Trinity

Error message

The seduction of big-tent compromises...

The Building of Big-tent Complementarianism

CircusTent02.jpgBack in 1987, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) issued the Danvers Statement. And as far as it goes, the statement is good, so many signed on. As we approach the Statement's thirtieth anniversary, though, its weaknesses are growing more apparent. Its strength is what it says about sexuality in the home and church. Its weakness is what it doesn't say about manhood and womanhood in the "rest of life." 

In places, the Statement uses generic language that could be taken to include the civil sphere. Still, the plainest reading leaves the impression that the entire document is intentionally limited in its application to the private spheres of home and church. At several key points it is impossible to understand it any other way. There is a discussion of the effects of the fall and redemption on the relationship between the sexes with sub-points for both the church and home, but then only silence on life outside those two spheres.

This is the only statement on biblical sexuality embraced by the conservative church today, so why is it silent concerning what it means to be a man or woman in the public sphere, which is to say in the majority of life?


On the death of truth: a lament...

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives. (Proverbs 16:2)

Recently, we've had several posts calling out Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman for misquoting Calvin. David Talcott's post explained why reformed men want to claim Calvin for their side. To the contrary, as Dr. Talcott gently warned readers, "Calvin thought sex meant something in civil society." This is the heart of the issue.

Sadly, the point is lost on reformed men today. Dr. Talcott's kind assumption that reformed men care about truth is wrong. What Reformed men keep track of isn't truth, but spin, relationships, and outward appearances. What else could account for the refusal of men like Goligher and Trueman to correct their blatant falsehoods? What else could account for the hostile response of other reformed men to these men being called out for their deception?

Truth matters. When Goligher and Trueman feed their readers a lie, it tarnishes their own reputations among the godly. Beyond that, their lie slanders a man who cannot defend himself. If he were alive, he could file charges against them, but John Calvin died some time ago...


A good fight...

Christians should be grateful for the recent debate over order and being in the Trinity. Though the debate brings painful divisions to light, it will eventually prove helpful. Disagreements between Christians reveal where God's approval lies. This will prove the main benefit of the current controversy—though we shouldn't assume that God's knife will entirely avoid us or our own position.

Positive fruits from the debate are already evident. Among these are:

  • Revision of complementarian language. Complementarianism (itself an ambiguous neologism) likes to speak of roles: roles of men and women, roles in the Trinity. But places in the Godhead are not roles, nor are men and women playing charades as men and women. Role language for the Trinity is wrong and misleading. Role language for men and women is only a bit less so. Differences within the Trinity are matters of personhood, not roles. So too with men and women. Role language reduces and dismisses fundamental differences.

Contending for Nicene Trinitarianism in an egalitarian age...

[Editors note: Prof. Steven D. Boyer's article below, first published back in 2009, clarifies the present debate over the nature and meaning of the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of our Lord Jesus within the Trinity. Here, Dr. Boyer (Professor of Theology at Eastern University) demonstrates that the church's orthodox confession of the Trinity has, from the time of the Arian heresy, explicitly declared the order within the Trinity. Further, that this declared order (or hierarchy) is not merely analogical, nor is it limited to the Son's mediatorial work. Rather, the order must be (in some sense) ontological—and therefore eternal.

Dr. Boyer warns that the orthodox confession of the Trinity has fallen on hard times due to the egalitarian spirit of our age. He discusses the pros and cons of terminology used to discuss Trinitarian order today such as "roles," "command and obedience," and "subordination." He explains the confusion surrounding the word "ontological," pointing out that the denial of ontological order is a doctrinal error equivalent to the denial of ontological equality. Finally, Boyer makes some recommendations for word usage that may protect the order of the Trinity in this age when order and authority are despised.]

Articulating Order: Trinitarian Discourse in an Egalitarian Age1 

by Steven D. Boyer

Throughout its history, Christian orthodoxy has affirmed an understanding of the triune nature of God that includes, despite certain logical tensions, both order and equality among the divine Persons. Since most of that history played out in a social context that took hierarchy for granted and that therefore required a sturdy articulation and defense of the equality of the Persons, it sometimes appears that the tradition emphasized equality alone, and not order. But this conclusion is easily upset by a closer look at the evidence. To speak of order within the Godhead has been a commonplace ever since the patristic era, and it is often embodied especially in affirmations about the unique position of the Father in the Godhead. The Father is the “beginning of the whole divinity,” says Augustine; “the source” of Son and Spirit, says Gregory Nazianzen; the “cause of the Son”, says John of Damascus; “the principle of the Son,” says Thomas Aquinas; the “origin” of Son and Spirit, says Calvin; the “fountain of deity,” says Richard Hooker; “first in order,” says Jonathan Edwards.[1] Ordered relationships within the Trinity are as strongly affirmed by the orthodox tradition as equality is.

Yet the last two centuries have seen dramatic changes in the social context of the Western world, and many Christian theologians today work in a culture in which equality is the dominant principle. Hence, the equality of the divine Persons is easily granted in contemporary discussion, whereas the notion of order in the Trinity is often addressed with less conviction, and sometimes even with suspicion...


Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

Addition not subtraction. Triangulation. The Third Way. These are terms of political tradecraft. They signify the politician's transcendence above the liberal-conservative divide. Working in government, I see this principle in constant operation. 

A politician can triangulate in the mix of policies he adopts. For example, an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy means the politician supports traditional oil and gas exploration as well as ethanol subsidies, all while paying lip service to renewable solar and wind power. This strategy lowers the decibel level from environmentalist opponents if not neutralizing them entirely. 

A politician also triangulates with rhetoric. He need only strike the right pose and emit the proper buzzword. From illegal drugs to education to welfare, a politician can navigate beyond any seemingly binary framework by talking of and emoting compassion. If he's really sophisticated, a politician utters certain phrases that are seemingly insignificant and benign to almost everyone while being fraught with meaning when decoded by a special interest group. This is what the political class calls...


Pastors and rules of professional conduct...

Should pastors and theologians be held to at least the same ethical standards as lawyers? 

Scrupulous fidelity to truth and the meaning of words is not normally the first quality one associates with a lawyer. An undergraduate faculty advisor referred to my decision to go to law school as getting a "license to steal." The fictional law firm Dewey, Cheatham & Howe entered an appearance or two in a civil procedure professor's hypotheticals in the first year of law school. You'll also find the entry "Lawyers, Derogatory Names for" in a legal usage dictionary. Along with old standbys like "ambulance chaser," "hired gun," "pettifogger," and "shyster," other epithets like "latrine lawyer," "mouthpiece," and "Philadelphia lawyer" abound. This last one—"Philadelphia lawyer"—can bear either a positive or negative sense. It can mean either "an ultracompetent lawyer who knows the ins and outs of legal technicalities" or "a shrewdly unscrupulous lawyer."1

Because of this sadly deserved unsavory reputation, because of the awesome responsibility they have for the lives and property of their clients, and because of the complexity of the law even before it exploded like a supernova in the 20th century, lawyers must submit themselves to well-settled rules of professional conduct. One of these rules demands candor to the court.2 This rule requires...


Carl Trueman's embarrassing silence...

[UPDATE: Tuesday morning, June 28, Liam Goligher texted me with his Calvin source. To quote, "Calvin to Cecil, 28th January 1559, ZL, vol. II, p34-36." Liam says this proves his point. Of course, it doesn't. Calvin held the very opposite of what Liam continues to claim and it seems apparent Liam hasn't read the sources I provided in my earlier post (including another letter he wrote to Cecil). 

Liam and Carl's halfway covenant of male authority limited to home and church ordination is not the doctrine of Scripture. Thus it was never taught by the Reformers—least of all John Calvin. Rather, Calvin said the government of women "ought to be counted among the judgments with which God visits us," that it "ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction," and that it "is utterly at variance with the legitimate order of nature."]

Carl Trueman teaches church history at Philly's Westminster Seminary. In his WTS profile, among his credentials, Trueman includes:

 [I am] currently co-editing with Bruce Gordon the Oxford Handbook of Calvin and Calvinism...

Trueman claims he knows Calvin, so it's quite embarrassing that Trueman's blog published a howler of a misquotation of Calvin twenty-four days ago, now...


Right. Got it.

Doug Wilson—31 January 2012:

Doug Wilson: "Feminism is a trinitarian heresy. Subordination is not inequality in essence." #dgpascon

— Desiring God (@desiringGod) January 31, 2012

Doug Wilson—14 June 2016: 

Doug Wilson: Subordination "does in fact play old harry with the divine simplicity, and the unity of the divine will, and eventually monotheism."


Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman...

Because I have affection and respect for Liam Goligher, and because other men are capable and willing to show the errors in the positions on God's creation order of man and woman he and Carl Trueman have staked out, I have taken down my previous post. Still, I do wait for Liam to correct his abuse of John Calvin in service of his own errors.


The crisis in complementarianism...

Dr. Carl Trueman has just proclaimed that “complementarianism as currently constructed would seem to be now in crisis.”

He’s right, but not for the reason he gives.

Conservative Evangelicalism is not in danger of abandoning the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine is so well-established Scripturally and historically that I am confident clear-headed argument will correct those who err. So if Trinitarian orthodoxy is alive and well, what is the true crisis among complementarians?

The real crisis is...


Liam Goligher misquotes John Calvin...

(NOTE FROM TB: In response to concern with my use of the phrase "economic subordination," I have added a footnote responding to that concern.)

Over on Carl Trueman's blog hosted by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, my friend Liam Goligher, senior minister of Philly's Tenth Presbyterian Church, has been joining Trueman in an attack upon the historic, Biblical doctrine of our Lord's economic subordination1 to His Father. Liam claims those who believe and teach that Jesus submitted to His Father before His incarnation deny the orthodox Christian faith. He tells his readers that men who hold to economic subordination cannot at the same time affirm the Nicene Creed's declaration of our Lord's equality with His Father.

Of course, Liam's declaration concerning the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. Here, though, I simply want to correct Liam's abuse of John Calvin in support of his error.

