the godhead: "mother, child, and womb"

in response to a friend's claim that the traditional conception of the trinity (God the father, son, and holy spirit) can be exchanged for any other instructive "metaphor", i write this:

i appreciate, [friend], your desire to be inclusive and open-minded...demonstrating the very spirit of Christ. i do think, though, that we need to be careful and consistent with our terms. the labels--father, son, and holy spirit--of the trinity aren't metaphors--what is the metaphor of a holy spirit? while our understanding of the persons of the trinity might be sullied by our flawed fathers or sinful sons, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

the trinity represents an organic relationship that is simultaneously unitary and trinary (electrical engineers, stop cringing :)... the mystery of the trinity has been mulled over since tertullian... and it culminated in unitarians and others who found the idea of an ontological trinity unintelligible (moses stuart and w.a. brown, for example). but, we find reference to a trinity of these particular three persons throughout the Bible (the father and son in both testaments, and the spirit first explicitly manifested in acts).

karl barth revived the trinity with some 220 pages on its doctrine in his dogmatics, and presents the three persons in terms of God's speaking: He is Revealer (father), Revelation (son), and Revealedness (holy spirit). (your guess is as good as mine on the office of the spirit..he says the spirit is the very content of the revelation). barth explains their offices in terms of truth revealed (john 1), but doesn't reject or recast the persons of the trinity: they are still father, son, and holy spirit.

at best, there might be room for didactic analogies to the trinity, in light of man's weakness, where analogy refers to an aspectual comparison to reality whereas a metaphor is a wholistic comparison (where the former is meant to explain a relationship in part, the latter in full). historically, people have used analogies such as mist, cloud, rain; intellect, affections, will, (augustine); thesis, antithesis, synthesis, (hegel); subject, object, and subject-object, (olshausen). all of these lack the divine personality inherent in the father-son-spirit relationship. and while mother-child-womb might have value for describing a specific personal relationship in the mystery of the Godhead, it can't replace the specific biblical relationships (see matthew 3.16, 4.1; and all of john, especially 1.18, 3.16, 5.20-22, 14.26, 15.26, and 16.13-15). i really appreciate this explanation, from berkhof's systematic theology (which has a good general discussion of the doctrine of God, and specifically the trinity, pp 82-99) :

The communicable attributes of God stress His personality, since they reveal Him as a rational and moral Being. His life stands out clearly before us in Scripture as a personal life; and it is, of course, of the greatest importance to maintain the personality of God, for without it there can be no religion in the real sense of the word: no prayer, no personal communion, no trustful reliance and no confident hope. Since man is created in the image of God, we learn to understand something of the personal life of God from the contemplation of personality as we know it in man.

in the end, the nature of the trinity is a grand mystery beyond our capacities, but praise God that we can even meditate on Him! in mystery is opportunity, enabling us to share in love the joy of the gospel with others, and to appreciate the personal struggles of others as they wrestle with divine truth: " to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (i cor 9)

let's remember both the unfathomably perfect and the intimately personal nature of the Godhead, and our responsibility to share His love!

(also, thanks [other friend] for making the important distinction between pca and pcusa [which the article somewhat blurred]... the pca def has a rich, biblical, and necessarily Christ-centered theological tradition. i'd wholeheartedly recommend the small pca congregation i've joined in downtown LJ:new life mission church of la jolla.)

(read on)

the failure of liberal christianity

the la times ran a nice op-ed last week on the disintegration of the american liberal church--that is, the people who deny the divinity of Christ, ignore biblical directives on homosexuality, and take feminism to the absurd. at one conference, "participants 'reimagined' God as 'Our Maker Sophia' and held a feminist-inspired 'milk and honey' ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion."

while you might be sympathetic to some or all of these causes, consider that the traditional theology of the Church is focused on the divinity of Christ... A celebration of women (or men!) that obscures the sacrament of God has no place in a service of worship: we kneel at the foot of the Cross, sprinkled with Christ's blood; we don't coo in Sophia's arm, milking at her teet.

