John Ploughman

My wife, Jena, gave birth to our second child - Owen Brooks Starke.  Both baby and mommy are doing great.  We feel very blessed.

This was a responsive reading that my church recently used.  I thought it was something that you could meditate over or even use it in your own church or family devotions:

God spoke all these words saying:   You shall have no other gods before me.

For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be the glory forever.

You shall not make for yourself an idol.

In Christ we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin.  He is the image of the invisible God, the     firstborn over all creation

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name

Let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise - the fruit of lips that confess his name.

Remember that Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your woek, but the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God.

Let the Word of Christ dwell in your richly as you teach and admonish one another with all         wisdom, and as you sings psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to     God.

Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

You shall not murder.

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave     you.

You shall not commit adultery.

You are not your own; you were bought with a price.  Therefore honor God with your body.

You shall not steal.

Those who have been stealing must steal no longer, but work, doing something useful with         their hands, so that they may have something to share with those in need.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head,         that is, Christ.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.

Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church has started a new sermon series on substitutionary atonement.  It seems Dever has gone topical.  The first sermon was a great one and I am excited for the entire series to unfold.  He is working through the major passages of the recent book Pierced for Our Transgressions.

A common question that is asked among Christians is ‘what is the will of God for my life?’  The Apostle Paul commonly prays that his readers would grow in the knowledge of the will of God (ex. Col. 1:9).  In another place, Paul explains that the will of God for us is to be sanctified (I Thess. 4:3) and to be joyful, pray always, and be thankful in all circumstances (I Thess. 5:16-18).  To be sanctified, joyful, prayerful, and always thankful Don Carson offers this advice:

When I think of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, I don’t usually think of it as a parable on the effectiveness of God’s Word. But that is the theme the parable concludes on. Here is a short summary of the parable:

The rich man, in his nice clothes and large mansion, feasts everyday while Lazarus, a beggar outside his gate, starves. When they die, the beggar is taken to the side of Abraham, while the rich man is taken to Hades –a place of torment. After a short dialogue between the rich man and Abraham, the rich man pleads for Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers in order that they may repent and be free from eternal torment. I will let Scripture tell the rest of the story:

29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Jesus’ words puts great emphasis on the power of God’s Word over any other great word or wonder. This should instruct pastors, evangelists, and parents to mainly rely on the power of God’s Word to instruct, exhort, convict, and encourage those who are under their care.

At the Gospel Coalition conference in May, Mike Bullmore gave an insightful talk on the Biblical Counseling and Scripture.  Also, he spends quite a bit of time talking on why every pastor should get to know David Powlison and CCEF - I agree.  I know I have given a plug for the Gospel Coalition site, but I want to, again, plug it because it has so many resources with audio, articles, and good references.

For those of you, like me, who patiently await the new 9marks interview every month, here is the new interview:

Pastoral Ministry with Eric Redmond

You can also find quite a bit of Redmond’s heart on the Gospel Coalition interviews.  He has some good things to say on the gospel and the African American culture.

Over the past several weeks, this blog site has discussed much on a Trinitarian understanding of God and its implications on the Church.  John Beeson and I (John Starke) have been having a lengthy conversation on how to speak of God when it comes to images.  I think it is such an interesting topic that I thought I would post our discussion.  I know John Beeson and I will continue this conversation, both on this blog and in person, but I would like to welcome any other feedback or comments on this topic.  John Beeson and I are both evangelical and complimentarians and it would interesting to hear other opinion within our camp and outside of it.

The discussion below are in response to the post How Does a Trinitarian Understanding of God Shape Ecclesiology (2).

John Beeson November 21, 2007

John, you say:
“Yet, an orthodox position would heavily argue for a masculine use for God and any feminine application to God would be simply metaphoric and not meant to apply to his personhood.”
Musn’t our use of both the fatherhood and motherhood of God be used metaphorically? The Orthodox position, it seems to me, must affirm the preference for referring to the first person of the Trinity as Father (as was Jesus’ custom), however, it is not as though our category of “Fatherness” really defines the first person of the Trinity. It is rather the inverse. The first person of the Trinity should define our understanding of true “fatherness.”

