Skip to content

Tag: trinity

7

Published on 7 Comments on A theology of mission 2 – The Missio Dei

blues-brothers-mission-god

When Karl Barth addressed the Brandenburg Missionary Conference in 1932 he introduced a missiological perspective which has determined the shape of mission theology in every part of the Church. 

"Must not even the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity-namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?"

Barth cuts through soteriological or eschatological consideration to bring us right back to the Source of mission.  It is not that 'Salvation is like this therefore mission should be like that.'  It is not that 'The End will be like this, so mission should be like that.'   No, the real argument is that 'God's being is like this, therefore mission should be like that!'  There are missions because of the missio Dei - because God is a sending God.  In Himself, in eternity, God's being is a being of outgoing love.  This is the Fountainhead for mission.

David Bosch has memorably put it like this:

To participate in mission is to participate in the movement of God's love toward people, since God is a fountain of sending love.

This insight has been picked up by all wings of the Church, from the conciliar to the Anabaptist, from the Roman Catholic to the evangelical. 

More important than all this consensus however is the bible's own testimony.

 Consider the Johannine 'great commission': 

As the Father has sent me I am sending you.  (John 20:21; cf 17:18).

We ought to take that little word 'as' with full seriousness.  In the same way that the Father sends the Son, so the Son sends His church.  Let us ask, how has the Father sent the Son?

Lest we be Arians we must acknowledge that the Son's generation from the Father is not a mere product of the Father's will in time.  It is rather an eternal begetting that is of the very essence of the eternal Godhead.  There is not a God and then a sending.  There has only ever been a sending God - the missio Dei.  Both Father and Son are eternally constituted in these relations of Sending and Sent.

The Son's being and act is a being and act found and expressed in the Father's sending.  The Son's own life is a life in mission.  This has always been true in eternity and it was made manifest in incarnation.

Christ's most common self-identification in John is as the One sent from the Father.  And His most common articulation of His mission was always to do the will of His Father - a will expressed in thoroughly evangelistic terms - e.g. John 3:16; 4:23; 6:29; 6:38-40.  Christ is sent as the world's Saviour, the One who seeks worshippers for the Father, who glorifies the Father in His saving death and only then says 'it is finished' (John 19:30).

Therefore, because Christ's being is a missionary being, so His activity is a missionary activity. 

On the cross, the true being and glory of the Son was manifested, and in Him the glory of the triune God  (e.g. John 13:32; 17:5).  Here was demonstrated Christ's obedience to the Father and, at one and the same time, His love for the world.  Christ's being and act are laid bare at Golgotha, and shown to be a missionary being and act.

Therefore, returning to John 20:21, we see the continuity of Christ's mission with ours.  Just as Christ has His being in sent-ness for the world's salvation, so does the church.  We have received a commission that was passed from the Father to the Son in the depths of eternity.  Our missionary activity finds its origin not in any human enthusiasm for witness but in the being of God.  And our sent-ness for the salvation of the world is not only our activity.  It is, like God's own missio, constitutive of our very life.

'The Christian community is not sent into the world haphazardly or at random, but with a very definite task. It does not exist before its task and later acquire it.  Nor does it exist apart from it, so that there can be no question whether or not it might have or execute it.  It exists for the world.  Its task constitutes and fashions it from the very outset.  If it had not been given it, it would not have come into being.  If it were to lose it, it would not continue.  It is not then a kind of imparted dignity.  It exists only as it has it, or rather only as the task has it. Nor is it a kind of burden laid upon it.  It is the inalienable foundation which bears it.  Every moment of its history it is measured by it. It stands or falls with it in all its expressions, in all its action or abstention. It either understands itself in the light of its task or not at all.' (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/3, p796.)

'[The task of the Church] is no less, no more and no other than the ministry of witness required of it and constituting it.' (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/3, p834))

.

7

Published on 7 Comments on Incarnation and trinity

Here's the first of three sketches of posts:

Incarnation and trinity

Incarnation and creation

Incarnation and salvation.

I'll try to be brief.

Have you ever heard the history of trinitarian thought taught like this:

Once upon a time everyone was a strict monotheist.  And then the incarnation happened.  And it messed with our heads for the first 4 centuries of the church.  But eventually, through some philosophical sleights of hand, we managed to slip Jesus into our assumed monotheism.  Phew. 

Ok that's a bit of an exaggeration.  But perhaps you'll recognize that order of explanation - i.e. the incarnation forces us to do trinitarian theology.

Now - as you'll probably know - I firmly believe that Christ is the foundation for all knowledge of God.  Christ, as He introduces us to His Father and Spirit, is indeed the starting point for trinitarian theology.  But - as you'll also probably know - I think Christ is revealed long before the incarnation!   And therefore it is not 'incarnation' that makes us think 'trinity'.  It's 'trinity, revealed in the eternal Son' that then helps us think through 'incarnation.'

And here's the pay off:  Attributing divine honours to the One Sent from God is not a New Testament novelty.  To give one example - Christ appears often in the OT as the Angel of the LORD.  As such He is One in Whom God's Name dwells (Ex 23:20ff), One Who is Himself called LORD (everywhere!) and Who, as God of Abraham, is the Object of prayer and Source of blessing (Gen 48:15,16).  A proper Hebrew doctrine of God is already comfortable with the One Sent from God being distinct from God and yet Himself God. 