{also note when you're reading the article, the presbyterian church USA referred to in the oped is entirely different from the "presbyterian church in america (PCA)", which unabashedly affirms the Word of God as Truth, and Jesus Christ as Savior.}

a representative quotation:

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

(read on)

but it's myspace!

according to slashdot, hitwise says myspace overtook yahoo mail as the internet's most popular site. today, slashdot summed up the tons of responses they received to the original post in a waste-no-time review. it's informative (and encouraging to see that many people--albeit slashdot readers--recognize the social evils associated with the site)

"Reader caitsith01 speaks for many with an evaluation of MySpace as "for the most part intensely narcissistic and inane," and writes "People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything, about any topic they choose. Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content, the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing in particular. Which is fine, but it shouldn't have the legitimacy of other web content. [...] Perhaps it's time to move past the blog hype and to consider some method for differentiating personal diaries (i.e., what used to be a personal homepage), social chit chat (i.e., what used to be a bulletin board, IRC, or IM activity), and publications with actual content. Right now the net is awash with an ever-expanding tide of rubbish and there is very little to assist in finding the few really interesting and high quality publications among the garbage. Ultimately it's depressing that, given the ability to communicate our ideas to anyone on earth, most of us can't come up with anything better than pictures of ourselves drinking too much and mass-produced but ineffectual rebelliousness."

(read on)

is dna the language of god?

nature this week covered a new book by geneticist and public christian francis collins, best known for heading up the human genome project. the article's pretty drab, but i'm anxious to check out a copy of the book. i also enjoyed reading vehement atheist PZ Myers' blog response to the article (in which he's quoted) along with other comically atheistic musings on his site.

the summary: collins writes book about how faith and science are compatible. typical atheists like dawkins bash it. but because collins disses creationism and ID, he gets praise from some unlikely people, like the head of an anti-ID lobbying group.

judging from the article, the book seems to push for greater dialogue about faith and science and for greater lay appreciation of the fact that they are not mutually exclusive (the article cites that 40% of scientists in america are also christians). a call to the discussion table by a scientific figurehead is certaintly welcome. but i'm anxious to see if the book lays out some suggestions for the exchanges once we're seated. the critical thing missing in many of today's "debates" about religion and science (including the ones that go on daily in labs) is nuts-and-bolts philosophy. to be sure, most scientists are at home in the land of logic, but don't have time and/or desire to read nuanced tomes on epistemology. still, as long as someone knows the arguments--and the onus of responsibility, i think, sits on the christians' shoulders here--the claims and conclusions of christianity and secularism can lead to fruitful debate... and, in many cases, a reconsideration of whether naturalism is an air-tight worldview.

Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate
Erika Check
Top geneticist asks the God question.

Is it really possible to combine dedication to science with belief in God? In a new book, prominent US scientist Francis Collins sets out his case for combining a strong religious faith with a zeal for the scientific method. But his views have already sparked debate, with critics suggesting that more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs.

Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and headed the Human Genome Project, has never hidden the fact that he is a devout Christian. But he has never spoken quite so publicly about his faith. He says he felt compelled to write his book because the popular debate on faith and science has become dominated by extreme voices, leaving many feeling that there is no way to reconcile religious and scientific views of the world. "Our society is not well served by portraying a future which is either entirely secular or entirely religious in a fundamentalist way," he says.

Collins also hopes the book, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006), will provoke thought in academia, where, he says, the subject of faith isn't exactly popular. "In most academic circles, a discussion of spiritual matters tends to clear the room fairly quickly."

Discussion, Collins suggests, might rectify the misconception that most scientists are atheists. Surveys find that about 40% of US scientists believe in God, but Collins says that is not reflected in science's public face. That hurts science, he argues, because it drives away curious people who might also be religious believers.

Collins takes a strong stand against some religious beliefs, such as creationism and 'intelligent design'. He considers both to be views that restrict faith to covering gaps in scientific knowledge, leaving it in a tenuous position.

Instead, Collins embraces a theology sometimes called theistic evolution, or BioLogos. This embraces the idea that human evolution occurred through natural selection according to God's plan, and that God instilled humanity with certain characteristics, including a 'moral law', that can't be explained by science.

"The moral law is a signpost to a God who cares about us as individuals," Collins says. "God used a mechanism of evolution to create human beings with whom he could have that kind of fellowship."

Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today — not just in the United States — and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason. Religious concerns are largely behind the US law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education.

In the United States, "the default position right now is to assume that religion is perfectly OK", says Paul Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota in Morris and author of the popular science blog Pharyngula. "Collins is taking that default position, and while a large majority of scientists will shrug their shoulders, a few voices will be shouting out, saying 'wait a minute, this is nonsense'."

"I cannot see how this could be good for science — supernaturalism is fundamentally anti-scientific," says Richard Dawkins, a biologist from the University of Oxford, UK. "Scientists work hard at trying to understand. Supernaturalism is an evasion of this responsibility. It's a shrug of the shoulders."

Dawkins acknowledges that, particularly in the United States, there might be tactical reasons for trying to get on with religious people. "That is a perfectly reasonable political stance, but it has nothing to do with truth."

Others welcome Collins's book, however. "I think it's helpful when scientists of Francis's prominence speak out on the compatibility of faith and science," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, California, that lobbies against creationism.

Scott agrees with Collins that so far the harshest voices have achieved most prominence, and that this situation doesn't help either side. "Creationists love quoting Dawkins and Daniel Dennett," she says. "But those individuals don't represent the fairly sizeable proportion of non-theists who are not out to destroy religion."

(read on)

a winner on sex

two opeds on premarital sex, one each from nytimes contributor lauren winner and chuck colson. i'm most impressed with winner's assessment of the flawed 'chastity pledge':

"Pledgers promise to control intense bodily desires simply by exercising their wills. But Christian ethics recognizes that the broken, twisted will can do nothing without rehabilitation by God's grace. Perhaps the centrality of grace is recognized best not in a pledge but in a prayer that names chastity as a gift and beseeches God for the grace to receive it."

i've argued a version of this point with my own grandmother at thanksgiving dinner: without Christ, abstinence doesn't make much sense (of course, if you're stoically reasoned, you'll recognize that most if not all research demonstrates that abstinence is the healthier choice). i'm chaste because i'm a christian.

at any rate, the fact that abstinence education hasn't worked in practice (see below) is important to recognize for policy. but, more important, i think, is that this fact can be used in arguments against a successful naturalistic moral system. think about it... maybe i'll post on it later.

both articles are reproduced below.
______________________________________
Saving Grace
Lauren F. Winner.
New York Times. May 19, 2006. pg. A.25

Lauren F. Winner is the author of ''Girl Meets God'' and ''Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.''

The recent Harvard study that found teenagers' virginity pledges to be ineffective should come as a surprise to no one. Several studies had already come to that conclusion. If we are truly to help our teenagers adopt the countercultural sexual ethic of abstinence until marriage, Christians concerned about the rampant premarital sex in our communities need to rethink, rather than simply defend, young people's abstinence pledges.

It is awfully easy for Christians to blame our community's sexual sins on the mores of post-sexual revolution America -- to criticize Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs, to natter on about how ''Grey's Anatomy'' portrays sexual behavior that doesn't square with Christianity.

But perhaps it's more important that we reconsider how we talk about sex in the church. For although the church devotes an immense amount of energy to teaching about sexuality -- just go to the Christian inspiration section of your nearest Barnes & Noble and compare the number of books about chastity to books that challenge, say, consumerism -- many Christians still ''struggle with'' (in that euphemistic evangelical phrase) premarital sex, adultery and pornography.

So why is the church's approach to teaching chastity falling short? Consider the popular ''True Love Waits'' virginity pledge: ''Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate and my future children to a lifetime of purity including sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship.''

This pledge and others like it are well meaning but deeply flawed. For starters, there's something disturbing about the assumption that teenagers are passively waiting for their future mates and children, when the New Testament is quite clear that some Christians are called to lifelong celibacy. (Paul, for example, did not have a mate or children, and Dan Brown's fantasies notwithstanding, Jesus's only bride was the church.) Chastity is not merely about passive waiting; it is about actively conforming our bodies to the arc of the Gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit right now.

Pledgers promise to control intense bodily desires simply by exercising their wills. But Christian ethics recognizes that the broken, twisted will can do nothing without rehabilitation by God's grace. Perhaps the centrality of grace is recognized best not in a pledge but in a prayer that names chastity as a gift and beseeches God for the grace to receive it.

