Monday, January 05, 2009

Book Notes: Delighting in the Trinity by Tim Chester

I initially picked up this book because the author, Tim Chester, mentioned on his blog that it was soon to go out of print, and so I grabbed one while they are still available. I'm very glad I did too because it was a very enjoyable, educational, humbling and worshipful experience to think long and hard about the unique understanding of God that is Christian Trinitarianism.

The book comes in three main sections, biblical, historical and practical. After a brief introduction which argues powerfully that Trinitarianism is not some optional appendix at the end of Christian theology, but its beating-heart, and its point of departure - Chester provides the best biblical explanation of it at a popular level that I have read. I have struggled my way through some fairly dense and impenetrable works on the Trinty, along with lectures and secondary literature to help me, but been little wiser for the toil. Chester's book boils a lot of such material down to its essential elements and provides a really useful introduction.

The historical section of the book is the most comprehensive of its sections, dealing in some depth with the way that the doctrine emerged, was developed, defended and explained over the centuries. It provides a useful way into such matters as the Arian controversy, Nicene Creeds, key terminology, the Catholic/Orthodox division, development through the middle ages, Reformation, Barth and Moltmann. Chester's view is that the Reformation lead to the best of both Catholic (western) and Orthodox (eastern) theology being brought to bear on early Protestant worship of God. The historical section is comparatively hard going compared with the other two sections, and if I have a complaint about the book it is that section two is pitched at a considerably higher academic level than sections one and three. It should be stressed though that parts one and three could be very profitably read without the historical excurcus in between.

Section three looks at the way that a Trinitarian view of God affects our view of practical theological matters such as revelation, mission, and the atonement. It fascinatingly engages with the recent atonement debates, (Chalkegate) compelling arguing recent attempts to re-draw the nature of the atonement in purely Christus Victor models fail in that they are insufficiently Trinitarian. Certainly Chalke's dismissal of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement is based on a non-Trinitarian caricature of the model which both Chester here (and Miroslav Wolf elsewhere) have convincingly demolished.

Its a real shame that this book is going out of print - when there seems to be such a deluge of shallow and silly 'Christian' books around. Chester's book is a demanding read, not just because it requires us Christians to think through the 'deep-end' of the faith; but also because the human mind which truly contemplates God, not as a projection of our highest ideals or most noble aspirations - but as He has declared Himself to be, is humbled before the greatness, glory, love, wonder, beauty, warmth and sheer overwhelming significance of Almighty God! When Christian books start with us, our lives, cares, desires etc, they reduce the Bible to being a self-help manual. How much more profound, satisfying and worshipful it is to read a book like this which asks us firstly to gaze upon, and delight in God!

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:24 am

    Dear Hideous Man,

    I am not going to read the book, since I don't read anything that requires thought, unless it is required reading for school. But, as a Protestant attending a Catholic church with my Catholic husband, I have a question I'm hoping you can answer...

    One time that I challenged our priest about some church doctorine not being Biblical, his response was that the Bible doesn't say anything about the Trinity, and yet both Catholics and Protestants buy into that. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that subject.

    Cheers, Shannon

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shan!

    In the Reformation, when the two sides split, the leading Reformers sought to test every part of the Catholic system of their day to see if it was in accordance with the Bible or not - as they saw it.

    Where they felt there was a tension between existing doctrine/practice and the Bible - they removed these from their (Mariology, indulenges, salvation by works, celebate priesthood, papal authority) etc.

    Where they felt there was consistency between the Bible and the Catholicism of their day - they kept things in. This included ALL the basic doctrine of the Nicene creeds. This specifically included the Trinity which mainline Protestants have always accepted, not as orthodox because it is handed down from the church, but as an accurate summary of the Bible's view of God.

    Chester's first section of his book can be summarised as follows: (i) Bible texts which show the one-ness of God (ii) Texts which speak about the deity of three persons, Father, Son and Spirit (iii) Bible texts in which the three are referred to in fully 'personal' terms, rather than as say different 'modes' of communication. Given the rich variety of texts and the wrestling the church did with how to do justice to them all and the failed experiments with sub-Trinitarian alternatives; the form agreed as the only way to summarise the Biblical data is Trinitarianism.

    When clergy, either RC or Prot say "I baptise you in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" they are after all, quoting the Bible - not just church law.

    In terms of the specific discussion with your priest, I'd make the following observation. You have identified something which you see as not inaccordance with the Bible. A fair R.C. response would be to say that either (i)to show you where they find something in the Bible, OR(ii)to say, 'as the church existed before the NT, and defined what would go in it, the church has authority comparable to the Bible - so that such discrepancies shouldn't worry you'. (The Protestant rejoinder to that is that the Church merely recognised the authority the canon of the Bible had and didn't grant the books their power and so are under the authority of them, just the same).

    Instead he seems to have suggested that as Protestants are Trinitarians they follow tradition not the Bible too! I'm not sure then that the answer you got was based on a fair reading of Protestant Trinitarianism.

    I hope that I'm being fair to all in those brief comments!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:42 pm

    That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for distilling it down to something that makes sense to my poor colonial mind ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "poor colonial mind???"..... no, no, no, you're the one doing the PhD, not me!! :-)

    ReplyDelete