Members of the Trinity you do or don't cope with
Lamb Chopped
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I'm going through some interesting* times in my prayer life right now, and wondered--does anybody else have a member of the Trinity they just relate to better? Or the very opposite? And if so, do you know why, and are you willing to share?
* yes, interesting in THAT sense.
For me, I get along best with Jesus, but have my hardest time with God the Father, doubtless because I hardly had a father of my own. He was stolen from me by alcohol. So I hardly know how to relate to him, except warily--which is apparently on the agenda to "fix" in me now!
* yes, interesting in THAT sense.
For me, I get along best with Jesus, but have my hardest time with God the Father, doubtless because I hardly had a father of my own. He was stolen from me by alcohol. So I hardly know how to relate to him, except warily--which is apparently on the agenda to "fix" in me now!
Comments
My Dad was an alcoholic and a serial adulterer and never really had much time for us as kids except when it suited him.
So I can understand people struggling with the idea of God as Father - or God the Father.
I can understand people 'relating' to God the Son more readily - after all, 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.'
And as has often been observed on these boards people who may not 'sign up' as it were for a fully Christian 'faith package' (if we can put it in those terms) often find Christ as portrayed in the Gospels as highly compelling and attractive.
I can also understand people having issues with God the Holy Spirit. Who is this mysterious presence?
I'm going to be careful what I say here but please bear with me.
One of the main features or factors that led me into Orthodoxy was what I took to be a more fully-orbed apprehension of the Trinity. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Western Christianity per se is sub-Trinitarian (although some understandings and applications of the filioque clause can incline that way).
But the charismatic evangelicalism through which I moved was largely Christocentric and although the charismatic dimension was meant to emphasise the Person of the Holy Spirit, in practice it often 'reduced' Him to some kind of impersonal 'faith force.'
'Lex orandi, lex credendi' or however the saying goes. Orthodox worship is thoroughly Trinitarian. The Trinity is invoked throughout our liturgies.
I don't mean this as a 'text-book' or 'Scholastic' or baldly theological answer in the academic sense, but I'm finding that the more services I attend and the more I pray the various offices the more I 'relate' to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity One in Essence and Undivided.
We are not Tri-Theists.
Neither are we Modalists.
We do not fillet the Holy Trinity according to taste or inclination or our own experiences - which isn't to minimise or dismiss those, they are part of who we are.
Where one Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity is active, so are the others.
God the Holy Spirit doesn't clear off on holiday. God the Father doesn't take a day off to go fishing. God the Son doesn't take time out to play on an X-Box.
Sorry, I'm being irreverent but you take my point.
We are all different and there are many ways to pray. For my part, whilst I will pray extemporarily in private, my prayers are shaped and informed by the liturgical prayers of the Church and whilst that allows a degree of leeway, it isn't an imaginative free for all.
There are rules and rubrics for the way services are conducted or icons are painted etc.
Likewise, in my own prayer life I follow set and highly Trinitarian patterns without becoming unduly exercised as to which particular Person of the Trinity is receiving the most 'airtime' as it were.
I've noticed that the Orthodox prayer before a meal addresses Christ for instance - 'Christ God' or 'Christ our God'. Why not the Father or the Holy Spirit?
There are other prayers to God the Father or to the Holy Spirit.
But always there is the repeated Trinitarian formula. For my own part, I find this anchors me and rather being a kind of empty mantra it draws me into the 'life' of the Holy and Undivided Trinity in a mysterious way.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Both now and forever and unto the ages of ages, Amen.
I think this is right. I think we are meant to relate most to the Son of Man. Christianity is all about the incarnate God providing the way to God.
I have no idea if this is useful but it's some reflections of the Holy Spirit as the 'forgotten person' of the Trinity, I wrote a few years ago: https://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2016/02/thinking-spiritually.html
AFZ
P.S. My prayer life is a massive struggle at the moment. Mostly (judging by past experience) because my mental health is not great right now. One day I might write a book on how mental/emotional health impacts on our spirituality. I'd like to but I don't really have any answers. My point is though @Lamb Chopped that I think God is big enough to meet you where you are. He also has a habit of not leaving us where we are but ensuring that we grow. For me, right now, I am just holding on, knowing he's holding on to me much more strongly.