John Starke November 21, 2007

Hey John, Thanks for the comment. I think you are right in the sense that even the masculine use of God is metaphoric, since God is not defined as either, but Scripture does explicitly use masculine terms as “him” and “Father” that does reach farther than a metaphoric use. Surely, his fatherhood defines our fatherhood rather than the reverse, but I don’t think his fatherhood is metaphoric in the same way his “motherhood” is metaphoric. I don’t think Scripture allows us to make that parallel. What do you think?

<!– @ 1:25 pm –>John Beeson November 21, 2007

I think maybe the difficulty here is that “metaphor” doesn’t really quite “do the trick” here… but neither do any other words.

Webster.com says metaphoric is “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language.”

Obviously that is not really what I mean when I say the masculine use “Father” is metaphoric for the first person of the Trinity. I think more what I mean is that it is incomplete. Does scripture refer to God strictly in masculine language? Sure. How much meaning can we assess to that? I’m not sure.

In Trinitarian terms I think we must refer to the second person of the Trinity in masculine language. The particularity of Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, who the second person of the Trinity is.

But when it comes to the first and third members of the Trinity, it’s a little slippier. I think that it is most appropriate to refer to both in the masculine, but I think that the fact is they are beyond the masculine and, in fact, contain feminineness in themselves as well.

Why?

Well, if
A) we are made in God’s image
and
B) being man and women is more than “skin deep”
then the essence of womanhood must be contained in God himself somehow.

Your thoughts?

John Starke November 26, 2007

John, Yes, it is an interesting paradox that God references to himself and is referenced to in masculine terms in Scripture and yet women image God just as much as men. Imaging God, then, does not primarily have to do with our sex. The common feminist phrase, “If God is male then male is God” does not seem to work in my opinion.
Yet, I don’t think this forces God, even the first and third person, to be a-sexual or “pan”-sexual. Since God refers to himself as Father and Son, giving himself masculine pronouns and so forth, there seems to me to be a peculiar masculine sense to him. It is certainly most appropriate to refer to him as masculine and not feminine.
Sorry about the delay is response. Lets keep talking.

John Beeson November 29, 2007I heartily agree with your critique of “If God is male then male is God,” and yet I am fearful of the statement “Imaging God, then, does not primarily have to do with our sex.” Surely I agree that our imaging of God is not primarily a sexual imaging… and yet, I think there is something confusing about that statement as well. It begins to hint at the egalitarian perspective that sexuality is a secondary and even inconsequential human characteristic. (If you don’t understand why I say this, then ask away and I’ll explain.)

Let me ask two questions that confuses me: are the angels (who are asexual) created in the image of God? Does our sexuality have anything to do with superiority to the angels?

Finally, let me ask another question: in the whole discussion as to whether or not God is male, female, or asexual, what exactly do we mean by that (outside of the fact that the second person of the Trinity is clearly male)? Obviously we’re not referring to sexual organs. We’re also not referring to levels of testosterone or estrogen… we’re referring to some sort of “maleness,” right? But what does that mean? Are we referring to the “headship” position of the male? If so, then it seems that is appropriate for the Father, but inappropriate for the Son and Spirit. If all we’re doing is being faithful to scriptural usage, I’m fine with that. I would, in fact, find relating to God with feminine pronouns in a church service unorthodox… but only because I feel like it breaks a scriptural precedent.

Thoughts?

John Starke December 1, 2007

John, Thanks for the questions. I think I am able to clarify what I meant by answering those questions. I cannot finish my thought right now, but let me at least start. I certainly think our sex has something to do with how we image God, just not primarily. I just don’t want to say primarily because I think my wife images God as female just as much I do. So my maleness is not the primary category that is imaging God. But there is certainly something beyond sexual organs, hormones, etc. that is “male” about God that does not limit the female creation from imaging him as much as male. I will get back to this soon, but feel free to make any other comments or questions meanwhile. There is certainly a mystery to all this that limits is difficult I believe. I don’t know what I mean when I say that God is neither male, female, or asexual. Do you? I will do some more thinking.

