The Trinity and the Localisation of Mission Issue

By Jeffrey Pugh

I had the good fortune recently to spend a few days of strategic dialogue with regional heads of an international mission agency. One of the major topics for discussion concerned the issue of “localization” which has always been part of the heritage of this organization but has become a priority moving forward. This agency is seeking to be more at home in the many local cultures in which it operates and to allow for more diversity in the forms of governance and accountability across this range of contexts. Where the parent body has been the instigator of structural discourse in partner meetings, now global to local accountability will be more of a “two-way street.”

However, as soon as the glow of these ideals is pressed down from the level of ideals to the level of concrete realities, anxieties arise concerning the possibility of losing cohesion across the various units. Human nature being what it is, some would prefer to err on the side of diversity and disbursement of power to individual centres being keenly aware of the alien nature and the negative impact of organizational structures imposed from an assumed global centre. For others, the issues of utilizing the standard decision-making protocols and fiscal responsibility are critical concerns. Localisation seems “nice in theory” but low in feasibility. These are further complicated by the enormous wealth disparity between the founding centre and the financial dependency of a range of first-world global partners.

This sort of discourse is a perennial issue for many mission organizations. Somehow while we want to affirm that units distant in time and space from the original founding organizational structure are just as much authentically the same mission and have the same status as the central body, we also want to affirm that they have a right to “do things their way” rather than the way things are done in “the West.” It is far from clear just how much devolution of power and diversity of structure is ideal. Old colonial habits die hard in the form of semi-conscious assumptions and the difficulty in thinking through a third way.

This sort of discussion regarding what is essential and substantially shared, and what is negotiable and locally distinct requires a model of thinking that is not captured by either hierarchical or temporary project based organizational models. As I witnessed the discussions back and forth I could not help but note the parallels to what we can find out about the historical debates concerning the nature of God in the first centuries of the church. There too, church leaders had to resolve the seeming paradoxical nature of God’s self-revelation being both one and many always. Revisiting that ancient debate could well provide normative guidelines within which the theological priority of localisation in mission can be conceptualised. Also, hopefully, we can do better than just find a political trade-off between ideals and reality.

Theological Paradoxes and the Trinity

The history of the debate really is a history of the principles of theological method. Those who begin with unexamined philosophical assumptions inherited from Greek philosophy were not going to represent the Biblical data even-handedly. These debates were critical. The Trinity is that doctrine that impinges upon all other doctrines and practice.

All parties in these historical debates were right to affirm the undivided simplicity and the “one-ness” of the God we worship. The heresies “to the right” and “to the left” could not envisage the “three-ness” or, the complexity of the Trinity without threatening the simplicity and the oneness. Consequently both heresies attempted to protect the one-ness of the Godhead in different ways. The left solution was at the expense of the deity of both the Son and the Spirit; the right, at the expense of the eternal nature of the persons.

The intentions of both poles were noble in trying to preserve the worship that God was due. The difficulties arose as theologians assumed that the ineffable nature of God could be captured in the sorts of logic that work in the domain of human community. In their effect, both heresies are also a “trade-off” type of solution rather than a dynamic reflection of revealed truth. And both tend to mishear the other pole and feed off the perceived weakness of the other position. Sound familiar?

Theological Options to the Right and to the Left

Sabellius and his type had trouble reconciling a tri-unity of individual separate persons with the simplicity and unity of God. To get around this tension they construed the three divine persons as only three temporary modes of the way God reveals himself through history. Later versions would extend this cyclical movement of God through modes so as to accomplish salvation, but as three periods in salvation history corresponding to fluidity in the mode of God. The Father reveals himself successively as Father, Son and Spirit. And at the end of this scheme any semblance of a Three-ness ceases to exist and we are left only with the Father, the divine being in total.

The “left wing” error, espoused by Arius and his kind, also cannot quite get their heads around how, if the One God is an indivisible simplicity, the Father could also be the Son let alone the Spirit. The very idea of generation to them is confused with giving birth. While the Son may be eternal or begotten from the very essence of the Father and is not a creature, but he is subordinate to the Father and seated in the divine pecking order somewhere above the creature but less than the God who can only be one. The Spirit fares no better and is not only not deity but just an impersonal force.

The Orthodox Both-and-Model

When the confession “one God in three persons” easily roles off our tongues this captures centuries of theological modelling and prayerful debate. And despite misunderstandings that often arose between the Eastern and Western church, a consensus emerged that captured the complexity of the Scriptural witness. This includes without the eternal Son the Father is not the eternal Father. Their begetting and being begotten is always happening in eternity. All three “persons” possess all the divine attributes. The persons are not parts of God as God is “simple” having no divisions. This God is still the following assertions.

