Jeffrey A. Manning

An online commonplace about thinking & living theologically

[jeffamanning-blog]

My Reading Schedule

Ambitious. 

That’s the word I kept thinking of as I have worked and reworked my reading plan. Too many books, too little time, and no plan to make any headway. The more I’ve studied, the more books I wanted/needed and it is a little discouraging to think that in my lifetime I will only be able to read 2,600 of them (maybe)[1]. 

It is still a work in progress and I’m not sure that I’ve hit the mark on categories as I know others categorize by personal purposeful reading. I’ve sought to construct it based on values and comprehensibility but still working on the actual discipline and competency of reading. So, what follows is my next best attempt at a reading schedule.

Reading Plan:

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

Daily Reading

Bible (reading plan & study)

Journals/Magazines/Blogs (early morning news or late evening bed)

Thesis (articles/books) or Phd (syllabus/research) - also weekly

Weekly Reading (chapter a week or 200 pp. < books)

Mentor (day or two before meeting)

Job Development (pastoral ministry & counseling)

Enjoyment (fiction, devotional, projects)

The Table (based on calendar)

Monthly Canons of Reading (book a month with reading plan)

January - Early Church (read the CF set)

February - The Father (bibliography)

March - Medieval (list of theologians)

April - The Son (bibliography)

May - Reformation (list of theologians)

June - The Spirit (bibliography)

July - Modern (list of theologians per kind)

August - Biblical Theology (by division - OT, NT, Whole)

September - Postmodern (list of theologians)

October - Systematic Theology (by theological conviction)

November - Baptist (by period)

December - Historical Theology (by era or method)

One “Great Book” every two months (refer to bibliography)

Once-a-month review of certain texts (church membership, counseling, etc)

Quarterly Reading (chapter/wk as time permits)

Jan 1 - March 31: Lent/Easter

April 1 - June 30: Baptism

July 1 - Sept 30: Lord’s Supper

Oct 1 - Dec 31: Advent

Yearly Reading (few pages a week; reserved for unfamiliar subjects)

Politics

Ethics

(Self)Education

Have a list ready to go for each division

Personal canons reserved for free time/evenings

Top Ten lists for re-reading and recommendation

[1] Tony Reinke, Lit! A Christian Guide to Reading Books. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 93.

[jeffamanning-blog]

Theology from the Community for the Community with Stanley Grenz

In 1994, one of American Baptist’s most recognized theologians, the late Stanley Grenz, published his full-length systematic theology, Theology for the Community of God. Conservative evangelicals warmly welcomed this book, among others around that time in the early 1990’s. David Dockery (for whom the book is dedicated) wrote an endorsement for his prior book, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, stating, “[It] is a creative step forward for evangelicals…and opens the door for evangelical theology to strengthen the church.” More freshly engaged with the Pietist tradition, Grenz began to center his theology on community or the church, which resonated with many conservatives due to rampant individualism. Yet, whether they were encouraged about the direction but displeased with its overreach or whether they simply misunderstood Grenz from the beginning, he has earned critics from those that initially welcomed his thoughts.

Grenz’s text follows traditional loci beginning with theological method and ending with eschatology. Also, he rightly believes that theology should have a trinitarian shape to it by leading with the doctrine of God and the Trinity (24). This brings unity to the discipline of theology. Developing the history of theology, he points out the different ways it has been divided (i.e. subdiscplines) and contextualized (i.e. academic, narrative, etc.). Concerning the divisions, Grenz wants to develop doctrine not necessarily from biblical, systematic, historical, and practical but by focusing on the biblical message (which is historically conditioned), the historical heritage of the church (which is also contextual), and the thought-forms of the contemporary context (of which he currently lived) (16). Therefore, he includes an “integrative motif,” which is community (20). Like Aquinas’ beatific vision or Calvin’s emphasis on the glory of God, Grenz’s point of integration is the community of God (23). Certainly this emphasis is constructive in some measure such as the recognition that theology is not static but particularly suited for understanding the faith across all ages. However, at times, Grenz can be less than clear about the community’s participation in theology, to what extent there should be integration, and the end goal of it other than that the theology is applied. Based on the use of certain terms (e.g. communal), it seems that he is already primed for a fuller postmodern theological treatment.

