How the Doctrine of the Trinity Shapes the Christian Mission (part 1)

In any discussion of Christian theology, it is virtually axiomatic that the doctrine of the trinity is the foundational doctrine which distinguishes a peculiarly Christian theology from the theology of any other religion, especially of the other great monotheistic religions. Likewise, in any discussion of Christian missiology, it is virtually axiomatic that the core pursuit of the Christian mission is to make good on the commission with which Christ left his Church, to make disciples of all the nations, as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20. But consider: if the doctrine of the trinity is the foundation of Christian theology and the Great Commission to make disciples is the foundation of the Christian mission, then that acknowledgment must have a necessary formative effect on the ultimate goal of missions. A major component of the Christian mission is to teach the doctrine which Christ left the disciples; a major part of that doctrine (or rather, all of it) is trinitarian. Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity must shape the way in which we go about our task as Christian missionaries. I am not sure that all of the ramifications of this concept have been well enough thought out in typical works on missiology. In order to pursue this idea further, this article will reflect briefly on the nature of the trinity, and then explore how those trinitarian truths must shape the goal, means, and source of the Christian mission.

The Doctrine of the Trinity

When discussing the doctrine of the trinity, theologians like to distinguish between the ontological trinity and the economical trinity. The ontological trinity describes the inter-relationships of the three persons of the trinity as they have existed without change from all eternity. The economical trinity describes how those essential inter-relationships have come to concrete expression in the diverse and complementary roles that each person has undertaken to play in the great trinitarian work of redemption. The economical trinity is necessary for humans as an entrance into the abstract truths of the ontological trinity. Humans are so designed that they cannot simply absorb abstract truths without first encountering concrete expressions of those truths, which they can then use to form categories, or arrive at an understanding of the basic, unifying qualities underlying those concrete expressions. For example, a child could never come to grips with the semantic force of the term “loving” if he did not have specific, concrete actions pointed out to him as representative of the term. When a mother says, “Johnny, you need to be more loving, and share your toys with your brother…You need to be more loving, and help up your friend who has fallen down…”, eventually, Johnny is able to isolate a common disposition underlying all of those various actions, and come up with an idea of what it means to be loving. In the same way, it is only as we look at the historical activity of the triune Godhead, as he reveals himself in his work of redemption, that we can really get at what it means for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one God and yet three loving, unified, and distinct persons.

Assuming the basic legitimacy of this sentiment, we will first note some scriptural truths about the nature of the economical trinity, and only then arrive at some conclusions regarding the ontological trinity.

As we examine the biblical basis for the inter-relationship of the persons of the trinity as they work to redeem a people, we immediately encounter the idea of an inviolable agreement between these persons as to what the role of each should be, which antedates all of the steps that occurred to enact that work. This agreement is seen first between the Father and the Son: in Psalm 2:7-9 we hear the Messianic king recounting a promise that the Father had made to him, to give to him as an inheritance a people from the entire world. The fulfillment of this promise would entail the dramatic presentation of this king as the Son of God and hence would be the climactic economical display of the ontological Father/Son relationship that had always inhered in the Godhead. The New Testament authors tell us that this promised event occurred at the resurrection of Christ from the dead (see Romans 1:3-4; Acts 13:33). In Isaiah 53:10-13, we encounter another glimpse of this agreement, which indicates the Son’s willingness to offer up his life for a certain people, for the redemption of their sins, and the Father’s willingness to give that people to the Son as his portion, in consequence of that redemptive work. We are assured that this redemptive work was indeed planned out from before the time that the first step was taken to enact it from such expressions as that phrase in Revelation 13:8, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”.

