Invictus 

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade.
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

Kay looked at me the other day and asked me if I knew that since 29 October I have been away from home 23 nights. (That doesn't include the week long getaway that she and I had the beginning of December) I knew life had been crazy the last month or so but I hadn't realized how crazy that it has been. I was in Sofia, Bulgaria for twelve days teaching two classes… The Trinity, and Patrology (the theology of the early church fathers). After just two nights at home I was off for a five-day conference in Phoenix. After another two nights at home I was off for two days in Redding teaching at Tozer Seminary. Then the week after Thanksgiving it was off to Redding again for another two days at Tozer. And include during this time two more days teaching a class for Tozer Seminary in Sunnyvale here in the Bay Area and a few evening classes at Koinonia .

All that to say during the past month and a half I have hardly had time to think let alone write. But this evening I had an experience that has impelled me to the keyboard. Kay and I just got back from watching Invictus, the new film from Clint Eastwood starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon that tells the story of Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black President and his vision of using the Springboks (South Africa’s rugby team that had functioned as a symbol of apartaid and oppression to the country’s blacks) as a vehicle to unify the severely racially fractured country in its quest to win the World Cup in 1995. The story itself is historically accurate.  But rather than be a dry description of those happenings nearly fifteen years ago, it brings to life those events in quite an amazing way.  The story the film tells is nothing short of gripping. (Note: As Hollywood does regularly, the film takes some liberty with the historical details of the story.)

News reporter Alexandra Zavis who was in South Africa during these events writes:

Of all the improbable images I carry in my head from covering those first heady days of South Africa's new democracy for the Associated Press, this one stands out. The film "Invictus," directed by Clint Eastwood and based on a book by journalist John Carlin called "Playing the Enemy," captures this extraordinary moment when history really was made on a sports field.

LA Times, December 15,2009

As you may know, I love film. In fact I have taught classes in seminary on Theology and Film on several occasions. The power of film is the power of the story to incarnate truth. And Invictus does just that.

As you probably know Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison in South Africa labeled as a terrorist for his work in opposing the apartheid system that oppressed not just the blacks but all who were not racially pure with full European ancestry. Early in his career he took Gandhi’s non-violence as an example (BTW Gandhi got his start in South Africa). 

Ecclesiastes 7:7 observes: “Surely oppression drives a wise man crazy, and a bribe drives a person mad.” So it was for Mandela.  As the pushback from the government came bringing more repression, he became convinced that non-violence would not prevail.  He and his group began targeted bombing of critical facilities, being careful to avoid human causalities.  The Government labeled him a terrorist. Arrested and imprisoned, he suffered beatings, boredom, and depravation as he lived in a 6x8 foot cell, and broke rocks for labor.  During this time he also read and thought.

In 1990, with apartheid unraveling Mandela was released from prison and became the leader of the anti-apartheid coalition of groups dedicated to end the hateful system.  It was he who led the negotiations that ended apartheid in South Africa, and he who became the nation’s first democratically elected black president.

As he took the reins of power fear shuddered through the white minority who feared a bloodbath of revenge.  But Mandela had grown over the decades.  He had learned that the way to victory, the way to unification, and the way to healing was not through revenge, but through forgiveness.

This type of forgiveness is not conditional on apology, for an apology would never be offered.  It is an act of free unconditional grace. Where revenge is foresworn and the damage is borne by the one who has been hurt.  We say that grace is free and unconditional, but there is also a pain in grace.  In his latest blog Baxter Kruger speaks of the “pain of grace.”

“To be gracious is to hurt,
for it is not merely to wink at a problem,
but to enter into it and bear it personally,
to endure it, in love and mercy and patience.”

