the cultures are nothing; the politics are nothing; personal status is nothing; personal comfort is nothing; my life itself is nothing. These things are crucified to me. My brothers and sisters (adelphoi), look, look there at the Cross, for THE CROSS IS EVERYTHING!

The Day-Higginbotham Lectures of 2017, Now Available Online

During the first few days of March, I was granted the privilege of delivering the prestigious Day-Higginbotham Lectures for 2017. Previous lecturers have included R. Albert Mohler and Abraham Friesen as well as the late Thomas C. Oden and the late John Webster, each of whom I have counted as honored teachers and friends. It was a surprise and a pleasure when Craig Blaising and Paige Patterson offered me not only a new role at Southwestern Seminary as Research Professor of Systematic Theology but also the delivery of these messages. Thanks are extended to Drs. Patterson and Blaising for the invitation and to Dr. Jeff Bingham, our fine new Dean of the School of Theology, for organizing the lectures.

The series title was "The Image of the Trinity: Biblical Soundings toward a Doctrine of Humanity." Distinct lectures over three one-hour periods were offered on "The Image of the Trinity," "The Analogy in Male and Female," "Human Life Under Heaven," and "Before God." The respective Latin terms chosen were Imago Trinitatis, Analogia, Sub Sole, and Coram Deo. One may notice that these lectures will form the basis for one of my next major theological monographs, on Trinitarian Anthropology. (The second major monograph will be a co-authored piece with David S. Dockery on Scripture and Special Revelation, of which more will be announced soon.)

It was truly a pleasant surprise to see how well the lectures were attended by faculty and students. Indeed, the subject matter of the lectures has generated numerous requests among the faculty for further collaboration across the theological disciplines, both within the classical disciplines in the School of Theology, but also with the Schools of Music and of Family and Church Ministries. I especially appreciate the interest of Drs. Aaron Son, David Toledo, Richard Ross, Waylan Owens, Madison Grace, Josh Williams, and Ryan Stokes in furthering this work with thoughtful exchanges and the promise of more!

The lectures may be accessed here in video format:

• First Lecture, Imago Trinitatis
• Second Lecture, Analogia
• Third and Fourth Lectures, Sub Sole and Coram Deo

Enjoy!

Trinity and Authority (Part One of Five)

The throne [θρόνος] of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and His slaves [δοῦλοι] will serve Him. (John 22:3b; HCSB)

My wife, Karen, is a close and careful reader of Scripture, and some of our greatest joys occur when we discuss the proper interpretation of the authoritative Word of God. Karen is also a close reader of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the Trinity, since she is writing a thesis on that subject under the supervision of Gerardo Alfaro. Bonhoeffer's innovative if incomplete ruminations on the Trinity have shaped the contemporary discussion in a profound, if largely unrecognized, way.

One particular question with which we have been struggling is exactly how creation in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) is to be seen in our marriage. What does it mean that there is an analogia relationis (Bonhoeffer's term) between the triune God and his image in humanity, especially in the relation of a man and his wife? Little were we to realize that a conversation with parallels to our own questions about Trinity and relation would explode in controversy on the web in recent weeks.

We bring forward this essay as a small contribution to that huge and fruitful, if sometimes tense, discussion. Before beginning, please allow a few caveats.

First, this is not intended to be an academic presentation, though it draws on academic work we performed together and individually. We have opted to speak freely in summary rather than with scholastic detail in order to allow the general reader some access to this discussion.

Second, the issue of authority is not our foremost concern with regard to the Trinity. Malcolm recently wrote a book, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits, in which he lightly touches on the current issue. His foremost concern, demonstrated at length there, is knowing who God is through his revelation so we might worship him truly. Likewise, Karen studies the Trinity, not for speculative anthropological reasons but to help her lead women and children to worship God in mind, heart, and deed.

Third, determining the exact method one should follow in moving from theology (including the doctrine of the Trinity) to anthropology (including the relations between man and wife) requires contemplation. We only touch upon aspects of that movement here and refer the reader to Malcolm's contribution to a forthcoming book edited by Keith Whitfield. B&H Academic plans to publish Whitfield's Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application in time for the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in November of this year. Malcolm's essay stresses that the direction of theological anthropology moves from theology to anthropology with utmost care and eschatological openness.

