A conversation I had about my last sermon.

The following conversation is between me "Tjenafitta" and another pastor in NJ. It started as a comment to my last sermon, which is below this post, entitled "I AM" It was a conversation filled with a lot of learning which will hopefully make me read some stuff I had not considered.

baptistwes: nonononononononononononononononono
baptistwes: the Trinity has no "parts"
TjenaFitta: What do mean the trinity has no parts?
baptistwes: I read in your blog - Father, Son, Holy Spirit are different "parts" of the Trinity
baptistwes: my prof at college would scream, NEIN!!!! at anyone who said that
baptistwes: freak people out
TjenaFitta: as opposed to?
baptistwes: Persons
baptistwes: there's no parts in the Trinity, as that would divide the ousia
baptistwes: 1 ousia, 3 hypostasis
TjenaFitta: I don't know greek
baptistwes: roughly interpreted, "1 essence of being, 3 centers of personality"
baptistwes: It sounded like what your friend was doing was modalism
TjenaFitta: Thats what I said. They are all part of the same essence. I don't like the word persons because it implies that they are actual persons and I don't believe them to be
baptistwes: nonononononononononoooo
baptistwes: they are persons
baptistwes: just not (with the exception of the incarnate Son) human
baptistwes: parts means that the Trinity can be divied up
baptistwes: it was one of the huge fights in the early Church
TjenaFitta: So different persons means it can't be divided up, but parts can?
baptistwes: yup
TjenaFitta: don't buy it
baptistwes: that's why the language came down the way it did
TjenaFitta: Yes well, language is a bitch and doesn't always work out the way we hope
baptistwes: because if you have "part" of something, you don't have the something - you have part of something
baptistwes: but if you're encountering the Son, you're not encountering part of God - but God
baptistwes: that's the reason for the language
TjenaFitta: Well see...now thats the first time you made sense
baptistwes: sorry, needed to work to get there
baptistwes:
baptistwes: but that's the reason for the langauge
baptistwes: it's also why modalism doesn't work
TjenaFitta: modalism?
baptistwes: umm
baptistwes: saying that God isn't truly tri-une - he just interacts with Creation in different "modes" we call "Father, Son, and HOly Spirit."
baptistwes: Your statment here is why I was saying "parts" divides the divine essence: "And Tony told me that when we look at the Greek text, we see that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are things belonging to God. It is similar to saying my arm is its own separate thing, but it is still a part of my overall body."
TjenaFitta: eh, I don't know. I mean, I can't remove my arm as a part
baptistwes: Rigth
baptistwes: but the Holy Spirit isn't a part - the Holy Spirit is God
baptistwes: The metaphor of applying "parts" to the Trinity is incorrect, for exactly that reason - an arm isn't human - it's part of a human
baptistwes: that's not True for the Trinity
TjenaFitta: right, but my overall point is not that at all. I'm saying that God isn't any of these names. Any of the words we attempt to use are not really discriptors of what God is
baptistwes: right, but when you're dealing with Trinitarian and Incarnational issues you have to be REALLY careful with language
baptistwes: Because "God the Son" is a fundamentally different metaphor than "God is peace"
baptistwes: or "I AM justice..."
baptistwes: One is a descriptor of essence, the other is a descriptor of an attribute
TjenaFitta: perhaps. But at this point, I would switch your positions. I would say that justice is essence and son is an attibute
baptistwes: Yah, the jumps language
baptistwes: it goes back to the term "hypostasis" when the Trinitarian formula was developed
baptistwes: "essence" is how God his relational nature to us in the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
baptistwes: "justice" is an abstract - The Holy Spirit is a communicative hypostasis
baptistwes: a person
TjenaFitta: My entire hope is that we as humans do not do that. If we are "doing unto the least of these" and God is within us, then justice, peace, love, etc are the essence of God by which we are doing them
baptistwes: again, you're using language different
TjenaFitta: Well of course I am
baptistwes: OK, switch "essence" to "nature" in your sentence, then it works
baptistwes: when you're talking about the Trinity - you do NOT want to use the term essence loosely
baptistwes: I'm drilling you on this because this is at the very heart of what makes Christianity distinctive from other religions...
baptistwes: when we're talking about the Trinity - it's best to play the language game with the rules the Church worked out over it's history
TjenaFitta: Ok...well, I can totally say that I just used a wrong word on the 'parts v. persons' cause I have never heard that argument, but I agree with it. How I work out for others that they are not actually humans is not going to be easy, but ok...
baptistwes: say "personalities"
TjenaFitta: but otherwise, I don't think God gives a hoot over essence or nature
baptistwes: my Orthodox friends would cringe but say, "OK"
TjenaFitta: if God is omni-everything, then it all works
baptistwes: eh
baptistwes: God is Shiva?
baptistwes: nah
TjenaFitta: Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if God is essence and nature, then what difference does it make in how it's said?
baptistwes: Soteriology
baptistwes: what Protestantism seems to have forgotten is that the language of the Trinity and the Incarnation took play entirely in the context of "How has this God, revealed in Scripture saved us?"