Mandela personified grace, healing and reconciliation.  He practiced what he preached.  As a result of his example and influence South Africa set up the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission in an attempt to heal the abiding wounds of Apartheid. “

Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the nineteen held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful. [Wikipedia, sv  “Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)”]

Recently I have been studying deeply issues of forgiveness, abuse, injustice reconciliation, and the person of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the world. As I sat in the darkened theater and watched the images and heard the dialogue I was overwhelmed as these themes wove themselves together as the story unfolded. In a very real sense Invictus became a lens that focused these themes together in sharp relief.  As we walked out of the theatre I turned to Kay and said “I sense the fingerprints of the Holy Spirit are all over that film!”

Over the past several months I have been heavily involved studying and reflecting anew on the person of God. I became convinced over 20 years ago that our western understanding of the trinity had departed from the understanding articulated by the early church at the Council of Nicea and the explication given by Athanasius and the three great Cappodician theologians: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus.  It was they who unpacked the implications of the pre-incarnate Son being homoosias (of the same substance/being) as the Father. Contrary to the Greek concept of God as a passionless, detached “unmoved mover,”  the early fathers understood that the Trinity stood at the center of any Christian understanding of God and that the three persons, Father, Son and Spirit were in a dynamic relationship of love.  Some of the fathers spoke of this relationship as a magnificent divine dance.  God is fundamentally tri-personal existing in a life of self-giving love.  As the Apostle John flatly states, “God is love.”  And while it may be self-evident, I will say it anyway: “Love, by definition, demands relationship!”

I am heartened by stirrings of the reassertion of this reality within evangelicalism. Within the past couple of months the book The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells Us About God, by Darrin Hufford was released.  Hufford’s thesis is that if indeed God is love then the apostle Paul’s exposition of the nature of love in 1 Corinthians 13 should give us some profound insight into the nature and being of God. (A corollary of this would seem to be that God in his Trinitarian fullness is the source of love seen in his creation.)  Similarly Andrew Farley’s The Naked Gospel: The Truth You May Never Hear in Church explores related themes from a slightly different perspective. (Both of these books are written on a popular level rather than in technical theological jargon.)

Forgiveness is something we all talk about as being foundational to Christianity. (Foundational to forgiveness is love.) The first Bible verse that many of us learned states: “For God (the Father) so loved the world, he gave his only-begotten Son (i.e. His unique and eternal son with whom He was in face to face relationship for all ante-mundane eternity) so that everyone who believes in him will not perish (or be lost) but have eternal life (participation in the very life of the Trinity).”  Love is foundational to forgiveness; forgiveness is vitally wound up in justification by faith alone.  To vastly oversimplify it, we are declared “not guilty” by God because of the sacrifice of Christ—we stand forgiven, totally, forever and unconditionally! 

If we are honest, while we cling to the fact that we are forgiven, we are ourselves not good at forgiving others.  Oh we don’t have much trouble brushing off minor offenses but those who have betrayed us and inflicted damage?  Here we do not want to forgive, we want justice, or better yet, revenge.  Yet refusing to forgive, however imperfectly, keeps our souls from healing and perpetuates hatred and violence.

During the past several years I have been confronted with injustice and oppression in an up close and personal fashion as I have ministered in Bulgaria.  We as Americans think of racial oppression in terms of the Black-White divide in American culture (or maybe the apartheid of South Africa).  I have witnessed the oppression of the Roma people (gypsies) in a manner reminiscent of the ghettos in which the Jews were for centuries placed in Europe.  Jewish ghettos in Europe were not an invention of the Nazis; rather they were instituted centuries ago during the Renaissance by Christian political authorities who marginalized Jews because of their non-Christian beliefs.  The Gypsy people too are historically non-Christian who migrated westward from the Indian sub-continent about a thousand years ago.  As a people group they settled mainly in Eastern and Central Europe and remain unassimilated to this day.  The song “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves” popularized by Cher in the early 70’s reflects the majority population attitude toward them to this day.  In Bulgaria, under Communism, the government erected walls around gypsy communities to further separate them from the larger population. The Roma people in Bulgaria are largely illiterate to this day, and it has only been in the past couple of decades or so that the gospel has begun to penetrate these closed communities. Bulgaria specifically and eastern and central Europe generally stand in need of racial, cultural, and economic reconciliation and justice.  I have seen a few glimmers of hope in Bulgaria, largely through the ministries of Care For All.

