Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
What Cliffdweller and I are asking you to try to understand is that (1) "Father" and "Son" are indeed imperfect metaphors, especially when describing the ungendered nature of a non-anthropomorphic God or the co-eternal, co-equal, and uncreated nature of the persons of the Trinity, and that (2) the imperfection of the traditional formula's language does give rise to misunderstandings that do in fact injure rather than strengthen faith in some cases, but (3)such misunderstandings can be addressed through the use of other descriptions and metaphors, even though (4) such other descriptions and metaphors can also be imperfect in different ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Part of my pov here is that I think it is important that we speak about God. God is a mystery, but God is a mystery that wants to be known. That's the whole point of Scripture, the whole point of the incarnation. God wants to be known and reveals God-self to us. But again, our language is limited. So when we start talking about God, we're going to fumble around. We are inevitably going to bump up against all the historic heresies, and particularly we're going to bump up against modalism. I'm simply suggesting we have a less hysterical response to that, a less anxious response, yes, more of a "it's not a big deal" response. That we simply say "oops-- yeah, that was modalism", explain what modalism is and why it falls short, and move on.

---

quote:

---

To again, calm the heck down. Because when we don't, it has the tendency to shut down all conversation about God and all we do is repeat the same safe formulations-- which then robs even the safe and wonderful "approved" formulation of F/S/S of it's depth and beauty because we can't even talk about it without worrying about getting a toe over the heresy line.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't disagree with any of these things...

Right. Not sure what I have said that indicates I wouldn't agree. Except...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Except that modalism, as being a denial of one of the Big Two Defining Tenets of Christianity, is a bigger deal than things that are not denials of one of the Big Two Defining Tenets of Christianity.

...I can't see how rejecting C/S/R gives the message that we can't talk about either the problems with, or the beauty of, F/S/HS. Especially if it's made clear up front that it doesn't deny the Incarnation or the Trinity, its problems are more subtle and in many cases more personal than that. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

To again, calm the heck down. Because when we don't, it has the tendency to shut down all conversation about God and all we do is repeat the same safe formulations-- which then robs even the safe and wonderful "approved" formulation of F/S/S of it's depth and beauty because we can't even talk about it without worrying about getting a toe over the heresy line.

---

I can't see how rejecting C/S/R gives the message that we can't talk about either the problems with, or the beauty of, F/S/HS.

---

quote:

---

[qb]Most theological problems change what yard line you're on, or put you in the stands, or in line for a hot dog. This is all expected stuff and no need for panic or denial of beauty. Denying the Trinity or the Incarnation puts you outside the stadium. This is a point I am not sure we've met eye-to-eye on yet.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And honestly, that's how I hear it-- a hysterical over-reaction. I think that sort of reaction (which yes, I understand harkens back to the patristic era-- they were wrong) hampers all of our conversations about God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
If merely allowing the possibility of modalism were enough to render an otherwise triune formula modalistic, then the traditional "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" formula must be even more strongly Arian (and antitrinitarian) than the "c/r/s" formula is modalistic. After all, it is simply impossible for a pre-existent, uncreated father to have generated a son who is equally pre-existent and uncreated. That in turn would mean that Arianism is scriptural and Trinitarianism is not.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform.

---

I fail to see how you can describe it thus and then turn around and say it's not modalist. Describing God in terms of functions and not persons is the very essence of modalism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Modalism is wrong. [..]

"Genderism" or whatever you want to call the error of F/S/S is also wrong.[..]

I am arguing (again, I've said this already) that we deal with the modalist limitations of C/R/S in the precisely the same way we deal with the "genderist" limitations of F/S/S. iow, use the formulation in whatever ways seems useful and helpful in our particular ecclesiastical context (recognizing mine is quite different from yours)-- and then teach to the problematic areas.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

That's my problem with it - it's that it doesn't tell us anything correct about the Trinity.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform.

---

I fail to see how you can describe it thus and then turn around and say it's not modalist. Describing God in terms of functions and not persons is the very essence of modalism.

---

Does this help at all, or does it just make things worse?

Modalism is a form of "nothing buttery"--it takes God to be a single Person (nothing BUT a single person) who picks up various names depending on which particular function he is doing at the moment.

The c/r/s formula lends itself to modalism if one is already that way inclined--at best, we can say it doesn't prevent whatever modalistic leanings one might have lurking. But it doesn't cause them, and it can in fact be used by a perfectly orthodox Trinitarian who knows and believes all the usual caveats about how the Three Persons cofunction and coinhere. The formula itself makes no "nothing buttery" statement, but it doesn't prevent such a position, either--and that's a weakness.

