Review of Thomas F. Torrance and Evangelical Theology

Perhaps no figure from the twentieth-century, English-speaking theological world has created as much ambivalence for evangelicals as Thomas F. Torrance. Acknowledging the theological diversity that exists within evangelicalism, Torrance has been for many evangelical theologians either utterly unfamiliar, puzzling, suspicious, or lifegiving. Myk Habets and R. Lucas Stamps have drawn together fourteen scholars from a variety of theological specializations and contexts to offer an appreciative yet evenhanded and critical appraisal of Torrance’s theology in light of salient features of contemporary evangelical theology; often, though by no means exclusively, as evangelical theology has taken shape in the American context. Their stated aim is “to bring Torrance into closer conversation with evangelical theology on a range of important theological loci” (1). I will offer a brief synopsis of each chapter, followed by a few concluding observations.

“Thomas F. Torrance and the Evangelical Tradition” – Thomas A. Noble situates Torrance, including his theological development, within the historical context that gave birth to and shaped contemporary evangelicalism. Noble explains the ambivalence that many evangelicals exhibit toward Torrance by pointing out, for example, how Torrance identified with Calvin and the Reformed tradition, yet departed from the “scholastic Federal Calvinism” of the seventeenth century often assumed to represent what Calvinism simply is. Torrance’s appeal to the broader patristic sources that shaped Calvin’s thought and his examination of Calvin’s work led him to a style of Reformed theology that neither fits the tight categories of later Calvinism nor reflects what he considered the rationalistic concerns that reshaped—and in his mind, distorted—later Calvinism with an epistemology more reflective of prevailing cultural concerns than with the intrinsic nature of God’s self-revelation.

Noble shows how Torrance embraced orthodox theological foundations of evangelicalism, particularly in his work on the Trinity and Christology, but in ways that may seem unfamiliar to contemporary evangelicals. For example, he drew on the theology of his doctoral mentor, Karl Barth, during the height of evangelical suspicion toward Barth, even though “the fuller development of Torrance’s theology in his major works on the Trinity … make it clear that Torrance cannot be dismissed as merely a Barthian” (35-36). Torrance’s periodic involvement with, criticism of, and departures from movements and leaders who embodied the evangelical ethos of the twentieth century subjected him to varied and often misguided evaluations by evangelical stalwarts. Yet Noble shows how Torrance dug more deeply into the theological wellsprings that are the very lifeblood of evangelicalism, stripping contemporary evangelicalism of some culturally conditioned trappings that have been conflated with those sources, thus showing himself as more genuinely evangelical than many evangelicals who have criticized him.

“Torrance, the Tacit Dimension, and the Church Fathers” – Those even modestly familiar with Torrance’s thought know how he utilized Michael Polanyi’s notion of the tacit. Jonathan Warren P. (Pagán) explores how Torrance appealed to tacit knowledge as the basis for realist participation in Christ “in the ongoing worship of the church in word and sacrament” (39). This appeal amplifies the epistemological significance of the Incarnation as God’s self-revelation through Jesus Christ actually accomplishes the reconciliation to which it also points. As his body, the church knows Christ in its gathered, doxological participation in that vicarious offering of his humanity.

“Torrance and the Doctrine of Scripture” – Andrew T. B. McGowan addresses a topic of primary concern for many evangelicals, Torrance’s doctrine of Scripture. McGowan points out that, though Torrance embraced the core values that undergird typical evangelical understandings of the nature of Scripture as divine revelation, he took a different path in how he understands the nature of Scripture’s relationship to and expression of that revelation. By positing “a separation of the scriptural writings from the reality to which Scripture points” (67), McGowan suggests that Torrance placed this reality behind or above Scripture and was thus able to build doctrinal claims on weak exegetical foundations. McGowan points out that, contra Barth, Torrance did accept Scripture as the Word of God, though not in the same sense as Jesus is the Word. The authority of Scripture, for Torrance, is strictly derivative from the ultimate authority of the living Word. McGowan’s chief concern with Torrance’s doctrine of Scripture is that “it does not pay sufficient attention to what the Scriptures say of themselves” (82).

“Revelation, Rationalism, and an Evangelical Impasse” – Myk Habets explicates Torrance’s epistemological method with a case study comparison between Torrance and Carl F. H. Henry. Henry’s version of rationalism was expressed through a commitment “to establish the foundations of an apologetic theology, an evangelical response to modernity on modernity’s terms” (85), which presupposes the capacity of human reason and efficacy of general revelation for knowledge of God prior to and apart from any submissive, faith-dependent engagement with God through special revelation in Christ through the Spirit. Torrance’s epistemology contrasted through his appeal to critical realism and the ontological distinction between the reality of what we know and the relative approximation of that reality through the limitations of our epistemological apparatus and the subjectivity of our knowing process. Habets analyzes the merits and limitations of Henry’s estimation of human reason (labeling it “semi-Pelagian”) and Torrance’s insistence on the type of epistemological realism found in christologically exclusive knowledge of God.