❤️🕯
That is how I've come to view things. Similarly I think it's instructive that those in the apostolic era had a huge experience of the Holy Spirit, we don't end up with any kind of systematic relational theology. I suspect the 'helper' aspect is something we only really notice in retrospect.
I myself didn't much care for it, but the way God the Father, God the Son and God the holy Spirit were portrayed and deliniated has stayed with me. The Holy Spirit (if I remember correctly) was quite a flighty miss and reminded me a lot of my Big Sister. Oh dear! having been brought up without a father (he died when I was 3 months old) I have little notion of a father/son relationship. So for me, the 'go to' relationship is that of friendship. So it's Our Lord Jesus every time for me!
We seem to chat a lot.
We are awkward like that ...
I think both @Arethosemyfeet and @chrisstiles are onto something but would add the caveat, probably unnecessarily, that if we 'get' one of the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity then we get the other two into the bargain whether we like it or are aware of it or not.
We may have an impaired relationship with our earthly fathers - I know I did - and that may colour our view of God the Father. But that doesn't mean that we somehow 'miss' God the Father if we 'prefer' the Son or the Holy Spirit - if we can put it in such subjective terms.
Trinitarian formularies aren't a box-ticking exercise though, of course.
'Bingo! I've got the whole set! Now God's going to answer my prayers!'
I tend to think that most Christians' apprehension or experience of God, if we can put it that way, is Trinitarian whether they can articulate it that way or not.
It does appear, in a cursory reading of Acts that the early Christians seemed to be able to tell which of the Divine Persons was speaking or acting in given circumstances.
There might be other explanations for that, of course. Literary considerations etc.
But God is God. God is One.
We all see as in a glass darkly.
Well, I drew the short straw one year, and had to preach the homily at the Parish Mass on Trinity Sunday
Madam Organist and I had an interesting discussion post-Mass, during which she told me that she had no real problem in the concept of God the Father, and Jesus the Son, but couldn't quite grasp the bit about the Holy Spirit.
OTOH, it's the Father and Son stuff that I have difficulty with, though I can't recall how I skated around this in my admittedly not-very-sound homily.
This was a good 10 years or more ago, since when I have progressed ever further on my Heretickal road to Hell...
I have done some work on this one.
I have preached more than once on Abraham and Isaac. The last time I did it, I held up my 3 year old son and talked about the cost of the sacrifice.
It's a classic theology. Genesis tells a literal story but with a powerful allogorical meaning. There's lots of hints in the text but the point of the story is far greater than Abraham's faith. It's about how much it cost God the Father to send Jesus for us. He was prepared to give up his only son who he loved for us. It is a deeper exploration of John 3:16. You see the most important word in that verse is the shortest: "So." God so loved the world that... In the Gospel accounts of Gethsemene we hear half the conversation as Jesus pleads with his father. This our invitation to the other half.
If you think I'm reading too much into this, have a look at Genesis and you'll see some hints. Then look at Hebrews which absolutely interprets it this way.
That's the crux of the sermon but what about the philosophy and the Trinity?
It is not that God has some kind of strange biology, we are told that Jesus is the eternal begotten son.
But that's a very human-centric approach. If we turn it round and start with God, it makes sense.
In creating human family relationships, God teaches us about himself. He created the father/son, mother/daughter, surrogate parent/surrogate child relationships so that we could learn about how God the Father and God the Son are related.
And yet God gave up his Son for us. Never, never, never underestimate how much it cost the Father to save you and me.
For God so loved the world...
AFZ
Is it because we are hung up on pragmatism and power? Maybe think more about the Spirit himself and less about what the Spirit could do for us?
