Doctrine of God – Page 8 – Christ the Truth

We did it all for the glory of love – part 5

GlenMay 8, 2010Leave a comment

The series so far:

Part one - God does all things for the sake of love

Part two - Glory according to John Piper

Ephesians 1 is sometimes wheeled out to support the notion that God does all things for the sake of a self-reflexively, self-interested glory (stole the phrase from Michael Jensen). Well let's have a look. (Father, Son, Spirit, us.)

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love 5 He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that He lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And He made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. 11 In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him Who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of His glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 Who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of His glory... 22 And God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be Head over everything for the church, 23 which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills everything in every way.

An eternal torrent of Spiritual blessings flow from Father to Son - by the Spirit comes election, predestination, adoption, redemption and grace. And as they are lavished on the Head, so they flow to His body, the church.

The Father's generosity towards the Son is described as the lavish riches of His grace (see here for more on 'riches' in Ephesians). The riches/wealth/substance/weightiness/glory of the Father is an overflowing profligacy, an out-going being towards the Son. But, more than this, the overflow towards the Son has the church in view. Even before the foundation of the world, the church is foreknown as internal to the love that God is. The other-centredness of the trinity is not a holy huddle exclusive of us. The triune God refuses to be God without us.

As we reach the end of the chapter we almost dare not believe what we read. Is Christ really appointed as Head over everything for the church? Is the church really the fulness of Christ? There are many purpose clauses in this chapter - do we dare to take seriously these ones? Of course Paul is not suggesting that we fill an otherwise empty Christ. He fills all things. Yet we must take these verses seriously. In His divine initiative there is a determination for the Head to be fulfilled in His body.

Therefore whatever glory we ascribe to this God, it cannot be the glory of self-exaltation. In fact verse 6 tells us in no uncertain terms what His glory consists in. It is the "glory of His grace which He has freely given us in the Beloved." What we will praise into all eternity is the grace of a Father who from eternity past has determined to do all for the glory of love. The repetition of the phrase "to the praise of His glory" (v12 and 21) can only be understood in the context as a short-hand for this lavish, other-centred benevolence.

Now certainly this means that we are to praise God. And certainly it means that this praise is intended by God. But this is not at all the same thing as positing a self-centred God.

The steps of the argument that precede the statement "God does all things to the praise of His glory" are absolutely crucial. If the first few steps are things like: God's the best so by definition He must exult in the best or he'd be an idolater - then the praise of this glory would be to join in His self-exaltation. But if the steps in the argument are something like: God's triune love and election of the church in Christ reveal the glory of other-centred love - then the praise of His glory is joining in His other-centredness. Very different.

Put it another way - the argument is not, God loves God therefore you should love God. The argument is God loves you, you should love God.

Or again, it just isn't the case that we make much of God because God makes much of Himself. We make much of God because He makes much of others (His Son and us in His Son) and that is His glory. Hallelujah.

Is it cos we’re Arians? 29

glenscrivMay 4, 201029 Comments

Yesterday I heard yet another talk on 2 Corinthians 5 in which it was simply assumed that 'the judgement seat of Christ' (v10) is a believer-only judgement. Now certainly the "we" includes believers - but why is it so rarely taught from this verse that the whole world is brought before Christ's throne? Surely that's the context in which we evangelize the world (v11ff).

Instead I've heard many a time that Christ's judgement seat is the living room of His discipline rather than the court room of God's wrath. It seems to be assumed that Christ's judgement seat is a rap over the knuckles for Christians. (And this is our motivation for evangelism, rather than the world-wide fiery judgement of the living and the dead). By implication do we think "God's judgement seat" would be the really scary one? If Paul said "God's" instead of "Christ's" would we so readily take this as some form of 'judgement-lite'? In short: is it cos we're Arians?

Is it cos we're Arians?