Now fast forward to the New Testament and let's confront those questions that the incarnation naturally throws up:

  • Why doesn’t Jesus just say ‘I am God’?  Why all this ‘I am sent…’ stuff?
  • Why does Jesus keep saying things like: ‘I can do nothing by myself’? (e.g John 5:19,30)
  • How come Jesus sleeps?
  • How come Jesus doesn’t know when He’s returning?

Typically such questions make people question His divinity.  'How can He be other than God and yet be God?  How can He be divine when He defines Himself as the ultimate servant?'  Yet if we'd properly understood the OT doctrine of God, such considerations might well make us affirm His divinity!

You see it's a revelation of His divine nature (and not a concealment) that we see in Jesus such dependence on the Father.  When He says ‘I am sent’ it reveals His divine nature as the eternal Son of the Father - THE Angel.  When He says ‘I can do nothing’ it reveals His divine nature as the eternal Servant of the LORD.  When He sleeps it reveals His divine nature as One dependent upon the ever-wakeful Father.  When He says He doesn’t know when He’s returning He reveals His divine nature as One sent from God.  He waits on the Father’s command and does not initiate His first or second coming.

All of this means we can take His humanity with the utmost seriousness.  He really can’t do anything by Himself.  He really does sleep (He really does die even!)  He really doesn’t know when He’s returning.  He says He doesn't, let's just go with the Word on this one.

We don’t need to assign these differences in Jesus to some ‘human nature’ locked off from a special sphere of uncorrupted deity.  Jesus’ deity is not insulated from these differences, it includes them.  It is the Man Jesus who says ‘If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.’  It is the Man Jesus who says ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’  In His differences, in His complete humanity, He is the living God. 

So for all of this He is no less divine.   In fact all this is the very expression of His triune Godness - a Godness that has always included distinction and servitude.  Jesus is God precisely because He is the Spirit Anointed Servant of the LORD - in other words, the Christ, the Son of God.  This divinity is not at odds with His humanity but fully expressed within it.  (For more on this see Nicea comes before Chalcedon.)

In this way the incarnation is not a departure or a nuance but a true expression of God's nature.

And this is where I'd like to end for now - to see Jesus of Nazareth is to see into the deepest depths of the divine life.  Jesus is not like diluted orange squash - His humanity watering down a divinity that would otherwise be too strong for us.  The Man Jesus reveals the eternal life of God at full strength and in its true nature.  Because the life of God is a life of Offer and Receipt, Command and Obedience.  It has ever been outwardly curved.  It has ever been a being towards incarnation.

Christmas is not our best shot at getting an angle on God.  Christmas is looking into the manger and staring the trinitarian God full in the face.

.

7

Published on 7 Comments on Trinity and unity

Have you ever heard someone say:

"Ah yes you're emphasising the trinity.  That's well and good.  But let's not forget the unity of God."

And I say.... huh!?

The trinity is the unity of God!!  Trinity means tri-unity.  In that one word (that one doctrine) we have both the oneness and the threeness of God.  God is three Persons united.  That's what trinity means.  Trinity gives us everything we need to articulate the One and the Three.

But so often people say things like:

"Let's hold the trinity in tension with the one God."

The One God is the trinity.  The oneness of God is fully and without remainder the Three Persons in their mutually constituting relations.  Where else are you going to look to see God's oneness?  When you see the Persons so united in love that they are in One Another - there you see God's unity.  But to see that - what you're doing is studying the trinity.

I always feel cheated when people say they want to talk about unity as well as trinity.  In saying this they claim to honour the 'equal ultimacy of the One and the Three.'  Of course they are not honouring an equal ultimacy at all.  They are basically saying:

"Let's consider the tri-unity and the unity.  The three-in-one and the one."

No fair!  They get a double grab at the oneness bag!   But on the second grab they lay hold of a oneness that is not constituted by mutual relations.  This other oneness has not been defined in relational terms and all sorts of nonsense flows from this other unity of God.

For this point at greater length go here or here.

.

 

Published on Leave a comment on Trinity sermon part 2

I'll get round to responding to comments soon.  Here's the second part of yesterday's trinity sermon

.

Trinity Sermon part 2:  Galatians 4:4-6 (audio here)

...The trinity is the good news that God is love. 

 

image0033

 

On the other hand: - the imaginary, solitary, self-centred god is nothing but bad news. 

 

 image0023

 

The difference between these two ideas of God comes out very clearly when we ask ourselves - how would I go about serving these gods? 

Let's think about the false, self-centred god first.  How would you serve such a god? 

Well if God was just one person and if he desires any kind of service, who's going to have to give it to him?  Well it has to be us.  There's no-one else to do it.

 

image0041

 

So in terms of serving God, it's all about what I can offer God. 

This god might demand obedience and religious service and sacrifice and prayer and elaborate worship. But with this god, the only sacrifice is our sacrifice, the only obedience is our obedience, the only prayers are our prayers.  This is the way of all human religion.  There is some kind of deity who requires some kind of payment because 'they're worth it' - and religion is about us paying it to God.  Horrible!

