In recent years we've seen challenges to God's Omniscience
and Omnipotence in the teachings of Open Theism. From the Canon to many of the
Fundamentals of Historic Christianity, scholars have been deconstructing
historical understandings and re-contextualizing and re-interpreting them.
Not all of this is bad if motivated by a Berean Spirit, but
much of this is being conducted in the spirit of scepticism and an attempt to
cast down historical interpretations and
narratives that have been used to legitimize claims of power. This recasting is
in itself a type of power-grab. We're seeing an attempt to pull the reins of
control away from historical institutions and narratives related to Rome,
Geneva, Wittenberg, and Canterbury.
On one level I can
appreciate it. In a way it's akin to what I'm trying to do. Although I
challenge the Establishment narratives, I have no interest in stealing their
power. Their power-paradigms are a big part of what I'm critiquing.
The sceptics are doing this too, but our foundations
couldn't be more different. Thus while it may seem I have common cause with
many who are beating up on historic Protestantism or Catholicism, we're not on
the same side. Theirs is a scepticism in the name of Ecumenicism or sometimes
even secularism. They're attacking the idea of Bible-based Christianity by
discrediting the Bible. They're trying to re-cast ancient Christianity by
reading modern secular understanding into the past. I'm arguing that
Bible-based groups haven't really been all that Bible-based.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend may work in the
dog-eat-dog world of politics, but it has no place in the spiritual battles of
the Kingdom.
In Protestant/Evangelical circles we're seeing tensions not
only with regard to the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity
but I would argue within the framework of Trinitarianism itself.
Some imbued with the spirit of speculation continue to work
toward developing and refining the Trinitarian formulation.
Others will reject this project as an outworking and
application of Greek philosophy, an ancient plague that continues to afflict
the Church.
These tensions have always existed throughout Church
history. The Eastern Church has always tended emphasizing God's Tri-unity, His
Threeness as it were. The danger here is the potential to stray into Subordinationism
and Tri-theism.
There's another type of Subordinationism that can lead to
Arianism, but that's for another discussion. Just don't think they are one and
the same.
The West has always veered the other way and emphasized the
Unity of God with the equal danger of straying into Modalism and
Unitarianism... which of course is also a denial of the Son's Deity.
Both extremes have at least the potential to lead to
Arianism and a denial of the Incarnation. It was this latter example that
trapped many 17th and 18th century theologians.
The East with its mystical strains, its tendency toward sub
or non-systematic apophatic theology stands in contrast toward the
rationalistic, intellectually speculative and systemizing approach of the West.
And yet to make it more confusing the East historically
emphasized Orthodoxy... right understanding and doctrine, while the West
emphasized Catholicity, the formal unity of the Church as an organization.
Later this found its ultimate bond, its supreme formulation in the blasphemous doctrine
and claims of the Papacy.
Various factions have moved away from the Systematizing
approach and are generating controversy in Protestant circles. Their reasons
for this are different. Some wish to shed certain scholastic and philosophical
tendencies and yet stay within the confines of their Confessional traditions.
Others wish to frame theology in a more fluid and dynamic fashion they believe
more faithfully reflects how the Bible presents doctrine. In some cases they
have been driven out.
All of this is generating reaction, response and
reformulation. The Western tendency is to respond to error with ever greater
precision. But every time this happens it leads to another schism.
These issues regarding 'system' and 'logic' and arguments
over structure and primacy will always eventually lead back to the Doctrine of
God. This has already happened in the larger and doctrinally broad Evangelical
world. As I mentioned it's driven many to Open Theism. This shouldn't have been
a surprise as many Evangelicals already function as Deists. It could also be
argued there is almost a Pantheist/Spiritist streak in Charismatic circles.
But many (at least in our culture) are responding to all
this with an argument for further rationality and the use of strict logical
construction. This of course has always been the root cause of hyper-Calvinism
and this ultimately leads to a tension between Coherence (the heart of all
systematic thinking) and Textual Fidelity.
