A long time ago I decided that, were I to become a theologian, my mission in life would be to get all the best stuff in the ivory tower, convert it into everyday language, and share it out with the Church as best I could. So here goes with my ten minutes worth on the Trinity and worship.
The doctrine of the Trinity has always, of course, been the backbone of Christian Doctrine. But how much attention is paid to the Trinity has varied over the centuries. Theology goes in fashions just as much as any other subject. Over the last 40 years or so, if you've been hanging about in Evangelical circles, you may remember whole chunks of time when the ONLY thing to talk about was the Holy Spirit, or - in the 1980s especially - "God as Father". But since the early 90's, the Trinity -the interaction of three 'persons', rather than focussing on one or the other of them - has come right back into fashion, both in academic and church theology. And it is quickly becoming a buzz-word in the Emergent scene.
The current trend is to talk about the trinity in terms of community - the idea that God being Trinity gives us a model of community, an interactive, give-and-take, mutually reinforcing set of relationships, which might offer us a model of Church. The fashion for the Trinity has led countless Evangelicals to the unlikely act of purchasing a copy of Rublev's Icon of the Trinity
The three figures appear as angels sitting round a table (see the story of the strangers at the Oaks of Mamre to see why God is depicted as Angels).
There is undoubtedly good stuff to consider from this concept of the Trinity as community for the shape of the Church and for mission, both popular talking points in Emerging Church circles. But it's a mistake to move too quickly from Trinity to a model for church. Stop and savour for a bit first.
In academic theology, the Trinity is discussed with a slightly more sophisticated terminology -for instance, it is spoken of in terms of sociality - an analysis of what the multiple nature of being means for the person of God. What I like about this is that it doesn't immediately look for a practical application to 'how we do church' but leaves the focus on 'who do we think God is?'. The old fashioned discussion of Trinity in terms of mathematical conundrums (three-in-one? how come?) is really not the point; the point is that God is intrinsically social and relational. It doesn't therefore present a problem to suggest that three really equals one, because the point of the discourse is to demonstrate that the Godhead is not static, but relational; there is movement - exchange and difference - within the Godhead. This gives us something much more profound than a 'model for church'. It gives us an image of God, and in response to it, a theology of worship, that enables us to understand ourselves as drawn into the embrace of God. If God is pictured as ONE - predominantly, for instance, in the image of God the father - then any meeting with God that you and I might attempt is like a stand-off, an encounter in which we may come as close as face-to-face, but in which the image reinforces our position as separate beings.
In the context of worship, this can produce some sense that we are performing for God. Think of the rhetoric of much of the worship of the 80''s and 90's - how often you would hear people enocourage us to 'wait' for the presence of God; or how often a phrase was misappropriated from Psalm 22:3 (God is enthroned on the praises of his people) to suggest that if we worship, and if we worship in a good enough way, then God would reward us with his presence. Of course, we didn't really believe (did we?) that God was NOT present in the first place - God is everywhere, right? But the words we used did say fairly frequently that God would somehow be more present if we worshipped properly. And what you say often enough you end up believing.
This is a what I mean by a stand-off view of God - the idea that we meet God in some kind of relationship combat, hoping that he might yield to our advances. Acts of worship conceived in this way suggest that we approach a flat, one-dimensional God in the hopes that we might get what we need from him. James Torrance describes this as 'Unitarian' worship (meaning that theologically rather than denominationally) - worship where two unrelated and utterly separate beings meet without hope of true interaction. At its worst, it makes a monster of God by separating the Trinity into rival, not cooperative, persons (a Father who must be stroked and cajoled into being present, a Son who must be sacrificed to appease him, a Spirit to help us manipulate the Father into gracing us with his presence.) Yet even at its best, it still leaves us with a view of ourselves as ultimately separated from God, only intermittently being drawn into God's presence.
But conceiving of the Trinity as a relational being offers quite an alternative understanding of worship. A social trinity gives us a picture of worship that is already taking place within the Godhead. The Father, the Son and the Spirit have, from time immemorial, been in mutual companionship, joy, worship and adoration of one another. Their creative activity was an act of mutuality. Read the Bible slowly and carefully and you'll see that 'the Word' (later called Jesus Christ) and the Spirit were actively involved in conceiving and delivering the creative activity behind what we understand as the genesis of our existence. Jesus was never "plan B" when it all went wrong; no - the second persona of the Trinity was always completely present in the creation and sustenance of the world (See, for instance, Colossians chapter 1 for Paul's version). If a relational understanding of the Trinity is the context of our coming to worship, there is no longer a need to please or impress God in order for him to bless us with his presence. We do not need to create, as it were, a good enough party to wake God up and make him think he might join us. It's quite the other way around. The Trinity are already having a party of their own. There they are, communicating, loving, worshipping, laughing, dancing, always and forever, without a break. Grace, love and adoration flows constantly between the Godhead. And, if you look again at Rublev's icon, you'll see that there is a fourth, empty place at the table - an implicit invitation. Come and join us?
The call to worship is therefore an invitation to join in with God's party. Worship is already underway - come and join in if you like. No need to DO anything - if you want to dance you can, but if you want to sit for a while and let it all wash over you and through you, you can do that too. Of course, at some point you will get drawn into the giving, communicating, adoring, loving activity - but there's no pressure, because God doesn't need your little mite of energy to drive the worship machine. But if you sit long enough in the presence of God, you'll stop being a wallflower and find that the dance is irresistible. This is a theology of worship that allows us to rest in God, that acknowledges that we are wanted, needed, invited in the right sense - but that the impetus, the initiative, is always God's.
Welcome to Trinitarian worship - the party where God is, and always was, and always will be, engaged in mutual adoration and praise, and where you can be drawn right into the centre of God until you can hardly spot the join. In the words of the old hymn writer, 'How can I keep from singing?'
Inspiring content! The Greeks had a word for it - perichoresis - the dancing around each other of the persons of God in Trinity- hence Roger Forster's new book 'Trinity' is sub-titled, 'The Song and Dance God'. And we are drawn into His embrace. I love what is said here about worship not being our effort, but our participation in what is already going on within God Himself.
Posted by: Colin Symes | 03/12/2005 at 11:13