But the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit has other ways of getting the job done.  Look with me at chapter 4, verse 4:

4 But when the time had fully come, God [the Father] sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

 At just the right time, Christmas time to be precise, the Father sends His Son and v4 says He is born of a woman. The eternal Son of God joins the human race.  He enters into our family tree and becomes our brother, one of us.

And as our strong older brother, Jesus sticks up for us.  He steps into our shoes and He does for us what we could never do.  V4 says He is 'born under law'.  That means that He put Himself under the obligations of God's commandments. So whatever God wants from human beings, the Son of God gives.   Jesus paid to His Father the debt that we owe...

All the worship, obedience, devotion, prayer, love and sacrifice which the Father demands, the Son performs.  God wants human obedience.  But our human obedience is paltry, pathetic, perverted.  So the Son comes born of a woman to do in our place what we should have done. 

And then v5 tells us He does this that we might receive the full rights of sons. Now we don't have any right to be treated as sons.  We don't have any rights to inherit the blessings of God.  But THE Son of God has that right.  And so He works His perfect obedience in our place and then gives us all the rights that belong to Him. 

 

image0051

 

In the diagram you're meant to get the sense that the Son overshadows us.  We are in Him. (It worked better in Powerpoint).

Imagine today a champion runner, entering the London marathon under your name and running in your place.  And they win and suddenly all newspapers tomorrow go with 'Glen Scrivener wins marathon.'  And I receive a gigantic cheque and am hailed as a star athlete.   I'm not a star athlete, brushing my teeth is about as aerobic as I like to get.  But imagine the full rights of the winner are given to me because a champion ran in my place.  That's what this is like.  Someone has run the race of obedience in your place and then given you all the winnings.  

Chapter 3 verse 29 describes it as belonging to Christ - so that His vast inheritance becomes ours.  I like that image, but I like the image of chapter 3 verse 27 even better: I am clothed with Christ.  I am wrapped up in Jesus while He offers the perfect worship, obedience and sacrifice to the Father.  If you belong to Jesus, the Father looks on you and sees Jesus.  He looks on you as His beloved child and says 'here, have my fatherly love, have my verdict of 'holy', have the whole universe.  It belongs to Jesus and you belong to Him. 

Now if that weren't good enough, chapter 4 verse 6 tells us we don't only have the Son of God wrapped up around us, we also have the Spirit of God in us.

6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

The Father sends the Spirit of the Son into any who belong to the Son.  Do you belong to Jesus, do you trust Him, then you have the Eternal Spirit of God living in you.  And the Spirit calls from within us 'Abba, Father'.  Abba is a very intimate term, it means something like 'daddy' or 'father dearest'.  It's something so intimate that only the Son of God could ever get to call the Father Almighty 'daddy'.  But now, if we belong to Jesus, we get to do what Jesus did and call the Most High God - Abba - Daddy. 

The Spirit sweeps us up into the Son's relationship with the Father.  If you're a Christian, the Spirit has swept you up into the Son's relationship with the Father.  Everything that the Son has by rights, you now have through Him.  Everything that the Father feels towards His Son, He feels towards you who are clothed in Him.  If you're a Christian, the Spirit has gathered you into the circle of divine love.  By the Holy Spirit, you know Jesus as your Brother and the Almighty Father as your 'Daddy'.  You now belong to Jesus, and He belongs to the very life of the Trinity.  Our privileges in Jesus couldn't be greater.  As 2 Peter chapter 1 says, we 'participate in the divine nature.'

I started with a mental test, let me give you one more.  Christians here, if I were to ask you 'how is your prayer life going?' How would you respond?  If you belong to Jesus, you can look me in the eye and tell me 'my prayer life is unimprovable'.  How's your prayer life? 'My prayer life is divine.'

I am clothed in the Son of God and His prayer-life is pretty darned good.  What's more, chapter 4 verse 6 tells me that His prayer to the Father is a prayer that is placed in me by the Spirit. The Spirit prays the perfect prayer of the Son in me and through me. I'm not just invited to pray, I am already caught up in the prayer life of God.

All our little prayers are the 'Amen' to Jesus' perfect prayer.  He's prayed the perfect prayer and we say 'Amen, Father.  What He said, Father.  My Brother Jesus couldn't have prayed it better. Amen, Father'  And as we go on in the Christian life, the Spirit of the Son will help our little prayers to become more child-like, so that we call out "Daddy" in reverent love.  That's so important because nothing kills a prayer life better than praying to God like you're a slave and He's a slave-master, like you're a soldier and He's a commanding officer.  Jesus didn't teach us to pray 'Our Sergeant-Major in Heaven' or 'Our Line Manager in Heaven'  - instead: Our Father in Heaven.  We need to be little children in prayer and thankfully the Spirit of the Son makes us exactly that and helps us to pray child-like prayers where we depend on our heavenly Dad.  Our own attempts at praying won't be very good but, wonderfully, the Spirit takes even our most rubbish efforts at prayer and wraps them up in the Son's perfect prayer and lifts them the to the Father.  

I hope you can see that the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is unlike any god ever imagined.  He is the living, loving, working, worshipping God who invites us into His life of other-centred love. 