So the problem is not that c/r/s is modalist in and of itself. The problem is that it is minimalist--it is missing the built-in protection against modalism that the F/S/S formula possesses. And that fact makes it very easy for both orthodox Trinitarians and modalists to use it without ever realizing that they don't mean the same thing by it.

If I've just made things worse, I'll go away.

ETA: It's not the describing of God in terms of function that is the essence of modalism. It's the downright declaration that he is "nothing but" one person who has various functions that is the essence of modalism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to have to think about this one more, but I'm considering the analogy of what it would mean if someone were to refer to my family members as "Protector, Sustainer, Joy-Giver" instead of "father, mother, child". The parallel is more exact than I first thought, because surely all three of us carry out all three functions, though it is usual to specially associate each with a particular person. Is this formula, then, implying modalism? I would say not. We remain three separate people, and nobody would dream of saying my rather naff proposed formula gave any support to a modalist statement about our natures.

What then is the problem with the formula (besides its tweeness)? I wonder if it lies in reductionism. Those so inclined--which is a huge lot of people, it seems--can easily take the formula in the "nothing buttery" sense--Mr. L is "nothing but" a protector, I am "nothing but" a sustainer (aka cook, shopper, producer of random school supplies), and so on. It is problematic because it reduces each person to a function. That in itself is not modalism, but it IS a category error. Worse, it is the particular category error that enables the further mistake of true modalism to occur.

Modalism proper takes the error one step further--it not only reduces the persons to functions, but it ALSO goes on to deny the existence of separate persons at all. The formula does not deny this; it merely ignores it, is silent on the question altogether.

Which is IMHO what the C/R/S formula does with the Trinity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So if we are not compelled to reject the scriptural F/S/S formula as false because it is antitrinitarian, or else reject Trinitarianism because it contradicts the scriptural formula, we must accept the reality that it is a flawed metaphor that is explicitly at odds with doctrine is some respects but useful for other reasons, and recognize the limitations of its flaws with our eyes open. But if we are willing to allow that much interpretive freedom in order to adopt a formula that so plainly contradicts orthodox doctrine on its face, it would be hypocritical to reject an alternative formula that does not contain such a stark inconsistency merely because it is more doctrinally ambiguous.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I disagree that the F/S/S formula ought to be called Arian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


However, I would tend to avoid C/R/S on other grounds, namely the lack of Scriptural example. I look to the Bible to know better than I do, so if one formula gets used and the other omitted, that's the way I'll lean. Particularly in the case of baptism.

(notice those words "tend to avoid". I probably would in fact use the c/r/s formula without worry in the context of a clearly Trinitarian worship service, somewhere in the liturgy. The rest of the service would compensate for the possibility that someone might misread it as pre-modalism. Hopefully it would also compensate for the possibility that someone might misread it as "the First Person of the Trinity ONLY has this function, while the Second Person does something completely different..." )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Finally it's a good idea when planning worship to take into account the tendencies of the age. Arianism is not a terribly common problem today, at least compared to modalism. Modalism seems to be hiding behind every postmodern bush, at least in Western cultures. If we were back in Athanasius' day, no doubt the balance would be skewed the other way, and we'd have to look out for ways to emphasize the Unity and also the deity of Christ.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

What then is the problem with the formula (besides its tweeness)? I wonder if it lies in reductionism. Those so inclined--which is a huge lot of people, it seems--can easily take the formula in the "nothing buttery" sense--Mr. L is "nothing but" a protector, I am "nothing but" a sustainer (aka cook, shopper, producer of random school supplies), and so on. It is problematic because it reduces each person to a function. That in itself is not modalism, but it IS a category error. Worse, it is the particular category error that enables the further mistake of true modalism to occur.

Modalism proper takes the error one step further--it not only reduces the persons to functions, but it ALSO goes on to deny the existence of separate persons at all. The formula does not deny this; it merely ignores it, is silent on the question altogether.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:


Here's why. If the c/r/s formula has a "minimalism" problem because it allows room for a modalist interpretation, then the F/S/S formula has an even greater problem because it is explicitly Arian. For every pair of father and son who have ever lived, it has been an absolute, incontrovertible truth that "there was a time when the son was not". However, if that truth is applied to God, it does not merely allow room for Arianism, it is the defining principle of Arianism. Unlike the c/r/s formula, the F/S/S formula cannot "lend itself to" Trinitarianism unless "one is already that way inclined" -- and one takes a very lenient approach to interpreting the metaphor.

