Lectionary Sermon for 16 June 2019 on John 16: 12-15

Sometimes trying to sort out and pigeonhole the meaning of words and ideas somehow misses the point. Without careful thought, repeating words and ideas from the Bible or even from the pulpit might not help. But that shouldn’t surprise us. Words and ideas get their meaning from context – and in our real world that context continues to develop and change.

Let me give you an example. Like a number of you in this church I am a grandparent. The dictionary tells me that your grandparent means whoever is a parent of your father or mother. Clear enough? Well in my experience the dictionary misses the main point. When my then two year old grandchild Bianca came to visit and held up her arms to be picked up, then brushed our golden retriever with my toothbrush, ate the dog-food and tipped her cup of water into the dogs bowl before she drank it, I knew I had a grandchild. When she picked up a book then climbed onto Shirley’s knee to be read to, I am guessing that Shirley would have been reminded that she has a real grandchild. The dictionary doesn’t quite tell us what being a grandparent means.

Here is another word needing explanation. This Sunday is called Trinity Sunday, so a question. What is it about the idea of the Trinity that might make any practical difference to our real relationships…. or to the lives any of us here in this worship space?

When lay people hear serious theologians discussing the Trinity with its long history of disputes, esoteric vocabulary, and at worst, its apparent disconnect with the everyday world, perhaps we should have some sympathy for those who prefer to get on with life and leave the theologians to their discussion.

What do you make of the theologians’ astonishing assertion that the three persons of the Trinity are “consubstantial” – I hope you all know what that means because I can’t be certain that I do. But just reflect for a moment. But why did it take something like 300 years before the disputes about the emerging idea of the Trinity began to be settled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople in 381. Did you know Augustine made at least twenty separate attempts to make the idea plain and are you surprised that some are tempted to ask why it was worth it

But for those of us anxious to make sense of our sometimes dimly understood faith, perhaps the Trinity only matters if the idea encourages us into new relationships.

Trinity as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is an idea familiar enough to most denominations of the Christian Church. We might for example encounter Jesus in today’s lesson saying the Spirit of truth “will take what is mine and declare it to you”. Further he says: “All that the Father has is mine”. But we also have those familiar words we use inspired from Paul writing in the second letter to the Corinthians where he offers the benediction:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 11:13).

Ah – but did you notice. Even here it doesn’t say “three in one” – or that even more apparently curious notion that somehow God the Father is somehow one with God in Jesus and one with the Holy Spirit.

It is true the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible but it is fair to say that some of the concepts and ideas on which it is based are at least being partially shaped, particularly in the writing of Matthew and Paul and by the time the early Church got around to its formulation a good number of the early Christians found it expressing what they wanted to say.

Perhaps we also need to be honest and admit that even at the Council of Nicaea where the Emperor Constantine had directed that Christians should stop arguing amongst themselves about how to talk about Jesus and come out with a common statement of position, not only were a number present unable to accept the suggested formula of the Trinity, but even some of those who accepted the subsequent wording of the Nicene Creed were far from agreed as to exactly what it should all mean. We should also note that some parts of the Church today steadfastly refuse to entertain the thought that Jesus and God are somehow equivalent and at the same time, despite that disagreement appear to be comfortable accepting Jesus’ teaching and the essence of his ethics in terms of the rest of their understanding.

Before we rush to insist that groups like the Unitarians have it all wrong, some humility is called for.

Almost every time God is encountered in the Bible (He?) is presented with an air of mystery leaving far more unknown than known. Even today, modern physicists who admit frankly they understand little of the workings of creation, would almost certainly caution anyone from making definitive statements about the nature of creation let alone any form of creator behind the process.

All we can know is that the Universe is now known to be infinitely bigger and more complex than anyone might have been able to begin to guess at the time of the compilation of the Bible. Saying the God of creation is God the Father may simply be reflecting one of Jesus’ several metaphors for God but the confusion deepens when we insist The Father is somehow another form of the Son. Nevertheless, as the theologian Elizabeth Johnson explains, the Trinity emerged because the early Christians were trying to explain that they experienced God in three different ways, ie God in a threefold way.

In Elizabeth Johnson’s words: “They still believed in one God, but they experienced this one God in at least three particular ways: beyond them, with them, and within them”. The Father part was the notion that not only was there mystery in creation, they felt that there were glimpses of a caring force which they and their religious leaders likened to and personified as a loving parent.

