Trinity & Church V - The Image of God

Continued from Part IV

The first argument stems from the biblical truth that humanity has been created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26, 27) and that the renewal of that image involves not only what happens within individual hearts and minds in relation to God, but also inevitably includes the transformation of our social relations (Eph. 4:24 with 5:1 and 5:22-6:9; Col. 3:10 with 3:12-4:1).

Without rehearsing the convoluted theological history of the problems associated with the precise identity of the “image of God,” I only wish to call attention here to few salient introductory points before moving on to consider its social dimension. First, whatever else it means, humanity not only bears the image of God in that we inescapably reflect God, but humanity is also called to image God. The image of God is both a gift and a task. “Image” is therefore appropriately used as noun and a verb.

Most Reformation theologians have therefore spoken both of post-fall humanity’s retention of the image and of our inability after the fall to fulfill our calling to actively image God. The question, then, for us is: does the image of God embrace the social dimension of humanity’s created existence? And if it does, what bearing does God’s own eternal sociality have upon our understanding of humanity’s calling to image God’s life on earth?

According to Genesis, it was no divine monad who created man in his image. The immediate context would appear to provide us with the “missing link” sought for in the interpretation of the “Let us make . . . in our image” in Gen. 1:26-27. The presence and activity of the divine Spirit in Gen. 1:2 seems to be the most likely referent of this address within the structure of the creation narrative itself. In fact, as Sinclair Ferguson notes, “the engagement of the Spirit in the work of creation would mark the beginning and end of a literary inclusio in Genesis 1” (The Holy Spirit [InterVarsity Press, 1996], p. 21). In support of this reading, one discovers in the wider canonical context of the Old Testament how Yahweh’s ongoing creative work typically includes the activity of his Spirit (Ps. 104:30; Job 33:4). Victor P. Hamilton explains,

"The best suggestion approaches the trinitarian understanding but employs less direct terminology. Thus Hasel calls the us of v. 26 a ‘plural of fullness,’ and Clines, God here speaks to the Spirit, mentioned back in v. 2, who now becomes God’s partner in creation. It is one thing to say that the author of Gen. 1 was not schooled in the intricacies of Christian dogma. It is another thing to say he was theologically too primitive or naïve to handle such ideas a plurality within unity. What we often so blithely dismiss as ‘foreign to the thought of the OT’ may be nothing of the sort. True, the concept may not be etched on every page of Scripture, but hints and clues are dropped enticingly here and there, and such hints await their full understanding ‘at the correct time’ (Gal. 4:4)” (The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 [Eerdmans, 1990], p. 134).

Being privileged to live “at the correct time,” and having been trained by the New Testament authors to read the Old Testament with the new eyes afforded us by the final, defining revelation of the Son of God, we know that all three persons of the Godhead participated in the creation of the world and humanity, specifically that God the Father created the world, as Irenaeus has nicely put it, using his “two hands,” the Son and Spirit. H. C. Leupold says, “Behind such speaking lies the truth of the Holy Trinity which, as it grows increasingly clear in revelation, is in the light of later clear revelation discovered as contained in this plural in a kind of obscure adumbration. The truth of the Trinity explains this passage” (Exposition of Genesis: Volume 1 [Baker Book House, 1949], p. 86).

As Christians, therefore, we cannot but read Genesis 1, with its narrative description of God, his Spirit, and his powerful Word, as a trinitarian text, and the “let us make man in our image” of Gen. 1:26-27 as a reference to the uncreated original “social” God creating man to reflect the life of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within man’s own dynamic social relations with his Creator and fellow creatures.

Continue with Part VI

360 Spin

Okay, so it took me a while, but I finally got our Xbox 360 today. Typically, I get the new games systems the day they are released (PS 2 & Xbox, for example). But this time I thought it would be best to wait. As it turned out, there hasn't been any drop in price since the 360 was released. I wanted to wait to see which system looked the most promising. PS 3 is too expensive and doesn't seem to be doing very well in sales. The 360 isn't all that much less in cost, but the game base is there. Besides, hey, Halo 3 is coming out in September. What can I say?

