Tim Chester on Delighting in the Trinity

What figure or work has been the most influential in your thinking on the doctrine of the Trinity?

My desire to write a ‘simple’ book on the Trinity started with the observation that so many of us get a little embarrassed by the Trinity as a subject. Because the math doesn’t seem to work, and the arguments about it are so complex, a lot of believers just try not to think about it. It doesn’t seem to be good news at all. But, of course, the opposite is true. When you start to see how central an understanding of the Trinity is to everything in the Christian life, you start to discover how amazing and wonderful God is. It’s a failure by preachers to express these wonderful truths in a way people can really grab hold of that is really at the heart of the problem.

I’ve gathered ideas from all over as I developed this book. Gerald Bray’s book The Doctrine of God was an immense help, and I’m always inspired by Donald Macleod who manages to do the thing that all of us who are preachers or teachers want to do: present profound doctrine in a way that touches the soul.

How would a biblically robust understanding of the Trinity practically impact the contemporary church? What threats do you see facing the church in its endeavor to formulate and advance a better understanding of the Trinity and its implications?

Let me highlight three things. First, I think the doctrine of the Trinity helps us understand what it means to be human. God is “persons-in-relationship” and, made in his image, we are “human through relationships”. This is counter-cultural in a highly individualistic society. Our culture teaches us to define ourselves in contrast to others whereas the gospel defines us in relationship to others.

There has been a lot of emphasis in recent times on church leadership, and building healthy churches. But a lot of what is being promoted as the route to that is about human techniques. When we start to understand God as a Trinity, we start to see why and how we are to relate to each other as believers. The way to truly healthy churches starts with this understanding of the Trinity.

Second, I think the Trinity helps in some of the recent controversies over the atonement. Some people, for example, have described substitutionary atonement as “cosmic child abuse”. “How can it be right for God to punish someone else for our sins?” they ask. But the problem with this line of argument is that it shows an inadequate understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. God is not punishing “someone else”. The oneness of God means he is not punishing another while the threeness of God means he can be both Judge and the judged. The atonement simply does not work without the Trinity.

Third, a threat to understanding the Trinity is that people just can’t be bothered. It all seems so complicated. But here again is an opportunity for a robust understanding of the Trinity to impact the church. The more we explore our wonderful God, the more we will be full of worship. That was certainly the impact writing the book had on me.

What problems do you see in Barth’s doctrine of Scripture? If we identify at every point God’s revelation with God himself, how can we in any meaningful sense say that Scripture is God’s revelation, not merely a witness to it?

I think you’ve answered your own question! I appreciate the way that Barth makes the Trinity central. I believe the way he integrates the Trinity into his doctrine of revelation helpfully highlights the way the Trinity ensures the truth of revelation both objectively through the revelation of Christ and subjectively as the Spirit enables us to understand revelation as truth.

But I agree that Barth’s doctrine of Scripture is inadequate. I think he completely misses the role of the Spirit in ensuring the Bible is itself the infallible revelation of God.

How necessary is the language of “one essence, three persons”? Can we come up with more helpful terms to convey the same concept?

I think it’s important to finds ways of talking about the Trinity that are understandable and relevant to our context. I hope I do that in the book. But I think “one essence, three persons” is still very important as a summary of trinitarian orthodoxy. The words are a little unfamiliar and may require some explanation today, but what they affirm still captures the core of a biblical understanding of who God is. I don’t want to give up on them just yet!

In your doctoral work you focused on the contributions of Jurgen Moltmann, who is often regarded as promoting non-orthodox perspectives on the doctrine of the Trinity. Why Moltmann? How has studying his work influenced your own perspectives?

I find much of Moltmann’s understanding of suffering helpful in much that it affirms – though utterly frustrating in some of the things it fails to affirm (like a full understanding of the atonement). I started my doctoral work wanting to get clear in my own mind how Christian hope about the future should shape our actions now. I thought Moltmann might have some answers for me. I’m sure he has contributed to my thinking, but I grew increasingly frustrated with him as I delved deeper into his writings. In the end it was Calvin who contributed most to my thinking on the role of hope (with the exception of the Apostle Paul).

Did Moltmann get an unfair hearing among evangelicalism? If so, why?

Sometimes. But then sometimes I think some people have given him too much of a hearing. As evangelicals, we so easily polarize into categorizing people as “good guys” and “bad guys”. This is a pity, because we can easily miss some sparkling insights that these other thinkers have to offer. Whatever else he may be, Moltmann has a very creative mind and I’ve found that reading him has stimulated my own thinking and theological understanding, albeit often in different directions.

But I also believe his theology is fatally flawed. His primary problem, I think, is that in his theology death precedes sin – everything else unravels from this point.

Could you explain why you withheld critique from Moltmann and others in the section on historical development and overview?

As part of the book, I wanted to give a brief helicopter ride over the history of the various arguments and views of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is fascinating, and explains a lot about how the Christian world as a whole is today. So in the historical section I’m primarily telling a story rather than evaluating each of the contributors. I’m not explicitly critical in this portion of the book of Unitarians, feminist theology or Deists for example. But I’m confident readers will not assume that I am endorsing these movements! I’m not!

What two or three books/resources would you most recommend to those looking to go beyond the ground you cover in Delighting in the Trinity?

I think my number one suggestion would be Gerald Bray’s book The Doctrine of God. My book is Trinity 101 and Bray’s book is a clear step up in level, but it repays careful reading. There’s also been a bit of a recent resurgence in books on the Trinity with books like Fred Sanders’ The Deep Things of God and Robert Letham’s Holy Trinity.