I have recently finished a series of posts on how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes how we do church. I do believe this is a significant topic. As A. W. Tozer wrote, “What comes to mind when we think of God is the most important thing about us.” It is also important that the Church reminds itself that one of the significant differences between our God and an idol is that our God is Triune. The unfortunate fact is that most churches are functional unitarians. While they may be confessionally orthodox, but they worship, commune, and communicate the gospel as unitarians.

I wanted to put down a list of helpful resources on this topic and say a few words about each. I will start with some older works, then move into contemporary, both evangelical and liberal.

Historical Classics

• Five Theological Orations by Gregory Nazianzus. I used a very old translation of this work, so I don’t know who has recently published it. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press published my version. Nazianzus is one the Cappadocian Fathers during the 4th century. Nazianzus is helpful in understanding certain aspects of the Trinity that is ignored in today’ scholarship and is helpful in practical application of a Trinitarian understanding of God.
• On the Trinity by St. Augustine. Augustine work is helpful in understanding God’s relationship within the Trinitarian community and relationship to the world. This work is one the greatest theological works written among any topic, so the importance of this book can go without saying.
• Monologion by Anselm. I used a compilation of his works published by Oxford World’s Classics. Anselm is a little bit of a more difficult read, at least for me. He explains much of the logic behind a Trinitarian understanding of God. But he also argues for the need for joy, faith, and love for the Trinity even when it seems inexplicable.
• Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin. Calvin’s work gives us understanding into the incomprehensibility of the Trinity. He argues that while our understanding of God as a Trinity is right, we have little understanding of it. In fact, God communicates himself to us in what he calls “babytalk” or a “lisp” so that lowly minds can grasp categories of the awesome being that he is.
• Death of Death in the Death of Jesus Christ by John Owen. Owen’s work on the redemption work of Christ shows precisely how the work of redemption was a Trinitarian work. This is most helpful in communicating the gospel, whether or not you believe in particular redemption.
• Communion with God by John Owen. Owen’s effort in Communion is to show the biblical argument for how each member of the Trinity communes with the saints. A great slow, devotional, thought-provoking read as well. While this book certainly takes patience, especially if you are new to Owen, it has wonderful rewards. Taylor and Kapic’s Crossway updated edition is a great help.
• Church Dogmatics, vol 1 by Karl Barth. Barth has good insights on how we should think of the Trinity in relation to the Church and the world. Barth sometimes makes some categorical distinctions that I don’t think are helpful, but he certainly is quotable. When Barth is good, he is good.

Contemporary Works - Liberal, Feminist, or Egalitarian

• Faith Seeking Understanding by Daniel L. Migliore. Migliore is a great read and I would certainly suggest this book in understanding certain issues that face trinitarian scholarship today. He applies some great community and social applications from a trinitarian understanding of God that are wonderfully insightful. His understanding of redemption within a trinitarian formula is good as well. Migliore is certainly an egalitarian and neo-feminist (I don’t know how else to put it) when it comes to understanding how we should worship and communicate the Trinity. I don’t agree with much of him there, but he is a modern day Barth and is quotable as well.
• Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity by Kevin Giles. Giles concerns much of his work against a complimentarian view of the Trinity. He views a modern evangelical view of the Trinity as nothing short of Arian Subordinationism. He holds an egalitarian view of the Trinity.
• What Language Shall I Borrow by Brian Wren. Wren’s work is certainly liberal and egalitarian but reveals some modern arguments for the use of diverse images for God in worship and communication.
• She Who Is by Elizabeth Johnson. This work and the next few are popular feminist theologians who argue primarily for a feminine image of God. You can read my post to understand their arguments. They are helpful in the sense that they are honest theologians who at least speak with conviction and their arguments are thought-out. Apart from that, I think they are misguided and deviate much from Scripture.
• Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience by Anne Carr. Carr.
• Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Viewpoint by Paul Jewitt.
• Faith, Feminism and the Christ by Patricia Wilson-Kastner.
• Sex, Race, and God: Christian Feminism in Black and White by Susan Thistethwaite.