I'm not sure you can look at the witness of Scripture and find evidence of how we would deal with the Spirit qua Spirit, there's admonitions to listen, but the overall context seems to be the Spirit's mission to witness
The mileage varies as the saying goes here, but I've heard some highly egregious comments both from a Christological and Pneumatalogical perspective in evangelical circles. Not in sermons so much, it has to be said.
I'm not saying that Orthodox 'rank and file' are any better but at least we get Trinitarian stuff in the Liturgy (assuming it's in a language 'understanded of the people' of course, which it often isn't.)
Yes, I keep those verses in mind all the time. Unfortunately, it's a long way from the head to the heart, and I still tend to react to God the Father with wary distance. Which is apparently going to change...
No need to worry about me, it'll turn out fine, it always does. The process is just a bit discombobulating.
I loved Jesus as Aslan before I knew Him as Jesus, in my case.
*Luther's catechism says, "his" but I prefer the feminine pronoun as explained above.
Sorry to see so many people had toxic parents. In no way can I say my parents were perfect, but having a father who was cool under fire gave me a picture of a similar Abba in God. Mother was a strong personality, thus the HS comes across as a strong female.
Jesus said , ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'.
Jesus is called the Son of God. Although in orthodox Christian theology, he is equal to the Father doesn't sonship imply a diminutive status? As in, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14.29) Or "I can of myself do nothing" (John 5.30) If we remove the filioque from the Creed, it implies that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, making the father the "senior partner" in the Trinity. Not that I would understand the difference between begetting and proceeding in this concept.
I suppose I don't really understand who the Holy Spirit is at all. Is it the breath of God who hovers over the waters? (Gen 1.2) The Paraclete which was translated as the Comforter in the KJV. A comforter was a small dagger with which people prodded their horses to make them run faster. So is the Spirit a goad to spiritual progress rather than one who brings comfort?
The early Church, once it recognised Jesus as divine, had to make sense of how to equate this with its monotheistic belief. Over a period of 300-400 years various formulae were proposed, including modalism, and rejected. Finally the present Trinitarian formula was agreed. The 1+1+1=1 formula which is, to say the least, a paradox. This has also led to accusations, especially from Islamists, of Tritheism. The finest minds have wrestled with these concepts. I don't believe that the human mind can ever understand the inner workings of the Godhead well enough to attempt to describe it.
As far as Jesus' sonship, he IS lesser than the Father according to his human nature; that makes him a part of creation. And as a human being, there are hints all over the Gospels that during his earthly life, he relied on the Holy Spirit for power, wisdom, guidance, etc. just as we must do, only more fully and perfectly than we ever manage. So a lot of what I tend to ascribe to his divine nature is probably not that at all, but rather the Holy Spirit--and therefore something theoretically available to someone like me (yikes).
As for the comforter thingy, I've never heard that about the dagger before. The English word "comfort" comes from the words for "with strength", that is, someone who strengthens you--which is not a bad translation for paraclete. Paraclete comes from Greek para-kaleo, one called alongside--so a helper, advocate, attorney, and general source of support. In my experience, he can and does both bring spiritual growth and bring comfort (sometimes); I rely on him for a whole bunch of things I don't feel up to, like doing presentations in public, and teaching my son to drive.
I haven't got the slightest how begetting and proceeding differ. I say that bit of the creed with the most obvious meaning in mind--that is, that Jesus promises to send the Spirit ("send"), and that the Spirit comes from God (the Father). In that very obvious sense he proceeds from both. Get any more metaphysical on me and I'm out, I don't want to say stuff I can't support from Scripture. Like that bit about the Spirit being the love between the Father and the Son, somehow become a Person in himself--it's a lovely idea, but how do you prove it from Scripture?
I think you'll find that this comes from Deuteronomy 6.
It's the standard Jewish monotheistic formula.
Christians embrace that.
Trinitarian belief isn't Tri-theism.
'We believe in one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'
Christians aren't Modalists either.
It's all in the Creeds, people.
If we aren't Trinitarian then Christ is not divine but simply a good moral teacher or exemplar. He is not 'very God of very God, of one substance with the Father.'
