Pastor John Wright

The Sunday after Pentecost has traditionally become Trinity Sunday. I have no real knowledge of its precise history, but I do know that, by it, the church witnesses to the faith given to the saints in an essential way, to point the faithful to the true God, the Triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the modern world the Christian confession of God as Triune has taken a beating. First, the confession was seen as "contrary to reason" and thus easily discarded. Second, as "religion" came to be evaluated by its "practical value" (ie, morality), the confession was seen as behaviorally irrelevant and thus, confessionally irrelevant. Third, apologists responded by trying to show how the doctrine actually is behaviorally relevant -- the Triune God is "a Community" so that we should be "a community"; God is "relational" so we should be "relational."

Now there is a truth in all these, but they all miss the real point of the confession of the Triune nature of God: The church makes such a confession on the basis of the Scriptures that witness to God's revelation to us in Jesus Christ, and therefore, it is a necessary confession for the truthfulness of our salvation and the salvation of the world. The only God that is not an idol is the One God who is Triune. Our confession of faith in the Trinune God opens us to the truth of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God does not justify God's Triune nature to us; we might, however, in light of God's Revelation, give thanks at the mysterious marvel and wonderful, undescribable strangeness and wildness that is God!

Genesis 1:1-2:3

I spent much of my January writing a paper on this passage, the first three verses. This translation given in the NRSV is problematic, but a possibility. Many important things arise out of this passage but maybe because of Trinity Sunday we should talk about the character of the God revealed in the passage (it is stranger than one might think!) and what this means. Maybe focusing on the first 4-5 verses might be sufficient.

First, know that "beginning" here does not necessarily mean a point in time, but a fundamental principle. Where, not when, is the proper question. Where is the "beginning"? Where is God's Word and to whom is it spoken? Where is the Spirit? What is a "formless void"? What is "darkness"? In this passage, what belongs on the side of creation and what belongs on the side of God?

If God is creator is God an actor in creation like we are? What does this mean about God in the confession that God is Creator? Can this passage be a scientific description of how God creates?

2 Corinthians 13:5-14

The Corinthian passage moves to a benediction at the end of the passage. Note the terms that are associated with the Divine Persons. It might be better to translate "grace" as "gift" which can help us see the meaning of the "of" here -- the "gift of the Lord Jesus." What do these nouns that receive the "of" tell you about the nature and relationship of the Divine Persons invoked? How many God's is Paul invoking here? Why would Paul use this benediction, the only time he does, at the end of this passage?

Matthew 28:16-20

To what does Jesus' teachings on making disciples respond? Into how many names are we to baptize? (Warning: trick question) What is the purpose of this baptism here? What would happen if one of those names was omitted?

What is the relationship between the Three and the One in these passages? Why is this not a blatant irrelevant contradiction? Why is it not merely a "community" like us?

Here is a quote again from Robert Barron, The Priority of Christ: "I see in the strange symbol of the three persons in one essence the summation and intensification . . . about the simple, self-sufficient, and impossibly generous ground of all that is [i.e., God]. The coinherence that God is abole to achieve with created natures is rooted in the even more radical coinherence that obtains among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The being-for-the-other apparent in God's rapport with creation falls into shadow when compard to the being-for-the-other that marks the very to-be of the triune God himself" (p. 240). Given the passages above, does Barron's quote make any sense?