Modern Evangelical Works

• Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance by Bruce Ware. Just one of the best modern scholarly works on the Trinity. Ware’s efforts not only solidify much of the traditional orthodox views but presents fresh biblical arguments for applying it to the Church and the communication of the gospel.
• “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to the Father?” (PDF) by Bruce Ware. This article can be found in JBMW. Ware explains some basic arguments against a complimentarian view of the Trinity and argues against them, showing the biblical warrant for a complimentarian view.
• The Holy Trinity: in Scripture, History, Theology and Worship by Robert Lethman. Lethman’s last few chapters of his book deal mainly with the Trinity and ecclesiastical worship. Very helpful and worth a look.
• Engaging With the Holy Spirit by Graham Cole. Much of the book is devoted to applying the doctrine of the Trinity to Church and the Christian life. A very good chapter on prayer and the Holy Spirit.

D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is 40% off now at WTS Bookstore.  You can also read a few PDF’s of the introduction and on Acts 

The awaited N.T. Wright interview is now available to listen.

Defense of Position

In response to the use of gender-diverse images of God it is helpful to acknowledge that there is not a biblical claim that God is male, he is only referred to in masculine terms. He is not referred to as a man, but set apart from not only men, but all of humanity. God is also metaphorically referred to be one like a “mother” and a “hen” or other feminine images. Therefore, I would argue that there should be inclusive terms when referring to God within a biblical tradition. We should worship God as a comforter, gatherer, and creator. There is, however, no biblical precedence to go further and call God “Mother” or any other feminine name. For God does not refer to himself as “Mother”, but “Father”. He does refer to himself as “Queen”, but “King”. Our God-talk should be guided by Scripture in that we may use metaphorical images when referring to God’s work and action, but the witness of Scripture leads us away from naming God anything other than what he names himself.

A popular response to the masculine use within Scripture is to refer the problem to the patriarchal society of ancient Palestine. Yet, if this were the reason for the masculine use it is hard to explain how most surrounding nations spoke of their deities as feminine. The significance of Israel referring to God as masculine would have been uncommon, rather than common. Also, God’s disclosure of himself in Scripture is the way in which he chose to disclose himself to the world in Biblical language and through his Son Jesus Christ. This should supersede any social implications.[1]

The other opposing position is that there is no functional subordination within the community of the Trinity. In beginning the argument, the obvious relational terms of “Father” and “Son” within the Trinity seem to prompt some reflection of authority and subordination. This does not, however, reflect a relationship that has superiority and inferiority.

The biblical witness is that the Father’s will is to choose us, adopt us, glorify us through the work of his Son, who does all things according to the will of the Father. This is eternally pictured in I Corinthians 15, where death is finally defeated at the resurrection of the dead and all things are put in subjection under the Father. Yet the very person, Jesus Christ, who put all things in subjection under the Father, will also be put in subjection to him (I Cor. 15:28). This subjection is not only in the incarnation, but throughout eternity. Certainly, if the Son is the eternal Son, and if the Father is the eternal Father, then this relationship of functional authority and submission is from all eternity. Therefore, this implies that practicing the role of authority and submission in marriage and in the community of the Church is godly and properly images our Creator.

Within the framework of knowing and communing with God, a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes evangelical ecclesiology in how it fellowships, worships, and communicates the gospel effectively and biblically. A Trinitarian understanding of God should prompt reflection of a God that is diverse in person, role, and operation, yet completely glorious in essence together as one God.

[1] Both of these responses are attributed to Bruce Ware “Tampering with the Trinity”: 6.

Objections to My Position

Admittedly, there much opposition to the above positions throughout the Church today.  Two critical opposing arguments concern the diversity of gender use when referring to God and authority and submissions implications in the Trinitarian relationship.

A catalyst for gender-diverse references of God stems mainly from a feminist’s desire to use more “inclusive images of God” that correct the almost exclusive use of masculine images of God throughout history.[1]  Some argue to do away with any gender-specific imaging of God and deal mainly with impersonal terms, while others look to compliment each person of the Trinity with their own feminine image.  Others want to do away with any masculine use of images completely.

