O
oldernotwiser
Guest
These posts are from my personal Statement of Faith. The entire statement can be found on http://rongillis.weebly.com
Before looking at them separately, I must address these three sections (God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit) together. As I said in the introduction, I place much of my emphasis on tradition, so I can best address them in the words of that ancient baptismal formula that we now call “the Apostles Creed.”
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell; and on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting[2]. AMEN
If that was good enough for the Christian community in Rome in the Third or Forth century then I can not question it. The day will come when I will have to face not only the Lord but that “great cloud of witnesses” described by Paul in Heb.12. I doubt that I will be able to stand before men and women who were martyred in Nero’s persecution and argue that I know more about the Lord then did.
I do find that I have difficulty with the language of theology in this area. It is not the existence or autonomy of either the Father the Son or the Holy Spirit that causes the difficulty. It is the language used to describe them that I dislike. In Theology for the Community of God,[3] Stanley J. Grenz refers to two models, “replica models” and “analogue models.” That is at the root of my problem with the traditional language used to describe the Trinity. Neither model works for me. In attempting to describe my own beliefs I find that I need a third model, one that might be called a dramatic or story model. God works in history and I can only understand God within the framework of the story that is history.
Let me start by stating that there are three Personae in the Godhead. The difference is that while a person is a human being,[4] with a body and a mind, a persona can only be seen within the context of a story. In the case of the members of the Trinity the story is the drama of human history. I am neither denying nor questioning the individuality, reality, or autonomy of the personae by the use of that term. I am instead limiting the framework to one that is closer to the boundaries of human experience and understanding. I choose to do this because the use of any model to describe the Godhead is bound to be unsatisfactory, but a replica model must be the least satisfactory of all. It didn’t work for St. Patrick with his shamrock and it doesn’t work for us. It is acceptable only so far as we are willing to ignore it in favor of the experience of the Godhead in our own lives.
The failure of this model is best seen by looking at model airplanes in hobby shops and department stores. When we choose models that use the word person to describe God we are much like the person who attempts to describe an airplane by building one of those plastic kits. The difference is that the theologian uses the word “person” rather than plastic parts. Years ago I had a friend who grew up in Germany during WWII. He told of Lying on his back in a field, watching wave after wave of American bombers darkening the sky as they flew on to bomb the industrial centers of the Third Reich. Hearing him describe those formations of bombers and the emotions that his story communicated gave me an understanding of that time in history, and that part of WWII that I could have gotten in no other way. The use of the term “three persons” to describe the Godhead is of even less value than the use of a tiny plastic model of a B-17 to describe those formations of aircraft, and the men who flew in them, more than fifty years ago. The aircraft were a part of a story and the story cannot be understood except in its entirety. To attempt to do differently is to attempt to understand Hamlet by reading a synopsis of the second act.
Before looking at them separately, I must address these three sections (God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit) together. As I said in the introduction, I place much of my emphasis on tradition, so I can best address them in the words of that ancient baptismal formula that we now call “the Apostles Creed.”
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell; and on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting[2]. AMEN
If that was good enough for the Christian community in Rome in the Third or Forth century then I can not question it. The day will come when I will have to face not only the Lord but that “great cloud of witnesses” described by Paul in Heb.12. I doubt that I will be able to stand before men and women who were martyred in Nero’s persecution and argue that I know more about the Lord then did.
I do find that I have difficulty with the language of theology in this area. It is not the existence or autonomy of either the Father the Son or the Holy Spirit that causes the difficulty. It is the language used to describe them that I dislike. In Theology for the Community of God,[3] Stanley J. Grenz refers to two models, “replica models” and “analogue models.” That is at the root of my problem with the traditional language used to describe the Trinity. Neither model works for me. In attempting to describe my own beliefs I find that I need a third model, one that might be called a dramatic or story model. God works in history and I can only understand God within the framework of the story that is history.
Let me start by stating that there are three Personae in the Godhead. The difference is that while a person is a human being,[4] with a body and a mind, a persona can only be seen within the context of a story. In the case of the members of the Trinity the story is the drama of human history. I am neither denying nor questioning the individuality, reality, or autonomy of the personae by the use of that term. I am instead limiting the framework to one that is closer to the boundaries of human experience and understanding. I choose to do this because the use of any model to describe the Godhead is bound to be unsatisfactory, but a replica model must be the least satisfactory of all. It didn’t work for St. Patrick with his shamrock and it doesn’t work for us. It is acceptable only so far as we are willing to ignore it in favor of the experience of the Godhead in our own lives.
The failure of this model is best seen by looking at model airplanes in hobby shops and department stores. When we choose models that use the word person to describe God we are much like the person who attempts to describe an airplane by building one of those plastic kits. The difference is that the theologian uses the word “person” rather than plastic parts. Years ago I had a friend who grew up in Germany during WWII. He told of Lying on his back in a field, watching wave after wave of American bombers darkening the sky as they flew on to bomb the industrial centers of the Third Reich. Hearing him describe those formations of bombers and the emotions that his story communicated gave me an understanding of that time in history, and that part of WWII that I could have gotten in no other way. The use of the term “three persons” to describe the Godhead is of even less value than the use of a tiny plastic model of a B-17 to describe those formations of aircraft, and the men who flew in them, more than fifty years ago. The aircraft were a part of a story and the story cannot be understood except in its entirety. To attempt to do differently is to attempt to understand Hamlet by reading a synopsis of the second act.
