Increased Interest in Trinity

Two things have struck me and increased my interest in the Trinity since the BCMS paper got my attention on the topic.

One is the The Holy Trinity Icon and explanation that Aron brought to my attention. The Trinity is pictured around a table, with an open place (with food)...an open place for us. In this concept I sense a new perspective with new potential.

How might that image speak to the nature of God and to the nature of God as Trinity?

Might that open place for us be understood as inherent to the nature of God?

What does it mean to have that open space there for us? Is it an invitation or something else?

If an invitation, what are we invited to do or be? If something else, what?

The other thing that struck me and piqued my interest was the image (called a triquetra) that I found in the lower picture on this page while searching for labyrinths to walk. Apparently this familiar image and the concept of Trinity extends beyond its specifically Christian associations. Finding "Christian" concepts in other contexts tends to increase my sense that the relevance of those concepts isn't limited to a certain sectarian way of framing things, but that they speak to something basic and broad.

How accurate is that sense in this case? If accurate, what is that relevance?

Why has trinity been important in other belief systems as well as in Christianity?

What about reality, what about the Divine does it reflect that I haven't been keying in on?

How might my response to these questions impact my perspective on orienting our understanding of mission to our understanding of the Trinity...?

The BCMS Paper & The Trinity as an Understanding of God

So, I'm finally going to add some more in response to the BCMS paper. The end of my last post pointed to some next questions including: Should I/we relate more stongly to the concept of the Trinity? Why or why not? Thoughts in that vein follow.

I see the Trinity as a way to think of God, but not the only way to think of God. I'm suspicious of treatments of the Trinity as more or less the be-all end-all, exclusively right & necessary way to conceptualize God. Christians in general, and the BCMS paper, tend too much toward this approach in my opinion. At the same time, a couple things that have come up since I've started thinking about this lead me to believe that the concept of Trinity deserves more credit and attention than I have previously given it. Let me fill in a little on those thoughts as I continue.

All our language for God is metaphor. Each metaphor keys in on some aspect of the truth. But none of the metaphors adequately capture, completely describe or explain God. We come closer to understanding God, and our spiritual lives expand through use of varied and multiple images for God.

Though the authors of the BCMS paper may (or I suppose may not) understand things this way, the language of the BCMS paper doesn't leave me feeling that way. For example, in the section "Mission Begins with the Trinity" the paper states, "The Christian understanding of God is highly relational: God's identity consists in the loving communion...of three distinct yet inseparably united divine persons..." (bold emphases mine). This makes things sound pretty definitive and limited. It sounds like beyond this particular understanding we are no longer in Christian territory. It sounds to me like beyond this we are no longer talking about God as God should be understood. Does it sound that way to you too, or not?

I don't argue against Trinity being a good and important way to understand God. But to make it too exclusive a way to understand God limits our ability to comprehend God in and around us as fully as possible. It also unduly limits our ability to communicate and relate to people in our society. This makes the adequacy and wisdom of orienting our whole sense of mission around such exclusive sounding concepts of God questionable.

That said, what HAS interested me more in the concept of the Trinity lately? See my next post - hopefully coming soon, where I finally get to be more positive, and hopefully add credibility to the idea that I do want to do more than be part of a "culture of 'complaint, critique and criticism.' ”

The BCMS Paper - The Trinity

In my post BCMS Paper - First Impression I basically said I didn't find the section of the paper titled "Mission Begins with the Trinity" as compelling as I would hope. Now I'll start to say some things about why I think that is.

Referring to God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit seems familiar to me. Calling God Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer seems good to me.

Still, I find the concept of the Trinity rather obtuse. Not the concept of each of the persons of the Trinity, but the concept of the Trinity itself, as well as the concept of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. I don't think the concept of the Trinity has ever struck home to me in a way that makes it as elevated and central as this document and the church in general makes it. I have the suspicion there are a lot of people in and around the church in the same boat. As I recall, Patrick Keifert wrote about this state of affairs among many in the church in WE ARE HERE NOW: A New Missional Era.

For one who doesn't relate strongly to the concept of the Trinity, pegging and orienting mission to the Trinity isn't as compelling as might be hoped.

So among the next questions: why don't I/we relate more to the concept of the Trinity? Should we? Why or why not?

The BCMS Paper- Joining the Conversation

The Bishop's Commission on Mission Strategy, Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota has written a paper called "What Are We Here For? A Theological Position Paper on Mission."

The paper makes clear that it's intended to generate conversation. I hope to join the conversation here.

In trying to respond to the paper, I feel like a line from the paper, "Mission Impossible!? Where Do We Begin?" There's a lot there, a lot to think about, a lot that might be said and asked. In keeping with yesterday's post, I'll try to just bite off bits at a time.

BCMS Paper - First Impression

There is so much that I like in this paper, that I hate to begin on a problematic note. However, an issue that raises concern for me comes up early in the paper, so I will talk about it early in my responses. I hope you can bear with me.

I also hope those who have obviously labored with experience, education and knowledge beyond my own; and no doubt labored with conviction and love to create a careful, meaningful and useful expression of these points, will not find me impudent or otherwise offensive. I guess honest responses are important, to me and to the results of the paper, so with intimidation & worry I'll forge ahead, submitting my perspectives for what they may be worth.

The section titled "Mission Begins with the Trinity" gave me the feeling of being head theology that isn't making a good connection to heart theology. Ideally they are one and the same, but that's not what I've perceived in reading this section.

For me, too much of the section reads like a dry, heady recitation of inherited Christian dogma. To put it another way, the preface of the paper mentions that theology involves faith seeking understanding. This section kind of seems like an understanding trying to generate faith.

I want to be clear at this point that I don't mean what I'm saying in today's post to be a comment about the specific meanings of the content. I'm not trying to say I think it's true or not or anything like that. I'm talking in general about how I feel it comes off. I'll get to my theories about why (including, but not limited to, some thoughts about the content) in future posts.

All theology is of course constructed. What I think we hope to end up with in constructing theological statements are statements that do a compelling job of reflecting what we think in our heads and believe in our hearts to be true. If we achieve that goal there is a resonance, a passion, a click. I don't find enough of that resonance or passion when I read this section. The writers may have had it. I can't comment on that. But it doesn't do it for me.

Mission seems to imply and require passion. So, if too many people respond to this section as I did, I'm afraid it won't be as effective or useful as it's desired to be.

I keep thinking that to be sure I'm being fair maybe I should read it again. (I think I've read it twice so far, and wrote most of this not long after the 2nd reading, since which some time has passed.) I probably will read it again at some point and see if I still feel this way. But I don't think its a good sign for me to have to read it again in the hope that I'll find it less dry and more compelling. It may be just me. But if it's not, I'm not sure enough people will give it that many chances. Even if they do, first impressions can be powerful and we would hope for them to be positive and compelling in this case.

Well, so much for a short post. But at least I'm posting. (Remember I said yesterday I write long things that I don't post? There's more where this came from. But I will try to keep them short if I can. Sometimes I guess it takes a bit of writing to work oneself out onto a limb...eek...I hope it doesn't crash with me on it.)