This past semester I taught a class on “Christian Perspectives in Contemporary Culture.”  One of the themes the class focused on was justice, not justice in the court system but justice in the economic, political and racial sense—the goal is full reconciliation.  I had the class read John Perkins work With Justice for All: A Strategy for Community Development.  Perkins has been a pioneer the establishment of justice in rural Mississippi, an area where racial hatred and oppression survives to this day.  In telling the story of his escape to Los Angeles and a better life, his conversion to Christ, and his call back to Mississippi he challenges his brothers and sisters in Christ to take the call for justice seriously as a vital implication of the gospel (a theme which we find prominently in Scripture but which somehow falls pretty much on deaf ears in the American evangelicalism).  Perhaps this is because we think of the gospel in terms of witnessing rather than understanding the gospel as being about the inexpressible  love of the Father, Son and Spirit for their creation and God’s passionate heart that has accomplished reconciliation through the person of Christ. 

As Paul says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation..” (2 Cor. 5:19 NET) or as Eugene Peterson puts it in The Message, “God put the world square with himself through the Messiah, giving the world a fresh start by offering forgiveness of sins. God has given us the task of telling everyone what he is doing.”



Bulgaria Update-2009

Past years I have been able to give you updates as I was ministering in Bulgaria.  This year has been quite different.  As you who have read these updates over the past several years, you know I have taught in Star Zagora, a small (pop. about 75,000) city in central Bulgaria whose claim to fame is that it is the oldest city in Europe.  I have taught at the Theological College which is about ten years old and is sponsored by the Church of God.  A chief thrust of their ministry is toward the Gypsy population.

This year was very different.  While the Church of God still maintains the school in Stara Zagora they are in process of moving the center of their educational ministry to Sofia, the capital, with a population of about 3 million in the greater Sofia area.  Many of their classes are held in conjunction with the other theological faculties associated with the University of Sofia.

My classes (I taught 2) were held at the Assembly of God college campus located about 20 miles north of downtown in a residential area.  The look and feel of the institution is very different than in Stara Zagora.  The buildings are old—well over a century and the plumbing is primitive (e.g. don’t flush the toilet paper because it clogs the system!).  The local culture of the college is far more reserved than in Stara Zagora, and the only people that spoke English (more than a few phrases here and there) were my translators.

The week started off slowly—I was suffering both jetlag and from a cold that was affecting my mental clarity and my voice.  That evening I started on the antibiotics my physician had given me before I left in case I got sick.  By the next day I was doing much better.

The first class, Dogmatics (what we call Systematic Theology in the US)  lasted until Wednesday noon.  We surveyed the development of Trinitarian understanding as well as the subjects of Man and Sin. My translator, Tanya is one of the faculty members who teaches Old Testament.  She did quite well but struggled with some of the theological terms.  (Theology and OT have different technical vocabularies.)  Wednesday afternoon through Friday . 

Tanya my translator for 1/2 the weekThe second class was Patrology (the thought of the early church fathers up till about A.D. 600). I covered the major figures  and then the students expressed a real interest in Christology (the doctrine of the person of Christ),  so I switched gears and covered the development of Christological understanding up through the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.  My translator was Kostadin, Tanya’s husband and acting Academic Dean of the College.  He was far more comfortable in his role and we developed a good rapport .

As the week progressed the students warmed up and began to ask many questions—this opened up the opportunity for some lively and probing discussions of theological issues that tied directly into their ministry situations. I am always hesitant to say too much in a cross-cultural situation lest I  transgress cultural mores. But the nature of the questions demanded a frank openness that would “let the chips fall where they may.” 