GlenMay 4, 2010Leave a comment

We did it all for the glory of love – part 4 9

GlenApril 27, 20109 Comments

We've thought a little bit about how glory language is introduced in Exodus. Of course John's Gospel makes for a fascinating study in 'glory'. But it would be too easy to camp out in John and refuse to engage the other 'glory' Scriptures. So let's think about three other key texts in the glory debates: Isaiah 42; Ezekiel 36 and (in the next post) Ephesians 1. If you've got others on your mind, raise them in comments:

Isaiah 42:1-8

"Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise His voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, and a smouldering wick He will not snuff out. In faithfulness He will bring forth justice; 4 He will not falter or be discouraged till He establishes justice on earth. In His law the islands will put their hope." 5 This is what God the LORD says--He who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, Who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness; I will take hold of Your hand. I will keep You and will make You to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.

Usually it's only verse 8 that's quoted in the glory discussions. But the context is crucial. Here is the Beloved, Spirit-filled Servant of the LORD. And He Himself is a covenant for the people. The love of Father for Son spills over to the whole world and this is all a part of the integrity of the Creator. The Maker of the ends of the earth will bring reconciliation through His Servant. Therefore - verse 8 - He will not accomplish His creation-reconciliation project through anyone other than His Beloved, Anointed Son. And this very commitment is the commitment to be the over-flowing, self-giving God of redemption.

So, no self-centred glory here.

What about, Ezekiel 36:16-32

16 The word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. 18 So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. 19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. 20 But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.' 21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. 22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.... 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

You will notice here that the issue is the 'name of the LORD's holiness' which is not exactly the same as 'glory' - but they're pretty connected I think everyone will agree.

The "name" of the LORD has always been the gracious, saving character of the Gospel God (Exodus 34:6-7; see also Num 6:23-27). It's the name that is in His Divine Angel and, again, is expressed through His deliverance of the people (Exodus 23:20-23). This name dwells in the temple (Ex 20:24; Deut 12:5) and just as the priests are to put the name on the people (Num 6:23-27), the people are meant to reflect the name out to the nations.

In Ezekiel, the LORD's Glory (Christ) has departed from the physical temple (ch8-10) because the Israelites have profaned it (5:11). Yet He Himself has been a sanctuary for the people (11:16) - in exile with His people! And He promises that He will return as the LORD's Servant - the True King David - to make His sanctuary with His people forever (Ezek 37:21-28).

But here in chapter 36, the Israelites have not 'sanctified' but rather 'profaned' the name of the LORD's holiness. God's people - as the priests He has made them to be - ought to be reflecting out to the world that same out-going goodness of God which they themselves have received. Instead they do the very opposite. And the thing that really profanes the name is that the saved people of God have become the wicked and exiled people of God (v20). The LORD has tied His name so closely to His people that when they are profaned - He is profaned. He has chosen to be so at one with His people that His destiny and reputation is bound up in their destiny and reputation.

And so He makes them know that this salvation He is about to work is His gracious initiative and not something they've provoked either by their goodness or their badness. It's certainly not that the Israelites have cleaned up their act enough for God to save. And it's not even that they are now so pitiable that God goes soft on them. What moves Him to act is His fierce determination to be this kind of saving and forgiving God. His gospel name will be vindicated because that is simply who He is.

And in fact verse 23 says the LORD will vindicate His holiness by saving a wretched people! What kind of holiness is this that is expressed when renowned offenders are treated with extravagant grace? This holiness is not the holiness of 'splendid isolation' but of gospel grace.

So again, these verses are not proof that God is, after all, self-centered. The very opposite. All that He does is motivated by a gospel character that will not be thwarted even by the worst opposition of His own people. His name, His glory and His holiness are not considerations that would keep Him from engaging His wrath-deserving people. They move Him out into costly, shame-bearing, sacrificial redemption. Because His grace is His glory.

UPDATE: Dave Bish has some great thoughts on Ezekiel 36 just posted.

We did it all for the glory of love – part 3 63

GlenApril 23, 201063 Comments

Just a post to put two and two together.

A) God does everything in creation and redemption for love - that was my first post.

B) Love in the bible is sacrificial, self-giving, other-centred service. (Think 1 Cor 13)

C) The bible also speaks at times of God being motivated by the display of His glory - this is what Piper highlights so often.

Do we agree to these ABCs?

If these things are true, it seems there can only be three possible conclusions. And two of them are very unlikely:

1) The glory motive is more foundational than the love motive.

2) The love motive is more foundational than the glory motive.

3) God's glory is His self-giving love.