Eternal Equality of the Distinctions

Triune unity is complex. All those qualities that make God uniquely Himself is to be found both equally and totally within each person. The Son is begotten by the Father but this does not mean there was ever a moment when the Father was without Son of Spirit. As Athanasius argued, and always but one subject.

Distinct in Role Within the Godhead

This “bringing forth” is essential to being the Father. Being begotten is essential to the Son and “proceeding from” Father and Son is only true of the Spirit. Each of the persons has a distinct role within the work of creation and salvation that corresponds to their situation or role within the Godhead. In every work of the Godhead the father is the originator, the Son the mediator and the Spirit actualises the will of the one God. Yet each of the persons are not so much autonomous and isolated individuals as would be the case in our modern idea of “person” but each is a unique hypostasis, to use the Eastern word. They literally stand up under their own weight as “subsistences.” They are centres of consciousness, will, and power. These are real “entities” and not just relationships between interchangeable centres. The Father does not just recapitulate himself in each successive hypostasis. The father could not have had two or even more sons nor could he take the place of the Son at Calvary.

Mutual Interpenetration in All God’s Works

And yet, all persons in fact interpenetrate the other and are present in the works of God “perichoretically.” This equality of essence and mutual interpenetration means that the Trinity is much more than an accidental community of divine individuals who have negotiated a common goal or will. There is one Subject sharing a common purpose from eternity unto eternity wherever any of the persons are at work.

Differentiation in Person, Not Essence

Nor does the father transmit or generate the essence or substance but generates only the personhood of the Son and “spirates” the personhood of the Spirit. If this was not the case then it would imply that the Son and Spirit are something less than God which would be the case if they also received their divine essence from him.

From Divine Relating to Human Relating

There are tantalising analogies between the sorts of historical solutions to the question of the nature of God, how He is to be worshipped and how he is to be served in the advancement of his Kingdom. There has been a debate in the last couple of decades about whether or how we can build inferences from the Godhead for human social realities. Many theologians have felt that since we were created in God’s image, our human political arrangements should correlate with the sorts of inter-personal relationships of the Godhead. Others have questioned this inference. If we make too direct a relationship between God’s life and our political life this neglects that our God is entirely “other” to us as our creator. Nor can we interpenetrate another being. We all exist as discrete individuals. The Scriptures never exhort us to model our lives upon the Trinity but upon Jesus Christ.

Yet reflecting upon divine and human parallels is still a valid quest as long as we do not seek to infer back from our creaturely reflections onto the Godhead, which is the weakness of “natural theology.” Deep down, there is no greater legitimation for what we assume about the right way to order our interpersonal power relationships than how we think about the way God normally relates within the eternal community. The ways the church through the ages has navigated between the twin errors of subordinationism and modalism shows that the same theological reflexes can be deployed when solving localization issues at an organizational level.

Heretical Organizational Politics

The polar options in organizational life are strikingly similar in form to these theological models and just as liable to lose the essential tensions required to frame an orthodox model of the Godhead.

1. A “Subordinationist” organizational rationality would privilege the founding organization with the responsibility to share their expertise with junior partners. The driving metaphor is that of teaching the newbie how to implement the processes that have taken much time to hone in the parent organization. If adoption into full status is to occur then trust has to be earned as new partners demonstrate they can understand instructions. But the parent always is the parent and the partner always the child. The child organization may have its own personality and preferred ways of doing things, but its best interest is served by aspiring to suborn any local innovations that aren’t aligned with the mindset of the parent. Efficiency requires that there be a standardized way to control the operation of the offspring. When the children cannot or will not follow the official template, then interventions and remediation must take place. This stress on accountability negates the notion that the new organization is indeed a “hypostasis” able to “stand on its own feet.” It reinforces passive compliance or, fosters resistance. This mono-centric mindset requires a tireless vigilance from the centre to monitor deviance or incompetence.
2. By contrast, a “Modalist” organizational rationality would seek to honour each emanation of the original mission it sets up each new cultural iteration of the parent organizations. Making a priority of empowerment honours evolutionary progress as if this was essentially the handiwork of God. The essential mission of the founding organization are transformed into more mature versions. These later emanations may produce unrecognisable expressions, even the eventual dissolution of the mission itself. The relationship of original to successive localised organization actually becomes more that of learner rather than the expert. The parent role is to bless the new and push it off into the unknown future without connection to historical traditions. The founding partner should relinquish their right to question the meaning of processes. While the originator may continue to exist it may as well be spatially in a different universe. By blessing of all the values of the new organization, a form of blind trust is required or the once parent. This is a momentary arrangement too as other evolutions of the organization must lead on to even more resonant organizational forms.