The questions were both illuminating and troubling.  Illuninating, in that it gave a look into the mentality of the Bulgarian Church in a way I had not seen in Stara Zagora—there the pastors were mostly gypsies who had been believers for just a few years.  Here we were looking at a protestant church culture that was generations old.

From the discussion I learned that the protestant community is stuck in an authoritarian system that mirrors the larger culture.  Pastors on the whole are not open to training the next generation of leaders.  The system is one which is locked in a survival mentality and is not looking toward growth.  I suspect that this comes from the four decades that Bulgaria spent under communism where the church literally struggled to survive.  (In talking to Dinko he reminded me that while communism lasted forty years, Bulgaria itself has been insubjection for foreign powers for centuries.)  But the change in the political situation has not changed the survival mentality. 

There is a mentality undergirded by a perfectionistic theology that is more concerned with outward appearances and abstaining from "sinful" practices than with embracing the grace and freedom offered by the gospel.

There are those actively working to break this mentality.  Our good friend Dinko Zlatarov has founded a church in Sofia where he regularly challenges the prevailing mentality of self-righteous legalistic churchianity.  Likewise Dinko’s brother Stefko has founded a new church in Stara Zagora that looking to inculcate grace into the community.  But from the sample I have seen, their perspective is the exception rather than the norm.

Kostadin and Tanya, Dinko and Petia, and Stefko all represent a new hope for the Bulgarian church—please keep them in your prayers.

Love it, or hate it after a year and a half it is still ranked #2 on the New York Times “Bestseller List “in the Paperback Trade Fiction. This is an incredible feat for a book that the author wrote as a Christmas present for his children with no plans to publish.

Regardless of its weaknesses, The Shack has struck a raw nerve with the Christian public and even in the wider culture.  As a piece of fiction it strikes at the heart of issues that many of us struggle with, and offers a perspective that is born out of the author’s own personal struggles.

The Shack raises the deep gut-wrenching questions of life, questions many of us dare not reveal to anyone that we even ask: questions of God, His goodness, His justice and the like.  As I have looked in depth at the story I see five major questions/themes that through the narrative:

•     What is the nature of forgiveness?  Why do we find it so difficult?

•     How do we deal with the personal pain caused by sin and evil that we have suffered and has become a part of our very identity?  Is it possible to let go or be freed of this weight we carry around?  The image that comes to mind here is from the film The Mission.  At one point as part of the condition of becoming a Jesuit  monk Robert De Niro’s character, Rodrigo Mendoza, drags the armor and weapons of his former life as part of his penance,.  These are tied to him by a rope. He crosses rivers and climbs mountains dragging the symbols of his past.  One of the monks cuts the rope and the weight tumbles down the mountain into the raging river below.  Rather than being grateful for being set free, he goes down the mountain and reattaches the weight and continues on the difficult journey. Rodrigo Mendoza’s past, the past from which he seeks release, has become so much a part of him that he cannot let it go—it has become a key part of his identify.

•      Who is God? The refrain from the Bette Midler song  “God is watching us, God is watching us from a distance,”  gives a lyrical picture of the vision of the person of God that most of us imagine.  But, is He the stern and distant Judge that looks down over the balcony of Heaven  keeping tabs of our crimes and misdemeanors?  This is a dominant theme in our western theological tradition that goes back to Augustine (5^th century) and Tertullian (3^rd century).  Interestingly this is not the view of the early church, especially the view of those such as Athanasius who were instrumental in forging our doctrine of the trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed.

•      How can we assert the goodness and omnipotence of God in light of evil and suffering in the world?  This is a problem philosophers and theologians have wrestled with for millennia, and one that has become acute in the wake of the Enlightenment.  It still remains in great debate today. 

•      How do we relate to God?  Clearly Scripture portrays God as holy and just.  We speak of grace but the issue of sin, as breaking the Law of God, is ever before us.  If God is so holy that he cannot look at sin, how is it possible to know him in any real way?   