Liam writes:

I am an unashamed biblical complementarian. The original use of that word took its cue from the biblical teaching about the differences yet complementarity of human beings made in the image of God while not running away from the challenges of applying biblical exhortations for wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord or the prohibition on ordination for women in the church. With only those two caveats, as Calvin told John Knox, women may be princes in the state, but not pastors in the church.

John Calvin said no such thing. Rather, Calvin was consistent in declaring the teaching of Scripture concerning...


God is fruitful...

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

The whole world prides itself on being in tune with God’s love, but there is an aspect of God’s love that, starting around 1950, the Protestant church rejected and continues to reject today.

God is fruitful and has written fruitfulness into every part of His creation. From birds to apple trees to the marriage bed, the fruitfulness of His creation reflects the fruitfulness of the Godhead.

Try to remember the last time you heard a sermon on fruitfulness? Most of us would have a hard time thinking of a recent blog post, article, or sermon we’ve read or listened to on the fruitfulness at the heart of God’s providence.

Fatherhood begins with fruitfulness and without fruitfulness there is no fatherhood...


Tim Keller's "divine dance": the Trinitarian twist...

Reading some of Tim Keller's books recently, certain emphases stood out. One being something he calls the "divine dance." Keller prefers framing discussions of the Trinity with this analogy. He concludes with it in The Reason for God and opens with it in King's Cross (aka Jesus the King: Understanding the Life and Death of the Son of God)...


What is God? Part II: When you don't take God at face-value...

[Note from TB: We realize Craig French's posts on the Trinity aren’t typical Baylyblog entries, but I have found them very helpful and hope you will read them. Carefully—and following the links. Thank you, Craig, for your excellent teaching, here.]

In part one, I began discussing the inherent problem of starting with a theology of God by way of “essence” or “attributes” apart from hypostases (persons). In part two, I describe what I mean by God playing “dress-up” and show how this implies a disconnect from human sexuality and ordering under father-rule.  I take the ambivalence of many Reformed men (and outright mockery from R2k and Redeemerites) as prima facie evidence that men see no relevance to the Fatherhood of God from which human fatherhood derives.

I have two main goals for part two:

  1. Show where the Reformed are made susceptible to functional egalitarianism by focusing on the essence/attributes of God apart from hypostases, and
  2. Show how this undermines our apprehension of God and our human relationships.

It’s no coincidence that our Reformed seminaries churn out men ill-equipped to pastor souls in the midst of sexual immorality fueled by egalitarianism. Our seminaries are either outright feminist, or they are functionally neutered because discussion of theology proper centers on God’s attributes apart from hypostases. This leaves the door open to a God “transcending gender” because there is a “god” beyond and above the Trinity. This is a breach egalitarians have capitalized on by paying lip-service to the doctrine of the Trinity while they’re busy attacking it. Meanwhile our luminaries fumble about trying to respond while functionally accepting the “orthodoxy” of feminists. The breach has yet to be repaired...


What is God (part 1); Playing dress up...

God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. WSC Q4 (emphasis mine)

That's how the Shorter Catechism answers "What is God?" The Westminster Confession has more to say but the focus is the same: a description of what amounts to "attributes" concluding with the Western formulation of the Trinity. None of these descriptions are wrong. I affirm them wholeheartedly. But should we start with attributes?

What are we describing when we begin with the "attributes of God"? Let me rephrase that: Who are we describing? 

At first it's difficult to answer the question. If "what" is in view, we're probably describing God's "essence", His "substance" or "nature." It's of no small consequence that the possessive "his" or "God's" precedes this "what." But even so, we're left with "Who?"

Detectives do their best to determine whose body they've found before turning it over to the coroner for an autopsy. But here we are, giddy as we pick apart the parts of God long before we've stopped to consider Who God is...


What is the Trinity? (part 2): glory and unity...

In part one, I wrote of the practical aspects of who God is as Trinity with a special focus on the Biblical truth that God is love with the Father as the source. This post will focus on Jesus Who conveys most clearly His Father because He is His Father's Son.

Apart from the Son, there is no Father; with no Father, there is no Son. The identity of each Person of the Trinity is tied to the others. This may be confusing but that’s because we’re not God. Nevertheless we benefit from this reality. It’s a matter of life and death.

As we saw in part one, the Trinity drives us to our knees and carries our prayers. Without the Trinity we don’t know how to pray. It shouldn’t be surprising that Jesus gave His disciples an insider’s view into what Trinitarian discourse (prayer) sounds like on the very night He was betrayed (John 17). His prayer is a dizzying revelation of the glory of the Father...


What is the Trinity? (part 1): God is love...

(Note from Tim Bayly: This is the first in a series of articles written by Craig French for Christ the Word's newsletter. At my request, Craig is allowing the series to run here on Baylyblog. Thank you, Craig, for your faithful work in our behalf.)

Many Christians find it difficult to apply the doctrine of the Trinity. Truth be told, even the most orthodox Christians stumble trying to articulate how this teaching is relevant; yet early on in the Church, godly men died to preserve this doctrine.

How have we gone from dying for truth about God to scratching our heads about its importance? Probably too long of a story with rabbit trails every three feet causing us to become distracted. The short story, I’m convinced, is that we are very Trinitarian...we just don’t realize it. That’s not something I came up with...