TjenaFitta: ok
TjenaFitta: So all I'm saying, in the long run, is that God saved us because God loves us.
baptistwes: sure
baptistwes: but that love is Revealed in the very essence of the Trinity
TjenaFitta: And I would still argue that the essence of love is revealed in the nature of Christ
TjenaFitta: I realize that the pervious comment is either mind blowingly genius or mind numbingly stupid, but it's all I've got
baptistwes: yes, but the nature of Christ is contingent on the Trinity too
TjenaFitta: But we just got done discussing that the nature of Christ and the nature of God and the nature of the HS are all the same thing
baptistwes: essence are the same
baptistwes: or...well nature too depending on how you're using it
baptistwes: Jesus is the Incarnate Son - the idea that he's fully God is dependant on Trinitarian theology
baptistwes: the Trinity is "one essence/three centers of Personality" the Incarnate Son is "two essences/one center of Personality"
TjenaFitta: First, I really like this idea of personality over person
baptistwes: k
TjenaFitta: and none of the things I believe seem to be contridictory to the ideas you've described...
baptistwes: that's get's weird too - say "center of personality"
baptistwes: what's that?
baptistwes: I'm describing Calcedonian orthodoxy - it's the theology of the creeds
TjenaFitta: but I want parishioners (as well as myelf) to focus more on doing Godly things for others, not worry about the nature or essence of God
baptistwes: Matt, orthodoxy and orthopraxy have to be intertwined - if you don't have them together you veer off into various culdesacs and heresies
TjenaFitta: I agree completely, but right now, I don't see much orthopraxy, which I deem to be the more important of the two
baptistwes: Think about it, "Godly things for others" is a command which comes from Jesus - the Incarnate Son - who demonstrates that calling by doing what? Taking on human flesh and not considering equality with God as something to grasp on to
baptistwes: You don't have orthodoxy either - ask someone in your church is Jesus' soul was human or divine...
baptistwes: braid them together
baptistwes: Orthodoxy is the boundary-markers of the Church....we let it go at our own peril and we make it into something else (intellectual spirituality) at out own peril
baptistwes: Part of the problem is that when we hold on to the Trinitarian language loosely, or pick it apart to figure out "how it works," we loose the mystery of God.
TjenaFitta: Ok. I get that. But I don't think I loosened the boundaries of orthodoxy by saying God is love or God is peace by asking people to remove human constructs like father, shepherd, lamb, etc. I think God being truth or love enhances the mystery of God, not the other way around
baptistwes: Right, but you equated it with Trinitarian language - and that's where you loosened up
baptistwes: it's different
baptistwes: put it this way
baptistwes: when you're dealing with Justice, are you dealing with the fullness of God?
TjenaFitta: I think so
baptistwes: (actually, that's a bad one because "Justice" is actually a greek goddess...)
baptistwes: Really? then what about mercy? or forgivness? or love or hope, or creativity or...
TjenaFitta: Yes to all of those
baptistwes: but creativity isn't the fullness of God
baptistwes: becuase God is also just and loving and kind and vengeful
TjenaFitta: exactly
baptistwes: but when you deal with the persons of the Trinity you deal with the fullness of God...
baptistwes: Because the Son is just and loving and kind and vengeful
TjenaFitta: No, when we deal with the fullness of God, we put them in the persons of the trinity
baptistwes: right
baptistwes: because the persons of the Trinity are each all those things as they are in eternal relationship with each other
TjenaFitta: wait...you can't agree with what I said because I meant it to be contradictory to what you said
TjenaFitta: let me rephrase
baptistwes: go ahead
baptistwes: Have you read Pelikan?
TjenaFitta: I mean that when we deal with the fullness of God, which is all joy, peace, vengence, love, etc, all bundled up...We just happend to put them in the persons of the trinity because that is easy for us to do.