Now I am not interested in entering a debate between 1) and 2). On this issue, much of what I hear is people falling off either side of the wrong horse.

1) says "Easy-believism takes you to hell. The prosperity gospel takes you to hell. Christ is not your ticket to other stuff - He is the Gospel." And to all that we say, "Amen!" But then this side continues, "So it's not about God making much of you. It's about God freeing you at the infinite cost of His Son to make much of Him."

Well now, hang on. Why the opposition between God's making much of us and our making much of Him? Is that really a helpful distinction? And doesn't it crumble under its own weight the minute you say "at the infinite cost of His Son"? ie Aren't you admitting that the way you are freed is precisely in God making infinitely much of you?

2) says in opposition: "Dude - read your bible. God is love. God loves the world. Christ is for us. Faith means not offering anything but simply receiving God's love for us in Christ." And to all that we must say, "Amen!" But then this side continues, "So I am the point. I am the good news (as Rob Bell has put it). I'm worth it. Let's focus on me now, after all God does."

And of course this is horrible and must be rejected.

Now in my Christian experience I don't think I've seen very much 2) at all. I'm surrounded by 1) not 2). John Piper on the other hand feels the problem of 2) very keenly.

From Piper's most recent sermon entitled "How much does God love this church?" he confesses that:

I am more concerned about nominal hell-bound Christians who feel loved by God, than I am about genuine heaven-bound Christians who don’t feel loved by God.

I understand and sympathise with this concern. And I love the passion of Piper here - you can't listen to this sermon without loving the guy more.

BUT... is it really the case (as he contends in the sermon) that he has to balance his preaching emphases between these two poles - ie God making much of us and us making much of God? Haven't things gone astray when those are seen as opposing points of a swinging pendulum?

Why don't we say 3)? God's glory is His self-giving love. And so we preach, "Christ is 100% for you. He took your humanity and lived your life and He died for you rather than live without you. He valued you higher than His own life. Isn't that glory? Isn't He the Lover who's captured your gaze? Aren't you now freed from self-centredness by appreciating His self-abandonment?"

I really do believe we can have our cake and eat it here. But maybe that's the arrogance and innocence of youth. But for my money, the gospel to the saved and the unsaved is the same. The glorious gospel of the Happy God who loved us more than His own life - this is the power to save the self-absorbed and to comfort the dry believer.

Anyway, listen to Piper's latest sermon (or read but listening is far better - he's an incredible preacher). See if you don't spot that same false distinction. For my money Piper's opening question simply isn't the frame in which to have the discussion.

“Do you feel more loved by God because God makes much of you, or because God, at great cost to his Son, frees you to enjoy making much of him forever?”

It's just not the battle between 1) and 2). Instead God's grace is His glory. When we preach the true grace of God, this is the power (in fact the only power) to save the nominal Christian. This is the power (the only power) to liberate the self-centred Christ-user. We only ever love because He first loved us.

We did it all for the glory of love – part 2

GlenApril 22, 2010Leave a comment

Last time we saw that the triune God does everything for the glory of love.

This is different from the love of glory. 180 degrees different.

And so - you saw it coming a mile off - I want to argue that John Piper's popular teaching on this issue is both wrong and damaging. (I've written previously on this here, here, here, here and here - and a few other places too!)

As I see it, Piper would have God to sing, "I did it all for the glory of me."

So, for instance, he begins his first appendix to Desiring God with the statement:

In chapter one I said God's ultimate goal in all that he does is to preserve and display his glory. I inferred from this that he is uppermost in his own affections. He prizes and delights in his own glory above all things. This appendix presents the biblical evidence for this statement.

First notice the complete lack of a trinitarian dynamic to any of his formulations. I realize that he's also become aware of a deficiency here, but I still don't think he's carried out the revolution of 'glory' that's demanded by a thorough-going trinitarian re-formulation.

Second notice that this glory is the solitary, sedentary glory of the philosophical theist, not the other-centred, self-giving glory of the gospel God.

And so, before he launches into a bible over-view of glory, Piper makes an absolutely crucial move. He seeks to define the "glory" that God is so zealous to pursue:

The term "glory of God" in the Bible generally refers to the visible splendor or moral beauty of God's manifold perfections. It is an attempt to put into words what cannot be contained in words-what God is like in his unveiled magnificence and excellence.