In chapter three, Grenz discusses the doctrine of the Trinity. In it, he gives an historical overview, recognizing that the doctrine was formed over years of reflection and was only then fixated as a doctrine in the 4th century (54). Keeping with his theme of eschatological community, Grenz writes, “The doctrine of the Trinity is the product of a lengthy process arising from the experience of the people of faith” (53). While it can certainly not be denied that “trinity” is not found in the Bible, one might get the sense (outside some example texts) that the doctrine is mostly theological speculation or formulation. Still, Grenz portrays an orthodox view of God who is one, three, diversity, and unity (66-67). It is this kind of God, a relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit, who is love at his very being (71-74). This is who God is and it upholds his justice, wrath, and righteousness all at once. Because God is love, the Trinity also informs human ethics. God is the ultimate model of life and community since within himself he is social (76). As it relates to the contemporary situation, however, the doctrine of the Trinity is still subject to theological reflection and the door is open for variations of these truths.

[jeffamanning-blog]

Revelation, God, and Carl Henry

Whereas much of modern theology is set in relation to and in response to a neo-orthodox understanding of revelation as event via Karl Barth, evangelical theology set its basis in a God who acted in history and spoken to mankind via the Scriptures. Carl F. H. Henry, one of evangelicalism’s greatest minds, understood revelation as coming from the Bible, not from a sense of absolute dependence, an existential experience, or a dialect of opposing forces. In his six-volume work God, Revelation, and Authority (GRA), Carl Henry philosophically, systematically, and historically deals with the objective reality of a God who has spoken in his word about Christ through the Spirit. Revelation, then, is the crucial factor in determining who God is and is particularly important for contemporary theology because of the creative shifts made in the different movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In part two of GRA, Henry deals with the doctrine of God in light of biblical revelation. In it, he attempts to comprehensively trace (even through the first four volumes) how different understandings of revelation (epistemology) led to different formulations of the doctrine of God (ontology and metaphysics) while critiquing those efforts. Chapters eight and nine deal with these varied formulations specifically. First, Henry deals with the philosophical problem of the one and the many or the critiques of divine unity and divine plurality (165-166). To reject the doctrine on its mathematical illogicality is to “rationalize personal unbelief.” Paradox is an idea that characterizes trinitarian discussions but Henry distinguished between modern theology’s understanding and the early church’s by mentioning that paradox is not a conveyance of irrational material. Instead, the church fathers believed that God so far above man that his knowledge of God is inexhaustible (166). Henry believed that the Trinity was not irrational but it is rational on its own terms (i.e. according to the Scriptures). Due to man’s incomprehensibility, however, humans seek to understand the divine personality on their own terms (i.e. expansion of human personality). He writes, “…whereas modern theology seeks to postulate the nature of ultimate reality from human nature, biblical theology takes its rise in divine self-disclosure” (168). Throughout his critique, Henry returns to the teaching of the Bible.

Chapter nine is a continuation of a trinitarian history as Henry deals with the controversies of the early church about the Trinity. That is, the early church formed the theological material that we know as the Trinity today. Henry discusses the more traditional arguments of Jewish monotheism and Christian Trinitarianism and writes, “At the heart of Christianity’s revelation of God is a trinitarian form of monotheism” (191). Stated as such, Henry is similar to Warfield in that the Scriptures have a trinitarian shape. He mentions Arianism, Sabellianism, the Nicene Creed, the “So Called” Athanasian Creed, the Trinitarianism of the Protestant Reformers and some personal views that have sought to thoughtfully deal with language and terms in Scripture. In scope, this is a brief venture but some of Henry’s concluding remarks about biblical exegesis help to summarize where the problem lies. He says, “…evangelical theology best serves the living God in his revelation by speaking boldly only where the Scriptures do so” (211). According to Henry, the theological trajectory beginning with the early church (though, overall constructive) was continued in unhelpful ways by modern theology “who went beyond the license of Scripture and propounded ontological novelties” (211).

[jeffamanning-blog]

Radical “-ology”

Nietzsche’s pronouncement “God is dead” circulated all the way to the 1960’s, but its form was different then. A theology known as radical theology or the death-of-God movement came onto the scene as a form of Christian atheism. God (and the Christian tradition) must go away or die in order that it might be reborn into its true self. In historical form, radical theology follows three other camps, which are given by William Hamilton, one of the movement’s key influencers (4-5). First, there is the “ecumenical, Barthian, neo-Reformation tradition,” the largest of the camps. Second, there are the demythologizing “Bultmannians” where much of the New Testament scholarship was done. Third, and another step further, was metaphysical or philosophical theology (i.e. Wittgenstein, Whitehead, and Heidegger). Lastly, there is radical or “death of God” theology, which is distinguished from other forms of radical theology (e.g. radical, sexual, or ecclesiastical). This final form does not seek to have proximity to orthodox theology only to be deemed irrelevant. Instead, it readily accepts a profane form in order to put to death the old Christendom (19).