The feminist desire to compliment masculine images of God with feminine stem from social obstacles to certain interpretation of biblical metaphors.  The difficulty of calling God Father today is that many children have had distant, abusive, or absent fathers and their mothers are the only parental image that brings comfort and peace.  A flexible gender use would solve any problematic social barrier that would hinder warmth, security, or peace when referring to God.[2]  This sort of “God-talk” would be suitable for any theological framework that any individual would approach worship with.[3]

Many, however, find exegetical arguments for their gender-diverse God-talk.  The traditional masculine form will simply not due when trying to grasp the entire representation of God.  The dignity of women, created in the image of God, is completely ignored when referring to God in only masculine images.[4]  The masculine formula of the Trinity is mainly attributed to the patriarchal culture of ancient Palestine and should be evolved into a “renewed speech about God in the direction of greater inclusivity in current theology.[5]  Patricia Wilson-Kastner spends much energy unfolding and unearthing feministic traits of the incarnate Christ.[6]  Wilson-Kastner argues that the Trinitarian formula should portray God the Father, God our Mother, and the Holy Spirit.  She specifically links the crucifixion with child-bearing, where Christ enters into the painful process of “labor” in the new birth of her beloved.[7]  According to many, as well, both the Father and Spirit are attributed the feminine trait of birthing, comforting, and nurturing her creation.  For many feminist theologians, only using masculine images when referring to God is idolatry.[8]

The second opposing position is the hostile view towards an authoritative and subordinate relationship within the Trinity and its implications.  The major dilemma among egalitarian theologians is that a functional subordination relationship within the Trinity easily implies an authoritative and submissive relationship within humanity, even between males and females.  This, however, in the eyes of many, would imply that the masculine gender is superior over the feminine, as it would imply that God the Father is superior over God the Son.[9]   As Kevin Giles argues, the Father and Son are undivided in power, therefore, undivided in authority.[10]  Anything less would be Arian subordinationism.  Implications of one essence, one power, and one authority would be that there is no authority and submissive relationship within the community of the Trinity.  This would also imply that the use of the terms “Father” and “Son” is inappropriate since this would imply an authority and submissive relationship.  A final implication would be that since there is no masculine use (after removing the terms “Father” and “Son”) referring to God, nor an authority and submissive relationship, there is no authority and submissive relationship within a marriage or Church setting.

[2] See Brian Wren, What Language Shall I Borrow?, 9-58.

[3] Ibid, 151.

[4] Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is, 45.

[5] Ibid, 47.

[6] See Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith, Feminism and the Christ, 89-120.

[7] Ibid, 102.

[8] Anne E. Carr, Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience (San Fransisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1988), 134.

[9] Paul K. Jewitt, Man as Male and Female: A Study of Relationships From a Theological Point of View, 84; Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity, 93.

[10] See Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father, 172-204

My Understanding

In articulating my own position, I want to argue how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes evangelical ecclesiology within the same elements of fellowship, worship, and communicating the gospel.

Within the realm of fellowship, is included the Church family, domestic family, and the structure of both. The understanding of a Trinitarian God drastically shapes how the Church loves, leads and submits to one another. A Church that is created and then born again as a new creation in the image of God is more specifically made in the image of a Triune God. Therefore, to promote and practice godly love, love must be fashioned in the manner in which our Triune God loves. Daniel Migliore writes, “In God’s own life there is an activity of mutual self-giving, a community of sharing, a society of love that is the basis of God’s history of love for the world narrated in Scripture.”[1]

This “history of love” that Migliore refers to is particularly displayed in John 17. In Jesus’ High Priestly prayer he prays right from the beginning, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (John 17:1). Within the purpose of the cross, in redeeming mankind, the Son initially prays that he will be glorified for the ultimate purpose of glorifying the Father. In the prayer of Jesus, he reveals the intra-Trinitarian concern of the other. As the rest of Scripture witness to the Spirit testifies to and glorifies Christ (John 16:14) and points the heart of the believer to believe in the Father as “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15).

From the basis of eternal intra-Trinitarian love we experience the love of the Trinity in the economy of salvation.[2] Referring back to the High Priestly prayer of John 17, “Father I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). And also, “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (John 17:26). From the source of intra-Trinitarian love and glorification, we now experience this same love and glorification through the saving work of the Godhead. The redemption work of the Trinity is more fully developed below in the effect of a Trinitarian understanding of God in communicating the gospel.