He is not the Lord and Giver of Life. He is not the Saviour of the world.
If we aren't Trinitarian then the Holy Spirit is some kind of vague 'faith-force'.
If we aren't Trinitarian we aren't Christians in the traditional and orthodox sense. We are unitarians of some kind. That doesn't mean God doesn't love us or care for us, but it does mean we forfeit the 'right', as it were, to be considered Christian in the orthodox sense.
No, I don’t mean that means we are hell-bound as wicked and evil hereticks nor do I believe that St Peter will greet us at the Pearly Gates with a check-list questionnaire to check how Trinitarian we are.
'Filioque clause? Back of the queue ...'
But I do believe we do well to pay heed to what our own faith teaches and the accumulated wisdom of the various creeds and councils (Big C and small c) and the witness of the Church (however understood) down the centuries.
@Lamb Chopped - the idea that the Holy Spirit 'is' the love between the Father and the Son who somehow 'becomes' a Person is very much associated with St Augustine of Hippo, as far as I understand it.
Like many of his ideas it ain't a particularly helpful one. Your man Luther came from the Augustinian tradition, of course. Whether that influence was good, bad or indifferent is a moot point. I'd say the blessing was a mixed one. No disrespect to Herr Luther intended.
Whatever the I can see what Augustine was trying to say and by no means doubt the sincerity or faith of those who promote forms of this view today.
As with any other analogy or attempt to present these things, it falls short. At worst it can lead to a kind of 'depersonalisation' of the Holy Spirit. He becomes a kind of vague 'love-force'.
If you are looking for scripture to affirm or deny this view, then I'd agree that it's hard to back it up from the texts. Don't misunderstand me, though, as I'm not 'sola scriptura' then the idea of looking at scripture 'alone' to provide the answer is now a fairly alien one.
We ain't going to find proof-texts to settle some of these things one way or another.
@Telford has already misattributed one reference.
We don't interpret scripture as individuals but in community.
The reference to the shema, Deuteronomy 6. Yes, as you rightly say, Jesus does quote it in Mark 12:29-30. https://biblehub.com/mark/12-29.htm
The way you cited it, though, could be taken to imply that Jesus coined the phrase during his earthly ministry rather than citing it as the first and foremost of the Commandments.
Ok, I accept you weren't, but you are still 'proof-texting' out of context.
If you aren't a Trinitarian dude, then how do you explain what Christ goes onto to say in verses 35-37? Sayings included in all of the Synoptic Gospels? See: Matthew 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44. Why are they included there also?
Someone with a more Kerygmaniacal mind than mine may be able to tell us why Christ's citation of the shema is only found in Mark's Gospel and not the other Synoptics.
But the question could also be asked why all three contain the verses about David calling the promised Messiah Lord which is traditionally taken to be an indication of Christ's Divinity?
You can't go filleting verses out to suit yourself.
If you are going to have an 'opinion' on why Christ's citation of the shema doesn't appear in quite the same form in Matthew and Luke as it does in Mark - and I'd be interested to hear your suggestions as to why that might be - then you must equally have an opinion or answer to what Christ meant in his quotation from Psalm 109:1, The Lord said to my Lord ...
You may very well have an alternative explanation to how traditional small o and Big O Orthodox Christianity interprets these verses. Let's hear it.
But don't go sprinkling verses round out of context, saying, 'See, told you so ...' because that's not how these things work.
I am wondering, though, how many sayings attributed to Christ or incidents recorded in the Gospels don't appear in all three Synoptic Gospels.
There must be others. Wiser heads than mine will contain the answer to that.
I'm not so convinced that the absence or an incident or saying from one or another of the Synoptic Gospels 'proves' anything significant one way or another.
'It only appears in one of the Synoptics, therefore we can ignore it ...'
I'd like to hear @Telford's reasoning on this one, particularly when a key text traditionally used to support the idea of Christ's divinity appears in all three Synoptic Gospels just a few verses after the sayings which include the shema in one but not the others.