But, finally, if you don't belong to Jesus, you are shut out of this life.  And you cannot get in.  No amount of your own religious works and moral deeds will earn your acceptance into this divine family.  The only way in is through Jesus, who offers to be your older brother, who offers to clothe you in His righteousness, who offers to give you His inheritance.  Maybe today you need to say Yes to Jesus - to say 'I want in.  I don't want to live my solitary, self-centred life any more, I want in on your life Jesus.'  Maybe for some of us, today is the day we join the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their life of love.

 

Let's pray.

 Heavenly Father, thank You that we can call you Father.  Thank You that Your Son has become our Brother and so You have become our Father.  Thank You for inviting us into Your family.  Thank You for sending Your Spirit into our hearts. If we are Christians here, may each one of us know that we are clothed in Your Son and loved with an everlasting love.  For those who don't yet belong to Jesus, would you draw them, would you woo them, would you claim them as your own.  May we all live in your love, Generous Father, Gracious Son and Powerful Spirit.  Now and always, Amen.

.

 

9

Published on 9 Comments on Trinity sermon

Trinity sermon (text below)

Seems like a few more people have stumbled onto the blog recently (thanks for the links Dave, Dan, Ed, Paul, others).

I thought I'd bring everyone up to speed with where I'm coming from.  This is a sermon I preached a couple of years ago.  It's about the trinity and grace.

I reckon between preaching, trinity and grace that's covered a good chunk of what I rant about here.

(By the way, I stumbled on this trinity sermon by Jurgen Moltmann yesterday.  I tell you - agree with him or not - no-one writes more beautifully on trinity than Moltmann.)

My sermon audio

Trinity Sermon: Galatians 4:4-6

Let me ask you a question and let's see where you mind goes. 'What was God doing before the creation of the world?'  What do you think God was up to when there was no universe to run, no people to care for.  Just God, nothing else. What was that like?

Well the wrong answer to that question is basically to think about one solitary god.

image0021

God was not lonely before creation, He wasn't bored, He wasn't just itching to get on and create since He had only His thoughts for company!

No, what was God doing before creation?

They were enjoying one another. Who's they?

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

image003

Is that who you were thinking about when I asked my question? Or were you thinking about some other god - a god who is not Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

This morning we will learn that God is not, and never has been, lonely or aloof or self-centred or brooding or solitary or bored.  God is and always has been, loving and giving and other-centred and relational and sociable, companionable, friendly.  Because the real God is the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Christians call this relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the trinity (and I'll tell you why in a second).  And this God, the trinity, is the living and true God.

But that other, solitary, self-centred god is not really God at all.

That god is simply an imaginary idea that reflects our own culture and times.  Other people in other times have imagined - perhaps - lots of different gods and warring people have imagined warring gods. Sensual people have imagined sensual gods.  Intellectual people have imagined that God is 'an eternal mind'.  And touchy feely people have imagined God as 'pure energy which we tap into'.  None of this tells you about the real God - instead it tells you a lot about the people who offer their opinion.  It's like the heavens are a gigantic mirror, we look up but all we really see is ourselves.  God has to tell us about God.  And we just have to listen and discard all our own opinions on the matter.

I'm convinced that most of the problems people claim to have with the trinity, are because they want to have the trinity AND the god of philosophy, or the god of our popular imagination.  For most of us it's an attempt to MIX the trinity with the solitary, self-centred god.  And you just can't do it.

So let's allow God's Word - the Bible - to tell us who He really is.  And let's be prepared to let go of your own dearest ideas of god.  And be shaped again by God's Word

Have a look with me at Galatians chapter 4 and verse 6.

6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

Now all three Persons are on show in this verse, that's why it's a good one to study.  Let's see who they are and how they relate to one another.

Look at who they are.  The One at the beginning of the verse called 'God' is also called at the end of the verse 'Father'.  And then there's the Spirit who God sends.  And there's the Son who (kind of ) owns the Spirit.  Three Persons.  Father, Spirit, Son.  And how do they relate?  Well the Father sends the Spirit.  And the Spirit calls out to the Father.  The Father is father of the Son and the Spirit belongs to the Son.  You don't have to get all of this, I just want us to see how inter-twined these Persons are?  The Father is father of the Son and sends the Spirit.  The Son is son of the Father and possesses the Spirit.  The Spirit is sent by the Father and belongs to the Son.

These three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - are involved in inseparable, loving relationships which go back and forth.  Which is why the Bible can say 'God is love.'  It doesn't just say 'God is loving' which would be true.  But God IS love - He is who He is because of these love-relationships between the Father, Son and Spirit.

And that's what that we mean when we talk about the 'Trinity'.  It's simply the unity of these three - it's the three-unity, the tri-unity.  The Trinity.  So what's God like?  God is Three Persons united in love. That's what the trinity means: Three Persons united in love. Simple.

The trinity is not a maths problem: "How can three be one?" It's clear how the Father, Son and Spirit are one - they are bound together in love.  In the Bible that's how real one-ness comes - love.  In the Bible, when people get married they become one.  In the Bible, when a whole group of people get together and agree on a certain direction, they speak as one.  There's even an example of this kind of one-ness in our passage.  In chapter 3, v28 we see lots of different people Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, male and female but they are all one.  What does it mean that they're one? Have they all disolved into the one person, are they all thrown into a giant melting pot and all that's left is the single essence?  No, they are different people who are a community - united in love.  And God is different Persons, the Father, Son and Spirit, united in love.