The example of the intra-Trinitarian and the economic Trinitarian love should shape the way in which the Church loves within its congregations and domestic families. Christian feminism, especially Susan Thistlethwaite, at least, rightly observes that abuse, racism, and domination that stems from fear portrays a monarchial - or in my opinion, an Arian subordinationist - rather than a Trinitarian conception of God.[3] Hatred towards one another, especially within the Church, is owing to “the lack of consideration given to the Trinity in modern theology.”[4] This Trinitarian consideration and adherence can only occur rightly within a redeemed, new creation community that has been given new eyes to see the community of the Church.

Within the element of worship, the Trinity causes all sorts of implications and questions. First of all, however, it must be considered that the Trinitarian understanding of God gives us boldness to even come before the Triune God and worship. Because of the redemptive work of the Trinity, specifically the incarnation of Christ, we have a reconciled relationship with God where there used to be “infinite disparity.”[5] The incarnate Son, our greater brother, acts as our mediator before the Father, interceding on our behalf and granting us the privilege of worship and communion. So, therefore, without a Trinitarian understanding of God in redemption, worship before a holy and righteous God would be perilous.

Secondly, a Trinitarian understanding of God creates a soberness to worship. For God to communicate to us his nature he talks us in order to accommodate our limited capacity for him. He speaks to us in “baby-talk” or as “a nurse commonly talks to infants.”[6] Therefore, our limited capacity for him and thwarted understanding should create an awe and increase of faith. There is should be no surprise that the being that is higher than all else is as unexplainable and ineffable as that which is higher than all else. This should prompt a sober effect to our worship that we worship one who is higher than all else and, though we not fully understand him, we trust his word and witness of himself.

Finally, the appropriate gender in which to refer to the God the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit in worship is masculine. In Scripture, when God is referred to or when God refers to himself it always occurs in masculine form. Any appeal within Scripture to a feminine reference, such as a hen (Luke 13:34) or one who begets his new creation (John 3:5-6) is strictly metaphorical and should not be taken any further than that.

A Trinitarian understanding of God shapes the manner in which the gospel is communicated within an evangelical ecclesiology. The gospel, however, is more clearly communicated when the triune community is understood within a relationship of authority and submission. For Christ, all things have been placed under his feet, he is the Head over the Church, and all authority is his (Eph. 1:21-22). Yet, it is the Father who has given him all authority. A Trinitarian understanding of the gospel clearly divides the work of redemption, so that each member of the Godhead accomplishes a work peculiar to himself. The Father, who is the fountain of deity, the engineer of redemption, sends his Son as his agent to accomplish the work of the cross and resurrection. The eternal Son, abides and submits to the will of the Father and becomes incarnate in order to become a perfect and satisfactory sacrifice and mediation for man unto the Father. The Spirit, then, is sent from and is in submission to both the Father and Son in order to effectually accomplish the resurrection power of God in the hearts and lives of his elect and to witness to the saving work of Christ, the Son.

Therefore, we are then to understand the Church’s relationship with Christ and wives’ relationship with their husbands within this community of authority and submission. The proper understanding of submission within a marriage is significant because within the mystery of a wife submitting to the authority of the husband, is a powerful witness of the sanctifying work of Christ on the cross for his Church (Eph. 5:25-29).

[3] Susan Thistlethwaite, Sex, Race, and God: Christian Feminism in Black and White (New York: Crossroad, 1989): 122.

[4] Ibid. 122.

[5] John Owen, Communion with God (Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001), 8.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 121.

Differing Views

There are, however, vastly different opinions on how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes ecclesiology. The main two views which I will interact with are between a feminist and an evangelical orthodox view. However, even within these two positions are varied opinions concerning fellowship, worship, and the communication of the gospel.

