INTRODUCTION
As outlined and discussed in the previous chapter, Christian theology has had a
longstanding aversion to the term ―subordinationism‖, an aversion traced to the church‘s earliest theological controversies that threatened the very foundation of the fledgling community of faith. In the fourth century, the church at the Council of Nicaea rejected Arian subordinationism that left the Son as exalted but created and, therefore, a lesser being than God the Father. Athanasius, the great defender of the faith, saw the integral connection between the atonement and the deity of Christ – only God can save and impart to his followers the divine life and only that which is
o9moou/siov with the Father can mediate knowledge of the Father. Though the role of the Spirit
would be worked out more fully at a later time, Athanasius argued the essential relationship of soteriology and the Trinity.1 At stake was not merely metaphysical or philosophical hairsplitting regarding the immanent relationship of the three persons of the Trinity, but the very heart of the gospel. There could be no cross that had the eternal power to judge, forgive, and transform unless it was an act of God and by God. Thus, any theology that leaves the Son and Spirit as lesser beings than the Father has rightly been rejected as heretical throughout church history. All Christian theology collapses if the Father, Son, and Spirit are not equal in essence or nature.
Theologians have acknowledged the overt subordinate statements of Jesus in Scripture often attributing them to an economic subordination necessitated by the incarnation. While this does limit these statements to the economy thereby keeping essential subordinationism out of the
1 Athanasius writes about the o9moou/siov of the Spirit in his first, third, and fourth dogmatic letters to Serapion.
immanent Trinity, it does not address the question regarding what the subordination so evident in the incarnation indicates about intra-Trinitarian relations. The incarnate Son of God could not become less, even temporarily, in such a way as to cease to be God nor could he become more and thus superior to the Father and Spirit. In what way then is the economic subordination of the Son reflected in the immanent Trinity without resulting in essential subordination? If
subordination can only be understood as a subordination of essence, the witness of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity are incompatible. But is subordination of essence the only
understanding of subordination or can another understanding of subordination in intra-Trinitarian relationships provide insight for an integrated understanding of God, Christianity, and the world? In the late 19th early 20th century, British theologian and churchman P. T. Forsyth found a meaning of subordination indispensable to a proper understanding of God and the entire
Christian message. For Forsyth, without this subordination, there could be no atonement because the atonement required the perfect obedience of the Son to the Father and obedience requires subordination. No subordination, no atonement, no Christianity. If salvation is the exclusive act of the Godhead, the required obedience could not come from the human nature of the incarnate Son. This chapter will examine Forsyth‘s understanding of ―subordination‖ and his overall view of the relationship of the Father and the Son and how he saw no contradiction between the eternal subordination of the Son and the essential equality of the three Persons of the Trinity.
To understand Forsyth, one must understand not only the context of his life and thought, but also how he critiqued, corrected, and melded the contributions of others into his own. This chapter will begin with a brief biography followed by a discussion of the theological influences in his life and his overall approach to theology. His approach to theology and theological
a systematic theology nor did he write systematically, his writings nevertheless articulate a unique approach founded in his understanding of the divine revelation that gave overall
coherence to his writings. Because Forsyth cannot be properly understood without understanding this approach, this chapter will include Forsyth‘s foundational understanding of who God is and how from this understanding the rest of his thoughts flow.
The unsystematic nature and size of Forsyth‘s corpus makes it difficult to draw out his theology on topics like the Trinity. It is easy to read one passage from his work on a particular topic in which he might strongly criticize a position only to find in other works (and even in other locations in the same work) another passage in which he lauds the position, seeing its value when placed in its proper context. As a result, attempts will be made to interact with all relevant works to gain a full understanding of what he believed and how his beliefs connected to the rest of his theology.
BIOGRAPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Biography
P. T. Forsyth was born in Aberdeen, Scotland, on May 12, 1848, the son of a postman, which meant that he grew up in poverty.2 Plagued much of his life with poor health, he more than compensated with a strong mind and a passion to know Christ in His fullness and to proclaim what he experienced to the church and the world.
At 16, Forsyth won a bursary to attend Aberdeen University to study the classics
intending to become a pastor. He was an excellent student earning first-class honors in classical
2
Donald G. Miller, P. T. Forsyth—the man, the preachers’ theologian, prophet for the 20th century: a contemporary assessment, (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1981), 5.
literature.3 With a strong interest in theology, he studied under Albrecht Ritschl in Göttingen for a semester where he also learned German and developed a strong interest in German
theologians.4 He returned to England and studied at Hackney College in London before beginning his pastoral duties.
From the beginning of his pastoral ministries, he was a maverick aligning himself against the status quo in his denomination. He also had a keen interest in the community actively
participating in the political and social issues that confronted 19th century England. His broad knowledge is reflected in his writings through numerous references to art, literature, music, and the like.
Forsyth married in 1877 and had his only child shortly thereafter. He served several churches as pastor beginning with a church in Hackney, a suburb of London, and ending at Emmanuel Church in Cambridge in 1894. His wife died a week after he arrived at Cambridge. He would remarry in 1898.
