I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes'] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.Dr. Carl Trueman interacts with Pastor Macdonald's statement in this blog post.
It would be easy to write off Dr. Trueman as someone who simply likes to be the eternal critic on sidelines of mainstream evangelicalism. He certainly has been on a roll lately. I personally find much of what he writes to be quite enlightening if not just plain entertaining. I would encourage you to consider this portion of his response and read the whole post. This is no small matter. May we be humble enough to listen to each other.
...to place Nicene orthodoxy in the category of over-scrupulous doctrinal precisianism is, in effect, to declare the entire church (except for strands of American evangelicalism, apparently) from 381 to the present day to be wrong-headed. True catholic Christianity has always regarded Nicene orthodoxy as vital. An evangelicalism which argues for the basic irrelevance of such is simply not part of that catholic tradition; rather than being generously connected to other believers, it effectively isolates itself from the mainstream Christian tradition. Maybe there are consciences here bound to scripture. I would certainly never demand that a man subscribe to something which he does not see in scripture; but for myself, I need more than a few brief blog comments to understand why I should abandon Nicaea as crucial to salvation, revelation and my doctrine of who God is and what he has done. I want to know how and why Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Owen, to name just eight representatives of Trinitarianism, considered this to be more than a matter of over-scrupulousness. A humble listening to the past is important for the church in any circumstance; in the context of the creeds, such listening is absolutely non-negotiable.I do believe that Pastor Macdonald's Elephant Room is a great idea. It is easy for us all to default into our own little theological ghetto. It is very important to interact with others from different tribes and even if we don't always agree we'll probably learn something and many of our caricatures will be revealed. This is a very good thing.
The detail in Trinitarian debate was vital. Of course, many Christian believers have a shaky grasp of Trinitarianism; it is a difficult theological area and it is therefore important that those who hold teaching office do grasp this area so that they can bring their members on to maturity in this matter. Thus, for an evangelical leader to argue that creedal developments on Trinitarianism are of little importance is a fascinating glimpse into the doctrinal make-up of what constitutes contemporary evangelical leadership in the United States as it connects to catholic Christianity and, indeed, any tradition which regards the insights of Nicene Christianity as of importance in the overall transmission and articulation of the identity of Jesus Christ and thus his gospel.
1 comment:
While I do agree that gaining different perspectives, as well as hashing out differences, is a good thing, I do not agree that the ELephant Room is an ideal way of reaching these goals. Personally, I am not a fan of the Elephant Room for a few reasons.
First, I don't think it is necessarily indicative of what most "normal" pastors deal with. Such a room would be served better without being filled with just "Elephants" of modern evangelicalism. Throw a mouse in there too and let's listen to what they have to say.
Second, in line with the "roll" that Trueman has been on lately, I am not sure that Elephants always see the real ecclesiological world clearly. The Reformers were not only confronting theology but also ecclesiology. Because of the reality of Elephant's position, they are unable to see sides of ministry that the mice-like pastors experience on a day-to-day basis. This is not necessarily a bad thing; but, like medieval Catholicism, it can be.
Last, the Elephant Room flirts with exacerbating the modern-day problems that follow evangelical stardom. I want to be careful here, b/c I really like chandler and pratt and some others. However, when Christendom and stardom meet, we must be very cautious. If these men become prideful, they will take many down with them. I am not sure that McDonald's recent comments concerning Trinitarian theology should leave us without at least a little concern that he is an Elephant.
Anyway...that's my two cents.
Post a Comment