Concerning fellowship, there is, seemingly, comparable positions between evangelical and feminist positions on how a Trinitarian understanding shapes ecclesiology. Both positions would argue that there should be an adhering to a Trinitarian example. There should be present in humanity a mutual love and “radical other-mindedness.”[1] As there is a faithful relationship and reciprocated affection within the Godhead,[2] so there should be among his children. Yet there is a critical difference between the two opinions as where this specifically applies. Within a feminist’s perception, this adherence should apply to all humanity. Elizabeth A. Johnson writes, “Spun off and included as a partner in the divine dance of life, the world for all its brokenness and evil, already does embody it in those sacramental moments of friendship, healing, and justice breaking through”[3] Yet, within an evangelical position, a triune adherence would only apply to a redeemed and born again community.[4] Both positions, however, would agree that if one is to image the Triune God, there is an anticipated emulation within its creation in fellowship and community.

Within the realm of how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes worship and the communication of the gospel in evangelical ecclesiology, there are substantial differences in perceptions between a feminist and an orthodox evangelical position. Specifically in worship, there is search for more and more “inclusive images of God that tempt to compliment and correct the almost exclusively male images”[5] within feminist theology. They argue that there is a crucial need and allowance of diversity within the depth of Trinitarian grammar.[6] Referring to and worshipping God as “Mother” acknowledges the fact that “she” is a nurturing and begetting God. Worshipping God simply as Father does not rightly evoke to mind the entire “divine mystery.”[7] There is also support for a wider use of image because of the growing awareness of younger children’s perception of “mother” as someone who is faithful and comforting, yet “father” as someone who was never there.[8] Yet, an orthodox position would heavily argue for a masculine use for God and any feminine application to God would be simply metaphoric and not meant to apply to his personhood. It would be unwise to apply a sort of cultural diversity of humanity towards the Trinity, or silly to “measure him by our own senses.”[9]

Finally, within the realm of communicating the gospel under a Trinitarian understanding of God, the positions are vastly diverse. The most common difference is in the understanding of subordination within the Godhead. The understanding of subordination has substantial implications within a complimentarian evangelical since this type of relationship is the manner in which God redeems mankind through Christ functionally submitting to the will of Father in redeeming the world. Also, this has further implications in understanding the Church’s submission to Christ as her Head, and the wife submitting to her husband as head in displaying Christ’s relation to his Church in redeeming them. In the complimentarian understanding of redemption, the Trinity is responsible for the redemption of his Church, but is first ascribed to the Father in sending his Son and applying the punishment of our sin upon him. The Son, then in complete submission to the will of the Father, becomes incarnate and completes his distinct charge of our great High Priest by becoming our sacrifice and interceding on our behalf. The Spirit, then, in redemption is the Spirit of resurrection that raised the Son from the dead and raises from the dead the children of God.[10] Furthermore, the actuality of the Son being the eternal Son, and the Father being the eternal Father seems to imply an eternal relationship of authority and submission within the community of the Trinity.[11]

There are two main opposing views to the evangelical complimentarian view demonstrated above. An evangelical egalitarian would argue that subordination in role would logically conclude in the inferiority of persons and would therefore suggest tritheism.[12] Full equality of the Father, Son, and Spirit cannot include subordination. Some would appeal to the subordination of the Son only within the time of his incarnation, but not eternally.

A feminist theologian would mainly argue against both the previous argument of a masculine pronominal reference to God and the relationship of authority and submission within the Godhead. The masculine reference to Father and authority over the Son leads to a men’s superiority over women as people and the Son’s inferiority under the Father as God.[13]

[1] Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 222.

[2] John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (London: Sheed & Ward, 1988), 100-111.

[3] Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is, 222.

[4] Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton: Good News Publishing, 2005), 14.

[5] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 75.

[6] Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith, Feminism, and the Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 121.

[7] Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is, 54.

[8] Brian Wren, What Language Shall I Borrow? (York: Crossroad, 1989), 14.

[9] John Calvin, Library of Christian Classics. Edited by John T. McNeil. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 121.

[10] See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Dead of Jesus Christ (Ediburgh: Johnstrone and Hunter, 1852. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2002), 51-69.

[11] Bruce Ware “Tampering With the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to the Father?” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1, no. 6 (Spring 2001): 7.

[12] Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelical Reinvent the Doctrin of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 205.

