Why does the Bible simply proclaim, rather than argue and defend, difficult Christian doctrines like the Trinity or the Incarnation?
This question has been staring at me all afternoon from the little pocket notebook I carry with me to church. This notebook of mine is usually filled with a mad mix of scribbled notes and sermon outlines as I attempt to keep pace with the morning and evening message from the pulpit. Today, however, the question I jotted down sort of stopped my train of thought. It is something that has often nagged at me and challenged my more rational and intellectual tendencies to provide an answer to a question that seems to undercut much of my approach to God, religion, and theology.
Why does the Bible simply proclaim, rather than argue and defend, difficult Christian doctrines like the Trinity or the Incarnation?
Today we began a study of the Gospel according to Mark. The book opens with a reference to Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the Messiah. Eight verses are devoted to preparing the way for the coming Messiah. Verse nine simply and rather anti-climactically announces, “Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan.” And then the heavens were rent, the Spirit descends, and the Father proclaims the identity of this unknown man, Jesus, as His son. Whisk. And Jesus is taken out and tempted in the wilderness. The proclamation of the long-awaited Savior, the divine blessing and identification of Jesus as divine, and the record of the temptation of Jesus follow swiftly, each nearly tripping over the heels of the next part of the narrative. And no explanation is given of how these events could possibly coherently fit together; yet is plainly assumed that they do. The Messiah is coming. A commoner from the backwoods of Israel is baptized. God the Father speaks from heaven. Jesus is tempted to sin. Nothing is offered by way of apology for the extravagance of these events, the apparent discordance of humanity and divinity existing in one being, or the amazing claim that is being made simply by recounting them together as one single narrative.
Why does the Bible simply proclaim, rather than argue and defend, difficult Christian doctrines like the Trinity or the Incarnation?
Fact is the foundation for theory. Fact sets the playing field and demarcates the boundaries within we must play. Fact is the major chord, theory the descant and grace notes. I tend to reverse the two and press my theories and ideas upon the world, as though my mind were the form and the world around me nothing but pliable putty. The Bible and Christian witness has no room for such nonsense. The Bible offers up the facts, the first and ultimate things which must be taken into account by any theory or worldview. It does not apologize for stating the facts, as facts are not the sorts of things that one can rightly every apologize for. They simply are what they are. One may love or hate them, feel uncomfortable proclaiming them, or even choose to ignore them; all this and more has little bearing on their nature.
The Christian story ultimately claims to be a story of facts, a proclamation of things as they are. If the Bible is true it needs no defense because it is a record of what was and is a revelation of what is and will be. The Trinity and the Incarnation are not presented as theories seeking to harmonzie various facts. Rather, they are the facts themselves which we must harmonize and learn to be in harmony with.
“We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14)