buzzard

A Review of The Doctrine of the Trinity - Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

Anthony F. Buzzard, Charles F. Hunting

International Scholars Publications, 1998

While there are a lot of books on the market that tackle the thorny issue of the nature of the Christian God, Buzzard and Hunting seem to have this particular niche largely to themselves. Unlike Unitarians (with a capital letter) they make fundamentalist assumptions about the unity and authority of the Bible. Unlike the many recent scholars who have contributed to the debate (many of whom are cited in the book), Buzzard and Hunting are unabashed apologists with little apparent interest in exploring data that does not support their position.

This is an apologetic work that attempts to demonstrate that a unitarian concept of God is the only valid interpretation of the Biblical texts. While both authors are former Worldwide Church of God insiders, that church and its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, are only mentioned once in the book, and then only in a footnote. Hunting was a high ranking minister and administrator in the WCG until the mid seventies, while Buzzard taught at the church's unaccredited Ambassador College. Buzzard is currently affiliated with the Church of God General Conference, a sect that despite the name has no historical relationship with the WCG, and he teaches at the group's Bible college in Atlanta.

The book certainly has its faults, but does contain a good deal of historical information that will be new to many readers. It was largely for this reason that I persevered to the end, despite the repetitious arguments and endless "point-scoring". Who would have guessed for example that John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, was an anti-Trinitarian? Or that British Open Brethren scholar F. F. Bruce, an evangelical with impeccable credentials, would be prepared to concede so much to the unitarian position (judging from the correspondence the authors quote)?

Exactly who the book is targeted at isn't clear. For anyone whose theological literacy has been retarded by an overload of material produced by the WCG and its offshoots, Doctrine of the Trinity is likely to be a demanding and confusing text involving a steep learning curve. But for those who are already familiar with the work of theologians like Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah) it will involve a curious step backward, adjusting to a bizarre mix of nineteenth century dogma lightly salted with serious contemporary scholarship. In fact, of the 160 works listed in the bibliography, 69 predate the year 1960, and a significant number of those are pre-1900.

Compounding the difficulty is the tendency of the authors to occasionally stray from their argument in order to take doctrinal pot shots on unrelated subjects. The 340-plus pages of text cry out for a ruthless editor with a sharp pair of scissors.

Hunting & Buzzard (2003)

Perhaps the most serious objection is that the book suffers from the delusion that all New Testament writers speak with a united voice on matters of Christology (the nature of Christ) rather than reflecting the diversity and volatility of the young church. This is far from the truth.

Among the fascinating "discoveries" by scholars in modern times has been the realization of just how diverse these Christian groups were from one another, just how "right" each one felt it was, just how avidly it promoted its own views over against those of the others. (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p.93.)

Mark's gospel is clearly "adoptionist" (territory Buzzard and Hunting steer well clear of) while John's gospel has a "high Christology" much preferred by Trinitarians. The authors spend much of their time "explaining away" passages in John, and treat deutero-Pauline texts (such as the Pastoral Letters, which come from a later hand) as if they were on an equal footing with Paul's genuine epistles. Yet clearly, the authors are well aware of these issues (you can hardly avoid them if you read the works they refer to and selectively quote). Why have they then elected to read the New Testament as if Matthew and Luke, who track Jesus' "sonship" to his conception rather than his baptism (Mark) or pre-existence "in the beginning" (John), were the sole standard the other New Testament writings must be interpreted against? And is it legitimate scholarship to attempt (unsuccessfully I believe) to shoehorn other New Testament writings into compliance with their preferences?

Doctrine of the Trinity is neither the last word on this subject, nor the best.

Revised July 2004