But let me make something very clear - the trinity is a community far far superior to any other.  I could leave the community of St John's and somehow, you'd still get on without me.  You'd still be St John's and I'd still be me.  Gerri Halliwell can leave the Spice Girls and the Spice Girls, unfortunately, kept on going.  But with the Father, Son and Spirit - none of them are going to leave the band.  The Son is not going to split from these relationships and begin a solo career.  Why not?  Well think about who the Son is.  He is the Son because He has that relationship with the Father.  And the Father is the Father because He's always had His Son.  The members of this band don't have a solo career, they've never had one.  They don't just work as a team, they ARE this team.  There was never a point when the three Persons decided 'Hey, why don't we form a group!'  They have always been bound in loving relationships.  They were never solo artists in the first place and their band will never split up.  Their loving community is not just what they do - it's who they are and who they will be for all eternity.  God IS love.

So, to find the pulse of the universe (if you want to tap into the heart beat of reality) what do you find?  You find fierce, passionate, determined, life-giving love that flows between the Generous Father, His Beloved Son and the Life-Giving Spirit.

The life of these Persons, the relationships which they share IS the source of all true beauty, joy, goodness, holiness and love.  To belong to this God, to participate in this circle of divine friendship is the goal of all existence, it is the meaning of life.

The trinity is not a maths problem.  The trinity is the good news that God is love.

.... to be continued tomorrow...  part two here

.

Published on Leave a comment on A Theology of Glory?

Stephen Murray alerts us to Tony Payne's reservations about Piper.

You can read John Piper's seven theses about God's glory here.

In response Payne wonders...

Is Piper's message so centred on God and his glory (and our enjoyment of God in his self-glorification) that Jesus has become a mechanism by which this takes place, rather than the central focus of the message? Where does the centrality of the Lordship of Christ fit into Piper's proclamation?

I share these reservations.

Here's a couple of paragraphs I've adapted from a post I wrote last year...

If someone says (as Piper does) "The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy displaying and magnifying his glory forever." we ought to ask, 'What does 'God' refer to in this sentence?'

It surely cannot refer to the trinitarian life of Father, Son and Spirit - that communion is the essence of self-giving.  The trinitarian glory is not self-centredness.  And it cannot be referring to the Father for He has committed all things into His Son’s hands (John 3:35).  It mustn’t be speaking of the Son, He only ever glorifies the Father. (John 4:34).  And it can’t be speaking of the Spirit, He simply takes from what is the Father’s and the Son’s and makes it known (John 16:15).  So what does "God" refer to in the sentence “God's chief end is to glorify Himself”?  Clearly this understanding of God is one abstracted from considerations of the trinitarian life.  Yet as my post here argues - the living God cannot for a second be abstracted from considerations of trinitarian self-giving.  The only God there is is the Trinity!  The One God is precisely and without remainder the Father, Son and Spirit united in sacrificial love.

When, for instance, the LORD says in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.” it is only because He has been glorifying His Servant for the last seven verses - “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…” (Isaiah 42:1ff)  The Father glorifies His Son and anoints Him with His Spirit.  Therefore He will not give that glory to another.  This is the very opposite of self-love.  Instead His other-centred glory requires that He be exclusively committed to His Son in holy love.

God is not self-centred.  A proper doctrine of the trinity guarantees it.  And wherever God is portrayed as self-centred you can guarantee that a defective trinity is lurking in the background.  And where trinity is deficient it's because our doctrine of God is not centred on Christ.

My main problem with Piper's theses is that Christ's Person and work are not foundational to the argument.  The theses appear more to be logical deductions derived from a notion of 'glory' at odds with the cruciform glory He reveals.

Now to defend Piper's position the following two points are usually made.

1) "Of course Christ is central to this discussion.  He's not been left out of the argument, He is fully this Glorious God."

Well let me suggest that we mustn't define 'God' first and then fit Christ onto this Procrustean bed.   Perhaps see this post, or this one or... well... everything I've written.

2) It is Christ's work and His work alone that brings us into an enjoyment of this glory.

Well good.  But the cross isn't the bridge to glory.  The cross is the divine glory.  There's quite a difference.

Anyway.  I love John Piper.  LOVE him.  I once spotted him unexpectedly at the back of church and got so star-struck I found the words "I'm your biggest fan" flying out of my mouth!  Can you believe it??  And the silence afterwards was hands down the most forehead-slapping embarassing moment of my life.  But few people have affected me as deeply in my Christian life as John Piper.  I'm a fan ok.  It's just that little old Glen with his two-bit blog sees problems that's all.  But what do I know.

Any thoughts?

.

.

Published on Leave a comment on When was Christ Begotten – and For Why??

