So this is how orthodoxy degenerates into heterodoxy.

Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization with a professedly evangelical bent, has for years defended an egalitarian perspective on the question of gender issues. I certainly defend their right to argue for their perspective, and fully support free and open debate on issues of theological and cultural concern. That much is very good.

However, CBE has more recently begun to characterize those who hold a different view as heretical (see previous post on “The New Evangelical Subordinationism?” or various articles on their website at cbeinternational.org). This is the observation that brings me to the point of this post.

Certain scholars historically associated with CBE have recently published a new statement on the Trinity. You can see it at trinitystatement.com. According to that site, the statement was “written by William David Spencer in consultation with Aída Besançon Spencer, Mimi Haddad” and others. This is not remarkable, in its own right, and I defend again their right to promulgate their theological perspective. What is interesting, however, is that their claim of lining up well with historic christian orthodoxy is denied in the links that they provide on their website.

The statement itself is carefully worded to avoid heresy, but the theological commentary is of a distinctly inferior quality. The theological commentary betrays an inability to read Athanasius in his context, and ignores the very force of his own words. One such example is this. The site quotes Athanasius as teaching that Jesus must be understood

to be the proper offspring of the Father’s substance, as the radiance is from light

Yet the authors of this theological commentary miss the whole context–that Athanasius was defending the nature, the substance of the Son as being the same substance of the Father. The authors of the theological commentary proceed to import new meaning into a discussion of substance. They turn it into a discussion of rank (that’s the word that the authors of the website seem to prefer).

Now every orthodox Christian affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance: one God, eternally existing in three persons. I think that the framers of this statement would agree, based upon what they have written.

However, it amazes me to see how the emphasis on unity without the appropriate and balancing emphasis on the distinction of the three divine persons (after all, the orthodox position always keeps in balance the concept of both three-ness and one-ness) so quickly degenerates into heterodoxy. Here’s the point. While the statement itself remains within orthodoxy, the explanation of the statement is so unclear and so unintelligible that it leads its readers into heterodoxy.

Don’t take my word for this. Check it out for yourself. On the trinitystatement website, there is a link labeled “First Press Release of the Trinity Statement.” You can go directly there by clicking here. From all appearances, this is a link that the site authors approve. There is no disclaimer saying “WARNING: this press release portrays the trinity statement inaccurately.” Which makes it all the more interesting when we read in this press release:

“This is the central tradition of Christianity,” said William David Spencer, the declaration’s writer. “Historically, Christianity is monotheistic. Because of this, we have to deal with the fact God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all appear in the Bible. The question then is how we understand it.”

For Spencer and other signers like him, taking stock of the Trinity requires maintaining the Bible’s emphasis on one god and three manifestations of that God. It’s a tricky task, said the professor of theology and the arts at Boston’s Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminar, but one he concedes is vital to the Christian faith (emphasis mine).

Again, the framers of the statement are NOT responsible for the things that others write about it. But they ARE responsible for bringing clarity to the affirmations made by sites to which they link. And this site clearly associates the teaching of trinitystatement.com with the teaching of an ancient heresy called Sabellianism.

While I suspect the framers of the statement would repudiate Sabellianism, this frightening press release illustrates all too clearly the danger inherent in CBE’s approach to the Trinity: by overemphasizing the oneness to the detriment of the threeness, they push their followers/readers into heterodoxy even if the CBE are aware of the danger.

Here’s the simple corrective for the CBE: Trinity means ONE God in THREE Persons. Don’t de-emphasize ANY part of that statement.