These are the questions.  To address them I am in process of writing five online courses through EduPlex Ministries (EduPlex.org) .  The series is entitled Beyond The Shack.  The first course was released last week, the rest are on target for release over the next three months.  Below are the course descriptions from the EduPlex website.

These courses are offered in two formats:

1. Coached: you and a group of students meet online to process the material with a professional life coach.
2.  Independent Study: you as the student interact with the material on your own
   
   

.

BEYOND THE SHACK Course Series

Beyond the Shack is a revolutionary, high impact, life-changing experience that engages the student in a deep and satisfying emotional connection to God:  beyond rules, guilt and pain into relationship, joy and power!  An exhilarating journey of discovery!  A remarkable integration of teaching, coaching, social interaction and contemplation!  The unique integrated coaching takes you beyond knowledge to actual experience of deep spiritual truth.

Course 1 - Freedom to Love Again
                     Pain & Guilt: Neutralizing the Poison

When others hurt us, abuse us or commit horrific crimes against us, where is God in all of this and how could he possibly ask us to forgive?  Forgiveness: Possible or Impossible? addresses the theme of forgiveness in The Shack book by William P. Young, and highlights the three distinct types of forgiveness, commonly taught as one.  The course teaches common forgiveness myths, the dangers of premature forgiveness, and explains how to experience true freedom from those who have hurt us.  If you are still feeling wounded by another, then this course is especially designed for you.  Experience healing and a new freedom of your heart as you develop a loving and lasting relationship with God and others.

Student Comments:  "I really liked the interaction with the other students on the conference call and was surprised at how fast a bond began and people started opening up."  "I liked the fact that there were seasoned staff on the call to ask the questions and keep the group on track."

Special Introductory Price, Limited Time Only!
          Basic Course $29
          Course with coaching $59

Now Available!  

Course 2 - Breaking the Chains that Bind
                     Escaping the Past That Defines You

When abuse is experienced, whether it be verbally, physically, sexually or even spiritually, it can result in entrenched feelings of fear, guilt and shame.  If left unaddressed, abuse sets the victim up for repeated cycles of frustration, failure and addiction.  In this The Shack study, we expand on the themes of healing the hurts of our lives. 

Are you living with a great sadness because of how others treated you?  To what extent has your past negatively affected your identity?  How do you identify abuse and its influence in your life?  The course features outstanding personal stories of people impacted by abuse.  Hear the personal story of William P. Young’s childhood of abuse and how he learned to cope and survive conditional love.  Discover and experience God’s unconditional love for you, regardless of your past or present.  Discover your new identity that breaks the chains of the past, and releases you into a future of joy, peace, and success.  This course will be a great encouragement in your life!

Special Introductory Price, Limited Time Only!
          Basic Course $29
          Course with coaching $59

Available late October 20

Course 3 - Who is God, Really? "I'm Not Who You Think I Am"
                     The Triune God and Loving Relationships

Picture God in your mind.  What does He look like?  What face do you place on God?  An angry policeman?  An absentee father?  A puppeteer with you at the end of the strings?  These and many other false concepts about God can keep us trapped in a cycle of relating to God through unhealthy motives.  Do you relate to God in fear, guilt and shame?

There is a better way!  This course teaches on the nature of God as being both deeply personal and forever loving.  The following topics are discussed:  How does our relationship to our parents—especially our fathers—impact our understanding of God?  What are the boxes into which people place God?  Is your box too small? Why the Trinity is critical to your understanding of your greatness.  How Christianity is different from all the other religions of the world and its implications for daily life.   Learn the surprising discovery of C. S. Lewis and how it changed his life forever.

Special Introductory Price, Limited Time Only!
          Basic Course $49
          Course with coaching $79
Available November

 Course 4 - If There is a God, Why So Much Pain and Suffering?
                     Making Sense of Pain in Our World

Do you find yourself asking God, “Why did you let this happen?” Coping with a personal tragedy and loss becomes compounded when sorting out God’s role in the midst of our pain and confusion.  If He is so loving and all-powerful, then why did He not stop the circumstances from occurring?  These are the questions asked by the main character in The Shack book by William P. Young. 