It is generally agreed that Mark's gospel was first and the others copied from it. On this instance they chose to omit it. I also note that they omit Mark 12.32 which says “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him"
You will need others for that.
Kerygmania?
@Telford still hasn't addressed my question. If Matthew and Luke were embarrassed about Christ's citation of the shema, why was this?
Because it undermines any notion of the Trinity? Or the Deity of Christ - which is what the Trinity necessitates?
If so, and if Mark wanted to exclude any possibility of people getting ideas about Christ's divinity then why does he include the sayings I quoted - the gloss Christ gave to Psalm 109:1?
Unless he and the early Christians interpreted it differently of course.
Any how, we are getting into Kerygmanic territory there.
Meanwhile, in answer to @Lamb Chopped's appeal to get back to the theme of the OP and which Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity we relate to best - or otherwise ... well, it's axiomatic that we first have to be Trinitarian in order to address that.
If we aren't Trinitarian, as @Telford appears not to be, then it's not a question we can really address. Presumably, in Telford's view, there is only God the Father as it were. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not divine and therefore Lamb Chopped's question is meaningless.
If we do hold to a Trinitarian position then we can begin to address the theme of the OP and as has emerged on this thread already, a number of factors come into play.
Our relationship with our own father may colour our views of God the Father as it were.
We may come from a highly Christological tradition - such as much of contemporary evangelicalism - where particular emotional responses are encouraged towards the Person and work of Christ. And I don't necessarily mean the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' style of worship songs.
Or we may come from a highly liturgical and ritualised tradition where Trinitarian formularies regularly punctuate the liturgical texts.
All these factors are going to come into play and more besides - 'or even a very good dinner' as Eliot put it.
Lamb Chopped's question is a good one, but only makes sense if we embrace the full Trinitarian 'package' as it were - and I'm reluctant to use the language of commodification but you know what I mean.
Equally, I'd suggest it only makes real sense if one has a very developed prayer life, as Lamb Chopped very evidently does.
If we turn up to church on a Sunday morning, say a few cursory prayers and give God no further thought for the rest of the week, then we aren't going to become all that exercised about which Person of the Trinity we can or can't 'cope' with.
This is a question for the 'keenies' I think, however that's defined.
It ain't going to be a question that means much to those who aren't Trinitarian (as there are no other Persons to relate to, just one) or to those who aren't quite so reflective about their spiritual lives.
So it could be that the question is more pertinent in the complicated and unclear way that it relates to the state and history of broken immediate natural-world family relationships - with parents, brothers & sisters, and maybe partners and children.
To an extent I have a similar reaction; I only really reflected on it when it was brought up elsewhere, and then came to the conclusions I related up thread and that was the end of the issue. It's not something that overly excises me.
My own experience is that growing up I was surrounded by people who would pray to either the Father or the Son interchangeably, and while I had a period in charismatic circles it was with people who had a fairly sensitive relationship to the Spirit (any tendency to order the Spirit around or treat them as a impersonal force wouldn't have gone down well).
I have for some time used 'Celebrating Common Prayer' as a pivot for personal devotions (it overlaps with the end of my time in charismatic circles), so it's very probable that my approach was further shaped by its language.
Sadly, many do. I also think that some, but not all, evangelicals can sway towards Modalism. It's easily done.
But the key point - or 'take away' as they say these days - I think is the one you make about how our particular religious traditions 'shape' the way we speak and think about these things.
Frankly, I found @Telford's non-Trinitarian approach something of a surprise given that, as I understand it, he's largely attended independent evangelical churches of one form or other which, 'officially' at least, one might expect to be Trinitarian.
He may have repudiated that, of course, as he says, his views are his 'own'. But then, I'm not convinced these things are always put across very well in evangelical settings - or elsewhere for that matter.
Which is why I'm a big fan of liturgy as it anchors us to the historic tradition ... unless it's been mangled beyond recognition.
When I said these things tend to be a matter for the 'keenies' I was perhaps being rather broad-brush.