[13] Paul K. Jewitt, Man as Male and Female: A Study of Relationships From a Theological Point of View (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 84.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been decisive and divisive throughout Church history since the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople of the patriarchal period. The major theological schism between the Western and Eastern Orthodox Church concerns chief elements of the doctrine of the Trinity. The way in which a church has believed and communicated the doctrine of God as Trinity has shaped the way in which the Church worships, fellowships, and communicates the gospel.

It may be helpful in developing how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes an evangelical ecclesiology by first answering the question, why does a Trinitarian understanding of God shape an evangelical ecclesiology? First, because God as Trinity is how we know him to be the one true God. If we are to know God, then we must know him as three. While our knowledge of God will always be limited, full revelation of God will never reveal him as two or four, but only three.[1] Part of knowing that we worship the God of Abraham is knowing him as three. Therefore, worshipping God as a Triune God is significant in worshipping God in spirit and truth. Second, God’s communication to his Church is Trinitarian. We are reconciled to the Father through the work of Christ (2 Cor. 5:1 and the Father seals us with his Spirit for the guarantee of our inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14). The Church’s communication with each person of the Godhead is Trinitarian. We know and commune boldly with the Father through Christ (Eph 3:12) and the Spirit stirs our affections for the Father so that we cry out “Abba! Father!” (Rom. 8:15) and creates categories of prayer to the Father that we do not have (Rom. 8:26). We know and communicate with Christ because of the witness of the Holy Spirit pointing to him (John 15:26) and the Father who bears witness to him (John 5:37). We know and commune with the Spirit because of the sending of Father and of the Son (John 16:1-7). Therefore, the reason why a Trinitarian view of God shapes an evangelical ecclesiology is because it is how the Church knows him and worships him in truth and it is how hold communion with him. These two aspects define much of evangelical ecclesiology.

Within the framework of knowing and communing with God, my effort, then, over the next few posts is to demonstrate how a Trinitarian understanding of God shapes the fellowship, worship, and communication of the gospel of the Church.

[1] Migliore, Daniel, Faith Seeking Understanding, 70.

Mark Dever and 9marks has their interview with Derek Thomas available.  I really admire Derek.  I have previously linked his sermons on Acts and his 8 part lecture on John Owen.  Thomas also blogs at Ref21.

John Beeson, a frequent author of posts on this site, preached a beautiful sermon on the 6th Commandment. This was a Puritan-like sermon, so pray before listening that the Holy Spirit may bring conviction and encouragement where needed.

Do you know CCEF? Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation. CCEF has a faculty of counselors and authors who have influenced much of my thought in Christian Counseling and basic pastoral ministry. Two of their faculty members have just recently released books and I am excited to get to them:

Running Scared: Fear, Worry & the God of Rest by Edward T. Welch.

You can read chapter 1 from WTS.

If you have never heard of Ed Welch I encourage you to listen the 9marks interview that gives a basic biographical sketch of his life and a wonderful look into his thought.

A Quest for More: Living for Something Bigger Than You by Paul David Tripp

You can read chapter 1 from WTS.

Philip Graham Ryken says this of Tripp’s new book:

Trevin Wax, on the SaidatSouthern Podcast will be interviewing N. T. Wright this month.  I’m not sure when the audio will be available.  This is an extraordinary opportunity for Trevin, as he admits.  He also asks his readers what they would ask if  they got the opportunity to sit down with Wright.  I emailed him and gave him some of my own questions I would ask.  He is not making any promises on actually asking any of the suggestions, but if you have any suggestions send him a note.  Here are some questions I sent him and a few more:

1. How would you share the gospel with one individual?  Explain evangelism.
2. If the Protestant Reformers got justification wrong, why would you or any other New Persp. proponent call yourself protestant?  Is it simply papal authority?  (This question should be worded more graciously :)).
3. In your opinion, has scholarly criticism of New Perspective in America, such as Carson, Piper, Moo and others been fair, or have they misunderstood the NP?
4. How would you respond to the criticism towards yourself and other NP or Federal Vision theologians that you have not understood the doctrine of justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness correctly in the first place?
5. What would be your response to much of the Episcopalian/Anglican communion controversy in America over the ordination of homosexual clergy be?