Jesus is God's Son. And there was never a time when He was not God's Son.  Equally, there was never a time when the Father was not Father of His eternal Son, Jesus.  Wind back the clock into the depths of eternity and no matter how far back you go you will always find this: The Father possessing His Son in the Spirit, The Father pouring His life into the Son by the Spirit.  The Son receiving His anointing from the Father.  The Son determined in the Spirit by the Father.  The Father and Son have existed in a Begetting-Begotten relationship eternally.  Such relationship is not simply what our God does, it's who He is.  He is this eternal fellowship of the Three.

When was Christ begotten?  The early church rightly answered He is 'Eternally begotten of the Father.  God from God.  Light from Light.  True God from True God.  Begotten not made.  Of one being with the Father.'

Well then Psalm 2 throws up an interesting issue.  Always and everywhere in Scripture Psalm 2 is said to refer to Jesus.  And no matter how you get there, I hope you'll agree that it does.  Well verse 7 is the Son speaking and He says this:

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.

Well now, how do we cope with the Son of God saying such a thing?  What is the 'today' on which the Son is said to be begotten?  Doesn't this just collapse into Arianism?  Perhaps we think the Father should have said 'Today I declare what has always been true of You - You are My Son, eternally I beget You'?  But he doesn't say that.  He says there's a day of begetting.

Well what day is that?

Answer: Easter Sunday.  Paul correctly identifies the 'today' for us.  In Acts 13:32-33 he tells us that David's intention here is to prophesy Christ's resurrection:

We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: `You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'

The resurrection of Jesus is the 'today' in which the Father begets the Son.  The Father and Son exist in a Begetting-Begotten relationship.  And Easter is the Day on which that relationship is (and here I'm reaching for words) manifest?  - too weak.  Concretized?  - closer.  Established?  - too far?

Well if we think that's too far, perhaps we also think Peter went too far in Acts 2:36.  Again speaking of the resurrection he says:

God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus is made Lord and Christ through the resurrection.  He already was Lord (v34) and Christ (v31), yet the resurrection 'made' Him Lord and Christ.

One other Scripture to consider.  In Hebrews 5, the writer sees the resurrection of Psalm 2:7 as Christ's calling to the Priesthood.

No-one takes this honour upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.  So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."  (v4-5)

God calls Jesus to the Priesthood by raising / exalting Him.  And yet at the same time Hebrews had introduced us to the eternal Son in already priestly terms (Heb 1:2,3).  The Son's mediation in creation, revelation and providence is already priestly, and yet He is called to this priesthood on the basis of His death, resurrection and ascension.

This co-ordination of eternal priestliness and His historical calling continues in chapter 5.  Verse 6 reminds us from Psalm 110 that Jesus is a 'priest forever in the order of [beginningless] Melchizedek'.  Yet almost straight away we are told He is 'designated' priest on the basis of His suffering perfection and exaltation. (v10).

So which is it?  Is Jesus eternally begotten or begotten on Easter morning?  Is Jesus eternally Lord and Christ or made so by resurrection?  Is Jesus eternally God's Priest or called Priest on the basis of His suffering perfection and exaltation?  The answer is yes. 

How do we put words to this?  Well Ben Myers has done a pretty good job here as he summarizes the argument of Adam Eitel:

God's being can thus be described as a kind of being-towards-resurrection; the resurrection of Jesus is the goal of God's eternal self-determining action. In this historical (or better, this history-creating) event, God becomes what God eternally is - and this is just because God eternally is what he becomes in this event.

UPDATE: By the way, this is by no means an endorsement of Hegel.  God's being is not constituted by any God-world dialectic.  Rather it's the Father-Son relationship in the Spirit that constitutes God's being. 

.

20

Published on 20 Comments on Who the man?

So what are these parables about?

Matthew 13:44-46: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."

I remember John Piper taking quite a long time (in Desiring God??) to argue that the man is us, the treasure is Christ and so we should joyfully give up all for Him.  In fact I often read or hear Piper returning to these parables and this interpretation of them.  I think it's at least emblematic of three Piper distinctives:

1) treasuring Christ

2) joy as the atmosphere and motivation of our wholehearted service.

3) the gospel is not about Christ making much of us but freeing us to make much of Him

 

Now I have learnt as much from John Piper as I have from any contemporary Christian leader and I thank God for him.  Funnily enough though, it was his own arguments concerning the parables that convinced me of the other interpretation.  That is, the seeking man is Christ (just as Christ is the man throughout Matt 13), the found treasure is the church (eg Ex 19:6) and the world is the field (just as the world is the field throughout Matt 13).  Perhaps what tipped the balance most for me was the thought: if these were two parables about us finding Christ (rather than the other way around) they would be the only parables of their kind.  Elsewhere it is always we who are lost and Christ who seeks and saves. 

If this second interpretation is correct then it's about Christ giving all to buy the world so as to possess His church.  He is the great Seeker and He is the great Treasurer.  He is the great Rejoicer and He is the great Sacrificer of all. 

What happens when we go with the Piper interpretation?  We become the great seekers, we are the ones who treasure, we are the great rejoicers and the ones who sacrifice all.  The weight is thrown back onto our shoulders.  Now to encourage us in this gargantuan work, this sustaining power is held out to us: We are told to prize and value and esteem and treasure and glory in the inestimable value of Christ.  In that joy will we find the strength to give all for the possession of Christ.  But we are assured that this is the way it has to be because the gospel is definitely not about Christ making much of us.  It's about us being freed to make much of Him.  In fact I think it's this conviction (grounded in Piper's views of the self-centred divine glory) that underlies his interpretation of the parables.