So we sold our old Xbox system and 5 good games for over a hundred bucks on eBay. Then my son earned most of the money necessary to purchase the 360. I added a little at the end so we could purchase it and play it before the summer ended.

Last night I went to Circuit City and got a new Xbox Elite (the black case is very nice). We got an elite because it came with an HDMI cable and it was black. I had also read that the Elite system was a bit more stable. Don't know if that's true or not, but it sounded good to me. It's also got a huge hard drive (120 GB) for storage. Did I mention that it was black? It is.

The only game we've got right now is Lost Planet. Wow. Double wow. The graphics on a HD monitor are stunning, very fine. I've yet to be able to play the game; I just watch when my son plays. But he's getting ready to leave for a while, so maybe I'll try it out.

Church & Trinity IV

Continued from Part III

Before I begin framing arguments, it may be helpful to stop and restate my thesis. There are good biblical and theological reasons for thinking that the Trinity is the archetype of the communal life of the Church. Simply put, he Church images the triune sociality of God. The oneness of the community of the Church and the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are intimately connected.

This means, on the one hand, that the heart of the mystery of the unity of the church is de facto grounded in the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Cyprian described the church as “a people united by the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This theological reality remains hidden from us and must be accepted by faith, even when it is not experientially evident in the historical church.

But the connection between Trinity and Church also means that the manner by which individual Christian people are united in one ecclesial community, in both local and larger contexts, ought to reflect the way in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personally united. Clearly this simple assertion begs for clarification and qualification, a task I will address later. For now, suffice it to say that what I am concerned to defend is that the members of the Christian ecclesial community have a task set before them—to make their fellowship into a visible image of the community of the Holy Trinity. In other words, if the Church of Jesus Christ is to live in a godly way, she must by grace be transfigured into the kind of rich, loving community that is the triune God. To put it another way, if a person wants to live in a godly way, he or she will relate to others in the church in a manner that reflects the manner in which the three persons of the Trinity live together.

Remember, too, that God's renewal of humanity begins in the Church. The Church is the nursery for the kingdom. Therefore, the more the Church becomes a community modeled on God's triune communal love, the more we can expect the world as a whole to learn how to live as subjects of Christ's cosmic kingdom.

Go to Part V

Potter Movie

Just got back from the seeing HP & the Order of the Phoenix. Not bad. Not great. I hadn't read it in some time so I didn't notice too much all the ways in which it departed from the details of the book. My son did. My wife did. Even so, it's always interesting to see if the movie matches what you imagined things to be like. I think they did a very nice job with #12 Grimmauld Place. The acting was mostly quite good. Luna was perfectly understated. But I'm not sure I like the way Gambon plays Dumbledore. He doesn't have the kind of personal presence that I imagine D to have. The last scene (the dual between Dumbledore and Voldemort) was sort of a Star Wars light saber fight with wands. They stripped the battle of the fascinating and significant verbal combat between the two. What is worse, I think, is that they reduced to nothing Harry and Dumbledore's spirited discussion in D's office at the end.

Oh well, just a few thoughts. What did you all think?

Trinity & Church III

Continued from Part II

More suspicious associations have also dampened the interests of conservative Presbyterian theologians. Social trinitarianism often appears like a weapon in the hands of those who wage war against confessional Protestantism. Orthodox Protestants are suspicious when they see how these newer social trinitarian theologies have been used to justify and ground philosophies of religious pluralism. Moltmann and LaCugna, for example, appear to dissolve the ontological Trinity into the economic. Radical proposals similar to this are not confined to traditionally liberal circles. More and more Evangelicals are adopting what has been called “open theism” and using social trinitarian arguments as part of their case against classical conceptions of God.