Perhaps one of the more interesting features of “death of God” theology is the source material; that is, those who influenced Altizer and Hamilton towards a secular Christianity. Names such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (religionless Christianity) and Paul Tillich (though Tillich probably more than Bonhoeffer) do not seem like obvious influences. Yet, they are seen as preparatory sources for radical theology. Particularly, the theology of Tillich provided for the dialectical movement of being and nonbeing. Even further, however, stands (like most modern theology) Søren Kierkegaard, “the real creator of modern theology” (12). In order for theology to meet the demands of the modern world, it must negate all former religious meaning and affirm the death of God. The church must accept that its theology cannot be kerygmatic, dogmatic, or apologetic, but must remain in darkness while it awaits a resurrection (15). One wonders if radical theology is anything of substance at all. For the movement’s originators, this is the existential “leap of faith” where the willful leap through chaos is the true progression forward, leaving God behind. Some traces of Moltmann’s futuristic history of God are present as they write that it is “not the goal of converging the present and the past, but…seeking a convergence of the present and the future” (18). The fight is against Gnosticism, which is solely negation without affirmation.

So, with God out of the picture, the vocation of theology is to engage in dialectical movements where the Yes becomes No and the No becomes Yes (109). Christianity can become scandalous again. The problem with God and theology is themselves since they are attached to a history that speaks of an utterly transcendent God. Altizer writes, “We must have the courage to recognize that it is the Christian God who has enslaved man to the alienation of ‘being’ and to the guilt of ‘history’ (110).” The Incarnation, however, is the affirmation of the profane rather than abolishment. The self-emptying God (sacred kenosis) is the only one who can accept it coincidental opposite of the profane world. This was the answer to one of the first questions that radical theology sought to answer. The concern was that theology had attached itself to a history of Gnosticism, whereby God was transcendent from the world and had no power over it (problem of evil). Yet for Altizer and Hamilton, the result is Christianity with God at all and without a real Christ or any symbol of its former self.

[jeffamanning-blog]

James Cone’s Dark Theology

Contextual theology and its underlying philosophies have had great influence in America. Strains of Marxism and existentialism (particularly that of Paul Tillich) have played a key role in the theology of James Cone, a representative contextual theologian in America. His book A Black Theology of Liberation, the follow up to Black Theology and Black Power, has served as a systematic theology for the cause. In that book, Cone explains what black theology is in more spirited detail and its distinction from American theology (that is, white theology). As with other contextual theologies, the working hermeneutical principle is oppression. This is the guide to understanding the contours of black theology. Yet, it is not only the guide but also the actual understanding (i.e. blackness) that is revelation and the nature of God himself.

Concerning revelation, Cone mentions it in Barthian terms as an event. However, it is more than the event of Jesus Christ as the revealed one. For black theology, revelation is a black event in which God is revealed in the oppression of black people. As it relates to sources, the black experience is the foremost (23). Taking another cue from existentialist theologian, Paul Tillich, Cone says that because truth arises out of passionate experience, “we can say that the definition of truth for the black thinker arises from a passionate encounter with black reality” (19). There is no shared knowledge, at least between white and black. This means that there are no absolutes, not even for God since the fundamental experience of God for the oppressor and the oppressed are different. In order for whites to properly understand, they must, according to Cone, become black (68-69). With astonishing confidence, he draws an analogy to the Philippian jailor’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” where salvation and blackness are synonymous (69).

The theology of white people is the theology of oppression, which is closely identified with American theology in general. Due to the history of the country concerning slavery and the one’s responsible, black theology must be “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic” if it must separate itself from the God-speech of the white man (58) Because of the pervasive oppression, black theology cannot fully escape white theology, but it must work to distinguish itself from white man’s God (64). There must be the question of “whose God?” since the name itself (the term God as a symbol rather than a reality) is nothing unique, especially in the English language (60). There is too much baggage and it must be replaced.