These two options tend to polarise groups as they feed off the fears and resentment of the other pole. The Subordinationist fears that a decoupled approach would automatically lead to a dangerously syncretistic organizational culture. With more and more local values affirmed with each successive generation and the resources invested so far could be squandered on off-centre pursuits. Modalists may fear formal accountability required of the new partner organization is a meaningless enterprise and inherently patronising. The right to self-determination to re-interpret the mission from God is as fundamental as the right to breathe one’s own air.

The Triune Third Way

The doctrine of the Trinity would suggest that we can within cautious limits find mundane human parallels for uniquely divine commonplaces. Three parallels suggest themselves:

1. The Triune principle of eternal equality would suggest that all emanations of a mission agency are just as much the work of God as the first. There may be one alone who is originator, but the offspring agency does not derive its legitimacy from the founder but from sharing in the same mission.
2. Role validity would suggest that the offspring organization is truly such to the extent that it can sustain itself and manage its own decision making. If this is truly “hypostatic” then this refers to the recognition that the offspring organization is recognised as having a will and a way of its own.
3. With the differentiation principle the parent organization would see itself as at its best when the offspring organization is affirmed in their contextualised incarnation of the parent. Generativity, not replication is the central attribute of the founding organization.

Three organizational types may then be contrasted as seen in the table below. These can alert us immediately in those times when our thinking is reflecting a loss of Trinitarian tension.

1. Where God calls a partner into being all are of the same theological status. This would suggest that in all things the mode of inter-organizational communication should be essentially adult to adult once a newer entity has substantiated itself. Communication is two-way not just injected into ignorant receivers. When either partner feels constrained to be unilaterally the expert, or, learner, an organizational heresy looms.
2. The driving metaphor “generation” of the work of the partner agencies rather than either that of the newer partner being liberated “do their own thing,” or, being bound to implement the “common sense” of the parent. A mission organization would not be missional at all if it did not generate imaginative agents. The founding organization comes into its own as these remain in fellowship with the partner and the partner acknowledges their origin with a note of indebtedness.
3. A Trinitarian culture high on mutual trust flows from a shared set of explicit theological convictions about the bona fides of each partner. An adoptionistic mindset only doles out trust when the partner has proven themselves worthy. A Modalist approach turns away from the founding organization as if they/God brought themselves into existence unaided. Mutual trust implies an unfiltered exchange not a “need to know” discourse. It is trust rather than competence that is proven over time.
4. The purpose of the parent is not to direct their energies to uniformalising its organizational offspring. This has the whiff of cohesion brought about by the coercive force of legal constraint rather than shared Spiritual passion. Just as the Trinity is not the Father repeating himself twice confuses essence with identity. Trinitarian organizing implies that each partner is an un-substitutable person who has their own way of seeing, deciding and acting that reflect their cultural setting. The new partner does not have the freedom to deviate from core purpose becoming so enculturated that they uncritically reflect their local cultural norms.
5. A mono-centric model of relating places the responsibility and source of the life juices of the organization in the central nervous system of the organization as if the whole depends on one brain. Such thinking is patronisingly Adoptionistic at best, or, eternally subordinationist at worse. Modalism would tend toward an optimistic view of inevitable evolutionary progress. A “whatever happens was meant to be” pantheism results in a de-coupled organization. Such auto-generativity results in a less of a distinctive identity not more. The Trinitarian option remains wherever founders and partners share the theological conviction that a polycentric power distribution always was the intentional work of the Spirit.

Conclusion

So, there is a theological warrant in intra-organizational relating, that the relational life of the Trinity may act to curb our natural tendency to polarize toward our own preferred pole; our own psychological preferences. We are liable to caricature other approaches as heretical or worse; just plain incompetent! The church fathers’ reflection on Scripture shows that it is possible to adopt flexible mental models that adequately represent the ineffable Triune community. That same love of God’s revelation should facilitate organizational collaboration that respects the origination, differentiation, initiative, and mutuality in the complex inter-cultural mission agency.

Jeffrey Pugh is a practical theologian specializing in organizational culture change. A former Baptist Pastor and church consultant who for years was postgraduate research dean at Melbourne School of Theology, in 2017 he was appointed as principal at Summer Institute of Linguistics Australia, with the responsibility of developing their graduate and postgraduate language development program. He concurrently teaches theology and leadership studies for various institutions around Australia and South East Asia.