What do we say to this? 

Well, first, just read the parables in context.  Shouldn't we assume that the main Actor of the chapter remains the same? 

Second, ask questions about the gospel.  Isn't Christ meant to be the active one?  Aren't we the ones acted upon?  The lost who are found?  And don't we love because He first loved us?

Third, ask questions about the nature of God's glory.  In the radical othercentredness of the triune life, isn't God's eternal glory precisely in making much of the Other?  Isn't it entirely fitting that this immanent love spills over in the economy of grace such that God is indeed glorified in His self-emptying exaltation of His people?  When we understand the trinitarian glory of God, don't we then realize just how glorifying it is for Christ to make much of us?  (And even to do so when people don't respond!)

Fourth, ask questions about the nature of the Christian life.  Sustaining joy is a wonderful thing, but doesn't it flow from receiving Christ's electing, sacrificial love first?  Doesn't it overburden the Christian to put them in the role of the electing, sacrificing seeker?

Just some questions.  Let me state again, I'm a Piper fan.  I've listened to hundreds of talks, read loads of his books.  Once I even described myself as 'a big fan' to his face (bowel shudderingly embarrassing!). 

It wasn't even my intention to write about Piper.  This post was meant to be the introduction to a mini-series on Christ in the parables.  Well, it is that too.  This is part one.  Christ is the man.  He is the merchant. 

There.  Point made.

Up next, the Good Samaritan, then the Two Sons.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Trinity Re-Post 3

Off on holiday now for 9 days.  Some frivolity is about to be posted automatically by the blog.  If you want something more theological to chew on, here's a few older posts on the trinity issues that have been coming up recently.

.

Avoiding a Fourth

No (good) trinitarian theologian wants to have a fourth thing - a divine substance considered apart from the Three Persons.  But it's important to be aware that this error (effectively having a quaternity) has two versions.  There is a vulgar quaternity and a more insidious one.

The vulgar one looks like this:

Oneness and Threeness 1 

Here is the "shamrock" trinity - three bits growing out of an underlying stuff.  In practice this is, roughly, how many unthinkingly view the trinity.  Such a vulgar quaternity is rightly rejected by theologians.  It can be seen immediately that the 'Godness of God' is considered at a completely different level to the three Persons in their roles and relations.  What makes God God is fundamentally impersonal attributes that may be expressed in the Persons but not constituted by their mutual inter-play.  So we can safely reject this version of things.

But I find that many theologians, having rejected the vulgar quaternity, congratulate themselves prematurely.  There is also the insidious quaternity to be dealt with.  There is another way of having a fourth...

Oneness and Threeness 2

Fundamentally this error consists in conceiving of the one God separately to a consideration of the three Persons in communion.  Recently I read a theologian say "God is both one and three - both a person and a community."  This is an example of the insidious quaternity.  One-ness and Three-ness are laid side by side to uphold a belief in the equal ultimacy of one and three.  Yet the one-ness of God is conceived of as a uni-personal one-ness - that is, it is separately considered to the multi-personal three-ness.  One and Three were not mutually interpreting truths but instead the 'one God' is thought of in non-communal (that is, non trinitarian) terms.

This is the approach taken by by so many doctrine of God text books where De Deo Uno (on the One God) is addressed prior to De Deo Trino (on the Trinity).   Yet, unless the two section are integrated at the deepest levels then there is grave danger of a fourth thing - i.e. "God plus Trinity" or "God apart from Trinity."

When this theological method is followed, often (not always but most times) section one unfolds such that the Three Person'd interplay takes no meaningful part in the discussions of the attributes.  Yet, typically, these attributes are asserted to be the virtue by which God is God.  On this view it is still possible to discuss the 'Godness of God' without reference to the perichoretic life of the Three.  Here One-ness and Three-ness are considered to be non-competing perspectives on the same God.  This effectively means that it is possible to speak in non-triune terms about the living God.  'God', then, is not the same thing as 'the Three Persons united in love'.   

This is also a quaternity.  Just a more insidious one.

And the only way I can see to avoid this fourth thing is to side with the Cappodocians: God's being consists without remainder in the Three Person'd perichoresis .

 Oneness Threeness 3b

The one-ness of God is not a simple divine essence but the very unity of the Three.  The being of God is not an underlying substance (contra the vulgar quaternity).  But nor is it a separately conceived essence (contra the insidious quaternity).  Rather God's being is the very communion by which the Three are One.   

Trinity is not a perspective on the one God.  Rather the only God there is is trinity.  And the only way to conceive of Him is in triune terms.  'God' is 'Trinity'.  Unless this strict identity is maintained a fourth enters in.

Thus we must never conceive of the one God in any other terms than trinitarian ones.  (Re-write the text-books!).  God's being is in His communion (to use Zizioulas's phrase).  His One-ness is in His communion.  And (let's not forget) His Three-ness is in His communion - the Three are only who they are in this eternal perichoresis.   To put it another way: God is love.