What do we make of this definition of 'glory'? Again there is no hint of trinitarian love here. There's no hint of cruciform sacrifice (cf glory in John). No hint of redemption or saving activity. In fact, no hint of activity at all. Here is a solitary and sedentary glory.

But think of how the bible introduces 'glory' in the book of Exodus. First, the Warrior LORD is 'glorified' through the defeat of Pharaoh and salvation of Israel (Ex 14:4,17,18). In that redemptive act God is glorified - even glorified in/by Pharaoh. This means that glory is not something behind the salvation of the LORD - a static divine splendour to be later enjoyed by the redeemed. No His glory is in that very judging/redeeming. It's a display of who He is, not something He gets once redemption is over. On the other side of the Red Sea, the 'glory' the Israelites sing about is completely bound up in that deliverance, His wonder-working redemption (Exodus 15:10-13). Then in Exodus 16:7 we meet a Person called "the Glory of the LORD". And He appears to the Israelites again and again under this title. When Moses asks the Unseen LORD to show him His Glory (Exodus 33:18), He declares His grace-filled name (Ex 34:6f; 23:20). Only after this do we read about the Glory filling the tabernacle (Ex 40:34ff). And even here it's not simply a shiny brilliance, but a Person we have come to know and He's accompanied by the Shekinah cloud which pledges the LORD's guiding and redeeming love.

Now let's consider Piper's far more philosophical language of perfections etc. It makes me want to ask, Perfection? God is perfect in what? In magnificence? What kind of magnificence? What is this Godness of God that 'glory' describes? The fact that Piper sets up a definition of 'glory' apart from trinitarian considerations or an examination of gospel events prejudices the whole scheme from the outset.

In this appendix (and virtually every time he makes these arguments) he will list an armful of Scriptures about God's pursuit of His glory. (This is why I did my own biblical survey of God's motives). But Piper only allows those verses to tell us that God pursues glory. He doesn't allow those verses to tell us what the glory is. He's let the philosophers do that job.

You see, if 'glory' is the 'excellence' of a solitary, sedentry deity then pursuit of this glory will look a certain way. But what if 'glory' was an active, redemptive, Personal, trinitarian, self-giving love? What would God's pursuit of this glory look like? It would look like the very opposite of a self-exalting glory.

Next I will look in more detail at what it means for God to act for the sake of this kind of glory.

We did it all for the glory of love – part 1 13

GlenApril 21, 201013 Comments

Yes I want that song infecting your brain.

We'll live forever, knowing together that we did it all for the glory of love

Now there's a line fit for the triune God! As I'll try to show below, it's a pretty good summary of God's motives in creation and redemption. God's life and work is an other-centred, outward-focussed, spreading goodness. The Father, Son and Spirit do all things for the glory of love. This is starkly different from 'the love of glory' - especially where 'glory' is defined apart from love!

So in this post I want to show that "the glory of love" is God's motivation in all things. Later I'll show why "the love of glory" is not God's motivation according to the bible - at least not how it's popularly framed. Our God does not sing: "I did it all for the glory of me!"

But first, here's just a little survey of love as the centre of God's life and action in Scripture (notice number four!):

God's being is love

1 John 4:8,16

The Father loves the Son

Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 12:6; John 3:35; 15:9; 17:24; Ephesians 1:6; Colossians 1:13

The Father hands everything to the Son because of love

Psalm 2:7f; Isaiah 42:1; John 3:35; 5:20

The Father glorifies the Son because He loves Him

John 17:24

The Father predestines and elects us in Christ because of love

Ephesians 1:4f; Isaiah 55:3

The Father creates out of love

Colossians 1:16

He chooses the patriarchs out of love

Deuteronomy 10:15

He makes and keeps covenant with His people because of love

Ezekiel 16:8; Isaiah 54:10

He redeems Israel out of love

Deuteronomy 7:8; Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 31:3; Hosea 11:1

He leads Israel because He loves her

Exodus 15:13

He plants them in the land because He loves them

Psalm 44:3

He relents from judging time and again because of love

Numbers 14:19; Ps 51:1; 106:45; Hosea 11:1-9; Jonah 4:2

He will provide future redemption from all sins because of love

Psalm 130:7f

He saves because He loves

John 3:16; Titus 3:4f

The Son is given to us because of love

John 3:16; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2,25; 1 John 4:8-10

We're adopted because of love

Ephesians 1:5f; 1 John 3:1

We're regenerated because of love

Ephesians 2:4f

We're forgiven because of love

Revelation 1:5

What is death anyway?