In 1896, Forsyth delivered his sermon ―God, the Holy Father‖ to the Congregational Union where he publicly declared what had become and would increasingly be the foundation of his future theological development.
Five years later, Forsyth was named principal of Hackney College, and for the next 20 years, he would expound more fully in writings and lectures on his theology and its impact on the church and the world. During World War I while many liberal theologians struggled with the horror of one Christian nation warring against another, Forsyth‘s theology developed years earlier enabled him to address profoundly the tragedies of war.
3 W. L. Bradley, P. T. Forsyth: The Man and His Work, (London: Independent Press, 1952), 18. 4 A. M. Hunter, P. T. Forsyth, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 15.
Until his death November 11, 1921, Forsyth outlined a path in a rapidly changing world that allowed the church to have a theology that was true to the Christian message and relevant to the world even amid great tragedy.
Theological “Conversion”
For the first half of his life, P. T. Forsyth followed the path of Protestant liberalism that many theologians and pastors of the 19th century had accepted as true Christianity. Liberal theology had largely secularized the Christian message identifying it with human love, human progress, and human brotherhood. God was the loving father of all humanity. Jesus and his cross, when it was mentioned, had inaugurated a new kingdom and served as the supreme example of love. As articulated by G. W. F. Hegel, humanity in history through the work of the Spirit was now evolving into the full realization of this kingdom. Western Europe, in particular, was a prime example of the evolving kingdom of God. Early on, Forsyth admittedly was a proponent of this view of Christianity but soon began a gradual move away from it, influenced at first by Ritschl.5
Decades before World War I would shatter the dominance of Protestant liberalism, Forsyth began to see the folly and danger of this theology. He had the insight and foresight to see that the main beliefs and practices of the Christianity of his day had either run their course or were leading Christianity, and thus the fate of the world, away from the new kingdom
inaugurated by Christ on the cross and from the purpose and ministry of the church. He espoused positions that he believed were correctives but that were not tied to a particular denomination or belief system, which left him open to attack from all or to be regarded as irrelevant. Forsyth went to Christianity past, not from a simplistic desire to re-establish a lost tradition or to rediscover the
5 P. T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, (1907; reprint Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998),
true church, but to recapture what the church was losing – the holiness of God and the
indispensable message and activity of the cross. His focus, however, was on the future, and his desire was that the church would move into its future, not simply carrying the cross but clinging to it.6 As that clinging to the cross with all its accompanying notions of holiness, forgiveness, sin, love, and redemption empowered the church, the church could through Christ change the world. Just prior to the bloodiest century in human history, this Congregationalist pastor and scholar knew that the diluted gospel preached by the liberal churches was becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world, not because the gospel was outdated, but because the most important part had been left behind.
This development was not merely intellectual, but personal and spiritual. He would later summarize the transformation this way: ―I immersed myself in the Logic of Hegel, and corrected it by the theology of Paul, and its continuity in the Reformation, because I was all the time being corrected and humiliated by the Holy Spirit.‖7 Though he made few autobiographical references in his writing, as Forsyth expounds his theology it is apparent that behind his beliefs was a transforming encounter with God that confirmed for him what he knew to be true. He said he did not understand the cross ―till God taught me what sin was and the theology of its cure.‖8
His pastoral experience also had a profound effect as he realized the scholarly theology that he loved did not address the immediate needs of his congregation. His congregation needed a ―personal religion‖ that came from an encounter with the holy God through the cross of Jesus Christ.9
But, fortunately for me, I was not condemned to the mere scholar‘s cloistered life. I could not treat the matter as an academic quest. I was kept close to practical conditions. I was in
6 P. T. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority in Relation to Certainty, Sanctity, and Society: an Essay in the
Philosophy of Experimental Religion, (n. d.; reprint London: Independent Press, 1952), 35-37.
7
Positive Preaching, 179.
8 P. T. Forsyth, Revelation Old and New: Sermons and Addresses, (Independent Press: London, 1962), 78. 9 McCurdy, Leslie, Attributes and Atonement: The Holy Love of God in the Theology of P. T. Forsyth, (Carlisle,
a relation of life, duty, and responsibility for others. I could not contemplate conclusions without asking how they would affect these people, and my word to them, in doubt, death, grief, or repentance.10
In this same passage, Forsyth also notes that beyond the local church, people in ―the Church at large … were in no spiritual condition to have forced on them those questions on which scholars so delighted and differed.‖11 Ultimately, though, it was his return to the Bible where he
discovered the divine revelation of God‘s holiness and grace that convicted him of his sin ―in a way that submerged all the school questions in weight, urgency, and poignancy. I was turned from a Christian to a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace.‖12 That discovery was to see Christ not simply as suffering on the cross for him, but being under the judgment and ―the chastisement of my peace.‖13 So profound was this experience that Forsyth would later write that the only evidence for the truth of the gospel that matters is a transforming faith through which believers know Christ the Redeemer in a way that is as or more real than anything else they experience.14
Experience is not the authority, but authority must be experienced, which meant faith in Jesus Christ. It was not an either-or but a proper ordering of the two.15 Forsyth believed that Schleiermacher had inverted the order, making experience prior, and that Ritschl had corrected the error by placing divine revelation before human experience.16 In other words it was the human experience of the divine revelation that was most important. ―The essential thing is the
10 Positive Preaching, 177. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 232. 14Authority, 20-22. 15 Ibid.,55. 16Revelation, 74.
object of faith, not the subject of the experience‖. 17
The continuing influence of this experience on Forsyth must always be considered when studying his theology.