Worse and worse, the theological pioneers responsible for initially formulating a “communio” ecclesiology grounded in the trinitarian communion were mostly Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthdox scholars. I am not here referring to the genesis of modern social trinitarian theology, but to the theological ground-breaking work of Catholic and Orthodox scholars like Rahner, von Balthasar, De Lubac, Congar, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas, who worked to make explicit connections between the inter-personal relations and unity of God, on the one hand, and the life and structure of the Church, on the other. These men laid the foundation for Vatican II’s revised “communio” ecclesiology.” Given confessional Protestantism’s intensely anti-Roman posture, is it any wonder that there is widespread suspicion of trinitarian-based ecclesiological reflection? The fact that trinitarian reflection on the life of the church originated in modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles does nothing to endear such theologizing to orthodox Protestants.

All of these associations—with ecumenism, socialism, pluralism, heterodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy—no doubt cause the hair on the necks of confessional Reformed and Lutheran theologians to stand up. Surely there are “safer” and much more pressing theological research programs that demand our immediate attention. That may well be. I would not want to argue that theologizing about the Church in the light of the Trinity is somehow a critical necessity for our generation. I want to make a more modest appeal. It seems to me that we could do much worse.

The Church finds herself in deplorable shape. She is divided across confessional, denominational, even cultural lines. She has succumbed to the siren call of individualism and democratized her liturgical and sacramental life, especially in America. Colin Gunton has argued that our the current ecclesiastical malaise cries out for a trinitarian analysis. “. . . the manifest inadequacy of the theology of the church derives from the fact that it has never seriously and consistently been rooted in a conception of the being of God as triune. . . . because [the Trinity] has been neglected, the church has appropriated only a part of its rich store of possibilities for nourishing a genuine theology of community” (The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, p. 57).

I will argue that given all the significant reasons to be cautious about drawing conclusions about how our life together ought to be lived in the church based on our understanding of God’s triune relational life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that it nevertheless ought to be thoughtfully pursued by orthodox confessional Protestants. There are good prima facie reasons for doing so.

Go to Part IV

iPhone Smoothie

Fun with Jonathan Edwards

Okay, here's some really cool trinitarian speculation from Jonathan Edwards.

These first quotations are from The “Miscellanies” (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500), ed. by Thomas A. Schafer, vol. 13 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1994).

"There has been much cry of late against saying one word, particularly about the Trinity, but what the Scripture has said; judging it impossible but that if we did, we should err in a thing so much above us. But if they call that which necessarily results from the putting [together] of reason and Scripture, though it has not been said in Scripture in express words—I say, if they call this what is not said in the Scripture, I am not afraid to say twenty things about the Trinity which the Scripture never said." (Works, 13, p. 256-57; Misc. no. 94).

"God created the world for his Son, that he might prepare a spouse or bride for him to bestow his love upon; so that the mutual joys between this bride and bridegroom are the end of creation" (Works, 13, p. 372; Misc. no. 271).

"This spouse of the Son of God, the bride, the Lamb's wife, the completeness of him who filleth all in all, that for which all the universe was made. Heaven and earth were created that the Son of God might be complete in a spouse." (Misc. no. 103).

"God made all things, and the end for which all things were made, and for which they are disposed . . . is that God's glory may shine forth and be received (Works, 13, p. 496; Misc. no. 448).

Here's another set of complementary notes from Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies” (Entry Nos. 501-832), ed. by Ava Chamberlain, vol. 18 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2000). Jonathan Edwards makes the Trinitarian connection when he struggles with the end or purpose or goal of God’s creation. These are some of my favorites:

“The end, the ultimate end of the creation of God was to provide a spouse for His Son, Jesus Christ, that might enjoy Him, and on whom He might pour forth His love. Heaven and earth were created in order that the Son of God might communicate His love to His spouse and bring that bride into the very family life of the Trinity" (Misc. no. 710).

“It seems by this to have been God’s design to admit man as it were to the inmost fellowship with the deity. There was, as it were, an eternal society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of persons. It seems to be God’s design to admit the church into the divine family as his Son’s wife” (Miscellanies, 741; vol. 18, p. 367).

It really doesn't get much better than that. Personally, I don't think this is speculation at all. I believe Edwards is exactly right about the end or goal of creation. This is systematic theologizing at it's best, grounded in the story arc of the Bible as a whole.

Trinity & Church II

Continued from Part I.

Social trinitarian concerns are not well represented in Reformed tradition. Perhaps what is not explicitly dealt with in our own confessional books will always be viewed with suspicion. As far as I can tell, neither the confessions nor the catechisms of the Reformation and Protestant Scholasticism explicitly connect the Church’s common life together with God’s communal life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No doubt, this lacuna within the symbolic books of the Reformation reflects the fact that the Reformers themselves, while affirming and defending the Trinity, and clarifying its defining significance for the divine-human relationship, nevertheless, did not attempt to develop a trinitarian theology of human-human relationships within the church. This second theological move, although hinted at by earlier, pre-Reformation trinitarian theologians, has only begun to be explored by modern theologians in tandem with the blossoming of interest in what has been called “social trinitarianism” in the 20th century.

Unfortunately, the fact that most of the productive theological work on the social character of the God’s triune life has been done by modern theologians who can at best be described as less than confessional often conjures up for conservative Reformed pastors and theologians fears of inadvertently supporting the questionable theological presuppositions of more liberal and neo-orthodox modern “social trinitarians.”

I think one can detect such a fear, for example, in Peter Toon’s Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), esp. chapters 2 and 3. Sometimes this “fear” of modern trinitarian theology manifests itself in the absence of any mention of modern insights; so, for example, in Robert Morey’s 600 page doctrinal exposition of the Trinity not one 20th century trinitarian theologian is even mentioned, let alone interacted with (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues [Grand Rapids, MI: Word Publishing, 1996]).

Those modern Reformed theologians that have done work in trinitarian theology more often than not evidence Barthian sympathies, a fact that certainly does not help them gain a fair hearing in more traditional Reformed academic communities that often have good reasons for being highly suspicious of neo-orthodoxy. It doesn’t help any that Barth himself was at the headwaters of the revival of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity in the twentieth century. In fact, Barth does, however imperfectly, discuss the community of the church in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity (Church Dogmatics, 4/2, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, trans. by G. W. Bromiley [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958], pp. 643ff. The trinitarian scheme of Barth’s ecclesiology is everywhere evident in his works (see Colm O’Grady, The Church in the Theology of Karl Barth [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968], p. 99).

One also suspects that the association of social trinitarianism with left-leaning socio-political agendas and ecumenical efforts has dampened the interest of confessional Reformation communities, which tend to be much more conservative in their social philosophies. One might argue that for many modern theologians not only how one might use the Trinity as a ideal for reform in church and society, but also how one formulates a doctrine of the Trinity has a great deal more to do with certain pre-theological sociological and political commitments than to careful expositions of the Bible and received trinitarian theological tradition. Those who favor radical pluralization in church and state often develop or adopt more radical social constructions of the Trinity.

This does not mean, however, that all influences arising from one’s life in a specific church or culture ought to be excluded when theologizing about the Trinity. Zizioulas notes that the ecclesiastical experience of the early church helped shape the development of the patristic doctrine of the Trinity (lex orandi, lex credendi) (John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church [London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1985], p. 16ff.). Miroslav Volf suggests that “the trinitarian character of the church was gradually acquired parallel with the growing consciousness of God’s triune nature” (After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], p. 195). Certainly our experience of God within the liturgical, sacramental, and communal life of the church affects our understanding of the Trinity. What would seem suspicious, however, is allowing our extra-ecclesiastical political and social experience to dictate how we construe the Trinity, especially when we have some secular agenda to push.

The “socialist” programs of radical modern theologians, who argue from the communitarian nature of God for egalitarian social agendas, do not sit well with American orthodox theologians. The easy rapidity with which many modern social trinitarians move from theological reflection on the interpersonal trinitarian relations to egalitarian social and political conclusions is astonishing. And it is indeed a contemporary novelty not found in the Christian tradition. The church seems to be bypassed or, if included in these reflections, becomes little more than an instrument for accomplishing sociopolitical goals directly skimmed off of the creamy top of their trinitarian speculation. Even modern trinitarian theologians who evidence a more “conservative” bent overall often readily use their social construal of the Trinity to argue for egalitarian structures of ministry within the government and liturgical life of the church. One can sympathize with the skepticism of conservative Reformed theologians. But is this the only way to do trinitarian theology? Is social trinitarian theologizing always and only a foil for socialist political visions?

Go to Part III

For the Love of God - Trinity & Church I

Should Christians in their life together as an ecclesiastical community reflect the trinitarian communion which is constitutive of the very being and life of God? In other words, does the Bible make the life of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit a model or archetype of redeemed humanity’s communal relations? I believe so. The personal relations between and the fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are paradigmatic for ecclesial life and fellowship. How Christians relate one to another should mirror the loving relations within the Godhead. Moreover, beyond our love for one another, the church images the Trinity when she extends that love to those outside of her fellowship and seeks to draw outsiders into the fullness of life she enjoys in union with the Triune God.

Many in the Reformed community, however, remain at best suspicious of theologizing about the church in the light of the Trinity. Even though a great deal of theological work has already been done in modern times on the social nature of God’s eternal trinitarian life and being, most of that work has been done outside of traditional Reformed theological circles in the later half of the twentieth century. Traditional Reformed theologians and pastors have not been on the cutting edge of modern trinitarian theology, and therefore have not often been comfortable with using the results of socially construed theologies of the Trinity to think about the life of the church. A quick, informal search of theological journals published by institutions associated with orthodox confessional Protestantism uncovers little or no interest in the connection between the Trinity and the Church.

Note: There are a few exceptions. One of the few Reformed theologians that has written at length on this topic is Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., “The Hodgson-Welch Debate and the Social Analogy of the Trinity” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1982); “Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity,” The Thomist 50 (1986): 325-352; “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement; “The Threeness/Oneness Problem of the Trinity,” Calvin Theological Journal 23 (1988): 37-53; “The Perfect Family: Our Model of Life Together is Found in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” Christianity Today 32 (Nov. 4, 1988): 24-27; and “Images of God,” in Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World: Theology from an Evangelical Point of View, edited by M. A. Noll and D. F. Wells (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 51-67. There is also Donald Maccleod's slim, but useful book Shared Life: The Trinity and the Fellowship of God's People (Greenville, SC: RAP, 1987).

Perhaps what is not explicitly dealt with in our own confessional books will always be viewed with suspicion. As far as I can tell, neither the confessions nor the catechisms of the Reformation and Protestant Scholasticism explicitly connect the Church’s common life together with God’s communal life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No doubt, this lacuna within the symbolic books of the Reformation reflects the fact that the Reformers themselves, while affirming and defending the Trinity, and clarifying its defining significance for the divine-human relationship, nevertheless, did not attempt to develop a trinitarian theology of human-human relationships within the church. This second theological move, although hinted at by earlier, pre-Reformation trinitarian theologians, has only begun to be explored by modern theologians in tandem with the blossoming of interest in what has been called “social trinitarianism” in the 20th century.

Note: Only here and there do we find hints of the possibility of a trinitarian ecclesiology in patristic and medieval theology (Tertullian, Ad Praxeas, chpts. 20-25; Cyprian, Ep. 74 [ANF, p. 390-1]; Augustine, de Trin. 4.12; 6.4; Richard of St. Victor, de Trin. 3.9). John Thompson notes that “in the patristic era there were clear signs showing an awareness of the church as a trinitarian reality emphasizing the mystery of God’s being and action, creating the unity and fellowship of the church reflecting his own divine life” (Modern Trinitarian Perspectives [New York: Oxford, 1994], p. 80). Nevertheless, Thompson’s own analysis relies on the work of Heinz Schutte, who argues in his Im Gespräch mit dem Dreieinen Gott (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1985) that the trinitarian dimension of ecclesiology remained largely implicit in patristic and medieval theologians (pp. 361-375). What lay dormant in these early trinitarian theologies has been made a theological research program in the 20th and 21st century.

Unbelievable New Technology