What are the different functions of the Trinity? I am accustomed to thinking of the Father as the creator, the Son as the redeemer and the Holy Spirit as the sanctifier. In returning to the early Christian father, Gregory of Nyssa, however, I am reminded that each person in the Trinity works together and not independently of each other. He writes,
We do not learn that the Father does something on his own, in which the Son does not co-operate. Or again, that the Son acts on his own without the Spirit.
I wonder if this understanding of the Trinitarian relationship will help the church move forward in its mission. This one God in three persons always acts co-operatively. Thus, when Christ hung on the cross, the Father and the Holy Spirit both worked through Christ's sacrifice. When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, the Father and the Son were both involved in empowering the first disciples for ministry. The Trinitarian relationship expresses how one God in three persons works co-operatively in order to govern the universe and save God's people. This relationship models how God's people are to engage in ministry. God calls His people to work through relationships with one another.
Relational ministry can be hard to nurture in churches. In larger membership churches, we often find the missions committee, evangelism committee, children's ministry, youth ministry, older adult ministry and others form the make-up of congregations. My worry is that in a society so bent on being independent, the church may follow suit and forget its relational emphasis within the congregational life. I have hope. In our church, our youth group host an annual Valentine's dinner for our older adults. Later in the year, the older adults pass around a red cup for the youth group's summer mission enterprises. That's a Trinitarian expression of ministry. I pray our church will continue to function not as independents, but as people working together to carry out God's will.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Shack
"What do you think about the The Shack?" friends have asked me. I figured it was time to read the darn thing. William Young's recent page-turner, The Shack, has quickly risen to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. Such popluarity over what has been characterized as theological fiction is intriguing in a nation where mainline Christianity is dying. Perhaps its popularity is due in large part to its unconventional way of asking and answering some of our most basic questions about God. In the book, Mackenzie Philips is trying to make sense of the brutal death of his innocent daughter Missy. In a shack near the murder scene of his daughter, Mack is given the unique opportunity to spend days with the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Only the Father's name is Papa and wears a dress. The Son's name is Jesus and enjoys skipping rocks. The Holy Spirit's name is Sarayu. Sarayu hums while working in the garden.
This book is certainly helpful in redeveloping our imagination and the way we conceive of God and the Trinitarian relationship. However, I am concerned about the casual way in which the book depicts God and speaks on God's behalf. My worry is rooted in the way we understand scripture. Should "theological fiction" be able to speak for God in such concrete terms? The question is not whether fiction can portray truth. It certainly can. My worry is fiction that speaks on behalf of God will shade the way we read the Bible. Will such books form us to think of the Bible as theological fiction that illumines truth? We worship a risen savior who truly suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.
Just the same, the book provokes thought. I was especially intrigued when Mac is asked to judge his own children. He must choose only two of his children to spend eternity with God. Mac simply cannot do it. Finally, he ask, "Could I go instead? If you need someone to torture for eternity, I'll go in their place. Would that work? Could I do that?" Being placed in the seat of God helps Mac begin to understand the depths God will go to show his love for his people. It's a love that says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, son that whosoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." Now that's the truth.
This book is certainly helpful in redeveloping our imagination and the way we conceive of God and the Trinitarian relationship. However, I am concerned about the casual way in which the book depicts God and speaks on God's behalf. My worry is rooted in the way we understand scripture. Should "theological fiction" be able to speak for God in such concrete terms? The question is not whether fiction can portray truth. It certainly can. My worry is fiction that speaks on behalf of God will shade the way we read the Bible. Will such books form us to think of the Bible as theological fiction that illumines truth? We worship a risen savior who truly suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.
Just the same, the book provokes thought. I was especially intrigued when Mac is asked to judge his own children. He must choose only two of his children to spend eternity with God. Mac simply cannot do it. Finally, he ask, "Could I go instead? If you need someone to torture for eternity, I'll go in their place. Would that work? Could I do that?" Being placed in the seat of God helps Mac begin to understand the depths God will go to show his love for his people. It's a love that says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, son that whosoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." Now that's the truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)