conversations on the Cross and the Trinity

I’ve just watched this podcast discussion from Affinity. 

It features a discussion between Graham Nicholls, the national director of Affinity which is a kind of coalition of Evangelical churches and organisations with a more reformed/conservative focus than the Evangelical Alliance, Tom Brand, ministry director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches and Pete Sanlon, a theologian and minister. The subject of the discussion is Tom’s book, Intimately Forsaken: A Trinitarian Theology of the Cross. 

I was interested in the video because it picks up on some of the issues I’ve been discussing recently particularly around what I’ve been referring to as “Neo-Classical-Theism”.  I am interested in this partly because I find myself asking specific questions about some of the positions put forward by neo-classical-theists particularly around the Doctrine of the Trinity and recently concerning temptation and desire. 

My other interest is that much of the interaction and tension seems to be to do with how academic theologians engage with and serve the local church.  This relates to my specific concern to see Christians equipped for pastoral leadership but also a belief that there is a benefit in all Christians having a deeper and richer access to theological thinking, both contemporary and historical.

I’ve found much that is coming from the academic perspective rather frustrating to be honest. You’ve probably picked up on that if you’ve read the blog.  I think this video helps crystalise some of those frustrations.  I know two of the people involved in the video, Tom and Graeme a little and am on cordial terms with them so I hope that this article can be taken in the spirit of friendly, if frustrated, engagement.  

Here I think are three examples of the kind of frustration I have with the broader discourse.

First, there are some big statements and assessments which could do with some back up.  As has been the case in other contexts, I’m left wondering whether other contemporaries have been heard and understood correctly.  For example, the participants in their discussion of Jesus’ “cry of dereliction” from the Cross describe Evangelicals in sermons and songs as speaking/singing of a broken Trinity.  Tom wants to respond to this by affirming and emphasising the unity of the Godhead. 

Now, I think it is fair to say that when we get to examples like the Cry of Dereliction, we may also talk about the Gethsemane prayer, people often find a tension here between emphasising the oneness of God and understanding what is exactly going on in those conversations between the Father and Son.  However, I’m not convinced, and haven’t heard people talk about a “broken Trinity.”  It might be helpful for the participants to provide some specific examples. 

I appreciate that Tom has included examples in his book and that as they say in the discussion, they don’t want to name names there as that might be divisive.  Personally, I still think it would be helpful in a podcast like this to give specifics.  First because people will watch/listen to the podcast who may not buy the book.  Secondly, if people are names elsewhere then I’m not sure what is gained by not naming them in this context.  This can be done in a generous and gracious manner.  Thirdly, I think that there is the risk that without examples, it throws a cloud of suspicion over all talks, books and songs. 

Secondly, I want to pick up on this quote:

“So, often, when we look at the cross, theologians will look at the cross and try and understand what is happening there, and then work backwards and make assumptions about what God is like and what the Trinity is like.”

I wonder if that would be recognised as a fair assessment by other theologians.  Again, it would be helpful to know who they have in mind.  However, I also wonder if there is a little bit of dismissiveness coming into play.  I picked up on this recently reading Matthew Barrett’s book on the Divine Attributes. There, we are told that too often we try to work out who God is from below instead of getting a top down theology.  However, we need to also consider that God stoops, or to use Calvins’ words “lisps.  If we work out from the incarnation and the cross what we can know about the Trinity, then surely that comes with permission because it is there that God reveals himself to us.  We know the Father through the Son.

Thirdly, I have an issue with accessibility.  This includes things like the assumption that we will find the dropping in of technical terms or that what is essentially a reworking of a PHD provides a bridge between the church and the academy.  To be fair to Tom, I don’t think he is setting out to do that at this stage. In any case my jaw hit the floor when at one point Pete Sanlon talked about what pastors would find helpful as they read the book.    I wanted to respond out loud

“Pete what planet are you on.  The book is selling at over £100, even for the kindle edition!  No pastor is going to be buying, let alone reading this book.”

Those three things I think highlight some of the challenges between those claiming to be classical theists and the wider evangelical church.  I’ve sent a copy of this article to Tom and Grame and would be very happy to publish their responses.