Disciples of Christ and the Triune Nature of God

Disciples of Christ and the Triune Nature of God Robert Cornwall, Ph.D. The Christian understanding of God’s nature has been largely defined in Trinitarian terms, but the Stone-Campbell Movement, which includes the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), has approached the Trinity with a great deal of ambivalence. There are Trinitarians within the movement, but as the late Disciples historian and church leader, Ronald Osborn, notes: The Disciples regarded themselves as neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian. Alexander Campbell would not use the term Trinitarian because it did not appear in scripture. He even changed one line in the great Trinitarian hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” so that instead of saying “God in three persons, blessed Trinity,” people would sing, “God over all, and blest eternally. Ronald Osborn, The Faith We Affirm: Basic Beliefs of Disciples of Christ, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1979), p. 52. While Campbell was reticent to use Trinitarian language, he was still Trinitarian in his understanding of God. As for his fellow reformer, Barton Stone, the same cannot be said. In fact, not only did Stone observe that the Trinity was not a biblical word, he rejected the doctrine whole cloth. On the approaches to the Trinity by the Campbells and Stone see Kelly D. Carter, The Trinity in the Stone-Campbell Movement: Restoring the Heart of Christian Faith, (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015), chapters 1-3. He “wondered why trinitarians are so tenacious of a doctrine, so feebly supported by scriptural authority.” Barton Stone, The Christian Messenger, (July 1830), 4:169. Perhaps due to their rejection of what both Campbell and Stone believed were human creeds, they chose not to make affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, which in their minds lacked explicit biblical support, a test of fellowship. As Stone declared, if the doctrine be so important, is it not very strange that it had not been so explicitly taught by the great Head of the church, that at least, its advocates could state the doctrine in some form, in which they themselves could agree.” Stone, Christian Messenger, 4:171. While I am a Disciples minister, historian, and theologian, I am not ambivalent about the Trinity. I have fully embraced a Trinitarian understanding of God. I do not draw this conviction f from my life as a Disciple, but from my other experiences in the church. In other words, I was a Trinitarian before I became a Disciple, and I haven’t had any reason to jettison the belief. Nonetheless, I understand why others have chosen to remain aloof from the doctrine. The question that faces a community like the Disciples, which has chosen not to embrace the creeds as authoritative guides to belief, and historically looks to the New Testament as its confessional guide, while also embracing an ecumenical spirit, concerns how we should as a community express our faith in God? That is, if the ecumenical partners of the Disciples affirm the Trinity, how do we enter into conversation about the nature of God if we’re ambivalent on this matter? Further, how might this affect the way we do interfaith dialogue? Will it assist or confuse? Thomas and Alexander Campbell, along with Barton Stone, are products of their time. Their theology emerged out of a context that was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, who argued for a “reasonable Christianity” that centered on the confession that Jesus was the Messiah. Like Barton Stone, Locke was accused of being a Socinian, and like Stone he denied this charge. At the same time neither Locke nor Stone were content to affirm the traditional confessions that emerged out of the fourth century theological debates. In other words, the lack of a creed could explain much of the ambivalence on the part of the founders, who passed on that ambivalence to their progeny. While Disciples have not taken a firm position on the Trinity, ecumenical conversations have at least made the Trinity a topic of conversation with Disciples circles. As a member of the World Council of Churches, Disciples have affirmed doctrinal standards that include an affirmation of the Trinity, for the Council defines itself as "a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Campbell, Stone, and the Trinity As Ronald Osborn noted, Alexander Campbell refused to use the term Trinity because it was not biblical, which leads to the question of whether the Trinity has biblical support. Arius, the fourth century opponent of Trinitarianism insisted that it the doctrine lacked such support. He could affirm a form of divinity for Christ, but not full divinity or equality. Others have been subtler in questioning Christ’s equality and eternality with the Father divinity, but like Arius they have found the doctrine difficult to accept. Alexander Campbell objected to what he called the "Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity," because it "confounds things human and divine, and gives new ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers." One of the ideas that Campbell found especially vexing was the pre-existence of the Son