Councils, Christlikeness, and a Christological Glossary: Further Reflections on the 2020 Drummond-Bush Lecture

The Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, recently granted a signal honor by inviting me to present the 2020 Drummond-Bush Lecture. That Lecture is entitled Christology without Christlikeness. The Drummond-Bush Lectures memorialize the academic ministries of Lewis Drummond, the fourth President of Southeastern Seminary and author of a key biography of Billy Graham, and Russ Bush, a leading evangelical apologist and philosopher as well as a personal friend and administrative mentor.

The event video, originally presented on Friday, the 2nd of October 2020, will be available online through the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. Because the event was oversold, the Bush Center kindly made it available on Facebook Live, too. The Question and Answer period moderated by Dr. Ken Keathley, Director of the Bush Center, was enjoyable and may be particularly helpful to the uninitiated. A Christological Glossary is provided below as a quick reference guide for the important technical terms. (The Lecture alone, originally recorded by Adam Covington of The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the Truett Auditorium, may be found here.)

The Lecture is a shorter version of an essay written at the request of Dr. Walter Strickland, Associate Vice President for Kingdom Diversity Initiatives and Assistant Professor of Systematic and Contextual Theology at Southeastern Seminary. The Essay, entitled “Christology in Chalcedon: Creed and Contextualization,” has since been published in the Southeastern Theological Review. The Essay may be found here.

While the shorter Lecture and the longer Essay explore the pristine theology of Chalcedon and the difficult history of the various Christian churches, both Miaphysite and Duophysite, from Ethiopia to Armenia and Rome to Persia, the most important aspect for the contemporary Christian leader will appear toward the end. The persecuting legacy of Constantinianism is challenged through an appeal to obey consistently the supremely authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ himself.

————

Christological Glossary: 

• “Miaphysitism” is characterized by the worship of the unitary nature of Jesus Christ, while retaining both the humanity and the deity of the incarnate Lord. This is a common position for Christians in Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Syria.
• “Duophysitism” also worships the one Lord Jesus Christ, while explicitly affirming both his human and divine natures. This is the position advanced by the Council of Chalcedon.
• “Monophysitism” differs from both Miaphysitism and Duophysitism, in that it compromises the humanity of Christ. Monos indicates “only” or “alone.” Miaphysites such as Didymus the Blind of Alexandria should not be identified as Monophysite, because they worship Christ under one nature even while maintaining the two natures conceptually.
• “Nestorianism,” which is not to be confused either with the person, Nestorius, nor with many of those who later became known as “Nestorians,” compromises the unity of the Lord’s person. In particular, Nestorianism denies the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos, “God-bearer.” 
• “Heresy” is a term reserved for a church body’s declaration that a teaching requires repentance or excommunication. Note that heresy is determined not by individual theologians but by churches, whose one head remains the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 18:15-20; Col 1:18). Nestorianism was formally condemned as a heresy at the Council of Ephesus (431), while Monophysitism was formally condemned as a heresy at the Council of Chalcedon (451). 
• “Orthodoxy” technically means “right glory,” with reference to the liturgy of worship, but it has come to be intellectualized as “right doctrine.” Although they differ in their terminology, many Miaphysite and Duophysite churches have in recent decades affirmed one another’s theological orthodoxy, even while retaining their distinct terminologies.
• “Constantinianism” is that form of Christianity which combines ecclesiology with human power structures, proposing to advance the interests of the church with the coercive tools of the state. Its authority to pursue this program and its practical results have been heavily disputed both by non-Christians and by those Christian traditions affiliated with the Free Churches.

Trinity and Authority (Part Two of Five)

Having defined the controversy between complementarian Trinitarians according to the positive positions each side takes, we now consider the particulars that have led to argument and anathema. We will then devote some attention to the theological strategies of the eternal relations of authority theologians. After reviewing the use of analogy in the debate, our final post will build on these judgments as it proposes a way forward.

The Eternal Relations of Authority and Its Detractors

The accusations that have been drawn up against the eternal relations of authority theologians have centered on their primary idea that the Father and the Son have distinct movements of authority. So, what is the problem with saying that the Son is eternally submissive to the Father? To set the ground, let us hear from at least one ERA theologian, arguably the primary leader among them, Wayne Grudem.

Grudem's Formula

For a quick introduction, consult Grudem’s shorter systematic theology, where he argues the language of generation or begetting was a "misunderstanding" in the early church later corrected by twentieth-century Greek scholarship (Bible Doctrines: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith [1999], 113-14). Deprived of the language of generation by modern scholarship, Grudem turned to a different terminology to arrive at "the only distinctions between the members of the Trinity" (117). 

The necessary distinctions now reside in "the way they relate to each other and to the creation." Thus, in order to maintain the oneness and the threeness of God, Grudem's slogan becomes, "ontological equality but economic subordination" or "equal in being but subordinate in role." Of course, economy refers to God's relation to creation, so in an apparent effort to retain the eternal nature of divine distinctions, Grudem adds that the divine persons exhibit an "eternal subordination in role" (my italics; 117, cf. 114n4).