GlenApril 5, 2010Leave a comment

R.C. Sproul has recently written against the notion that "God died on the cross". Big topic. Not gonna jump in with both feet here. But allow me to dip a toe...

Just listen to this key paragraph in his argument:

If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.

Now ask yourself - what definition of death is being used by Sproul? The bible's? Or Bertrand Russell's?

In the bible, death is a realm over to which the Father has handed humanity in its rebellion. It's a realm the Son enters so as to be firstborn from among it.

Where on earth do we get the idea that death = non-existence?

Who knows where Great Aunty Beatrice is, but she's not nowhere. Sproul knows that the dead do not cease to be. But, like so many other theologians who discuss this issue, they use the theist's definition of God and the atheist's defintion of death.

Perfect in mercy

GlenFebruary 23, 2010Leave a comment

You will be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48)

Now the first mistake people make with this verse is to forget that it's an indicative. Jesus could have used the imperative here (You must be perfect), but He chose to use the future indicative - You will be perfect.

The other mistake is a broader one about God's 'perfection'. Typically people think about divine perfection as that which excludes. You know the sort of thing - "God is perfect, you are not. You've got a snowflakes chance in hell with a perfect God, etc, etc."

And don't we just hate the idea of a 'perfect' person? Because what we have in mind is someone who can't stand faults. Perfection, to our way of thinking, is actually pretty unattractive. And instinctively we feel like perfection is the enemy of that which is broken, faulty, sinful. It just seems like perfection excludes.

But the context in Matthew and the parallel in Luke show a very different picture of perfection.

The Father's perfection, as Jesus explains it, is (Matthew 5:44) a love for enemies, (v45) sun and rain for the ungodly, (v46) love for the unlovely, (v47) welcome for the stranger.

And the parallel in Luke says:

Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful (Luke 6:36)

Divine perfection is not exclusive - it's inclusive. It is the Father's perfection to have mercy on rotten sinners. The perfection of God is not what keeps you out of His presence, the perfection of God is His heart's desire to constantly draw you in.

And when we get that through our thick skulls, then we'll start being like our merciful God.

What kind of oneness? Part two 15

GlenJanuary 18, 2010February 14, 202215 Comments

Last time we saw that a married couple are supposed to be one. But not every kind of oneness is healthy. So what kind of oneness should we pursue?

Our way forward is to examine the oneness of the triune God. In part one we thought about the missio Dei. The Father, Son and Spirit share a oneness that includes and is upheld by an outgoing spreading goodness. Their oneness is in mission. Our marriages should be the same. We have a unity that is going somewhere. We don't 'live in a world of our own' but our oneness is for the sake of mission and mission for the sake of a proper unity.

In this post we'll think a bit more about the unity of the trinity. In particular we'll think about how an orthodox account of the trinity avoids certain heresies that can be mapped onto recognizable marital problems.

How to avoid Trinitarian heresies

Any orthodox account of the trinity needs to be able to answer three questions. How are the three Persons united? How are they distinct? And how are they equal?

If you can only answer one of these questions well you're at the corner of the triangle and you don't really have any kind of trinity.

If you can answer all three questions well you are inside the triangle - hopefully in the centre. You are orthodox.

If you can only answer two of them then you're at A, B or C - along one of the sides of the triangle. You have two aspects of a good trinitarian theology but not three. In other words, you're a heretic.

At position A you have subordinationism (also known as Arianism). Here the Persons are united and distinct but not equal. So Jesus is the first creature. God still mediates all his business with creation through him. But actually Jesus is on the creature side of the Creator-creature line. He is decidedly inferior to God.