However, even if this force felt caring, it was also acknowledged as beyond them, in other words as being utterly transcendent, beyond comprehension and strictly beyond description. When they talked of Jesus being the Son of God they were trying to say Jesus had grounded this notion in his own person and they felt that his being with them (demonstrating what we might these days call “his empathy”) gave a human dimension to the mysterious God which they wanted to call the Father.

Once Jesus had left the scene, his followers had a strong sensation that somehow he was still with them – and was now in effect within. This they felt was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

The essence of what became the Trinity was then: beyond them, beside them and within them.

As a more modern generation we might argue we are now in a position to question aspects of the early Church view. Each part of the metaphor description of the Trinity should be checked against knowledge gained elsewhere. Creation not only unfolds large scale as our telescopes push back the frontiers into the depths of space, but also when we look down though our electron scanning microscopes. Every aspect of this changing creation, great and small, is gradually unfolding year by year. The biggest change for the Trinity is that this knowledge overwhelms our Father image with an impression of something much more unified and far less restricted to the human concerns of a single species on a relatively tiny speck floating in an unimaginably vast expanding universe populated by Galaxies of innumerable changing stars, planets and what is more, a Universe now suspected to be only one of many universes.

God the Son similarly changes as more facts come to light. It is not so much that Jesus himself must be radically different to his portrayal in the Gospels, but since we now know far more about other religious settings and far more about the history of his time than was revealed in the New Testament writing, we have to be more cautious about what we claim to know with certainty. A key question here is to ask how much of his reported wisdom is applicable today for our changed circumstances – and how much relevance we can expect Him to have for those born into vastly different cultures and religions. And lastly we need to acknowledge that those mysterious feelings we have about a guiding Spirit are a little harder to interpret when we now know that many of our feelings are partially shaped by the biochemistry of the brain. To take one small example, many behaviours that in Jesus day were classified as sins, are now known to be influenced by neurotransmitters in the brain, by heredity and by environment.

Please notice that the sense of mystery and transcendence if anything is increased by modern knowledge, and it still makes perfect sense to remind ourselves that “God” is still beyond us. If we know that we ourselves find it hard to grasp what we are trying to describe as creation, we should be reluctant to pretend that we know enough to dismiss others’ attempts to put it into words. We should also check out our own religious language to make sure we are not dumbing down our image of this God of transcendence until “He” becomes what the poet William Blake once called a “Nobodaddy” as a sort of a ventriloquist dummy, somewhere “up there” in the ether, fabricated by our imaginations for the express purpose of doing what we ask for our exclusive satisfaction.

When it comes to the metaphor of God the Son highlighting the importance Jesus for us, beside us, remembering him in particular as the wisdom teacher for the practical everyday situations, we can’t have it both ways. If the flesh and blood Jesus was prepared to reinterpret the law for situations of need in front of him, we cannot pretend that this same Jesus would have us stay unable to face the unfolding situations and issues in front of us because we are frozen in our religious past.

We might secretly think only Methodists have it right. But Jesus seemed to imply that the Spirit guides us to deal with those of different faiths as neighbours to be loved. If he was right, it is not just a matter of announcing to others that Jesus is the Son of God as part of the Trinity, it is more a matter of showing by our actions that this same Jesus is still beside us because we are attempting to follow the essence of his wisdom and reinterpret it for our generation.

In the last analysis, it is when we stop reading and cast within for the Spirit leading us on, that our faith might start to be transformed from something to be talked about to something that lives.

Yes, new knowledge will continue to bring new insights and the last word is far from being spoken. After all the notion of the Trinity continued to change long after the writers of the New Testament had struggled to express what they felt, simply because the situation facing the early Christians continued to change. Those changes are now accelerating. As life brings new challenges we will need to continue to adjust our thinking and no doubt the most meaningful creeds are still to be written.

Maybe the biggest adjustment in the time to come is when we realize that our biggest challenge is not to shape the right faith formula, Trinity or otherwise, but rather to seek the formula that will shape us, particularly in a way that we might be freed to offer something for our present and our successors future world.

This entry was posted in Christianity, Progressive Sermons, Sermons and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.