The Attacks

If this is a proper reading of Grudem, then the traditional lines between economy and immanence, or between God's temporal relation to creation and God's eternal relation to himself, has been spanned. While the introduction of divine movement toward creation into the immanent Trinity is a difficulty that needs address, the detractors have focused attention elsewhere.

The opposing theologians have particularly wondered whether the ERA theologians are subliminal or at least developing Arians. Accusations that these complementarian evangelicals are teaching ontological subordinationism, homoianism, or homoiousionism (forms of Arianism and semi-Arianism) have raised eyebrows worldwide. 

However, because of the ERA theologians' early and sustained adherence to the ὁμοούσιον (homoousion), these particular accusations are difficult to prove. Moreover, surmising that the next generation may become Arian due to the loss of the classical distinction of modes of subsistence remains speculation and could be dismissed as fear mongering.

Most recently, the focus has shifted to concerns that at least one ERA theologian is teaching that God possesses three wills, two wills of which submit to the one will of the Father. If so, then the problem is pushed back into the depths of the sixth ecumenical council, where few Western historical theologians and most systematic theologians rarely travel. Logically, if God has three wills or three centers of operative decision-making, then the unity of God appears to be threatened. 

According to the orthodox dyothelite (two wills) position advocated by Maximus the Confessor and dogmatically decreed at Constantinople III (680-81), one will is attached to the divine nature and the other to the human nature in Christ. Dyothelitism developed in response to the idea that one will is located in the person of Christ, as the monothelites proposed. The patristic concern was that this compromised the two natures of Christ. The contemporary concern about three wills is a Trinitarian extension of that earlier Christological debate.

Yet others have become concerned that the ERA theologians affirm a form of social Trinitarianism in the vein of neo-orthodox theologians like Jürgen Moltmann and Colin Gunton, who pictured three centers of operation in God. However, there has been no discernible rush on the part of the ERA theologians to identify with either the ancient monothelites or recent social Trinitarians. 

Moreover, critics of the ERA theologians must themselves answer the problem of how it is that God sufficiently loves himself in a threefold way if not with the three persons loving one another. This line of inquiry has resulted in the intriguing idea of Andrew Moody and Mark Baddely, through the Australian Gospel Coalition website, that there is an inner Trinitarian ordered beauty of willing proposal by the Father and of willing assent by the Son and the Spirit. Moody and Baddely hope their idea simultaneously avoids diminishing the divine persons and dividing the divine will. We look forward to evaluating their forthcoming contributions.

Malcolm and Karen Yarnell

Fort Worth, Texas

June 2016

God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Book Excerpt)

Evangelicalism in America has amalgamated for scholars in the organization known as the Evangelical Theological Society. The two parts of its “doctrinal basis” concern the Bible’s truthfulness and God the Trinity. While some evangelicals have addressed the Trinity in terms of systematic theology and others have employed the Trinity in debates over gender relations, few monographs are dedicated to evaluating the biblical source material for the Trinity. This is an odd oversight for a people whose confession centers on only the Bible and the Trinity.

Anecdotal evidence, moreover, suggests such work should begin in earnest, for if a recent survey is correct, most evangelical Christians in the United States are not necessarily Trinitarian. One-fifth of American evangelicals claimed Jesus is the first creature created by God, and more than half claimed the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being. That survey gives some credence to Curtis Freeman’s controversial claim that “most Baptists are Unitarians that simply have not yet gotten around to denying the Trinity.” If evangelical scholars are Trinitarian, the people in the churches may not be.

In addition, there is some diversity among Christian scholars regarding whether the Trinity is a necessary doctrine. One well-known evangelical theologian, Roger E. Olson of Baylor University, says the doctrine of the Trinity is a true conclusion, but belief in the Trinity is neither necessary nor part of gospel proclamation. Another, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to the contrary classifies the doctrine of the Trinity as “fundamental and essential to the Christian faith.” Leaving to the side the issue of “theological triage,” which both theologians affirm, an evangelical equivocation regarding the Trinity remains.

In writing this book, we set out to answer these two questions: Is the doctrine that God is Trinity a biblical doctrine? Is it, moreover, a doctrine that is necessary to believe? The eight chapters in this book contribute toward the answers.

In the midst of engaging in the close theological exegesis of eight important biblical texts, it became evident that a Trinitarian reading of Scripture also required an evaluation of Protestant hermeneutics. The method of Bible study many evangelicals are taught to use must be substantially revised if the Trinity and the Bible are to coalesce. As a result, there arose the need to wrestle with interpretive method as much as Trinitarian exegesis. Indeed, we almost adopted the subtitle, “The Trinitarian Revision of Biblical Hermeneutics.”

Karl Barth observed this difficulty and opted to diminish hermeneutics out of concern that any interpretive criterion beyond the text necessarily distorts exegesis. While there is much to learn from Barth, and his call to enter “the strange new world of the Bible” warms the heart of this free churchman in his own friendly remonstration toward Protestant evangelicalism, we have opted to revise rather than repress evangelical hermeneutical method.