So if we are not compelled to reject the scriptural F/S/S formula as false because it is antitrinitarian, or else reject Trinitarianism because it contradicts the scriptural formula, we must accept the reality that it is a flawed metaphor that is explicitly at odds with doctrine is some respects but useful for other reasons, and recognize the limitations of its flaws with our eyes open. But if we are willing to allow that much interpretive freedom in order to adopt a formula that so plainly contradicts orthodox doctrine on its face, it would be hypocritical to reject an alternative formula that does not contain such a stark inconsistency merely because it is more doctrinally ambiguous.

---

This.

Again, the reason this is more than just an esoteric theonerd debate is that it goes to the heart of our ability to speak of God. The wonderful, incomprehensible thing about the Bible is that in the pages of Scripture, finite human beings dare to speak of God. We dare to talk about God, to not only describe our experiences of God, but to draw conclusions on them, to make statements about God's character and essence. That's an incredibly audacious act. And an incredibly powerful act. I

This kind of give-and-take of experience/ conclusion/ evaluation/ correction is precisely the way we get to know anyone. I read Lamb's post, or Mousethief's, or fausto's, and I begin to draw conclusions, to form a picture of him/her. Then I read another post, and it shifts things-- I learn a bit more, I see places where my earlier conclusions were inaccurate or incomplete, I readjust my thinking and expectations. That's a natural, mostly subconscious process, but essential to the way we learn--including/especially the way we come to learn and know others. And again, the fact that we are explicitly invited to "taste and see"-- to learn and know Godself-- that's a sacred and wonderful thing.

But the whole way we have handled the heresy thing since the patristic era seems designed to short-circuit that process. By treating each heresy as ebola-- something to be ruthlessly contained and exterminated (sometimes literally) makes it pretty darn hard to have that sort of exploration-- that sort of wonderfully gradual unfolding of knowledge and awareness. It means that the only things we can say about God are the "safe", pre-approved things, even when, as fausto noted, those things have been shown to be just as faulty as the unsafe, unapproved things.

Again, not saying we should endorse or promote or ignore heresy-- it's important that we try to get it right, because what we say about God is important. Just that we be less anxious about it and so quick to shut down the process. This seems particularly true of modalism precisely because it is so prevalent. There's something almost natural about modalism-- it sort of the way we naturally tend to categorize things-- and people. It's wrong for all the reasons Lamb noted-- both about people and about God-- to limit them to their functions, but it is also natural. We think of people as The Doctor, The Athlete, The LoudMouthed KnowItAll ( ). It's totally wrong, but it is our starting place. And then we start to know them in a broader, more inclusive way.

Having a less anxious response to modalism would, I believe, allow us to simply talk more about God. We could start to spin analogies or talk about our experiences, without this ever-present fear of stepping a toe over the line. Then we can, clearly and explicitly, but without so much frantic haste and urgency, correct the inaccuracies-- the limitations, the reductionism.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

However, I would tend to avoid C/R/S on other grounds, namely the lack of Scriptural example. I look to the Bible to know better than I do, so if one formula gets used and the other omitted, that's the way I'll lean. Particularly in the case of baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(notice those words "tend to avoid". I probably would in fact use the c/r/s formula without worry in the context of a clearly Trinitarian worship service, somewhere in the liturgy. The rest of the service would compensate for the possibility that someone might misread it as pre-modalism. Hopefully it would also compensate for the possibility that someone might misread it as "the First Person of the Trinity ONLY has this function, while the Second Person does something completely different..." )

---

Awesome! Yes, that's precisely what I'm arguing for. Oh, good, I so like it when we agree... makes me feel like I'm on to something...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Finally it's a good idea when planning worship to take into account the tendencies of the age. Arianism is not a terribly common problem today, at least compared to modalism. Modalism seems to be hiding behind every postmodern bush, at least in Western cultures. If we were back in Athanasius' day, no doubt the balance would be skewed the other way, and we'd have to look out for ways to emphasize the Unity and also the deity of Christ.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the reality is, the F/S/S formula is used only once in Scripture. I can't think of any other formula that's used anywhere in Scripture. The separate entities of F/S/S appear of course throughout Scripture-- but then, so do C/R/S. otoh, the one and only instance of a F/S/S formula is specifically in the context of baptism, which is why I agree with you that at the very least, the formula should be retained for baptism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the reality is, the F/S/S formula is used only once in Scripture. I can't think of any other formula that's used anywhere in Scripture. The separate entities of F/S/S appear of course throughout Scripture-- but then, so do C/R/S. otoh, the one and only instance of a F/S/S formula is specifically in the context of baptism, which is why I agree with you that at the very least, the formula should be retained for baptism.