This course highlights the themes of pain, and asks the tough questions of God.  Will it ever get better?  God’s role in tragic events and losses is examined, and the student is equipped to process his or her own journey with helpful ideas and insights by those who have personally traveled down that road.  Those who take the coached version of the course will find it to be much more helpful in processing this material.

Special Introductory Price, Limited Time Only!
          Basic Course $29
          Course with coaching $59

Course 5 - Walking in Paths of Joy and Freedom
                     Forget the Rules; It’s About Relationships

Do you find that your relationship with God and others is more defined by rules rather than giving and receiving within loving relationships?  Is it hard for you to extend grace and mercy when people mess up or fail you?  Is God only a great lawgiver and judge or is He one of continual forgiveness and the God of second, third and seventy chances? 

This The Shack study is designed to help students learn how living just by the rules of life can actually rob you of the true value and joy of life.  You will learn the incredible power of a grace-filled life and how it can transform your relationships into those of deep feelings and affection for others.  Walk in joy and true freedom, and a profound sense of well-being – just as God intended.

Special Introductory Price, Limited Time Only!
          Basic Course $39
          Course with coaching $69

Available early February 2010

Charles Hodge  

During my seminary career, although I majored in New Testament, I spent much time studying, particularly Historical Theology, and more particularly Reformed Theology in America. (In fact I went on to do my Ph.D. in Historical Theology.) Although I studied at Dallas Seminary, considered the bastion of Dispensationalism I did not buy wholly into the system. Instead I fell in love with the Princetonians: Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge and particularly B.B. Warfield of whom it has been said had the theological mind of a Charles Hodge and a Wm. G.T. Shedd rolled into one. It is also said that after Jonathan Edwards, Warfield was the greatest theological mind ever produced in America. Warfield particularly had a razor-sharp mind and studied the positions of his theological opponents so he knew what they believed better than they did. As a result he could spot weaknesses in his opponents’ positions a mile (or more) away. He did not resort  to name-calling, nor did he twist his opponents positions wB. B. Warfieldhen involved in argument. Rather like Irenaeus the great second century opponent of Gnosticism thought the best way to discredit an opponent’s position was to give it a full exposition, working out the hidden assumptions and propositions. When this was done the opponent’s position would fall under its own weight, as discredited. I loved the logic and the clear thinking and the closely integrated system. In short it was supremely rational. The Princetonians also had a reputation for a warm personal piety (See Andrew Hoffecker, Piety and the Princeton Theologians).

Twenty-five years ago, when I was just starting my career as a Professor of Theology and I was doing research for my Ph.D. dissertation I traveled to New York City to read the Briggs Papers housed in the Library of Union Theological Seminary across the street from Colombia University at Broadway and 122^nd I spent two weeks pouring over Briggs’ personal correspondence. Charles A. Briggs was Warfield’s great theological opponent in the 1880’s and 90’s with whom he battled over the question of biblical inerrancy. During my research,  I discovered a darker side to the Princetonian tradition. That darker side involved an absolute devotion to the Westminster Confession as the pinnacle of theological achievement that could never be improved upon. Charles Hodge boasted that a new idea never arose at Princeton. Warfield, although a much better theologian than Hodge never wrote a systematic theology because he believed that his mentor’s Systematic Theology could not be improved upon. They adopted a mentality which Briggs labeled orthodoxism "Orthodoxism assumes to know the truth and is unwilling to learn; it is haughty and arrogant, assuming the divine prerogatives of infal­libility and inerrancy; it hates all truth that is unfamiliar to it, and persecutes it to the uttermost." St., near Harlem.