In the following study, comparison is made with the art of painting as a helping metaphor. This was deemed helpful on several accounts. First, it allows for a focused consideration of the various texts, treating each according to its own authorship, genre, and context. From a modern critical perspective, this properly takes the history and grammar of any text as a distinct phenomenon with utmost solemnity. Second, the appeal to art helps construct a bridge from the rationalism endemic among the practitioners of my own discipline in theology to the more holistic approach of the biblical writers. The critique of any work of literature requires both reason and imagination, but the theological interpretation of Scripture especially requires the graces of both logos and pneuma.

Third, the art metaphor allows this author to function as an appreciative if critical commentator upon each text as a great work of theological literature. Avoiding the extremes of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, we sought to weave a middle way through the judicious employment of both modern and premodern methods. Finally, the meticulous treatment of each text on its own later permits the epilogue to pursue a distinct canonical approach, as when art is gathered thematically for review in contemporary art galleries.

Order God the Trinity at LifeWay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Christianbook.com.

(This post originally appeared in a slightly different format at my publisher's website, B&H Academic.)

"Noah" and Gnosticism

The recent film “Noah” has garnered attention and criticism. I have especially followed with interest the secondary conversation between the promoters and critics of the movie. For instance, in a recent movie review, Dr. Brian Mattson describes “Noah” as a Gnostic recasting of the biblical story. This follows in the line of what some have seen as Hollywood’s trend of pushing Gnostic ideology (e.g., “The Da Vinci Code”), as well as the current scholarly focus on the Gnostic Gospels.

I would like to provide some commentary on a revival of Gnosticism in the broader culture and among scholars. In particular, I want to focus upon the appeals of Gnosticism, recognizing the movie “Noah” as both an obstacle and an opportunity.

Gnosticism has been around since the period in which the New Testament was written. It was a movement that mixed Eastern forms of mysticism with other religions, such as Christianity. Gnosticism as a Christian-related heresy included the teachings of such heresiarchs as Valentinus, who offered a special gnosis, knowledge, which purportedly allowed one to make his or her way to the divine fullness. This gnosis is reserved only for the truly “spiritual.” Marcion, who truncated the Bible in order to excise the God of wrath from it, was also often considered a Gnostic.

THE GNOSTIC REVIVAL

While Gnosticism as a particular religion is today small in size, there is little doubt that Gnosticism as an attitude, a way of theological reflection, is making something of a comeback in the West. There are at least three sources for this trend.

• First, the Gnostic-like outlook appeals to the vague spirituality that has ballooned recently in Western culture, especially among those that have been identified as “spiritual, but not religious.” According to Robert Fuller, a substantial minority of Americans are “associated with higher levels of interest in mysticism, experimentation with unorthodox beliefs and practices, and negative feelings toward both clergy and churches” (OUP, 2001). The director and actors themselves have displayed some of these attitudes in their promotions of the movie.
• Second, there are other scholars, such as Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman, who have made a whole industry out of introducing and examining the Gnostic Gospels. Ehrman, a former evangelical, has become of late a sort of analyst-evangelist for early Gnosticism as an alternative to biblical orthodoxy. Early Gnosticism, which certain New Testament texts seem to have been written to refute directly, was a secretive form of syncretism (religious mixing) between Eastern Mysticism and Christianity.
• Third, these scholarly trends have symbiotically recognized and encouraged the large number of people who want to have some knowledge about God or things ethereal without committing to any particular belief system. The movie “Noah” as a marketing strategy may be intentionally crafted to appeal to “spirituals” and to others interested in a character recognized the world over in one form or another.

IS GNOSTICISM A CURRENT PROBLEM FACING CHRISTIANS?

Yes, Gnosticism as a religion or as a religious attitude makes two distinct problematic appeals: it has a Syncretistic appeal and a Secretive appeal.

ADDRESSING THE SYNCRETISTIC APPEAL

With regard to the Syncretistic appeal, I would encourage Christians to exercise both evangelism and discernment. We must evangelize the lost, and they will have questions about Noah and the God behind Noah. Use the opportunity of the movie to tell them about God and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, but do so while exercising discernment. Be sure to correct misconceptions about Noah, and especially misconceptions about God. Use the opportunity of the movie, but use it wisely.

ADDRESSING THE SECRETIVE APPEAL

With regard to the Secretive appeal of Gnosticism, I would argue that any group—whether it be based in an academy, or a conference, or a movie studio—that claims it has knowledge about God or spiritual things must be treated with skepticism. Any claim for knowledge about God that goes beyond the texts of the canon of Scripture taps into the Secretive urge of the Gnostic outlook. In response, we note that God the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved for us a publicly available text, which we call the Holy Bible, and it has included therein all that we need to know about God, much less Noah. Yet again, the critical issue is about Scripture and about how we really need to know and speak God’s Word. We must again and again go back to the Bible.