I'd regard all posters here as 'keenies' in one form or other as they take time to engage in debate or think these things through. Otherwise they wouldn't be here.
I'm not restricting the term to those who are particularly pious or pietistic either.
Be that as it may, it is interest that some Shipmates haven't found the topic raised in the OP to be an issue at all. For others it's been a big deal.
It all depends on our life experiences and influences, I suppose.
As I've got older, I found classic Trinitarian theology increasingly inspires my faith and walk. There are three things I'd like to add to the discussion. I hope that at least one of these might help somebody.
The first that although it's quite interesting speculating on which member of the Trinity does what in the divine and eternal economy, rather more fundamental, it seems to me, is what the Trinity says about the personality of the God who calls us to enter into a relationship with him, what it reveals of the answer to the question "what is God like?"
The second is that one of the many ways in which God is different from us is this. One of the distinctive things about our personhood and our characters is that each of us is different. That is something we take for granted. A key thing about the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that they are alike, similar. Although the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons, they have the same character. Their personalities are the same. If you want to know what the Father is like, look at Jesus. If you want to know what the Holy Spirit is like look at Jesus. Jesus is the easiest way to access the personalities of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Likewise, though, what you might know of what the Father is like also tells you what the Son and the Holy Spirit are like, and what do you know of the Holy Spirit tells you what the Father and the Son are like.
The third is that it is not a useful approach to anything - yet alone Trinitarian theology - to start with the implicit hypothesis that if I cannot understand something, I must be right and the wisdom of the ages must be wrong. So, rather than evaluating historic creeds on the basis of "Can I understand this and if not my opinion is more important than the wisdom of the centuries?" I have found it works better simply to accept the bits that I find beyond me with grateful thankfulness that others have done the work for me, what they have done has value and that I can trust and rely on them.
There are, I admit, aspects of classic theology that I have reservations about. I share @Gamma Gamaliel's reservations about whether Saint Augustine's pneumatology diminishes a sense of the Holy Spirit's full divine personality. However, that is not in one of the classic creeds.
That's enough for now, though. If that's OK, I may come back later.
Possibly, but that wasn't the focus of my post. Rather I was responding to @Lamb Choppeds plea to respond to the OP.
All I'm doing is presenting classic Trinitarian theology as I understand it. I'm sure the 'technicians' could point out areas where I need to tweak or make adjustments.
But yes, I've sensed that thee and me are on similar pages for many years now, Enoch. The same applies to other Shipmates who take a strong interest in Trinitarian theology irrespective of what Church or tradition / Tradition they represent.
From my early involvement in the 'restorationist' scene of the 1980s and the charismatic excesses of the 1990s - the 'Toronto Blessing' and so on - I gradually became convinced that classic, historic Christianity with its Trinitarian theology offered the best antidote to wonky theology and excess.
This conviction eventually led me into Orthodoxy. I'm not saying that this the only place it can be found.
But the more Trinitarian something sounds the happier I am.
Not that it's all about my own subjective responses, of course.
Ok @Telford, so the Holy Spirit is an 'extension of God' without being God. Is that what you are saying?
And that Christ is divine. Which makes him God.
You're beginning to sound bi-nitarian.
A bit like Milton.
How can the Holy Spirit be 'an extension of God' without being God?
Of course there are 'problems' with traditional understandings and presentations of the Trinity. Voltaire said it was the most outrageously ludicrous thing anyone had ever been expected to believe.
But well-meaning attempts, such as yours, to deconstruct it inevitably end up raising more questions than they seek to answer.
I'm going with the small o Big O Orthodox view of One God in Three Persons.
I sometimes hear Orthodox priests prefix a talk or Bible study by saying, 'In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. God is One.'
Yes. God is One.
The Trinity One In Essence and Undivided.
We can proof-text as much as we like - and Arius and his followers did that in spades - but either God the Father is God or he isn't, either God the Son is God or he isn't, either God the Holy Spirit is God or he isn't.