I also discovered a deep dichotomy between the head and the heart. Charles Hodge, as representative of the Princetonian position, displayed a great antipathy for any emphasis on the subjective nature of Christianity. At one point he stated: "The idea that Christianity is a form of feeling, a life, and not a system of doctrines is con­trary to the faith of all Christians. Christianity always has a creed. A man who believes certain doctrines is a Christian." (Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 29:693.) This stress on the objective nature of the Faith has led to the charge that Princeton was rational­istic in its approach to Christianity. Numerous historians and theologians have contended that the Princetonians compartmentalized faith and life. For example, C. R. Jeschke states of the Princetonians:

 The strict compartmentalization of formal theology and the life of piety that came to prevail at Princeton reflected in part the growing irrelevance of traditional modes of thought and inherited statements of faith for the needs of the church in a rapidly changing world. The fact that Hodge and his colleagues, like most of their contempo­raries, were unaware of the sickness in the theological body, only permitted the condi­tion to worsen, and heightened the reaction of the patient to the cure, when its true condition was finally diagnosed. ("The Briggs Case", p. 56.)

Back to my discoveries in the Briggs papers, it was here that I saw the practical outworking of the Princetonian position. Briggs’ uncle, Marvin Briggs who had studied at Princeton Seminary had been soured on the whole mindset that surrounded the Princetonian pre-commitment to the Westminster Confession. Charles Augustus BriggsWhile studying in Germany he writes to Marvin, "I have one course . . . on System­atic Theology which seems to be your detestation. However the subject is treated differently from what you had at Princeton. Prof. Dorner goes back to the Bible as his first step . . ." (B. T. 1:27). Several months later he wrote: "It is unfortunate for you that you were educated at Princeton where there is an incarnation of doctrine and everything is looked on from that standpoint. Here in Germany . . . everything is looked upon from a scriptural standpoint. The only difficulty is there is too little reverence for Scripture as the Word of God and too great an exaltation of human reason as arbiter over it" (B.T. 1:42. Underscoring original, italics added). Later in the same letter he characterized Princeton's system as "pernicious."

 I also discovered that while the Princeton theologians themselves were able to maintain a warm personal piety with their commitment to the system, the graduates of Princeton were not. it is not too much to say that many even among the Old School read only the theological material of the Princetonians. This fact contributed to a cold creedal orthodoxy among a significant contingent of the Old School with its stress on pure doctrine. Even the great Greek grammarian Basil L. Gildersleeve, himself a Princeton graduate, decried the “baleful influence of Princeton” stating that there was from there “very little hope of a generous vivifying force” (Letter from Gildersleeve to Charles Augustus Briggs, Briggs Transcripts, 5.470 (Twelve ledger books hand-copied by Emilie Grace Briggs comprising a transcription of Charles Briggs’ personal correspondence, Union Theological Seminary Library). Many letters from Princeton grads were in Briggs’ correspondence. What comes through the written lines is a cold rational commitment to truth which touched the head but bounced off the heart.

 Why is this important for us today? Because we see the same spirit within the academic wing of evangelicalism. We see theology that has reduced the truth of God to timeless abstract propositions. A theology that puffs up the knower with pride that he or she is committed to the truth, and even reduces love as another proposition to be parroted rather than a relationship to be experienced.

Note: The title of this blog is technically a false dichotomy, but in the mind of many this is the choice we need to make.  And that choice has profound implications for the way we approach God, and the way we live our lives.

When I was in college and again in seminary I took courses in the doctrine of God (Theology Proper). These courses examined in depth the issues of the existence and attributes of God. They also delved into the philosophical proofs for God’s existence as formulated by Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury and others. I learned how to classify the divine attributes as communicable (those which are common to both God and humanity) the incommunicable (those which characterize God alone). The first definition of God that I learned as a junior in college stated “God is spirit, infinite and holy.” I later became familiar with the Westminster Confession’s definition of God (a bit expanded from the above definition!). Chapter II of the confession states:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and with all most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

That is quite a mouthful, and it is biblical. Each of the statements cites numerous verses as proofs of the truth of the statement. But does it get to the point?