---

But all scripture is not created equal. Only one part is printed in red, for very good and defensible reasons, and we should pay very close attention to the words of Christ that we have in Holy Writ. And "Father" comes effortlessly off his lips, over and over and over. And what is more he describes the relationship between himself and the First Person of the Trinity with father/son language far more often than with any other relationship language. In short, if there's a problem with using these relationship words to describe the relationship between the First and Second Persons, then don't talk to me, talk to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I confess I don't understand your point about angst at all. In saying that something is modalist, I am making a statement of fact (or not fact if I'm wrong), not referring to my inner states. And it seems to me that inferring things about my inner states therefrom is rude. And skirts the borders of Bulverism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
totally agree with the above (even the "words in red" part-- a more controversial rubric that sometimes gets me in hot water). Which is why I am not arguing for jettisoning F/S/S, especially in context of the baptismal liturgy.

---

quote:

---

More of a general statement of "we treat modalism like ebola" not specifically "mousethief treats modalism like ebola".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sir Thomas Browne made a distinction between downright heresy and bare error (in Religio Medici, which is a purely awesome book). The distinction appears to lie in the teachability (or otherwise) of the person putting forth the error. The one who is willing to discuss, learn, find out more, and so forth is not guilty of heresy, which requires a crappy attitude, aka obstinacy and incorrigibility under any circumstance.

There is a third category, that of "we don't know yet," aka speculation. It's a place to walk very carefully indeed, and not at all a place to get dogmatic or even to attempt to teach others, in case one turns out to be wrong when the facts finally do come out. But it isn't heresy either.

And I suppose I'd add a fourth category, that of teachings Christians differ on in all good faith, which do not in themselves imperil our mutual standing as members of the family of God.

I started off posting this because I thought it worthwhile to mention that not everyone caught in some error is a heretic. Most of us have been in error at some time or other, and were perfectly happy to learn better. I was.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
totally agree with the above (even the "words in red" part-- a more controversial rubric that sometimes gets me in hot water). Which is why I am not arguing for jettisoning F/S/S, especially in context of the baptismal liturgy.

---

Fair enough. I realize now looking at it that it really was more of a response to fausto than to you. Sorry about that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


And I suppose I'd add a fourth category, that of teachings Christians differ on in all good faith, which do not in themselves imperil our mutual standing as members of the family of God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I take the black letter stuff to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (in so far as we haven't mistranslated, miscopied, etc.) and I see no reason to prioritize the words of one member of the Trinity over another.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus did not use "son of God" and I agree that "Son of Man" just means "Human Being." But Jesus did use Father/Son wording in ways that were meant to specifically talk about his relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Sure, he called God "Father", and not only as the father of himself, but also as the father of us all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
For example I give you John 5:19:

Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

Here he is clearly referring to himself as "the Son" and not to everyman.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
In the Trinitarian context, I think "Father" is traditionally understood to describe a relationship not only with the Son, but also with all humanity (who are represented in the Trinity by the human element of the Son's nature, and on whose behalf the Son serves as mediator with the Father).

---

quote:

---

However, even if that verse is a factual record of something Jesus actually said, it is also a particularly poor illustration of the Trinitarian principle that the relationship of Father and Son is between autonomous equals, rather than between an autonomous superior and a dependent subordinate.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Well if John is going to be off-limits then we may as well throw out the majority of Orthodox theology.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Unless you believe Paul was a mere puppet, his words were his words, not the Holy Spirit's.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
if you want to communicate with someone, you have to do so in a language he understands. And if he understands the pronoun in this sentence to be referring to a male person, then you need to find some different language.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suppose I ought to identify myself as "not a red letter prioritizer."

I take the black letter stuff to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (in so far as we haven't mistranslated, miscopied, etc.) and I see no reason to prioritize the words of one member of the Trinity over another.

But of course those of you (the majority on Shipboard) who don't hold my position on inspiration will naturally come to different conclusions.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So while I would agree very much that all of scripture is inspired by God and authoritative, the best and clearest revelation of God is Jesus himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Unless you believe Paul was a mere puppet, his words were his words, not the Holy Spirit's.

---

We believe they were both. But AFAIR this is a deceased equine, and I'll shut up now.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
circling back to the OP, Barth has some interesting things to say about male/ female. He draws from Gen. 1:27 "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" to suggest that the image of God is not anything found in any one individual, but is found uniquely in intimate community. Another reason why genderist language creates a false picture.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There is, strictly speaking, no pronoun, since Hebrew is one of those languages where the ending on the verb tells you the pronoun. The verbs are conjugated for a male.

Not for the faint-of-heart.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
My first Spiritual Director (also known as "Mum") replied to my question on this topic: "I don't think they'd have listened to a woman in those days, dear-ie"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, And the Lord has forgotten me."

"Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.

---