With his view of revelation having an anthropological center, Cone’s doctrine of God takes on the same shape and color as the black man. Because the goal of black theology is bring being (blackness) out of nonbeing (whiteness) and, because God identifies with those who are black, God himself is black (65). There is no room in black theology for neutrality or colorlessness. Even for God to show mercy to the oppressor would be for God to be racist. Again, according to Cone, this is revelation. In terms of ontology, God is defined in his nature by liberation (67). He is right to say that man has no right to impose his own understanding and that God is the presupposition of theology, but it is a fundamental departure from classical theism. Cone takes “seriously the Trinitarian view of the Godhead” but it is a tritheistic view, with God being identified (past tense) with the oppressed in each form. Yet, white people are unable to see this because their “satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity” (67).

[jeffamanning-blog]

Rauschenbusch & The God of Solidarity

Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel is a pastoral reflection that captures the spirit of the social gospel movement. It is pastoral in that it is concerned with how the religious experience reaches the untrained and deals with actual life (17). It captures the spirit because it is the fullest expression of the social gospel in that it became the systematic theology of the movement. Yet, it begins and progresses differently than other systematic theologies. Rauschenbusch’s working assumption is that theology needs to catch up to the social gospel (hence, the for). He wants to “match it” with the modern world and promote a more intellectual theology that is “expanded and readjusted” specifically for the social gospel (1). Again, the spirit is there as he attempts to meet real concerns and criticisms of Christianity. He says, “The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but enlarged and intensified” (5). Who, after all, does not want that old-time religion while addressing societal needs? The problem he sees is that the current theology does not meet the needs of the modern hour.

One of Rauschenbusch’s critiques of older theology is that it is individualistic. He says that the faith itself is outpacing our theological understanding. Whereas older theologies were highly intellectual, inaccessible, and primarily concerned with individual persons or social classes the social gospel is compelling, lay level, and vis-à-vis with systemic and international sinfulness (5-6). Therefore, it needed “readjustment” or “rejuvenation.” He is not given to conservatism in the sense of maintaining or dissemination. Keeping in step with church history and prior exegesis only concerns the maintaining of facts and he regards this as esoteric while fresh theological reflection is the product of “religious experience and of practical necessities” (13).  Later citing the American philosopher, William James, Rauschenbusch seems to be at home with theological pragmatism––whatever works or whatever has cash value. This colors his understanding of theologians like Luther and Augustine. Their God-consciousness produced an emancipatory theology that produced democratic change (20-21). Action (particularly, social action) produces theology. In the spirit of progress, it is always evolving to meet determined ends. In his terms, the “experience of religion (is produced) through the medium of solidaristic social feeling” (21). This leads him to begin his systematic theology with “The Consciousness of Sin” in chapter four and only then “The Social Gospel and the Conception of God” in chapter fifteen.

Rauschenbusch begins this latter chapter by saying, “the doctrines of sin and salvation are the starting-point and goal of Christian theology” and that “the conception of God held by a social group is a social product” (167). Therefore, God is subject not object. He is, essentially, created not Creator. Of course, his argument is that throughout history this has been the case. Rauschenbusch affirms divine revelation but only to the extent that it reveals that God is for the poor and neglected not the rich (168). Later, he writes, “If we can trust the Bible, God is against capitalism, its methods, spirit, and results” or in one-word, bourgeois (184). With his attack on class hierarchy, he promotes Christianity as a monotheistic religion or the God of solidarity. Rauschenbusch’s conception of God could be stated in these simplistic terms. Similar to Schleiermacher, there is no biblical or early-church conception of God as trinity. Trinity is associated with hierarchy. The unity of God promotes the unity of the human race in solidarity. According to Rauschenbusch, this is the essence of religion (186).

[jeffamanning-blog]

God’s Conscious Dependence on Man in Schleiermacher

To gather a Trinitarian theology from Friedrich Schleiermacher is either to strain for lack of development or to wait patiently on it as one ploughs through The Christian Faith. Even then his concluding thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity is better understood, not on its own (as a mere appendix) but in light of the larger portions concerning Christ and the Spirit. One must read it developmentally rather than deductively or centrally. Though it is clear in his discussion what is centrally believed.

