The Gospel and the Trinity

A recent blog posting over at Theologica corresponded with some thoughts I've had in the past few weeks on the necessities of Orthodoxy (right opinions) and Orthopraxy (right practice) in evangelism. One is often tempted to ask, "Is it more important what I believe, or what I do?" with respect to spreading the gospel.

I think in the main this is a false dichotomy. Legalism abounds on both sides of this question: those who value correct doctrine are sometimes so rigid that they fail to see how it impacts the way they live their lives; those who value right living sometimes fail to see the need for right doctrine at all. Properly speaking, correct doctrine and correct living are two sides of the same coin; they belong together and should inform each other.

I learned this by experience only within the last few years, when I had the opportunity to speak with two individuals about the Trinity in a gospel context. The doctrine is essential to Christianity (we are not Christians without it), but I think it's fair to say that many would find it trivial. Christianity is supposed to be about ethics and morals and how you live, not about ivory tower obscurities. How can one preach the gospel by talking about the Trinity? How does one approach faith in Christ from the Deity of Christ?

My experiences were unexpected. You sometimes run into theologically literate people on the street, and three were avowed anti-trinitarians: a Jehovah's Witness and two Muslims. In the former case, we discussed the humanity of Christ in the light of his deity. The hypostatic union is hard to unpack and to do well, but I think the ideas were sufficiently communicated. He suffered from a number of addictions and evinced no motivation to overcome them. That Jesus Christ could reveal God to him because he was in fact God, and that he could reveal True Man was good news in his state: mankind isn't doomed to the worst.

My sample size for the Muslims is pretty small, and certainly not of the African or Arabian stripe. But interestingly, they had no answer when I asked why being in the presence of God would not blow them to smithereens. Basic questions about the holiness of God and the nature of man were met in a manner that would be theologically acceptable to a Christian, but no reconciliation was offered except that of works. It is trite to reduce their theology to such a conflict, and I don't intend to oversimplify here.

But strikingly, Christianity offers a resolution that is completely outside the one who comes to God. Because Jesus is God and man, he presents God to us in a way that does not actually smash us to little bits. I have before said that Elihu's words to Job as his intercessor prefigure Christ: "I, too, am pinched off from a piece of clay. No fear of me need terrify you" (somewhat paraphrased, I think). This is a confidence absent from the Islamic conception of God, at least near as I understand it. While the Christian is not encouraged to take God's holiness lightly (that is, after all, one of the lessons of the cross), he is likewise not discouraged from seeking God.

If we were to eliminate the Trinity from the repertoire of Christian theology by some means (like indifference to matters of doctrine, for example), we would lose a significant part of our means of evangelizing the lost. This is not merely an academic concern, nor is it of trifling importance to the average person on the street (despite my rather unique examples).

The gospel is one of restoration. It speaks to the restoration of man's relationship to God, and therefore his relationship to himself.

I'm stuck in an airport finishing this, and I'm not sure how well I'm making the point...but I suppose in the end what I'd like to communicate is that doctrinal precision is helpful to the gospel and immediately practical for it.