It seems that the doctrine of the Trinity keeps popping up in my life. After a horrible chapter on theology and culture, Grenz and Franke move Beyond Foundationalism’s discussion toward the concept of the Trinity. They acknowledge the controversy and disillusionment the term brings to mind for many people, and I concur that it has come, for many people,

to be regarded as little more than an abstract and indefensible example of the excesses of speculative theology…Colin Gunton summarizes well this aspect of the contemporary theological climate: “Overall, there is a suspiction that the whole thing is a bore, a matter of mathematical conundrums and illogical attempts to square the circle.”…Many…are convinced that giving [the doctrine of the Trinity] a place in the theological enterprise…is to invite worthless, even detrimental speculation. p170-171

Already this chapter has my blood pumping. Here’s what I’m bringing into it:
-I’m tired of rationalist formulations that demand total by-faith acceptance of propositions about God that aren’t found in the Bible (such as, “The Father and Son are coequal,” whatever that means)
-I fully agree with the Trinitarian nature of “Father, Son, and Spirit” terminology, because it is quite biblical and doesn’t requre mental gymnastics nor eliminate mystery entirely. Robert Webber’s latest newsletter featured this prayer:

Lord God, creator of heaven and earth.
Lord Jesus Christ, redeemer of all things visible and invisible.
Holy Spirit, who quickens the new life within.
May your transcendent presence dwell in this community this hour,
Guiding our thoughts and conversation.
To the glory of your Holy Name.
Amen.

Grenz and Franke also refer to these roles for each Person - “The Father and creation; the Son and reconciliation; the Spirit and salvation as well as consummation” (p170). I like Webber’s description best, because he refers to the Spirit in regards to resurrection, which I think is central. I’m not sure exactly where Grenz and Franke are going with the “Spirit and consummation” angle yet.

The Holy Spirit’s role in giving new life - resurrection life - is inherently eschatological, because the “new heavens and new earth” are in a sense a resurrection, just as Jesus’ body was a resurrection body - contiguous with the old, yet transformed powerfully. We long for the same kind of resurrection, to be truly ourselves, yet to be transformed into what we were always meant to be, and to be with God forever.

I was reading Matthew 10 in the Message today, and was struck by how much Jesus’ advice applies to the mission we’re on in evangelism and church planting and ministry. Some passages that stand out:

6 Go to the lost, confused people right here in the neighborhood….9 Don’t think you have to put on a fund-raising campaign before you start. 10 You don’t need a lot of equipment. You are the equipment, and all you need to keep that going is three meals a day. Travel light. 11 When you enter a town or village, don’t insist on staying in a luxury inn. Get a modest place with some modest people, and be content there until you leave….40 We are intimately linked in this harvest work. Anyone who accepts what you do, accepts me, the One who sent you. Anyone who accepts what I do accepts my Father, who sent me.

The last one is a bit scary, but at the same time, it’s encouraging to hear Jesus say it.

We were discussing Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God a few weeks ago at a church meeting, and one of the concepts he presents has stuck with me - the idea that, rather than working for God, we watch to see what God is doing, and act in response. In ths way, it’s not our initiative that starts things, but God’s. The Purpose-Driven Church and The Prayer of Jabez contain a similar idea. I’ve never really started to internalize it until now, in the context of mission. It’s much easier to see where God is doing something and cooperate with Him when much of life is occupied by mission.

(Hope that title woke you up =)

On p45 of Knowledge of the Holy, Tozer writes:

When we say that God is infinite we mean that He knows no bounds. Whatever God is and all that God is, He is without limit. And here again we must break away form the popular meaning of words. “Unlimited wealth” and “boundless energy” are further examples of misuse of words. Of course no wealth is unlimited and no energy boundless unless we are speaking of the wealth and energy of God.

Again, to say that God is infinite is to say that He is measureless. Measurement is the way created things have of accounting for themselves. It describes limitations, imperfections, and cannot apply to God….It is the way we see the works of His hands, but no thte way we see Him. He is above all this, outside of it, beyond it.

And yet, in Christ we find a Person who is remarkably measurable, who grew in stature (which was certainly measureable to his carpenter father Joseph), who lived at a certain time and place. This Christ, paradox of infinitude and limitation, came to reveal what could not otherwise be known. Infinitude revealed through a limited reflection.

Signposts‘ biweekly (or “fortnightly” as they put it) MSN chat.

It was great to talk in realtime with some bloggers I feel I’ve gotten to know in recent months. You can get to know a lot about people by reading their blogs, but it’s nothing like synchronously interacting with them.

From TheOoze - A Church with No Name

Spencer Burke of TheOoze has started a church with no name. He writes:

Former add-ministers trying to unpackage ministry, I guess. I really don?t know how else to explain it. All I can say is that Lisa and I feel like it?s time. Time to try again. Time to start living out some of the ideas we?ve been talking about for years. Time to move away from the institutional church and toward a new kind of kingdom community?one where the voice of a homeless man is just as valid as the guy with the seminary degree.

As far as program goes, we don?t have one and you know what? I?m okay with that?well, not really, but I?m trying. Although some would say we?re taking the easy way out?planting a church overnight with no set plan?I?m actually finding it extremely difficult. I mean, where I come from, planting a church means months?if not years?of planning, 50 families and at least $25,000 in start-up money. At the very least, it means filing a 501C3 and declaring yourself an official religious organization. And yet, we have none of those things. In fact, we?re breaking pretty much every conventional church-planting rule I know. Why? Because we want to be ministers of the gospel, not ?add-ministers.? We want to be of service, not just a service (i.e. Sunday event). But I?d be lying if I said it was easy to let go of the program; it?s not.

Great to see another great thinker diving in.

I feel that my posts lately on the emergent church have been more in the vein of a pundit than an active participant and disciple. I have focused on technical issues - the “right way” to do things - at the expense of true substance.

I have succeeded in generating some comments, and this is fine. But I have little reason to continue blogging if all I do is say things that are controversial - or even interesting. The purpose of this blog needs to extend beyond that, into significant content. And not just things to think about or talk about, but things of spiritual consequence.

I have reorganized my categories, separating ecclesiology and spirituality - not because they should be split apart, but because I tend to include too little spirituality and too much ecclesiology if everything falls under “theology.” I don’t want that to happen. In the future, therefore, you will (hopefully) find more spiritual content in my posts.

Len Hjalmerson has been a great “invisible friend” in this regard. If you don’t read NextReformation regularly, you should. His posts walk a near-perfect balance between reflection, spiritual depth, and divergent thinking. Thanks, Len, for setting such a great example.