Simply stated, the classical doctrine of the Trinity, according to Schleiermacher, was useless for Christian theology or Christian living since it is not what one would immediately conclude (738). While he will say it is the “coping-stone” of the Christian faith, he is viewing the doctrine in light of how the commonality of the Spirit relates to the God-consciousness that Jesus had. In that sense, it is the cornerstone of what we are to be: like Christ in our God-consciousness. Any other conclusion is either wrought by very general conclusions or conditioned (a prior) thoughts from church history (741). In history, each doctrine, though fraught with their own irrationalities (e.g. the two natures of Christ), were treated distinctly and separately from the others. Schleiermacher seems sneakily suspicious about traditional orthodoxy’s presentation of equal essence between the Father, Son, and Spirit; rather, seeing inconsistencies, he concludes that the Father is equated with the Divine Essence (747). What he has left to say in the Christian Faith is that old, irrational constructions should be put away in favor of fresh formulations.

Schleiermacher’s method, which is typically viewed in light of his Pietist background, creatively presupposes that Christianity is about absolute dependence or God-consciousness. Christ as a historical figure is not both God and man but an ideal (potent) man through his constant God-consciousness. Lest one deals with contradictions, the best way to deal with Christ’s sinlessness is to explain that it wasn’t much to begin with and that his achievement was accomplished internally through awareness of God (385-386). This is his “divinity” and his “redemption” is his communication to others his own God-consciousness. Therefore, the Christology of Schleiermacher is anthropological in nature. The manhood of Christ is exalted rather than his divine qualities and he is the example for what the rest of mankind should strive.

For Schleiermacher, the doctrine of the Trinity is complete when there is an explanation of the shared communion with Christ, which he calls the Holy Spirit. In the church, the Spirit unifies the man with the divine essence, “animating the life in common of believers” (569). One thinks of Augustine’s unifying love of the Spirit between the Father and the Son. This understanding, which is that of the union of man and divinity, was the consistent or self-identical element. Schleiermacher’s cultural apologetic, however, was fluid or (more contemporary) contextual. The “mutable element” was the way that church expressed these beliefs. The conformity was not from human to divine but the divine accommodation to human experience (583-584). His doctrine of the Holy Spirit, then, is anthropological as well. Because the world was and is changing, the Christian Church must adapt accordingly and bring the unified essence to the world. In this way, there is no doubt that there is for Schleiermacher a close relationship with God and the world, whether he intended it or not. Later theologies would have strains of panentheism as God was seen as immutably connected to the world he created. Schleiermacher marked a path by which others would take in other creative directions.

[jeffamanning-blog]

Tillich Just Being-Himself

In volume one of Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich seeks to trace the connections between reason and revelation, being and God. In that order, Tillich brings his understanding of God out of his understanding of revelation. However, he does not use classical terminology or ideas to explain them. Instead, under the influence of existentialism and phenomenology, Tillich answers the fundamental question of theology by analyzing the nature of being. Modern formulations oscillate back and forth as it relates to theological loci as to which comes first: the doctrine of God or the doctrine of revelation or Scripture. It is an attempt to answer a similar question, “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” While he does begin with his book with entire part on theological method, his begins and proceeds with the philosophy of correlation, which leads him to correlate the being of God from the question of being. To the whole of his work, volume one represents the first of trinitarian work.

Tillich’s correlation of God as the Ground of Being comes in the latter part of volume one in a section called “The Reality of God.” The use of the term “reality” is important since he says earlier, “God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence” (205). In other words, God is. In regards to utter dependence, it is a sure expression that man’s being is dependent upon the true Ground of being. However, the knowledge or intuition of that knowledge is an ontological question that arises from man himself. This awareness points to the infinite. Tillich’s concern seems apologetic as he addresses modern concerns. At least one concern is that the god of man’s question is one of self-projection. If god is a being, then, according to Tillich, there are a number of things he can become (212). He, therefore, spends a few pages outlining what he believes to be some of the historical views. Though, in addressing what would be named historical theological positions, Tillich seems to devalue them, as they are unable to determine essence. They can only determine “the existence of the idea of God” (220).

The trinitarian being of God begins to show as Tillich discusses the relationship between polytheism and monotheism. In philosophical terms, it is the problem of the one and the many. Tillich argues that polytheism is not quantitative element (that is, threeness) but a qualitative one (222).  The issue is ultimacy over concreteness, which, in his philosophical explanation, is quite difficult. He argues that there are three types of polytheism (universalistic, mythological, dualistic) and in each of them the concrete prevails over the ultimate. Therefore, each god seeks to be ultimate over other gods. In Trinitarian monotheism, the ultimate and the concrete are unified (228). Based on this description and the very language he uses, it seems at this point in Tillich’s development, that he was uncomfortable with monarchial elements in trinitarian theology (i.e. primacy of one over another).

In one of the last portions of volume one, Tillich addresses this idea of being-itself more closely. In this section, he deals with the transcendence of God and the only way we may speak of Him: analogia entis (240). This is consistent with other neo-orthodox writings in regards to understanding via myth or symbol. However, in speaking of God as the “ground” of everything (including personal participation), the immanence of God is brought into view and in close relation to the world itself. Tillich connects God to everything else by the Spirit. “Spirit is unity of the ontological elements and the telos of life” (249). The finite is actualized into the infinite. This is the destiny of all things.

[jeffamanning-blog]

Moltmann & Trinitarian Hope

In order to understand Jürgen Moltmann’s doctrine of the Trinity, one must recognize that his thought developed and is presented in the form of theological treatises rather than a fully systematic form. Therefore, by reading The Trinity and the Kingdom, it must be understood in light of The Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, and even in later writings such as his individual treatments of the divine persons (e.g. God in Creation). The Crucified God contains his first trinitarian exploration and Moltmann develops the idea that God is a suffering God. He creates a finite space within His infinite self for a suffering creation. This brings the doctrine of God into close quarters with the doctrine of creation. In 1981, Moltmann develops this proximity by wedding the concepts of Trinity and kingdom. Through dialectic description, he says that the goal of history is the kingdom of God but that its unfolding of it is within the life of God (15).

Seemingly under the influence of Barth, Moltmann deals with the way in which God is truly seen as triune. He begins with God as Trinity rather than God as unity. Tracing the historical development of the Trinity, he begins by criticizing the concept of Monarchianism, which emphasizes either the oneness of God or the hierarchal structure where the Father is primary. However, with political undertones, Moltmann equates Monarchianism (a fourth century heresy) with monotheism. He associates a Trinity with primacy to the Father with absolute monarchy from that of Arius to even Rahner and Barth. Given the book’s empathetic preface towards the oppressed and his bringing together of Trinity and kingdom, Moltmann is concerned with a God who is not properly trinitarian but who would be deemed absolutely controlling (xiii). This is the starting point for a history that leads to freedom (another Barthian theme). Rather than an absolute, hierarchal God, Moltmann’s understanding is that of a trinitarian God where each person individually interpenetrates (perichoresis) into the others––social Trinity.

Furthermore, Moltmann uniquely integrates certain aspects of Jewish theology such as the suffering of God (as seen in Crucified God). This relates to the history of God and how man is to experience Him according to that history. If Jesus is the fullest expression of “trinitarian” theology, then it is largely a participation in the suffering God (25). This historical revelation is a reaction against emphases on divine unity and an apologetic for the trifold relation of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, Moltmann tends to overemphasize the three that it could be interpreted as tritheistic. Man’s experience of God in this way (economic Trinity) is the way that He is (immanent Trinity) and can be no other, unlike other’s theology that emphasizes God’s timelessness. Therefore, His impassibility is in question. In this way, Moltmann is using Rahner’s Rule in a more stricter sense, if not in a one-to-one relationship.

He concludes the middle portion of the book by more closely examining the individual “persons.” Moltmann often uses biblical concepts and historical terminology, but he has reframed the context in which they are used. This means that they are being dragged along by their end goal, which (in this case) is a social society in regards to politics. The Trinity is the model for a perfect society where everyone is considered equally and where the experience of freedom is the experience of God. Moltmann is correct to criticize Western thought following Aquinas of beginning with unity instead of Trinity, and has even been influential with his Christological interpretation of God’s history. Yet, he still tends towards a tritheistic understanding that ultimately has an end in mind that is determined against negative human experiences.

[jeffamanning-blog]

God, Revelation, and Freedom in Barth

Over against and in reaction to the Trinitarian constructions of the likes of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth began his Church Dogmatics differently by discussing the nature of God in symphonic harmony with the Word of God. That is, one’s understanding of God is fastened to one’s understanding of revelation. Again, against that of Schleiermacher, revelation for Barth was not a sense of utter dependence. Instead, the Word of God was and is God’s act. Not from within, the revelation of God comes from without as God is in his revelation. So, in part two of Church Dogmatics I.1, Barth lays out how it is we come to know God as Trinity and what it means.[1]

The evangelical mind is conditioned to associate the Word of God with the written word––the Bible. However, for Barth the Scriptures are only indirectly the Word of God since the text and the proclamation of it become the Word of God, pointing to the Word, Jesus Christ. This view has not been without criticism but the three-fold nature of revelation as Revealer, Revealed, and Revealedness offers a unique perspective and firm basis in the Triune God (298). Yet, Barth wants to be clear in stating that the two are not equated with one another. He writes, “The basis or root of the doctrine of the Trinity…lies in revelation…[not] merely the interpretation of revelation…[Yet] if we are dealing with His revelation, we are dealing with God Himself and not…with an entity distinct from Him” (311). The grounding of revelation in the doctrine of God is an important feature for Barth’s view, though some unfavorable particularities exist.

Perhaps a more difficult section follows in his discussion on the hiddenness of God. Barth uses the categories of veiled and unveiled as well as similar concepts of the time (e.g. God’s freedom to be “unlike Himself”) to describe the form of God (320). The theme of freedom is consistent in Barth’s writing and is (in part) an explanation of how God upholds his transcendence and immanence. He is wholly other and yet, in the Son, is among us. Even further, God reveals Himself to specific men in a third way through the Spirit (331). Though the categories may be unique to Barth, he is attempting to draw biblical distinctions without falling into metaphysical speculation or cosmological arguments. In the history of Trinitarian thought, analogies (e.g. analogia entis) have been used as a way to understand the relationships. However, Barth thinks this separates Trinity from revelation and seeks to explain God from below (341).

Since the early church period and the developmental stage of trinitas, various terminologies have been used to describe what the three are and how they relate. With the introduction of person (prosopon) by Tertullian and the modern concept of personality, Barth believed the task had become even more difficult. He recognizes that the three persons are repetitions of a singular I. Yet, he is avoidant in using persona due to its tritheistic tendencies. Where he saw it as unfortunate that such terms could not fully describe what they intend to mean (whether Eastern or Western), some have considered his terms equally unfortunate. Barth prefers “three modes of being,” which is closely associated with Sabellianism or Modalism (359). Of course (with a caveat) this is more of an unfortunate use of terminology than theology. One example of how Barth defends his position is by restating his distinction of revealed and hidden. In Modalism there is always one (or two) not revealed. Using perichoresis, Barth affirms unity and diversity (370). Lastly, he denies subordinationism as it downgrades the Thou to an It (381). As Peter Leithart has stated, “It makes God into something over which we can exercise control. If the Thou is an It, He is not Lord.” He is Creator and we are creatures.

[1]Karl Barth, “The Doctrine of the Word of God,” Church Dogmatics I.1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 295-383.

[jeffamanning-blog]

B.B. Warfield on the Trinity

In his essay “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,”[1] B. B. Warfield’s approach is driven by exegesis and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. The Trinity is, therefore, only understood according to progressive revelation rather than natural reason. For Warfield, the touchstone doctrine of the Christian faith is step for step tied to the doctrine of special revelation. While mentioning several early exponents of the Trinity (e.g. Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine) Warfield is primarily given to Reformation principles especially in regards to how one comes to define a doctrine––Scripture by Scripture.

Warfield recognizes that the terms are not biblical but that the Trinity is presupposed throughout the Bible. He says, “The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation” (142). And elsewhere of the New Testament, “The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made” (143). Speaking of Scripture as a whole, Warfield succinctly writes, “The whole book is Trinitarian in scope” (143). He is content to understand the Trinity from Scripture and not on the basis of human analogies. In this sense, Warfield is responding to the rational attempts of his time.

However, Warfield is not easily dismissive of rational proofs as he briefly walks through some of the logical flaws of the “perfect representation” and even of Augustine’s well-known “nature of love” argument. He thinks there is particular attraction to Jonathan Edwards’ ontological proof with its understanding of spiritual ideas such as thought, love, and fear (137). Still, because these are separate states, he is comfortable critiquing one in his own tradition by showing that it is inconsistent with the biblically revealed doctrine of unity in diversity. Positively, Warfield thinks rational attempts (though inconclusive) show that there is superiority to the concept of the Trinity (138). A Trinitarian God is far more satisfactory than an absolute monad.

The latter part of his essay is devoted to particular concepts in the biblical teaching, especially the fundamental proofs of the Trinity such as the doctrine of the incarnation and the giving of the Holy Spirit (146). In both cases, the Trinity is made clearer and they provide better evidence than “scattered allusions.” Whether through particular texts (e.g. Matthew 28:18-19) or intra-trinitarian descriptions, Warfield shows that there is a “Trinitarian consciousness” in the New Testament. That is, whether Paul’s doxological formulas or the personal distinctions provided by Jesus in the Gospels, the New Testament is full of Trinitarian language.

Most interesting, because of more contemporary conversations with a particular bent towards gender relations, is Warfield’s concluding portion on subordination. As recent as the last decade, certain historical theologians have used figures such as Warfield as a defense against subordination so that there is no subordination in marital roles. Warfield’s stance is that the idea of subordination is one of “uniqueness not derivation” (164). The names and the ordering or those names are not arbitrary but are related more to their “modes of operation” than their “modes of subsistence.” They are, however, “eternal and necessary relations” (166). In relation to the contemporary conversation, Warfield’s argument has hardly anything to do with gender subordination. Instead, he is responding to a historical distinction, which came out of Logos-Christology (169). Warfield’s overarching argument is biblical and consistent with Athanasian Christology.

[1]B. B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol II Biblical Doctrines. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 133-172.

[jeffamanning-blog]

Brief Thoughts on Theological Education

There have been several articles written on how to stay a Christian in seminary. Desiring God has a series titled "A Guide for Staying Christian in Seminary" where there are some helpful things to think about from several pastor-theologians. Additionally, there are a few small texts for guiding young theologians including one formed out of that series called How to Stay Christian in Seminary. My friend Jason has also contributed with 3 Ways to Maximize Your Seminary Experience. It is a popular subject especially given some recent conversations on seminary reform and it is worth continued conversation as we consider ways to better prepare ministers of the Gospel whether for family, friendships, churches, or other ministries.

____________________________________________________________

There are three things I have needed to consider in my own life during seminary:

There are no mere abstract thoughts – Seminary is full of deep, theological concepts. The temptation in reading a massive amount of literature is to be able to simply regurgitate information and definitions. Mediums such as Twitter make this increasingly difficult as one begins to think in 140 characters or less. Yet, when connected to the tasks of evangelism and discipleship, short definitions and mere concepts won't suffice. Evangelism requires personal skill and discipleship is more than passing off short, rememberable definitions to someone. Ideas are absolutely important but they are not absolutely everything and they not meant to float around without being grounded in reality. The Trinity, justification, sanctification, glorification, atonement, etc. are realities which are to be proclaimed in the Gospel with all prayer that they take fruit in people's lives as well as our own. So much time is spent seeking to understand that the student can lose sight of the reality themselves.

These realities are applicable to me – When I started seminary, I thought like everyone else does outside of it: that it was about knowledge. I have met several people who were interested in seminary because it would be fun or cool to learn more theology. And it is. But it is more. Seminary exposes even more the constant need to apply the truth of the Gospel in my own life. If I study for the sake of assignments, tests, or papers then I may or may not know that the Gospel is good news for me and for others. From my experience, becoming ignorant of the fact that the Gospel demands a response from me and is nourishment to my soul makes my ministry to others deficient. A more fruitful understanding of justification comes when it is constantly applied in all of life's constant troubles. Ministry is certainly about service but our service will be lacking if not buttressed by obedience to the first part of the Greatest Commandment - "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

These realities have an all-inclusive nature – A criticism is often tossed at advanced study that it is too narrow. As a Th.M student, I am learning to narrow my thesis topic from ontological Trinity to ontological Trinity as it relates to subordinationism. More than that, I have to keep in mind why it all matters. At one level, the seminary student is learning broadly and, on another level, writing narrowly. An important aspect, however, is whether or not all the dots are being connected. Seminary provides a lot of tools but those tools must be used. A simple glance at different denominations will show that there are different emphases. Baptists emphasize congregational polity and believer’s baptism. Pentecostals emphasize sign gifts and baptism of the Spirit. In neither case are those emphases a full theology. The seminary student must learn to pull together all the concepts in comprehensive way that entails a godly way of living - living theologically. Though not normally recognized, the Trinity is connected to baptism and has a practical application for living: participation in the divine life. Don't neglect the parts or the whole.

____________________________________________________________

These could certainly be fleshed out more but no amount of words could make someone believe them. Seminary is a time to prepare and time to refine but there's no sense in waiting on it to get here to begin. Trust me when I say there are many things to learn beforehand. The foundation for seminary education lies in faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. You can't produce that work on your own and it would be good for you to consider how it is exactly that one builds upon that foundation. It is by grace alone.