“Theology and Science in Torrance” – Theologian/scientist W. Ross Hastings unfolds here the underpinnings to much of Torrance’s theological project, particularly his methodology, claiming “that if one has not come to terms with Torrance’s theology as it was affected by science, and the discipline of science as it has been elucidated by Torrance’s theology, one will not have an adequate grasp of either of these magisterial realms of knowledge” (111). Significantly, and “[a]gainst all dualism, Torrance believed that knowledge should be gained in all realms by the same basic methodology” (114). Torrance’s Christology serves as the proving ground for this methodological interface, determining, for example, the way in which divine providence operates, how the study of creation relates to the study of God, and how the economic Trinity can be the exclusive epistemological access to the immanent Trinity without the latter collapsing into the former. Jesus Christ also provides for simultaneous revelation and hiddenness in the knowledge of God. Ultimately, Torrance’s christological methodology aligns with the process of scientific discovery by providing a rationale for the intelligibility of creation.

“A Complexly Relational Account of the Imago Dei in Torrance’s Vision of Humanity” – According to Marc Cortez, Torrance held a primarily relational understanding of the image of God, though with some distinct nuances that reflect his broader theological agenda and also suggest tensions. Torrance linked his orientation toward a relational understanding, in contrast to a substantival understanding of the imago Dei, to the objectivity of divine-human and human-human relations established in the Son’s assumption of human nature in the Incarnation and established by the Spirit. Tension or confusion appears in Torrance’s affirmation of the place of rational faculties in the image. Cortez argues that the tension is potentially resolved in the way Torrance emphasized the subjective aspect of the image, which can only be actualized by the instrumentality of the rational faculties.

“Barth, Torrance, and Evangelicals” – Marty Folsom contends that the longstanding core concern of evangelicals for “personal relationship” is functionally abortive as it either places self at the center of the process or diverts into rationalism, both of which reflect an insidious and self-destructive individualism. Folsom seeks to demonstrate how Torrance, drawing on the relational character of Karl Barth’s trinitarian theology, provided theological footing for lifegiving relationality. In a trinitarian relational theology we find our own personhood derived, defined, and sustained relationally in the God who is relational, who moves toward us relationally in Christ, and who constantly calls for and enables our response through the Spirit.

“Torrance and Atonement” – Christopher Woznicki presents Torrance’s view of the Atonement in an effort to expand and enrich the typically narrow lane of Atonement conversation among evangelicals. Torrance widens the discussion beyond the dominant evangelical attention to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) while also widening the understanding of PSA itself. Key to Torrance’s argument is that “Christ does not simply make atonement; rather, atonement is made in Christ’s person, not just his work” (186). Torrance preferred to draw upon a variety of models (not theories) of atonement in order to acknowledge it as mystery that occurs in the person of Christ (hence, the atoning character of the Incarnation) to effect comprehensive reconciliation of humanity with God without being subject to any external criteria that can be explained with mechanical precision. All that Christ was in his earthly life and that he continues to be in his ascended state participates in what is necessary for our lives to be reconciled to God. A comprehensive atonement requires a comprehensively vicarious Christ. Woznicki shows how this approach to Atonement encompasses and integrates other soteriological themes such as justification and redemption in Torrance’s thought, still preserving mystery about the precise nature of “how it works.”

“Torrance and Christ’s Assumption of Fallen Human Nature” – Jerome Van Kuiken surveys the questions and concerns raised by Torrance’s controversial assertion that Christ assumed a fallen human nature. Van Kuiken shows how Torrance sought to avoid the pitfalls by insisting that fallen human nature was sanctified in Christ by the Spirit upon conception, thus allowing Christ to enter fallen humanity fully in order fully to redeem us (drawing on Gregory of Nazianzus’s famous dictum), yet without personal sin or culpability of his own. This approach also allowed Christ to experience the frailties of human existence that derive from the effects of the Fall, e.g., genuine susceptibility to temptation but without corruptible desires of his own. Van Kuiken concludes with three proposals for clarifying the conversation and avoiding both theological confusion and heterodoxy.

“Torrance, Theosis, and Evangelical Reception” – Myk Habets sets out to reclaim the doctrine of theosis from misrepresentations and misperceptions by showing how Torrance took an “architectonic” approach that shows its compatibility with Western (and evangelical) theological commitments. Habets cites Torrance’s own definition of theosis, “The lifting of [humans] up to partake of the living presence and saving acts of God the Creator and Redeemer” (230). Torrance’s familiar participation motif finds expression here, rescuing theosis from fears about the dissolution of the divine-human ontological distinction, the peril of popular emphases on a “spark of the divine within each of us” (231), or a self-oriented existentialism in spirituality. Torrance clearly anchored the doctrine of theosis in soteriological soil so that it is the re-humanizing fulfillment of human personhood through relational participation in Christ by the Spirit.