We can't have the Holy Spirit as 'partly God' or Christ as 40% God and 60% man - but 100% God and 100% man at one and the same time.
Paradox, my friend.
You seem to be prepared to accept Mark as a true and accurate record, as it were, on the grounds of it being earlier, with Matthew and Luke being questionable as they cam later.
That probably leaves John's Gospel way out in the cold then as it was written later still.
You cite Christ as the only begotten of the Father - something that comes from John's Gospel. If you are going to be iffy about Matthew and Luke then consistency should demand a similar reaction to John.
To accept your argument would leave us with only one Gospel. Mark's. We could chuck out the rest of the NT altogether.
I'm not convinced you've thought this through.
I've also said elsewhere, but I can't remember whether I've ever mentioned it on the Ship that I think it's quite easy to get the impression from some sermons etc that there are two completely different Jesuses, who have little to do with each other.
One Jesus is what I describe as the man in cheesecloth robe and sandals who goes around doing good, teaching and healing people. He's often described as though he is the Jesus of the gospels. This Jesus is associated with those who say 'I don't get all of that theology; I just want the Sermon on the Mount'. The other Jesus is the one who died for our salvation, the one of cosmic, eternal and salvific significance, but who comes across as theological and somewhat abstract, valued more for what he does for us than for who he is. One could perhaps describe this one as 'the Jesus of the epistles'.
There then came a time when I realised that there is only one Jesus. There is no discrepancy, no dislocation. That one Jesus is both those Jesuses. There is also far more of the cosmic Jesus in the gospels and the cheesecloth robe and sandals Jesus in the epistles than I had realised. You can't have one without the other. That is not a problem. It may be difficult to grasp but it is a wonderful and joyful thing.
For me, there is something of this in St Paul's description of Jesus at 1 Col 15 ff, as being "the image (Gk eikon) of the invisible God". That image includes both Jesuses, because there is only one Jesus.
Perhaps I'm a bit odd, but I find that really exciting.
I'm fact, I'm sure it does.
I've been to a study group after Vespers this evening. My hear was strangely warmed.
The Trinity isn't abstract theology to me. It's how I 'apprehend' God.
I can't 'convey' that very well on a discussion board. Why not? Because it's a discussion board.
I'm not trying to disembowel anyone theologically either.
If I'm picking @Telford or anyone else up over issues of Trinitarian theology it isn't because I want to score points or put him 'straight', but because I genuinely believe that if we aren't fully Trinitarian then we 'lose out' in all sorts of ways - yes experientially too.
That doesn't mean I believe that people are somehow deficient or beyond the pale if they don't embrace a fully-orbed understanding of the Trinity. None of us grasp these things in their entirety.
Besides, people 'experience' things in different ways. You and I could attend the same event, say, and come away with very different responses and reactions. Which of us will have had the 'right' experience?
How do we know? How can we tell?
The RC apologist Ronald Knox said that he'd never had a religious experience in his life. Ok, he sounds a bit 'dry', a bit of an Eeyore, a bit like Spock.
Yet are we to judge the 'quality' of his spiritual life on the apprehension or otherwise of 'experiences'.
Heck, I'm Orthodox. We don't do abstract theoretical theology. If I bang on about the Trinity here it's because I'm passionate about it and want other people to share that.
'We have seen the true light. We have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity: for He hath saved us.'
We kiss icons. We light candles make prostrations, give alms, eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ.
If that's not 'experiential' I don't know what is.
I'm not discussing the Trinity here as an abstract and academic exercise. Heck! It's our faith we are talking about. Things don't get bigger or more important than that.
Trinity. Trinity. Trinity.
I don't know what I can do to stress that more than I have done. Strip down to my underpants and dance around my phone screen wearing an ephod?
My faith is Trinitarian. I falter and stumble every day but I am passionate about it. Cut me open. You'll see a Trinitarian formulary running through me like a stick of rock.
Look, here's a stake. Strap me to it and set me on fire.
Is that sufficiently 'experiential'?