But now these tensions are creeping into conservative
Confessional circles. The battle is on the near horizon.
For several years I keep encountering people who speak of
Subordinationism in an accusing way.
Again this would be the danger inherent in Eastern
Orthodoxy, the Tri-emphasis (Father-Son-Spirit) as opposed to the Oneness and
Unity of God.
Historically many have spoken of both an Ontological and
Economic Trinity but few have agreed over what this means. Those that advance
this position will speak of the Ontological Trinity stressing the unity in
being...there's one God.
But that God reveals himself in Three Persons. These Three
Persons are equally God and of the same substance... of course these terms have
to be defined... but reveal themselves as having or possessing different
functions. This relationship between the Persons and their different functions
is referred to as the Economic Trinity.
Perhaps as a response to Feminism in the 1970's it was
advanced that this hierarchy present in the Economic Trinity is analogous to
the how the Triune God relates to creation, and thus the relationship between
husband and wife. This teaching gained traction and helped form some of the
theological structure for the view of the family known as Patriarchy.
While I certainly am no Egalitarian when it comes to
understanding the Bible's roles between men and women, I think this view would
constitute a misuse and misapplication of the Economic Trinity. This does not
necessarily mean that Patriarchy is therefore automatically wrong. I would just
say they have to make their case differently.
Some are calling this use of the Economic Trinity a form of
Subordinationism. This coupled with the fact that there's a concerted effort to
re-assert the role of logic and systematics in the function and framework of
theology leads me to wonder where this will lead? How far will it go?
There are battles over Justification, the Covenant and the
entire structure of Biblical Theology. There are tensions within Reformed
circles over Redemptive-Historical Theology vs. Systematics and both of these
mainstream camps generally oppose the Federal Vision movement and its approach
to the theology which has some affinities with the New Perspective on Paul.
The response is always to emphasize the rational ordering,
structuring and applicability of logic to theological questions.
The core issues also play out in the debates over
Hyper-Calvinism, but I have to believe at some point there will be a
large-scale battle over the doctrine of the Trinity. That's where all of this
is headed.
A faction will arise, perhaps already exists which is going
to push the formulation with regard to Unity. This will be the outworking of a
theological pendulum swing resulting from all the modern controversies. They
will be accused of Modalism and probably with some justification. I believe
there are already some who more or less hold to this position but my thinking
in general tends to be out of the mainstream.
There will be multiple responses and some camps... those
tending toward Redemptive-Historical Theology may end up arguing for a more a
more undeveloped, nebulous and thus mysterious understanding of the doctrine.
The fight will escalate as they fight over the language of
the Confessions and the original intent of the authors.
The sad part is that this will erupt at a time when the
Church (generally speaking) will be at a low point. In our anti-intellectual
cultural context, the controversies will probably drive people away
It's one thing to hold to intellectualism but at the same
time embrace mystery, it's something else to emphasize subjective feeling and
experience and to regard intellectual contemplation and evaluation as
unimportant. Modern Evangelicalism is certainly guilty of the latter and the
more doctrinally minded Churches will suffer from such a period of controversy.
But I'm afraid it is inevitable. History helps us to
understand the past and the present but can often give us a pretty good notion
of what the future holds.
What is most ironic is that the bulk of the people sitting
in the pews are already 'heretics' when it comes to these issues. Most people have not been taught what the
Church historically believed and if you go out and talk to people you'll find
many Modalists, Apollinarians and others... people embracing notions and ideas
that are actually against what the Church has historically taught.
It's not their fault. Blame the leadership. All too often
they have failed to shepherd the flock.
That said, out of this impending cyclone of controversy new
doors and opportunities will arise. It may provide an occasion to revisit the
foundational structures of theology and rethink some of these issues, not in
the spirit of the Sceptic, but in terms of a more Biblically faithful, perhaps
simple, mysterious and less philosophical framework.
I see a battle coming, but in Reformed circles the battle will be more over Westminster than Nicaea. It's too bad because it would be a good time to re-visit Nicaea, with Bible in hand.