The pledges are also cast in highly individualistic terms: I promise that I won't do this or that. As the Methodist bishop William Willimon once wrote: ''Decisions are fine. But decisions that are not reinforced and reformed by the community tend to be short-lived.''

During our first year of marriage, my husband and I lived in a small apartment inside a church. On Tuesdays, Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon met downstairs. As I got to know some of the regulars, I began to wonder if there wasn't something the church could learn from the 12-step groups in our midst.

After all, what are 12-step groups but communities of people expecting transformation? People show up because they want to change, and they know that making a promise by themselves -- I will stop drinking -- won't cut it. Alcoholics Anonymous explicitly recognizes that transformation works best when a community comes alongside you and participates in your transformation.

Christians, like 12-step group attendees, are people who are committed to becoming, to use the Apostle Paul's phrase, new creatures. Living sexual lives that comport with the Gospel is one part of that.

Perhaps pledges for chastity need to be made not only by the individual teenager. Perhaps we also need pledges made by the teenager's whole Christian community: we pledge to support you in this difficult, countercultural choice; we pledge that the church is a place where you can lay bare your brokenness and sin, where you don't have to dissemble; we pledge to cheer you on when chastity seems unbearably difficult, and we pledge to speak God's forgiveness to you if you falter. No retooled pledge will guarantee teenagers' chastity, but words of grace and communal commitment are perhaps a firmer basis for sexual ethics than simple assertions that true love waits.


Keeping a Pledge
Grace, Transformation, and Community

Chuck Colson

July 5, 2006

I read the New York Times every day. But I can't remember the last time I found profound theological wisdom in its columns—that is until recently.

Lauren Winner, an insightful new voice among Christian writers, graced the New York Times op-ed pages with a straight-talking explanation of Harvard's recent studies showing that abstinence pledges have proven ineffectual among teenagers. According to Winner, we shouldn't be surprised.

Now before getting defensive, listen to her well-grounded theological explanation: "Pledgers promise to control intense bodily desires simply by exercising their wills. But Christian ethics recognizes that the broken, twisted will can do nothing without rehabilitation by God's grace."

This is no less than the apostle Paul teaches us in Romans 7. Winner further proposes, "Perhaps the centrality of grace is recognized best not in a pledge but in a prayer that names chastity as a gift and beseeches God for the grace to receive it." She also rightly draws our attention to the brash individualism of such pledges. Quoting Methodist bishop William Willimon, she writes, "Decisions are fine. But decisions that are not reinforced and reformed by the community tend to be short-lived.''

To that I say, "Amen!" Winner re-affirms something that the Church has known but all too often forgotten: true transformation requires God's enabling grace. And because of the way God created us to reflect the inherent relational nature of the Trinity, transformation happens best within the context of community. I applaud Winner's nudging reminder that the community of believers must be indeed just that, a community, supporting and enabling that counter-cultural commitment to God's ways.

Unwittingly, Winner's argument also point to the lessons we've discovered in working in some of the most difficult trenches of transformation—the prisons. Simply more education or a pledge before the parole board won't help prisoners stay out of prison. True change of will requires God's enabling grace and power.

And for that change to seep down deep, prisoners need a community of support. They need volunteers who will open up the Word of God and show them how to live, mentors who will come alongside and share their lives, and most of all, they need the open arms of a church community to embrace them and support them when they return.

And this is perhaps what grieves me most about the recent decision from a judge in Iowa, ruling against the faith-based prison program, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. Shutting down programs like IFI will only succeed in hurting the community, by standing in the way of the only transformation that really works.

The IFI program works because it does exactly what Winner and I've talked about. It provides a way for grace-filled transformation to occur in the context of community. In so doing, it is a witness to the Church of what it has too often forgotten, and a witness to the community of the only true power to change.

(read on)

pssst...

forgive the current events, but this is important.

reuters reported this morning that the bush administration has been keeping a major intelligence activity secret from the house and senate. michigan republican pete hoekstra, chair of the house intelligence committee and an ardent bush supporter, sent him a four-page letter of criticism warning that his decision was potentially illegal. two more years...

(read on)