Finally, to extend our second point, we again note that Trinity and gender is not our primary concern. Worshiping God truly and with joyous hearts is our primary concern. Because we believed entering this conversation might detract from that service, we have been reluctant to enter it. We fear a reader's hasty preconceptions will categorize us as being "with them," whoever "they" are. Evangelicals have divided between egalitarians and complementarians, and the conversation has been so heated that whole agendas appear at work to build up one position or tear down the other. Moreover, these two major parties have further divided among themselves, with accusations of going beyond orthodoxy. We lament all unnecessary divisions and ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to treat each other with the love and generosity our Lord exemplified and commanded (John 13:34-35).

With those caveats, we now turn to an explication of the Trinity in light of some of the recent conversations online.

The Two Primary Complementarian Positions

Both Wayne Grudem and Mark Jones have summarily cited Malcolm as supporting their respective yet opposite positions in the recent internet controversy. Actually, we find positive aspects in both of the complementarian positions. Our hope is to help provide a positive way forward. In order to reach that goal, we must summarize the two major positions as we perceive them. If we have not represented your position correctly, we beg your forbearance and would gladly stand corrected.

The Eternal Relations of Authority Position

Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and Mike Ovey are among the primary proponents of what has been variously called Eternal Functional Subordination, Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission, Eternal Submission of the Son, etc. We will classify these under the name of Eternal Relations of Authority (ERA). We offer four summative statements to characterize the positive position of this accomplished set of conservative evangelical theologians:

1.     Their primary method is to construct an understanding of the Trinity from the biblical ground up.
2.     The primary analogy they have chosen to organize the complex biblical witness about the immanent relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the biblical text is a relational analogy, that of personal "relations of authority."
3.     The ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) of the Nicene tradition is affirmed. God the Father and God the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, share the same nature.
4.     Most ERA proponents seem to operate from a modern Calvinist perspective.

The Other Complementarian Position

The initiating proponents of this position include such theologians as Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman, but many others have weighed in. (From inside conservative evangelical circles, still other complementarians have joined in the critique of the ERA position, but without condemnations. Egalitarian evangelicals such as Scot McKnight and Michael Bird have also stepped forward with comments. Beyond evangelicalism, patristic scholars such as Lewis Ayres and Michel Rene Barnes have supported this other position.) We tossed around different terms to classify this second position, but settled on the primary descriptive term, "other," though "classical" could be used with justification. We offer four summative statements to characterize the positive position of this accomplished set of conservative evangelical theologians:

1.     These theologians seek to construct a biblical theology of the Trinity, but with an ear sensitive to the theological exegesis of the classical tradition.
2.     The primary analogy they have chosen to organize the complex witness of the biblical text regarding the immanent Trinity is the Cappadocian and Augustinian language of "eternal generation" with regard to the Son and "eternal procession" with regard to the Holy Spirit. This theological analogy is relational, but differs from that of the ERA theologians. Where the ERA theologians stress relations of authority, the others use the ontological language of "relations of origin" and "modes of subsistence" or simply "ordered relations" (τάξις, taxis).
3.     The ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) of the Nicene tradition is affirmed. God the Father and God the Son, along with God the Holy Spirit, share the same nature. Also receiving major emphasis is the divine attribute of simplicity.
4.     Many of these proponents also operate from a modern Calvinist perspective. Some follow B.B. Warfield's disjunction between the immanent Trinity and economic Trinity, while others lean toward a modified version of Karl Rahner's identification between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. Some appeal to the Augustinian presentation of the Trinity with its psychological analogy or love analogy. Some appeal to the Reformed covenant of redemption. Others appeal to Calvin's origination of the Son from himself as God (αὐτόθεοϛ, autotheos). In various ways, the traditional emphasis on the unity of the three persons is thus emphasized.

From these descriptions of the opposing positions, it should be evident that, alongside their obvious agreement regarding gender complementarianism, there is much agreement regarding the presentation of their doctrine of the Trinity. Both the ERA complementarians and the other complementarians agree there is a threeness and oneness in the biblical witness to God. Both affirm the Nicene tradition's appeal to the one οὐσία (ousia, often translated as "essence," "nature," "substance," or "being") of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both positions appear to affirm there are three persons (ὑπόστασεις, hypostaseis) in the Godhead, though this has been typically implied. Next, we turn to the crisis between the two groups, which we believe is focused upon whether describing the relations between the three persons, and particularly between the Father and the Son, as eternal relations of authority is orthodox.

Malcolm and Karen Yarnell

Fort Worth, Texas

June 2016