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
