Half the Story

HALF THE STORY WHY COVENANT SONSHIP RESTS ON ONTOLOGICAL SONSHIP A Pre-publication Review of Ty Gibson’s ‘The Sonship of Christ’ through a series of emails and a prequel to ‘Trialogue’ By Brendan Valiant Introduction This document is not intended for widespread circulation. I am making it available only on request as people have learned about it through the Trialogue video. However, in case this does get shared, some context is appropriate to fully appreciate this document. This document contains a series of emails with Ty Gibson prior to the publication of his book “The Sonship of Christ: Exploring the Covenant Identity of God and Man”. The introduction was made by our mutual friend and colleague in Christ, David Asscherick in 2018. Ty had before that time only presented his manuscript to favourable reviewers, those who already agreed with him on the subject matter. It was an opportunity for him to have a truly objective appraisal of the content and he welcomed it. Through this process, a respect and friendship between Ty and myself was forged. Word about this review process got out to the editors of Adventist Review TV (ARTV) who asked if they could make a documentary of our discussions as part of their “Deeper” series. This culminated in mid- 2018 and was titled “Trialogue” and can be found at the link below: https://www.artvnow.com/digging-deeper/season:1/videos/trialogue-v4 The content in this review only constitutes one side of an interaction. It can only be complete when reading Ty Gibson’s book. The manuscript I was reviewing was an earlier copy than the final version. Two chapters which I didn’t review didn’t make that final copy. These chapters were on Adventist History and the views of Ellen White. They have now been included in a new forthcoming manuscript by Ty that deals more with the trinity as a sequel to this book. I have reviewed those and will make that document available to people who request it at an appropriate time. To get the best appreciation, this series of reviews should be read in conjunction with Ty’s book so that you can hear both sides of the interaction. This book is available in various formats from the following link: https://thesonshipofchrist.com/ Before this review and the ARTV documentary, I had been seeking to rejoin the SDA Church for over 10 years. It was not so much my views or my notoriety that was preventing my rejoining, but my association with the non-trinitarian label. I had never liked the term “non-trinitarian” and had never associated with the more extreme version “anti-trinitarian”. I had used “non-trinitarian” more as a default than because it was an accurate label. The problem with this label is it is a negative definition. It is being known for what you are NOT. It also casts too wide a net. Atheists are non- trinitarian. Muslims are non-trinitarian. Spiritualists are non-trinitarian. So it never really an appropriate title. Many use the term “Father-Son believers”. This has some value, but it tends to be used to mean “non-trinitarian” anyway. Trinitarians of all sorts believe in the “Father” and “Son” in some way, and so it can be confusing. I will still be happy to use this term, but I have completely rejected the term “non-trinitarian” and now choose the more bridge-building term “Triotarian”, derived from Ellen White’s phrase grouping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - “heavenly trio”. I am also happy to use the term “trinity” to describe my view, though my view is a qualified form of “economic trinitarianism” as you will see in this document. Since I have renounced the term “non-trinitarian” and embraced more inclusive language, the final barriers to my rejoining the SDA Church disappeared. I joined the Church once more in early 2019 under profession of faith, some 14 years after I had withdrawn my membership through zeal without knowledge. The reason this was a barrier is because the Church uses the term “trinity” in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (28FB). It is difficult for the Church to understand and accept that someone would want to be a member while holding to a label that outright rejects these beliefs. The 28FB are not a creed. The Preamble states this clearly. They are more a Public Relations statement – a way of presenting a summary to the world. If someone in antagonistic to this statement of beliefs, they are often removed from Church membership not so much because they have opposing beliefs, but because they have an opposing attitude. It isn’t WHAT they believe, but more HOW they express their beliefs. The more I have spoken to pastors and theologians in the Church, the more they have expressed respect for my positions and openness to listen to me. This is because I am not seen as an opponent, but someone who wants to build up and edify the Church. I am now welcomed to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the nature and character of God within the Church. Another thing I have found, not a single person I have spoken to in the Church, if they had the individual task of writing up a statement of beliefs for the Church, would come up with what appears in the 28FB. Everyone I have spoken to has said they would prefer to emphasise certain things not emphasised or loosen language that is too strong. Yet they all submit in humility to an imperfect statement because it is the only way to move forward in a corporate sense. This is what is lacking by those who leave the Church over whatever reason – humility. There is an attitude that if the Fundamental Beliefs are not expressed in terms that THEY insist upon, then they are not having a bar of it. Preambles to documents are the most important part. They outline the intent, meaning and application of the document. The Preamble to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs states this: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. Notice several things here: First, the idea that the 28FB are a creed is outright rejected in this opening statement. Next, these statements of beliefs are a corporate document, not one individual opinion, meaning they require a degree of humility on the part of all Church members as to wording. Further, they “constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture”. Since the Bible is the “only creed” of Seventh-day Adventists, the implication is that all are to read and interpret the 28FB through the lens of how they read Scripture, not the other way around! Finally, these 28FB are not set in stone – they can be revised by the corporate church and acknowledge that a “fuller understanding” or “better language” may come through the leading of the Holy Spirit in the future. We saw that happen only in 2015! The irony I find, looking back, is that it was I who was treating the 28FB like a creed. This goes for all non-trinitarians I have spoken to. I was the one treating the wording of this statement like it was set in stone and had to be understood the way someone else intended. It wasn’t until I really comprehended the Preamble that I was able to accept with humility wording I wouldn’t personally choose and then read that wording in the light of the Scripture, letting Scripture define it, rather than other people’s understanding. Thus when I read in the 2nd statement “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.” I can either choose to anticipate how someone else reads this, or I can find a Scriptural way to understand it. Now I do the latter. The Bible uses “God” in both a quantitative way (referring to God the Father) and a qualitative way (referring to the essence of divinity shared by Father, Son and Holy Spirit). So when I read “one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, I can freely understand this as one qualitative essence of divinity. When I read “a unity of three coeternal Persons”, I can choose to understand “eternal” in the Hebrew sense of “olam” – unmeasured duration – and “Persons” in the economic sense that Ellen White uses the term. I am acting within the spirit and intent of the 28FB as set forth in the Preamble. By choosing to now call myself a “Triotarian” or an “economic trinitarian” I am emphasising the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is important to the Church. This opens doors to constructive conversation and allows me to work hand-in-hand with people I never would have had the opportunity to do so with. My great hope is that others who have felt they had no option for belonging than to consider themselves “non-trinitarians” would find the humility of not insisting on everything being according to their own demands, such as the wording of the 28FB but look for ways to build bridges rather than walls.

Load more