This biblical motif, of an eternal agreement between the Father and the Son to accomplish redemption, finds its fullest expression in the gospel of John. There, the Son expresses his opinion many times both that the Father had given him a work to do, which he would most certainly accomplish (e.g. John 5:17-19, 30; 8:28-29; 10:17-18; 14:31; 17:4); and also, that the Father had promised to give him a certain people, none of whom he would ever lose (e.g. John 6:37-40; 10:29; 17:1-2, 6, 10). In this relationship, the Son would bring glory to the Father and the Father would bring glory to the Son (e.g. John 13:31-32; 17:1-5). In at least two passages, Jesus explicitly says that his accomplishment of the works which the Father had given him to do was intended to demonstrate that he was in the Father, and the Father was in him (John 10:38; 14:10-11). This is all but irrefutable proof that the economical trinity was indeed designed to display the essential, eternal inter-relationships within the ontological trinity.

Although the scriptural basis for an eternal agreement between the Spirit and the Father and Son is somewhat less explicit, it can likewise be derived from a couple of considerations. First, the Spirit is said to be “sent” on his redemptive mission, both by the Father and the Son (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14); and second, he is depicted in those same passages as engaging willfully in this redemptive task; and this is largely within the broader context of one of Jesus’ clearest discussions of the redemptive agreement between the Father and the Son (John 14-16). This leaves the conclusion virtually certain that the Spirit was also engaged in a pre-temporal agreement with the other persons of the Trinity to accomplish a specific role in the work of redemption. Furthermore, passages such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which clearly speak of the different parts that the three persons of the Godhead play in accomplishing redemption, argue for the same basic paradigm.

Now, the question only remains, “Is it appropriate to speak of this pre-temporal agreement between the persons of the trinity as a ‘Covenant of Redemption?’”. Although the term “covenant” is nowhere in the bible used of this divine arrangement, I would contend that two considerations argue for the propriety of its usage in theology. First, this agreement manifests most explicitly the basic realities we see presented to us elsewhere in the scriptures, under the rubric “covenant”. There is a promised reward and a condition to be met, which includes the shedding of blood to make the agreement firm. In fact, it could almost be argued that the nature of the great biblical covenants could not be fully understood without first looking to the redemptive work of Christ on the cross as an explication of just what a covenantal agreement is (which the author of Hebrews is quite fond of doing); so that, to all practical intents and purposes, it is not just a covenant, but the prototypical covenant. And second, it fits the divine pattern of displaying the nature of God in mankind, in part, through his complex social relationships. God is a complex being, and it stands to reason that a mere individual human could never have shown forth the image of God as fully as humans in relationship. The eternal Father/Son relationship within the Trinity is imaged in the father/son relationship of mankind. So then, why could the most basic and foundational relationship of human society, the covenant of marriage, not image the eternal covenantal relationship between the members of the trinity? But here, we are encroaching on our next point, the ontological trinity.

As we have mentioned before, the ontological trinity can only be approached by means of the concrete truths of the economical trinity, as the persons of the Godhead engage in their covenantal work of redemption. In the economical trinity, we have seen that, by an irrevocable agreement which each person has willingly entered into, the members of the Godhead have undertaken to bring glory to each other. In the discharge of their peculiar offices, they are always in perfect harmony. This would lead us to understand the ontological trinity as an eternal, unchangeable relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit which involves perfect harmony, love, and mutual glorification. And this is exactly the picture that we see in the gospel of John: the persons of the trinity have been bound together by a mutual indwelling, a mutual love, and a mutual glorification of each other from before the foundation of the world (e.g. John 5:20; 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:1-5; 21-24). The ontological trinity, then, may be summed up in this expression: an eternal covenant of love. In the economical trinity, we saw a pre-temporal covenant of redemption, harmoniously wrought through the diversely complementary offices of Father, Son, and Spirit, for the purpose of the loving glorification of each other. In the ontological trinity, we see an eternal covenant of love back of this pre-temporal covenant of redemption, which is the concrete expression of its ontological counterpart.

How does this doctrine of the trinity shape our understanding of the Christian mission? I would suggest that it gives direction to the mission’s ultimate goal; it illuminates the mission’s necessary means; and it clarifies the source from which the mission derives in the first place.

~~posted by Zioneer