TjenaFitta: No
baptistwes: no
baptistwes: that's not what we do
baptistwes: Because mercy and vengance and love and justice don't each describe the fullness of God
TjenaFitta: wait
TjenaFitta: I'm not saying that one individually does at all
baptistwes: but when you start talking about "fullness" in conjunction with the Trinity - that's what you end up saying
baptistwes: The Father is "fully God"The Son is "fully God"
baptistwes: the Holy Spirit is "fully God"
TjenaFitta: No
baptistwes: justice is....an attribute
TjenaFitta: love is fully God, justice is fully God, vengence is fully God...plus all other "attributes"
baptistwes: no, see you're using the langauge like, "Love is fully of God"
TjenaFitta: no, there is not a "of" in my statement
baptistwes: love is fully God....no - love is a descriptor of God
TjenaFitta: In your way of thinking yes
TjenaFitta: but not mine...
TjenaFitta: because I am saying that God is both fully love and vengence and joy and fustration
baptistwes: but you're talking about attributes again
TjenaFitta: I don't think so. I think father is the attribute
baptistwes: "fully God" in Trinitarian language deals with the persons
baptistwes: I want you to pick up Pelikan's history of the Christian Tradition series...I'll read it with you
TjenaFitta: Oh wait...I did read part of that...but it's in PA
TjenaFitta: Sorry, I read your name wrong
baptistwes: The problem is that I'm playing the language game according to the rules the Church has set out - you're playing a new game
TjenaFitta: I realize that and that is part of what I wanted to highlight
TjenaFitta: I think God cringed when the fathers first started to describe who God is
baptistwes: Yah, see - the only way I can say that is if I didn't think the Holy Spirit has guided the Church
TjenaFitta: In my mind, I can balance the two. I believe they were acting out of intelect and not love. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had those conversations
baptistwes: Don't cringe at the Fathers - they weren't the abstractors sitting in ivory towers that the West has imaged them
baptistwes: No, that's not a fair reading of them at all
baptistwes: not at all
TjenaFitta: Well, I would have had to read them a lot more to give them a fair anything
baptistwes: These were people who make our piety, love, and charity to the world look like plastic jewelry - they did what they did because they believed in the in-breaking Kingdom of Jesus and wrestled with the Scriptures as they did so
TjenaFitta: All I'm saying is that they were doing unto others because that is what God calls us to...but then they stopped and tried to figure out the nature of such things, and got lost from actually doing the things that got them there in the first place
baptistwes: No
baptistwes: see that's exactly what they didn't do
baptistwes: that's a modern division
baptistwes: the statement you made can't be historically supported
TjenaFitta: of course not. I just said I can't treat them fairly
baptistwes: but then why make the statment?
TjenaFitta: Cause you're trying to bring in stuff I have no reference to and I'm only trying to work with what I know of the scriptures and how I feel God wants us to act
baptistwes: But the only way to read the Scriptures is within the communion of Saints - you gotta spend time with them before you dump them
TjenaFitta: Ok...let me type a bit...
baptistwes: k
TjenaFitta: The fathers had piety, love, charity... and then got together to figure it all out in terms for everyone to understand. Yes?
baptistwes: no
baptistwes: The two were concurrent, always, even the New Testament reads that way
TjenaFitta: Ok, even better actually
baptistwes: why?
TjenaFitta: All I'm trying to say about what I understand about myself and the people in my congregation via my sermon is that they need to actually realize that God is those things and that is how we need to start living if we really want to figure out the nature/essence/personality of God
baptistwes: sure, but what I'm trying to point out is that part of that discovery has to be a deliberate process of looking back through history and listening to the folks to did this before us
TjenaFitta: Yeah, but I have this insane idea that we can all be church fathers and mothers by traveling the same path. Instead, I feel as if we (people in my congregation) act as if we need not take the journey because it has already been walked
baptistwes: Yah, but I'm not sure your "cure" is any better than the "disease"
baptistwes: we're not all church fathers and mothers, but we're still on the same journey - and the rituals and sacred language of the Church are supposed to bind us to that path - the problem is that somewhere in the 20th century the Church kept doing all the same stuff and yet no longer had a clue WHY...
baptistwes: dead ritual
baptistwes: the best cure is to reinvigorate, concurrently, a passion for being the hands and feet of Christ and a passion for being incorporated back into story through the ritual practice of the Church
baptistwes: with things like...the labyrinth
baptistwes: or communion, or catechism, or baptism, or the church year, or feasts...etc...
baptistwes: but you gotta do them both at once.