Hinging in large part on his recovery of grace in his life and theology, Forsyth‘s ―conversion‖ happened gradually over a period, but by 1891 it was evidenced clearly in his writings.18 In his chairman‘s address to the Congregational Union that year, Forsyth stated, ―No sin has hampered us like our own. … We can never trust our breezy selves again. We have all our world and all our hope to reconstruct at the foot of the Cross.‖19 Though gradual and at times described by Forsyth as more a change of emphasis, it was nevertheless dramatic.20 The problem with the theology that he had previously embraced was not just that it was too scholarly and philosophical. It had replaced the transcendent otherness of God with an extreme immanence that equated the divine with ideal humanity. Forsyth‘s solution was not to repeat the error by
replacing immanence with transcendence. Holiness did not replace love but was seen as its source. Love issued from the holiness of God. It was a particular kind of love – holy love.21
Theological Influences
The factors that influenced Forsyth were numerous. He was well read in fields beyond theology and had a great appreciation and understanding of art and music. As mentioned he had studied under Ritschl, read other German theologians, and had been one of only a few British
17Ibid., 76. 18
Trevor Hart, ―Morality, Atonement and the Death of Jesus: The Crucial Focus of Forsyth‘s theology‖, in Justice the True and Only Mercy, ed. Hart, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 17. Miller, 14.
19 Bradley, 46. Quoting from Forsyth‘s chairman‘s address ―The Old Faith and the New‖ (1891), 27. 20
Clifford S. Pitt, Church Ministry and Sacraments: A Critical Evaluation of the Thought of Peter Taylor Forsyth,
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1983), xvi-xvii.
21 In his thorough study of Forsyth‘s use of ―holy love‖, McCurdy notes that Forsyth popularized but did not
theologians to have read Søren Kierkegaard.22 Some scholars believe that Forsyth‘s fondness for and use of paradox came from his readings of Kierkegaard. As a Congregationalist, Forsyth drew heavily, but not uncritically, from Anabaptist and Calvinistic sources.23 He was also a student of church history and was influenced by the early church fathers in particular. His time as a pastor undoubtedly contributed not only to his writing style, but also to the practical bent of his theology. As with his concerns about Christianity and the state of the world, Forsyth not only criticized, but also found value in all that he encountered.
One difficulty in determining the influences on Forsyth‘s thoughts is that he does not frequently cite sources. For Miller, this was to be expected because Forsyth ―took other men‘s ideas and gave them the stamp of his own enrichment, and frequently pioneered new terrain where others had not trod.‖24 As Bradley puts it, ―… for those ideas which he adopts become his own and reappear only after they have become a part of his very nature.‖25
Because of the paucity of citations, scholars have speculated on who influenced Forsyth. Bradley‘s caution about this speculation is well advised, and one should look first to those to whom Forsyth gives the most credit: Frederick Denison Maurice and Ritschl.26 Bradley sees similarities between Forsyth and Maurice‘s positions regarding the definition of a sect, the church, baptism, and the Lord‘s Supper. Maurice‘s most significant contribution to Forsyth‘s theology, according to Bradley, is his view of a universal humanity, a racial solidarity. Christ is Lord and Creator of a new humanity, a new race constituted in and through Him alone.27 Despite
22 In addition to Kierkegaard and Ritschl, Pitt adds Immanuel Kant. (xxv) Russell acknowledges Forsyth‘s
opposition to Hegel, but also finds Forsyth appropriating Hegelian thought in the effects of the gospel but not in the core of redemption. (Stanley Russell, ―Spoiling the Egyptians: P T Forsyth and Hegel‖, in Justice the True and Only Mercy, 236) Bradley offers an in-depth analysis of the influences on Forsyth. (90-110)
23 Pitt, xxi. 24 Miller, 19. 25 Bradley, 91. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 95-96.
these traces of Maurice‘s thoughts in Forsyth‘s writings, Bradley concludes it might be better to think of Maurice‘s lasting influence on Forsyth as inspirational rather than intellectual.28
Although Albrecht Ritschl, under whom Forsyth studied in 1872, had a profound effect on Forsyth‘s theology, Forsyth eventually criticized and moved beyond his teacher. Ritschl‘s influence can be seen in Forsyth‘s focus on the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ as well as an emphasis on ethics. One can hear Ritschl in Forsyth‘s critique of mysticism and metaphysics. But he differs from his teacher in three ways: (1) seeing the cross as the center of Christianity, not one of two poles in an ellipse;29 (2) recapturing the significance of the