As I did my doctoral work in historical theology I discovered that the preoccupation of the ancient church was with the Trinity—a topic that was barely covered in my courses on the doctrine of God.. The more I learned the more I became convinced that the Trinity had to be our starting point in talking about God. And when we talk about the Trinity we are in the realm of the personal and relational.

My classroom training had taught me that the most basic attribute of God was holiness. That was the essence of God. I became convinced that while God was Holy, the biblical concept of holiness was related to “set apartness,” to God’s “otherness” rather than being a moral concept (Note: in the OT we have things as diverse as pots and pans and prostitutes described as holy—so whatever “holy” is, it is something other than absolute moral rectitude)

I am a great fan of both CSI and NCIS. Both TV shows deal in criminal forensics and in nearly every episode we find a murder involved. If there is a murder, there is an autopsy. We are brought into the autopsy room as the pathologist dissects the body of the deceased to see what killed him or her.

What does this have to do with our understanding of God? Actually quite a lot. In an autopsy or by studying a book on anatomy we encounter the structure of the human body. We see its various parts. We examine them individually, and we learn quite a bit about how we as human beings are put together.

But if in our study of God we dissect Him and split Him up into various parts do we really get to know Him? No! God is personal and relational! We no more learn about the personal nature of God by examining his attributes than we learn about the person and life of the murder victim on the autopsy table by his/her dissection.

The path to knowing God is through Jesus. If we place any kind of wedge between Jesus and the Father we commit a serious error. (Is heresy too strong a word here?) Thomas asked Jesus to “Show us the Father.” Jesus’ reply was, of course, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” The opening chapter of his gospel John says that no one has seen God (the Father) at anytime. The only-begotten Son/God (textual problem here) who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained (exegeted) him.

God as Trinity exists in an eternal dynamic relationship of self-giving love. Daniel Migliore had noted:

The Trinitarian persons are not self-enclosed subjects who define themselves in total separation from one another. Instead in God “persons” are relational realities and are defined by intersubjectivity, shared consciousness, faithful relationships, and the mutual giving and receiving of love. (Faith Seeking Understanding, 68) .

According to classical trinitarian theology, the three persons of the Trinity have their distinctive identity only in their deepest relationship with each other. They "indwell" each other (as the technical Trinitarian concept perichoresis suggests), “make room” for each other and are hospitable to each other, or to use another metaphor, they are united in an exquisite divine dance. (Faith Seeking Understanding, 70) (italics added. This concept of the great dance is found in the early fathers of the church.)

The Trinity’s love is shown first in creation. Creation did not come out of boredom, loneliness or necessity. The divine Trinity is complete in itself and gains nothing from our existence. The only explanation for why there is anything at all is love. Love is creative and expansive. Creation must be grounded in the love of God that desires to share relationship with his creatures, just as redemption is grounded in the self-giving love of God.

I close with some observations from Thomas Torrance in his The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons presents a breath-taking view of the trinity (though not for the faint-hearted—it is not an easy read, but it is utterly magnificent) says,

“. . . [I]n the unlimited freedom of his love, God created the world out of nothing, and did not grudge bringing into being an altogether new reality utterly different from his own.” (237) “. . . God is not limited by our feeble capacities or incapacities, but in his grace and outgoing love he graciously condescends to enter fellowship with us . . . In his love of us and for us God freely wills not to be without us and wills to be with us as those whom he has eternally chosen to coexist with himself and share his eternal love. . .[H]e does not want to be alone without us or want us to be alone without him” (4) “It is in the Cross of Christ that the utterly astonishing nature of the Love that God is has been fully disclosed, for in refusing to spare his own Son whom he delivered up for us all, God has revealed that he loves us more than he loves himself. And so it is in the Cross of Jesus Christ above all that God has exhibited the very Nature of his Being as Love and has irrevocably committed his Being to relationship with us in unconditional Love.” (5)