“Thinking and Acting in Christ” – Though Torrance did not address the topic of spiritual formation at any length, Geordie W. Ziegler illuminates the way “Torrance’s theology provides the onto-relational and incarnational, Trinitarian grounding needed for the work of spiritual formation” (239). Torrance was wary of any approach to Christian existence and formation that does not begin from a center in God, as God comes to us in Jesus Christ to establish onto-relationship with us. Moreover, Torrance’s christological paradigm indicts popular formation approaches that essentially throw us back on our own resources by the way they promote spiritual disciplines. A robust engagement of the Incarnation, Torrance would argue, will redirect our intentionality toward restful, fully responsive participation in the vicarious mediation of Christ. Ziegler contends that the theological paradigms conventional within largely Reformed evangelicalism, while ostensibly christocentric, actually and subtly ground the formation process in the human self and must undergo a christological overhaul if they are ever to foster formational processes that do not work against the Christlikeness that they envision.

“Seeking Love, Justice and Freedom for All” – Attorney Jenny Richards argues that in Torrance’s theological method, the “realist epistemology, rejection of dualist frames of thinking, and his concept of onto-relations” are “profoundly helpful in addressing issues relevant to domestic and family violence” (265). In perhaps the most creative application of Torrance’s theology in this volume, Richards appeals to emphases in both T. F. and J. B. Torrance to integrate the moral/spiritual and legal aspects of justice related to domestic and family violence by grounding the value of persons and marriage in trinitarian onto-relations so that violence is confronted and not dismissed from both theological and legal angles. This allows for and requires justice without a distorted view of forgiveness that effectively trivializes the offense and further damages the victim. J. B. Torrance’s covenantal framework for marriage further personalizes the implications of violence and liberates forgiveness from being beholden to repentance, thus paving the way for freedom and restoration that are genuine because justice has been accomplished in the truthful address of the wrongdoing.

“Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Work” – The Faith and Work movement of recent decades will find an untapped resource in Peter K. W. McGhee’s chapter, where he argues that the literature supporting the theology of work movement is missing a “comprehensive Trinitarian theology of human work” (282). This is the case, McGhee contends, because much of the literature begins with creation rather than God’s triune grace. A genuinely trinitarian theology of work will challenge the tendencies to find meaning in work by focusing on the work itself or on the calling and other subjectivities of the individual worker. Torrance’s insistence on the objectivity of God relocates the value of work in, and redirects the focus of work on Jesus Christ, who defines the social realities in which work occurs. Thus, Torrance’s familiar emphasis on “participating in Jesus Christ’s continuing ministry” (302) provides the criterion for “good work” as worship and obedience and avoids the sacred-secular dualism inherent in non-trinitarian approaches.

“Torrance and Global Evangelicalism” – Stavan Narendra John shows how Torrance indirectly, though profoundly, shaped the theological culture of India through his students. John describes how three researchers—Robin Boyd, Ajit Prasadam, and Steven Tsoukalas—reflected on Torrance’s theological influence. Boyd shows how Torrance’s theological method was more influential than the actual content of his theology because his theology was context-sensitive. Prasadam examines how Torrance’s epistemological opposition of dualism between science and anthropology anchored human relations in the Trinity and thus undermined the caste system. Tsoukalas brings Torrance into dialogue with Hindu theologian Rāmānuja on the subject of human transformation, utilizing Torrance’s understanding of theosis to highlight the Christian view of transformation as humans becoming who they were intended to be without having to blur the ontological distinction between humans and God.

This volume covers an admirable range of the themes that populate Torrance’s theology and around which the overall content and method of his theology cohere. Among these themes are the rejection of dualism; the epistemological significance of the Incarnation and of Polanyi’s “tacit dimension” in theological method; the soteriological role of the vicarious humanity of Christ, and, of course, the Trinity. Readers who are familiar with Torrance’s thought will find these themes thoughtfully developed and expanded throughout the chapters. Readers newer to Torrance’s thought will find his key motifs brought together in a helpful introductory manner, though not in the manner of an intentional, comprehensive introduction and engagement as found in works such as those by Elmer Colyer and Paul Molnar. All readers will find the chapters to exhibit fresh areas of inquiry for the implications of Torrance’s thought. The book lacks a conclusion, which would have been helpful to summarize and integrate the various lines of thought for an edited volume. Overall, this volume will advance conversations about Torrance’s theology by collecting significant questions and concerns that evangelicals may have and offering insightful analyses that will increase evangelicals’ ability to draw beneficially on Torrance’s thought.