Thinking Deeper on the Trinity

I’m starting a new series of posts on reviewing some of the essays I’m currently reading from the book Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006).First up is the essay by Dr Gerald Bray ‘The Trinity: Where Do We Go From Here?’ (p.19-40)


Dr Bray highlights that the doctrine of the Trinity has suffered an eclipse in much systematic theology discussions for the past century or so, but now has come back with a vengeance (thanks to Karl Barth), with some theologians making the Trinity the center and of all their systematic theology, and in fact, of all Christian faith and practice. What has particular emerged in recent Trinitarian discussions is a greater openness to Eastern Tradition which tends to focus more on the concept of ‘persons’, over the Western tradition which tends to take as its starting point the concept of ‘substance’. At least what seems clear is that ‘the notion that God is a ‘substance’ somehow distinct from his three persons has been rejected, mainly on the grounds that the unity of God cannot be depersonalized, nor can there be a fourth ‘thing’ in him that can be conceptualised as such’ (p.23). This emphasis on divine persons has further led to firstly, the notion of God being described as divine communion, i.e. God himself is a community of personal relationships (and the gospel is hence seen as God inviting us to enter into communion with him in that way also) (p.23); secondly, a greater ‘personalisation’ of the Holy Spirit (p.24); and thirdly, a consideration of how the work of the individual persons intersect and bear witness to the unity of God working, i.e. an affirmation of the slogan ‘the external works of the Trinity re undivided’ (p.25).


However, there are also limits, and Dr Bray highlights six points which future theologians should heed when articulating the doctrine of the Trinity.


First, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be solidly biblical. Dr Bray calls for a more thorough investigation into the biblical roots of the development of this doctrine, rather than a straightaway assumption of the starting point of this doctrine to lie in post-biblical developments. While the New Testament is the appropriate starting point for such an investigation, it nonetheless will lead to the question of how we are to relate the ‘God of the Old Testament’ to the ‘God of the New Testament’, i.e. did God appear to the patriarchs as the Father, with the Son and Holy Spirit remaining hidden? Or did he speak to them as three persons speaking with a single, undifferentiated voice? How qualified are we to say that even though the Jews could not distinguish the three persons of the Trinity in the way Christians can, they nevertheless had direct contact with God in his fullness (p.31)? In this regard, I find Robert Letham’s book The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004) useful. He explores the doctrine of the Trinity according to the four sections listed in his subtitle. His conclusion on the Trinity from the OT is right: While the OT does not make explicit the doctrine, it does ‘provide the essential foundation without which the full Christian doctrine of God could not exist’, and one of the key things the OT does is to provide the means ‘both to distinguish and to hold together the roles of Son/Wisdom/Word and Spirit, since these were vivid personifications, not abstract principles’ (p.32 of Letham). In the light of the NT’s development of the basis laid in the OT and in light of the fact that the ‘the external works of the Trinity are undivided’, is it too far off to say that in the OT, God spoke and had contact with the Israelites as God in his fullness? Overall, the OT definitely prepared the ground for the NT, and the NT in turn prepared the ground for much of the Trinitarian and Christological discussions that would eventually find its way to Nicaea and Chalcedon. In fact, one could say that Nicaea and Chalcedon was really responding to the NT evidence in light of the heresies of its day.


Secondly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be integrative of different theological traditions. Dr Bray wants us to see that both the Western tradition (of which Reformed Theology springs from) and the Eastern Tradition offer different perspectives of a greater and united truth (with regards to the Doctrine of the Trinity). Progress will be made not by totally accepting one tradition and rejecting the other, but a sensitive and critical evaluation of insights from both traditions.

Thirdly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must seek definition and clarity as far as possible. This will mean, ‘rolling back’ on some of the ‘progress’ in this area as suggested in recent books in Trinitarian theology (p.39). What Dr Bray has in mind here are books which almost seek to equate all kinds of relationships (man-woman, marriage, Christ-church etc.) as equal to relationships within the Trinity. The fundamental error here is a failure to remember the manner of relating and loving must be appropriate to the nature of their relationship. The divine persons of the Trinity love as perfect beings, something which we are not (p.35). Also, the terms of discussion need to be clearly defined, otherwise an ideology can be made that sounds plausible and relevant because of an apparent similarity of vocabulary, but is in fact quite different. A good example would be the claim by feminists for ‘equality’ in human relationships based on the ‘equality’ that exists among the Trinity (p.27).


Fourthly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must re-examine the divine attributes in relation to the concept of mutual coinherence. What Dr Bray means here, I think, is two things. Firstly, we must be careful not to be too quick to give up on all talk of ‘substance’ in favour of ‘persons’. It is interesting to see that in some modern Trinitarian discussions, the idea of ‘substance’ is almost virtually non-existent, or at best reduced to merely the ‘perichoresis’ (mutual indwelling) of the different divine persons. Bray reminds us this cannot do, and what is at stake in giving up on talking of ‘substance’ is an eventual demise of talk of the attributes of God, leading to some theologies today like that of ‘open theism’ (p.32). However, Dr Bray rightly states that between ‘person’ and ‘substance’, ‘person’ rightly controls the ‘substance’ or nature (a realisation that was made in Chalcedon, for if the divine person of the Son did not control his divide nature but the divine nature controlled instead, there was no way the Son could have taken on a human nature) (p.33). All in all, Dr Bray is calling for us to continue to affirm the definition ‘one substance, three persons’ or ‘one ousia, three hypostasis’. In this regard, perhaps, Trinitarian discussion should still be part of the doctrine of God, with other discussions including what it means that God is LORD, the acts of God, and the attributes of God (see John Frame’s The Doctrine of God); rather than Trinitarian discussions constituting the entire discussion of the doctrine of God. Secondly, there is also a need to think through the attributes of God in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. Colin Gunton (Act and Being) was right to state that part of the problem of earlier discussion of the attributes of God was done pretty much against the background of Greek philosophical concepts, rather than in light of the truth of the Trinity. (In this regard,Thomas Weinandy’s Does God Suffer? is an interesting exploration of the attribute of impassibility and immutability in light of the Trinity)

Fifthly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be deeply spiritual in its approach. What Dr Bray means by this is that early Trinitarain thought was never conducted out a vacuum, but it ‘grew out of Christian’s experience of God, which included prayer, meditation, and even escatic experiences at least as much as it did theological argument and discussion’ (p.35). This means that for us today who are seeking to talk about the Trinity, whatever ‘we say should be capable of being put into immediate practice by ordinary Christians in their everyday lives. In this regard, I once again commend Letham’s The Holy Trinity final section, where he looks at the implications of the doctrine in four areas of the incarnation, our worship, creation and missions; and our understanding of persons.

Lastly, a future Trinitarian theology must show how the work of the different persons relates to the Trinity as a whole. Dr Bray has his particular eye on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which he says ‘itself integrates the other two persons and lies at the heart of most of the disagreements that have divided Western Christians since the Reformation’ (p.39).

Overall, I found Dr Bray’s essay stimulating and thought-provoking for its relative size (some other essays are over 60 pages long!).