Therefore let's guard against a 'fourth' whenever it threatens.  Let's reject the vulgar quaternity, but let's also reject the insidious quaternity.  And if people call us 'extreme social trinitarians' or 'tritheists' or whatever, let them.  The dangers on the other side are far greater.

.

Now... Two great questions we asked of this post when it was originally put up.

First, How do we avoid seeing 'love' as a fourth?

My answer:

I guess there's inevitably a third kind of ‘fourth' (if that's not too confusing). But I hope it's a benign fourth. By that I mean, there will always be some virtue by which you conceive of the Three as belonging together. What I'm suggesting is that the one-ness is an already inherent unity *of* the Three rather than a one-ness brought in to unify the Three.

When we study the Persons, this involves us unavoidably in the communion by which the Persons are who they are. (The Son is Son because begotten by the Father etc etc). So on my view, the Three are Three by the exact same virtue that the Three are One - their mutually constituting eternal relations. In this way love is really not outside the Persons any more than the Persons are outside the Persons. They themselves have their ‘hypostasis in ekstasis'. They are who they are in going outside themselves and into the Others. There is not a glue in between the Persons called ‘love' (that would start to look like a fourth) but rather (mysteriously) they are IN one another! And to this mutual indwelling we give the name perichoresis and say that this is the virtue by which they are One. But really we haven't introduced an added element to the Three. This perichoresis is intrinsically part of who the Three are already. One-ness (on this view) is simply a description of how we find the Three (that is, that they are united).

On the other hand, the kind of (cancerous) fourths I'm opposing are ones where the virtue by which the Three are One is gained by looking apart from the Three. On these views it is possible to speak of the One God without speaking of the Persons in their mutual relations. One-ness is not at all the unity of the Three but something else (subsistence in the simple divine essence or whatever). This is most certainly a cancerous fourth.

I guess it boils down to this: I'm proposing a one-ness *of* the Three. I'm opposing a one-ness underneath or apart from the Three. One-ness for me is a description of who the Three are. One-ness for many western trinitarians seeks a unifying concept beyond the Three.

The great virtue of the eastern methodology is that the answers to the three key trinitarian questions are all the same:

By what are the Three divine? The relations in which they stand to one another.
By what are the Three distinct Persons? The relations in which they stand to one another.
By what are the Three One? The relations in which they stand to one another.

The eastern trinitarian never looks away from the Three to discuss either deity, difference or one-ness. All trinitarian theology is then descriptive of how we find these Three in the Gospel. Therefore there is no foreign concept of one-ness to be brought in apart from what we find studying the Three in the Gospel.

Wish I could articulate better "what is this earth thing called love?" (as the Star Trek alien would say), but I think ‘hypostasis in ekstasis' is about as good as it gets in theology! It's not an extra thing added to the being of the Persons but the very essence of their out-going, inter-penetrating, self-emptying existence. And it's this "Person-in-outgoingness" that defines who the Persons are *and* what the Oneness is.

.

The second question was two-fold.  It asked whether we shouldn't just see inseparable operations as that by which the Three are One.  It also questioned the eastern emphasis on incomprehensibility.

My answer:

Inseparable operations *is* communion/perichoresis/mutual-relations as seen in God's economic activity (that is His outward works in creation-redemption). You're right to mention ‘asymmetry' in this as the cause of the ‘outflow' of these relations into creation. So the Father always works through the Son and by the Spirit. The initiation is with the Father, the execution is with the Son, the empowering and perfection of it is with the Spirit. Again, everything God does is from the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit. This is the inseparable operation of the trinity and it is simply the outflow of the mutual life of the Persons.

Thus to say ‘inseparable operations' is *not* to say ‘we encounter only a singularity in creation and redemption'. It is, rather, to say ‘we encounter the Three working in perfect unity.' The doctrine of inseparable operations is often cast as "we only see one, but behind that one there are Three." That is the very opposite of the case. A true doctrine of inseparable operations says "we see Three in the economy, but they are utterly united in these acts."

Therefore I'll have to disagree with your statement:

"from the outside we receive grace from the one God, without the trinity being clear until we can actually be drawn into that divine community when Christ came in the flesh"

So I don't think it's a case of ‘from the outside' seeing only One and then getting drawn into Three. Instead on the outside we see Three and then by the ‘two hands of the Father' (Irenaeus' phrase) we get drawn into the triune life (which is a life of one-ness - not singularity but communion).

You have, though, identified my chief beef with the eastern side:

"They seem to especially concerned about the incomprehensible nature of God, which seems to make it quite difficult to talk about trinity in the way you do."

Yes indeed. This is the problem with the east (which I've hinted at elsewhere). They are not really sold on the whole "The economic trinity reveals the immanent trinity" - which, for me, ought to be a basic tenet of revealed theology. For me, and more usually for the west, what you see in God is what you get. If He's revealed as Father sending Son and Father *and* Son sending Spirit, then that's a revelation of the deepest depths of the triune life. For the east, they have the immanent trinity lying mysteriously behind the economic trinity. What you see aint necessarily what you get.

So it's not a case of east = good guys, west = bad guys. It's a case of being mature enough to take the best of both. From east I take the methodology of Three first. From the west I take the maxim "the economic trinity is the immanent trinity."

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer