andygoodliff

Book Review: The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life

Stephen R. Holmes, The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life (Paternoster, 2011), 231pp

The Holy Trinity is the first in a new series from Paternoster looking at Christian Doctrines in Historical Perspective. In his introduction Steve Holmes, quoting Chaucer, suggests that this is a 'little book'. It is anything but. At 231 pages it is at least medium-sized book and its content - the history of doctrine of the Trinity - means its a book that covers a large amount of history and ideas. Holmes has recently said in a editorial for the International Journal for Systematic Theology (January 2012) that a lot of theology is about engaging with the history of ideas, that is, its about careful reading of the past and present, rather than doing novel and constructive theology. The Holy Trinity is an excellent example of careful reading.

The book begins with a discussion of the 'revival' of Trinity theology in the twentieth century that was initiated by Barth, Rahner and Zizioulas and developed by Pannenberg, Moltmann, Jenson, Boff and Volf (there are of course others that could be mentioned, e.g. Gunton, Cunningham, Fiddes). Then it travels back in history with chapters on the Trinity in the Bible, in the Early Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen), and then two chapters on the later Fourth-Century (Arius, Athanasius, Cappadocians, John of Damascus), the West and Augustine, the Medieval period (Anselm, Richard of St Victor, Aquinas), followed by a chapter on Anti-Trinitarianism in the period between the Reformation and the Eighteenth century, and then concludes with a final chapter on the doctrine in the last two hundred years (Hegel, Coleridge, Schleiermacher, Hodge, Dorner). 

The book has two aims. First it seeks to provide a book-length (affordable) treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity in the historical tradition. It this way if operates as a textbook for theological students seeking to understand the doctrine's development (perhaps only Paul M. Collin's The Trinity: A Guide for the Perplexed does a similar kind of job). The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity and The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity have recently been published and perhaps Holmes' book should be read alongside these - the obvious strength of Holmes' book being it's price (!) and it is one theologian's reading of the tradition, rather than the multiple author approach of the other books.

Second it argues that rather than the doctrine of the Trinity being recovered in the twentieth century, the doctrine as stated and developed by those coming after Barth offers a departure from the Patristic tradition, that is, a revision. Holmes argues that trinitarian doctrine is largely agreed (there is no East/West Cappadocian/Augustine divide) right up to the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries, that is, theologians restate the earlier tradition. The twentieth century, partly in response to the nineteenth century, does not revive trintiarian doctrine from past (despite its claims), but is doing some different. Holmes does not argue that more recent trinitarian doctrine is wrong or that earlier ages were right. He leaves these questions unanswered.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not the easiest of doctrines (probably true for more than most!), because it can get quite technical in terms of language. Holmes is therefore to be congratulated on providing a help introduction and analysis of how the tradition makes it confession in God as Trinity. He is an able reader of these early and later theologians and presents a compelling case for his main argument. It will surely find its way onto many reading lists. In addition to the text itself, Holmes provides an excellent set of indexes (biblical texts cited, technical terms cited, and index of authors and subjects), which are always welcome to this reader. Having provided this historical study of trinitarian doctrine, we await perhaps a more critical work which explores the theological questions, which this present work does not seek to answer.

Beyond 400: A Challenge to the Naysayers and those who snipe

So I was reading another post with suggestions for Baptist Futures process, of which some (question 7 particularly) is provocative and asks a good question. It was a few comments that followed, which lead me to write this.

One respondent wrote this:

I don’t think the Futures process is going to get very far if the people who have substantially contributed to the problem are controlling the outcome. A bit like asking the robbers to solve the crime.

I think this is a profoundly unhelpful, untrue, ill-formed and negative comment. It needs to be refuted. That's not my church (to adapt the title of Sian's excellent post).  The distrust of, and anger towards, Baptist Union Council and Union officers from many is disturbingly worrying. Another respondent (who I count as a friend) writes this:

The trouble is that if everyone contributing to these decisions is a ‘yes’ person of some kind, then those decisions will only reflect the interests of the in-crowd and baptist life will become bland and dissociated from the front line of mission in the UK and across the world.

I don't think every person contributing to these decisions is a 'yes' person, actually a large number involved are quite strongly 'we need to do something different' persons. This seems to me be part of what Beyond400 is trying to offer - an opportunity to explore what holds us together and what this might look like, which both wants to affirm some of what our Union life does as well as seeking to question and offer alternatives that might be more appropriate in being a missionary people and more theological (to heed Glen Marshall) and not just what is most pragmatic.

Are we too nice, as the original post asks? Probably some of the time we are. This I think is partly out of a desire to practice good word-care (Ephesians 4.29), while, at the same time, yes, we need to speak truthfully (Ephesians 4.25). We all know this is not easy, so lets not pretend it is.

For too long, most Baptists have been indifferent to the Union. I take the positive view that the process we are in is an opportunity to engage and speak out, but in ways that are positive, that don't offer just criticism, but contribute, imaginatively and helpfully, ways forward. 

Its easy to take a potshot from the sidelines ... to act like the football supporter who thinks they would make a better manager ... the harder and more challenging work is to be actively engaging for the common good.

I say this not as someone who wants to defend everything that 'Didcot' or the Associations do ... there is much that needs new thinking, which the Futures Group recognise - do we think they are be disingenuous when they say that? Do we think they are wholly self-interested and out to save their jobs?

I wonder whether a lot of our issues, and I offer this tenatively, is that we are trying to find our feet as a Union in a post-Coffey era. David Coffey was a huge figure in the Union and unashamedly led. Alongside John Howard Shakespeare and Ernest Payne, his time as General Secretary brought a large amount of change to our Union life. The question and nature of leadership in the Union is always in play for us as Baptists - some wanting more strong leadership, others appreciating a more soft-leadership that allows the way forward to come from a wide base of people. In recent years, we have had two big tries at solving how we relate together as Union and Associations, both failed to make progress ... partly perhaps out of vested interest, partly perhaps because the current structures cause interia, partly because of a culture that is wary of making big changes where we can't see clearly the future and maybe partly because there was always a feeling that this didn't need to be done today, we can it hold off until tomorrow. This has been deeply frustrating for many - there is a clear recognition, and moreover, a strong desire for change amongst many in Didcot and the Associations. Well tomorrow has come, and there is no opportunity to put off making huge decisions. God help us.

I would encourage us to stay involved, to not simply rubbish the process and the people, but to join in the work of asking questions, sharing possibilities, listening to one another, and trusting God.

Tom Smail (1928-2012)

Tom Smail has died.

He was a student of Karl Barth. Smail was an important reformed theologian who engaged with the charismatic movement.

Director, Fountain Trust (1975-1979)

Vice-Principal, St. John's College, Nottingham (1979-1985)

Senior Visiting Research Fellow, King's College London

Publications

__ Reflected Glory: The Spirit in Christ and Christians (Hodder & Stoughton, 1975)
__ The Forgotten Father (Hodder & Stoughton, 1980)
__ 'The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit' in John Thompson (ed.), Beyond Christendom: Essays on the Centenary of the Birth of Karl Barth, May 10, 1886 (Pickwick, 1986)
__ The Giving Gift: The Holy Spirit in Person (Hodder & Stoughton, 1988)
__ 'The Holy Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus' in Andrew Walker (ed.), Different Gospels: Christian Orthodoxy and Modern Theologies (SPCK, 1994)
__ with Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, “‘Revelation Knowledge’ and Knowledge of Revelation: The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994)
__ Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology, with Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright (SPCK, 1994)
__ Once and for All: A Confession of the Cross (DLT, 1998)
__ 'In the Image of the Triune God', International Journal of Systematic Theology 5.1 (March 2003)
__ Like Father, like Son: The Trinity Imagined in our Humanity (Patrenoster, 2006)
__ Praying With Paul (BRF, 2007)

For some reflections on Smail's theology see Mark Cartledge, 'Theological Renewal (1975-1983): Listening to an Editor’s Agenda for Church and Academy', Pneuma 30 (2008)

 

 

Beyond 400: Baptists, Jazz and Faithful Improvization

I came across these couple of paragraphs, and thought they were helpful in articulating something of what we are trying to do as BUGB Baptists as we seek ways forward.

Think about the logic of jazz. Jazz emerges from the interplay of structure and improvization, collectivity and individuality, tradition and innovation.What goes on when jazz is performed? Jazz is not completely free form. There are standards, songs that can be played again and again. The score of jazz ranges from a chord progression and melody, or a full orchestration with openings for improvization. From that core the players innovate and improvize, modifying the chords and melodies and rhythm.The pleasure and energy of jazz comes from hearing both a familiar chord progression and melody and the new possibilities, what can be done from that structure. The ability to improvize is fuelled both by individual effort, creativity and technique and group synergy: the technical skill and creativity of each player is as foundational as is the spark that comes from playing off of each other.

So, what does it take to improvize? A key element is respect for the tradition, learning from it without merely repeating it. This respect is expressed by Miles Davis: ’I played 'My Funny Valentine' for a long time - and didn’t like it - and all of a sudden it meant something’ (Walser 1995, p. 165). Another essential element in jazz is respect for other players. As James Collier emphasizes, the worst that can be said of a jazz player is that he or she doesn’t listen (Collier 1993). A third element in jazz is openness to learning something new from an old piece and from other players, working with difference and novelty. Amiri Baraka highlights this aspect of jazz in his description of the playing of Chico Freeman: ’... he can unleash all the fire and mystery and otherness of the outside, but within the unifying and compelling vision of the carefully made. And this is what we look for, what we listen for, in any genre or style, the care and attention of the skilled craftsman along with the fire and passion of the exquisitely sensitive’ (Baraka, 248). And what is evoked by the performance of jazz? joy, energy and intellectual challenge for both players and listeners. Eric Lott sees this dimension of jazz in the playing of Charlie Parker- ’jazz was a struggle which pitted mind against the perversity of circumstance, and ... in this struggle blinding virtuosity was the best weapon’(Lott 1995). A final dimension of good jazz is that, when all of these components come together, it swings.

(Sharon Welch, 'Communitarian Ethics After Hauerwas', Studies in Christian Ethics 10.1 (1997))

Beyond 400: A Continuing Conversation

Rather than trying to summarise the continuing conversation at Beyond400 (12 voices have now posted out of the 40). Here are some questions I want to ask in light of I've heard.

1. Naming the powers of institutionalism - What are they? Where are they? It seems to me we can't keep using the word unless we give it some concrete content.

2. What holds us together? What would it mean to revise the basis of our Union (the Declaration of Principle) in a more catholic (small 'c') way?

Other church traditions express their catholicity through a shared liturgy (a common worship) and/or a hierarchy. As Baptists we have recently looked (and arguably this was there in our beginnings) to a theology of covenant. This has come through a number of theological works (Paul Fiddes leading the way) and Union resources (see Covenant 21 and Gathering for Worship) but there is some evidence (see Darrell Jackson's forthcoming book) that this has not found much currency at what we could term the local level. Some have suggested that we bin it, but then where else might we look theologically?

3. What's the difference between associations and networks? And how is a theology of associating different from a theology of networking?

4. If we were to continue Sian's set of mini-stories, what else we would want to affirm 'that's my church' (both locally and as a Union)?

5. What kind of ministers do we want? (A question Nigel Wright asked in New Baptists, New Agenda, Paternoster, 2002) ...

God's Story: Five Acts

Something I wrote for church back in 2010 built around Tom Wright's suggestion for the bible as a like a Shakespeare 5-act drama.

1 God
with a 5 Act story
Act 1 begins with nothing
and then Creation
the world, the universe and everything in it
light and dark, land and water, trees and grass, fruit and crops
tigers and ants, eagles and penguins
and last but by no means least
human beings – boys and girls, women and men

Act 2 begins with a call to go
To a couple ready for retirement
From Abraham and Sarah
Comes Isaac, then Jacob and Esau
And then a whole people Israel
Divided into 12
A people blessed by God
A people called to be a blessing
And from this people

After many years of Advent waiting
After many hopes longing for his arrival
Comes a new-born babe
And so Act 3 begins with Christmas joy
For a child is given
God has sent himself
Fully human, fully God
And named Jesus the love of God revealed
He is the storyteller, the healer, the master chef,
the prophet, the friend of sinners and the miracle maker
and this life finds it climax in a week
that begins with a donkey ride and a road covered with palm branches
later on the Thursday night friends gather for a late meal
followed by a Garden visit
and then arrest and trial
and the Friday sees Jesus hanging on a cross
A Saturday of grief and loss
is followed by an Easter Sunday surprise
an empty tomb and Jesus returned

40 days later Jesus ascends
returning to God
10 days later on Pentecost day
the Spirit arrives – with fire and wind and tongues
Act 3 is over, Act 4 begins
The church
Sent by Jesus
Empowered from on high
To share good news
to live the way of the cross
to look with hope for resurrection day

and so here we are
part of that church
part of that history
part of that people
blessed by God to be a blessing
following Jesus
filled with the Spirit
looking to when God
Father, Spirit, Son
is all in all
and then Act 5
this salvation story will find its end in God
and new creation

Comment on Civil Partnerships

So was watching Newsnight last week and Chris Sudgen and Giles Fraser in conversation over civil partnerships. A few comments hesitantly offered on this continuing debate.

1. I'm fed up with the theological right/conservatives saying that marriage is the bedrock of society, surely from a Christian perspective we would want to say its the church.

2. Having said that I agree in part with Sudgen that civil partnerships shifted from being about justice in terms of inheritance for any kind of partnership to what appears to be largely a means of affirming gay 'marriage'.

3. As a Baptist and therefore a dissenter (or perhaps part of a historically dissenting church) and believing that the church should be separate from the state, I'm more than happy for the state to create a version of marriage that is not defined just as union of a man and a woman. This is more an issue for the established Church of England. Equally, the church should be free to define what it means by marriage.

4. The question then becomes for us as Baptists what do we believe theologically about sex and about marriage and what we are to bless (!). The majority, if not all, Baptists do not believe the official Roman Catholic position that sex is linked to procreation, and therefore this creates space for a theology of sex that has been sketched along the lines of Rowan Williams famous 1989 Michael Harding Memorial Lecture, 'The Body's Grace' (it can be read here) around a theology of desire, which makes room for affirming theologically same sex relationships. (I say 'create space', I do not say 'necessarily follows').

5. Furthermore there is the compelling (and/or interesting?) argument of Eugene Rogers that to extend 'marriage' to homosexual relationships is in part to recognise that marriage is a means of disciplining sex. (Steve Holmes provides a helpful review of Rogers book in JTS 52.1 (April 2001), although ultimately he finds Rogers 'fails to convince').

6. This is both to suggest that the conversation about homosexuality and civil partnerships with regards to the church and the Christian life needs to go beyond the Bible (to borrow the title from a book by I. Howard Marshall) in terms of exegesis of specific passages, to a theological discussion. Here I think Williams and Rogers make some helpful arguments, although see also Christopher C. Roberts critique in Creation and Covenant (T & T Clark, 2008). I would also recommend The Way Forward? edited by Tim Bradshaw, More Than a Single Issue edited by Murray Rae and A Conversation Waiting to Begin by Oliver O'Donovan.

7. As British Baptists we have only just begun to a theological conversation on these issues. As a Union we made available an educative process which allows churches and ministers to explore the issues. This should be encouraged (although I'm not sure the process can adequately engaged with in the time that is given (what normally amounts to 5hrs over a day). In addition to this process it would be helpful for some of our theological voices to offer some wisdom. At the moment this may take some bravery as there is an unfounded fear and view that ordained ministers cannot talk about these issues publically. While we don't want to become embroiled in a war (or at least I hope not), this does not allow us to ignore the questions and more importantly the pastoral implications.