At position B you have tritheism. Here the Persons are distinct and equal but not united. You have effectively three gods. They might defer to each other and work really well as a team. But there's no substantial unity.

At position C you have modalism (also known as Sabellianism). Here the Persons are united and equal but not distinct. Effectively you have only one Person who wears different masks at different times. The oneness is an all-consuming oneness that swallows up any ideas of difference/otherness/mutuality etc.

Where you want to be is in the centre of the triangle. There you can respond to all the questions with the same answer:

How are the Persons united? Asymmetrical mutual indwelling (i.e. love!)

How are the Persons distinct? Asymmetrical mutual indwelling (i.e. love!)

How are the Persons equal? Asymmetrical mutual indwelling (i.e. love!)

But if you get this wrong you drift away from the centre and towards one of the heresies.

I would suggest that if you attempt to answer those three questions in three quite different ways you'll run into trouble. But that's a different post.

How to avoid Marital heresies

Now there are two relationships especially in which we share in this kind of loving, mutual indwelling. The relationship of Christ and the church. And the relationship of husband and wife.

In this post we'll limit ourselves to the marriage side of things (though obviously this is derivative of the Christ-church relationship).

So let's think about what it means in marriage to have a healthy sense of unity, distinction and equality.

It's worth asking the questions of your own marriage:

On Unity:

Is there an intimacy between you deeper than what you experience in any other human relationship?

Do you have a oneness that is going somewhere (hopefully the same place!)?

To put it another way, Do you have a sense of 'face-to-face' unity and 'side-by-side' unity?

On Equality:

Do you look at your spouse as your equal? Do you honour them, upholding and valuing them in love? Or is there a sense of superiority - contempt even - residing in your heart?

Do you both play an equal part in where you're going as a couple? (Even though according to different roles)

On Distinction:

Does your relationship foster or smother distinctive strengths in each other?

Does your marriage foster or smother distinctive roles of head and body?

We have to die to our selfish, individualist selves when we marry. But as you serve one another in love, is your relationship drawing out the real you?

If you're doing well in only one of these categories, it's unlikely you actually have a marriage! If you're doing well in all three then hopefully the distinction, equality and unity are mutually informing each other in a healthy way. If you've got two but not three of these areas covered (which is where all marriages tend to be to one degree or another) then you've got problems.

What do Marital heresies look like?

These are the kinds of 'heretical' marriages we tend towards:

At position A we have the Arian marriage: unity and distinction but not equality. This might take the form of a Noble Rescuer married to a Poor Unfortunate. Or an Abuser and a Victim. Or your garden variety Superior Patroniser and their Silent Admirer. Here we have the mystery of how such unity is maintained amidst all this inequality. But codependency is a fascinating study!

There are all sorts of no-go areas within and outside the marriage since the power structure must be maintained.

The danger of an affair here is either the arrogance of the more powerful partner who feels entitled to it, or the amazement of the weaker partner to find someone "who actually respects me!"

In traditional churches, Arian marriages may go unnoticed as a problem.

At position B we have the tritheist marriage: equal and distinct but not united. The couple run on parallel tracks, more like a working co-operative than a marriage. There is no 'face to face' closeness and this might well stem from a deep fear of personal intimacy.

In all this shallow engagement, the danger of an affair is the distinct possibility that either one will find someone "who actually touches my soul!"

In busy churches, tritheist marriages may go unnoticed as a problem.

At position C we have the modalist marriage: united and equal but not distinct. Here the couple get lost in each other. Not in the Christ-like way of losing your life in order to gain it. This is more like strategic people-pleasing, but they may not be aware they do it. They won't really know who they are but tend to think and act in the collective.

They have learnt well the no-go areas within the marriage and are very threatened by no-go areas outside it.

In these marriages there may be an abiding fear of an affair that is completely unjustified. But the danger of the affair comes when one of them finds someone "who actually appreciates my gifts!"

In nice churches, modalist marriages may go unnoticed as a problem.

Now these are sweeping generalizations and there are massive margins for error. I'd be glad to hear any feedback you might have. But, as with trinitarian theology, it's always good to be aware of which particular heresy you're most in danger of falling into.

It also means, when faced with a Superior Patroniser, you don't have to call them a smug git. You can call them an Arian!