of God, an idea required by most Trinitarian theologies. Campbell insisted that "there was no Jesus . . . no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar. The relation that was before the Christian era was not that of a son and a father, terms which always imply disparity." On the other hand, he did believe that the Logos or Word of God did exist from eternity, and thus shared equality with God (who did not become the Father until Christ’s human birth). Alexander Campbell, A Compend of Alexander Campbell's Theology, Royal Humbert, ed., (St. Louis: Bethany, 1961), pp. 94-98. Campbell also had great difficulty with Trinitarian vocabulary, much of which he thought was unbiblical. Yet in the end he affirms the idea of the Trinity, even if he had difficulties with it: Paul and Peter indeed speak of the divine nature in the abstract, or of the divinity or godhead. These are the most abstract terms found in the Bible. Eternity and divinity are, however, equally abstract and almost equally rare in Holy Writ. Still they are necessarily found in the divine volume; because we must abstract nature from person before we can understand the remedial system. For the divine nature may be communicated or imparted in some sense; and, indeed, while it is essentially and necessarily singular, it is certainly plural in its personal manifestations. Hence, we have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally divine, though personally distinct from each other. We have in fact, but one God, on Lord, one Holy Spirit; yet these are equally possessed of one and the same divine nature. Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, (Cincinnati: H.S. Bosworth, 1866; reprint, Salem, NH: Ayer Company, 1988), p. 20. While Campbell affirmed the substance of the Trinity without embracing much of the theological language undergirding it, the same could not be said for Barton Stone. In the second edition of his An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee & Ohio—first published in 1814 and revised in 1821—Stone addressed directly the doctrine of the Trinity, which he found unintelligible and unnecessary. The doctrine of Trinity has long been a subject of endless controversy among theologists. I have thought the contest a war of words, while the combatants believed the same thing; seeing they all maintain the divine unity. On this doctrine many things are said, which are dark, unintelligible, unscriptural, and too mysterious for comprehension. Many of these expressions we have rejected; and for this reason we are charged with denying the doctrine itself. I shall state the doctrine, as generally stated and defended by our brethren, who oppose us, and give my reasons why I cannot receive it. Barton Stone, An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee & Ohio on Several Important Doctrines of Religion. Second Edition—Corrected and Enlarged, (Lexington, KY, 1821). http://www.piney.com/Barton.W.Stone.Address.Christian.Churches.html Stone would later respond to Alexander Campbell’s suggestion that they were brothers in Christ because they both worshiped Jesus as the only God in the universe, accusing Campbell of misunderstanding his beliefs regarding Jesus. He claimed to hold only to what Scripture revealed, and in his view, Scripture did not reveal that Jesus was the only God in the universe. As for being Arian or Unitarian, Stone would not admit to those terms either, though he does note that the Christians in the East (the Christian Connection), had accepted that designation, which proved disturbing to some in the West. Barton Stone, The Christian Messenger, (November 1827), 2:10-13. Despite their differences in theology Stone and Campbell were able to find a way of uniting their movements into one fellowship. Among Disciples, affirmation of the Trinity has never been made a test of fellowship. In large part that is because neither embraced creeds or confessions of faith as normative. Campbell and Stone chose to root their agreements in what was explicitly revealed in Scripture. They were also correct in their assumption that much of the vocabulary that undergirds Trinitarian doctrine is not found in the Bible but evolved over time. This includes the word Trinity. There are very few verses of scripture that can be interpreted as providing either explicit or implicit expression of a Trinitarian formula. We can point to two passages that offer a formula that appears to be Trinitarian (Matt. 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:13), but these were not enough to convince Stone that the Trinity is a biblical concept. Stone responded to those who claimed biblical support for the doctrine that they the offered “a few scriptures of doubtful interpretation . . . on which is their entire reliance.” Barton Stone, The Christian Messenger, (July 1830), 4:169). If you are Trinitarian, however, all hope is not lost. This is because there are many verses of Scripture that make sense when read in a Trinitarian manner, which in fact Campbell did. Brevard Childs puts the issue in this way: It is a formulation of the church in its attempt to reflect faithfully on the biblical witness. But it was precisely by observing the unity and differentiation of God within the biblical revelation that the church was confronted with the Trinity. The divine subject, predicate and object, are not only to be equated, but also differentiated. Indeed, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which makes the doctrine of God actually Christian. Childs, Biblical Theology, 375. Ultimately, as we will see, the need for a doctrine of the Trinity ultimately arose from the need to make sense of the church's affirmation of the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. The doctrine emerged from the need to "do justice to the Christ who was from the church's inception confessed as Lord." As Child's also notes that when nineteenth century Christians lost interest in the doctrine of the Trinity their Christologies also began to blur and become distorted. Childs, Biblical Theology, p. 376. If Ronald Osborn speaks out of the traditional Disciple reticence to define God from a Trinitarian viewpoint, William Robinson roots his discussion of the Trinity in the premise that God is love, which “involves the notion of fellowship in the Godhead.” He writes of what he calls the “Supra-personal” nature of God: “In the Christian experience, this develops into the knowledge of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Robinson, Whither Theology, p. 53. In a more recent Disciple theological discussion of the Trinity suggests that Disciples need to develop a “robust Trinitarian theology.” Peter Goodwin Heltzel argues that liturgically and ecumenically, Disciples have embraced the Trinity. Heltzel writes that “embracing a theology of singing the Trinity, drawing on the deep Trinitarian streams of the ecumenical tradition of twentieth-century ecumenism, provides a way for Disciples to continue to embrace and live into the Doctrine of the Trinity. As we sing the Trinity together we perform ‘unity in diversity’ in our new postcolonial age.” Peter Goodwin Heltzel, “Singing the Trinity,” in Chalice Introduction to Disciples Theology, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), pp. 92ff. Campbell and Stone sought to define faith in biblical terms, hoping that this would be a platform for Christian unity. Could we have reached the point where embracing a creedal consensus might be necessary achieve the same goal? Trinity in the Bible Christian theology is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, which declares that God is one. The question then for Christians has been whether one can find the roots of the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible? Christian theologians in the pre-modern era were very adept at finding those links. Using an allegorical method of interpretation often made this possible. Critical engagement with Scripture and with Jews requires us to be careful with how we read and appropriate these texts—for Judaism is not Trinitarian. Texts like Genesis 1:26 have proven especially intriguing for Christian reflection. The use of the plural in the phrase “let us make human kind in our image, according to our likeness” is at least suggestive of a plurality of some kind within God. Theologians have wondered what the word “our” means. Now, it is doubtful that the author(s) had Trinity in mind, but could the seeds be there? Is it appropriate for Christians to make use of this phrase in developing a Trinitarian theology? While we must admit that there is no direct reference to the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible, there are passages that offer us a foundation for fruitful conversation. This is especially true of passages that speak of “Wisdom,” which is often personalized in the Psalms and Proverbs as “Divine Wisdom.” Wisdom is usually conceived of in feminine terms. Wisdom is often depicted as being involved in the creation of all things (Prov. 1:20-23; 9:1-6; Job 28; Ecclesiastes 24). There is the concept of “Word,” or divine speech, which at times is personified (Ps. 119:89; Ps. 147:15-20; Is. 55:10-11). And then there is the “Spirit of God,” who is depicted often as God's presence in the world, active in creation (Gen. 1:2); present in the life of the promised Messiah (Isa. 42:1-3); and as an agent of new creation (Ezek. 36:26; 37:1-14). There is also the concept of Shekinah (another word that is feminine in nature), that describes the means of God’s dwelling in the world (Exodus 25:8; 43:9; Zech. 2:10; 8:3). These passages don’t make for a doctrine of the Trinity, but they leave open the possibility of a broader understanding of God’s nature. What we need to remember is that whatever understanding we might have of these concepts and similar concepts, they must be understood in the context of the Old Testament insistence on the oneness or unity of God (Deut. 6:4-5). There are no explicit statements of a doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament. The doctrine is a theological construction that attempts to make sense of the biblical witness, especially those texts that affirm the primary relationship between Father and Son. The most explicit statement is the baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19. In the Great Commission, Jesus commands his followers to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While this is the only New Testament expression of this formula, it has become the standard formula for most churches. A second passage, 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14), is more helpful in defining the relationship, but it’s not without its own difficulties: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” Romans 8:11 speaks to the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit to the issue of the resurrection. “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.” Barton Stone is correct— “that there is but one living and true God, is a plain doctrine of revelation. ‘We know that an Idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there be Gods many and Lords many). But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.’ 1 Cor. 8, 4-6. Also Deut. 6, 4. Mark 12, 29, &c.” Stone, Address to the Christian Churches, http://www.piney.com/Barton.W.Stone.Address.Christian.Churches.html All Christians agree on the oneness of God. We hold this belief in common with our Jewish and Muslim kin, and yet the doctrine Trinity emerged from the Scriptural witness to a more complex understanding of that oneness. Affirmations of the full divinity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit required further development of that vision of God. While the fourth century formulations might not be perfect, they have stood the test of time. Theologian Elizabeth Johnson captures the vision that the doctrine Trinity engenders in Christian theology: At its most basic the symbol of the Trinity evokes a livingness in God, a dynamic coming and going with the world that pints to an inner divine circling around in unimaginable relation. God’s relatedness to the world in creating, redeeming, and renewing activity suggests to the Christian mind that God’s own being is somehow similarly differentiated. Not an isolated, static, ruling monarch but a relational, dynamic, tripersonal mystery of love—who would not opt for the latter? Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002), p. 192. The Historical Development of a Trinitarian Vocabulary Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone had concerns about the Trinitarian vocabulary. They were concerned that much of the vocabulary lacked biblical support. It is true that much of the vocabulary emerged over time, as early Christians reflected on what they found in the New Testament. These early theologians discovered that they needed new words to express what they found there. These terms became the normative ways of expressing Christian understandings of God. Many of the words, including the word trinity came into use as the church spread into the Latin West, which required the translation of Greek words and understandings into Latin words and understandings. This occurred not without some difficulty, but a vocabulary deemed acceptable by most if not all Christians was adopted. One of the most important contributors to this development was the North African theologian of the early third century CE, Tertullian. He was a brilliant theologian and apologist for the church, and we look to him for many of the terms that the church came to use to describe God. These terms include the very word trinity, which comes from the Latin trinitas. He also introduced the term substance (Latin—substantia; Greek ousia), to describe the essence of God. Speaking in Trinitarian terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one substance. The third term was persona, which he used to translate the Greek hypostasis. God is one in substance, but still is encountered as three persons. The next stage in the process came at the Council of Nicaea, which addressed conflicting understandings of the Trinity as espoused by two Alexandrian priests, Arius and Athanasius. While neither of these two men spoke at the council, it was their theological work that drove the conversation. In the end the position espoused by Athanasius won the day. The question had to do with whether the son shared the same substance as the Father. While Arius denied that Jesus shared full divinity, insisting that this was the more biblical position, he lost the day and the council embraced the term homoousious (of the same substance) to define the relationship of Father and Son. While the debate did not end at Nicaea, and in fact the creed that we call Nicene was promulgated decades later at the Council of Constantinople (381 CE), the Nicene position became normative for much of the church. Ways of Approaching the Trinity Although the foundational Trinitarian vocabulary was introduced in the third and fourth centuries, the conversation continues to this day. Indeed, among Disciples one will find partisans of both Athanasius and Arius in our pews and in our pulpits, even if those names are not attached. When it comes to Trinitarian theology, there are essentially two ways of approaching this question. The first view is called the Economic Trinity and the other is the Immanent Trinity. One focuses on God’s external activity in bringing salvation to creation, and the other on God’s internal identity. Both ways of approaching the question rely on the same formula that was espoused at Nicaea and later at Constantinople in the fourth century. The reason why conversations about the Trinity often steer toward the “economic Trinity,” is that it is more relatable. Talking about God’s internal being is difficult to imagine. Talking about God meeting us as Trinity in Christ through the Spirit with the promise of salvation speaks to where we live our lives. When we talk of the economic Trinity, we’re talking about God’s role in the creation, redemption, and sanctification of the created order. These three activities, however, should not be seen as occurring sequentially. As Clark Williamson puts it: “in each moment of our lives God creates us anew, redeems us out of the narrowness and stupidity of the past, and calls us forward toward God’s future with all God’s friends.” Clark Williamson, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), p. 118. It is through this doctrine of the Trinity that we name the God of Israel who meets us in Jesus Christ, especially as Jesus is known to us on the cross, and is present to us and empowering of us, by the Holy Spirit. When we think about the Trinitarian nature of God, one of the more intriguing images is that of the three visitors whom Abraham and Sarah encounter at the Oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1-15). Clark Williamson draws on this story that emphasizes hospitality to suggest that “the Trinity is a communion of equal persons (coequal, the tradition liked to say), and we are invited into such communion.” He goes on to say: We speak of God as one in order to make clear that God is not divided, not double-minded. We speak of God as three to affirm communion in God. Life is a blessing and well-being when all relations of domination and oppression are expelled. Communion among persons is the divine order and the intended human order of well-being. The fundamental intent of the doctrine of the Trinity is to protect an understanding of God as a profound relational communion. A relationship (not merely a relation) of authentic communion among God, human beings, and all God’s creatures is the aim of God’s work in the world. Williamson, Way of Blessing, pp. 126-127. There is much more to be said about the Trinity. It is a concept that is full of possibilities. What I’ve shared so far is an expression of the “Economic Trinity.” When we encounter God, we don’t encounter God’s inner being, we encounter God as God engages us, bringing shalom, which is healing, wholeness, salvation. So, how do we speak of God today? Many raise questions about the usefulness of Trinitarian language, especially in its traditional formulation. Naming God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can suggest that God is male and that males are superior to women. Even if we consider the Holy Spirit in feminine terms, this can easily lead to a top-down hierarchy that leaves not only the Son as second in line, but the Spirit as a third person, and sort of an afterthought. One of the recent formulas that has gained popularity is Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer/Sanctifier. The problem with this form is that contrary to the biblical witness it focuses totally on function, functions that each person of the Trinity is to express. Traditionally it has been held that “external works of God are indivisible.” Clark Williamson, following William Placher, suggests as a solution the formula: “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Mother of us All.” Williamson, Way of Blessing, p. 115. Trinitarian language has also proven problematic for interfaith conversations. Both Jews and Muslims are much stricter in their monotheism. This language can be a stumbling block to these important conversations as well. Yet, as Miroslav Volf argues in his book Allah, we can have a fruitful conversation, for Christians as well as Jews and Muslims affirm the premise that God is one. We may differ in our understanding of that oneness, but not on the premise. At the same time, it requires humility on all sides to admit that our language for God is inadequate to God’s full reality. Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response, (San Francisco: Harper One, 2011), pp. 127-148. The Trinity and Non-Creedal Christianity Most Christian communions understand God to be one substance, but three persons. This is reflected in their affirmation, at least in principle, of the historic creeds, including the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. These creeds help define God’s nature and do so in Trinitarian fashion. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), along with the rest of their Stone-Campbell relatives, are non-creedal. We (I am Disciples) do not have a doctrinal standard by which to judge one’s orthodoxy. We might point to the Bible, but both Campbell and Stone believed that the New Testament was at best unclear. So, we are left with ambivalence regarding the Trinity. As we consider the nature of God, a conversation that includes the name(s) we use, we must recognize that no name and no understanding can exhaust the possibilities. Thus, we must continue to push the boundaries. Whatever our theological formulas, they will not exhaust what we would confess as to who God might be. While Disciples embrace the principle of freedom in our theological conversations, both ecumenical and interfaith commitments require that we find as much precision as possible in our definitions.