Bloggin’ the 28: Applying Trinity to human relationships

By Johnny Ramirez-Johnson
There
is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal
Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and
ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known
through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship,
adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19;
2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)
(Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, Belief No. 2, The
Trinity
Introduction
The “Statue of the Three Lies”

 
Have you ever drawn God? If you were assigned the task of doing so
where will you go for inspiration? At Harvard University yard, where
the oldest buildings remain, in front of the old water pump, there is a
statue that we Harvardites call, “the statue of the three lies.” You
see the statue is supposed to be a representation of young John
Harvard, but it is not. That is the first lie, the story says that Mr.
Daniel Chester French, a sculptor was contracted by the university
administration to produce a statue of the greatest benefactor they ever
had.

 
In fact Rev. John Harvard, an Englishman, was the first person to endow
the university with half of his estate (£779) his large library (400
volumes of which only one survives today) all for the purpose of
training ministers. In return the university was named after him and a
bigger that life statue was to be erected. But when Mr. French, the
sculptor, arrived there was no painting or any other drawing of John
Harvard. They expected him to do a statue of a dead man with nothing to
go by. The solution was to use a student as a model. As a result of
this unique assignment “the Statue of the Three Lies” was erected. The
nature of the other two lies will not be covered in this presentation,
you will have to visit Harvard’s yard and take a tour with a Harvardite.

  No Human Has Ever Seen GodWhen I selected the assignment to write about the Trinity I felt like
Mr. French, the sculptor, I asked myself where can I find an image of
the Godhead? Where can I get inspiration to draw with words an accurate
description of God? You see there are no pictures, paintings, diagrams,
or even internet sites to visit where I can find a reliable
photo album of the Godhead family, the Trinity. Therefore I decided to
search the Bible. John the beloved apostle who had the privilege to lay
his head on the body of Jesus the carpenter from Nazareth and who
recognized Jesus as the eternal “logos” makes it plain and clear. 1
John 4:12 “No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God
lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”1 No human has ever seen the Trinity.The Example of MosesOnce Moses asked God to show him what could not be revealed, the words
spoken are self-explanatory. Exodus 33:18-20 “Then Moses said, ‘Now
show me your glory.’ And the LORD said, ‘I will cause all my goodness
to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your
presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,’ he said, ‘you cannot
see my face, for no one may see me and live.’”Describing God’s Back and GoodnessOn this presentation I will examine methodically some of the biblical
attempts to describe who the Trinity is and what does this doctrine or
belief has to do with our daily experiences. In doing so I will avoid
the task that was clearly declared as impossible when Moses requested
seen God. I will not seek to describe God’s face, I will limit myself
to God’s back and God’s goodness (Exodus 33:18-23). Like Mr. French, if
we try to describe how God looks like we will create a false image,
another statue of three lies. We are wise to deal with God’s back and
goodness, there is plenty to see from God’s backside!Brief History of the Doctrine of the TrinitySince the term Trinity has theological rather than biblical origins I
cannot quote a biblical text to discuss its origins. It is in the
history of the Christian church that we find its roots. It is in the
context of Christian apologetics that we find its inception. Only
because some perceived attack was received were the early Fathers of
the church interested in defining many of the Christian doctrines,
including the Trinity. The Early Fathers of the church had a lot to say
about this topic. The church Patriarchs had lots of doctrinal and
political struggles of which they left behind numerous written
witnesses.Theophilus of Antioch circa 180 ADImitating Luke (see Luke 1:3) Theophilus of Antioch wrote three books
to proclaim the risen Savior to his friend Autolycus. The first book
deals with God, the second with a Christian interpretation of the Old
Testament, and the third book with the superiority of the Christian
faith. In his first book we have the first mention of the doctrine of
the Trinity (Gonzalez, 1970:117). In describing what he called the
Trinity Theophilus took a leap beyond the biblical data and introduced
a theological term that from then on defined the Christian God. It was
not without many conflicts that this theological view of God was
accepted and defined by the Christian community.Cyril of Alexandria circa 430 ADThe “Seal of the Fathers”, Cyril of Alexandria who died about 444 AD
has been credited as “the one who finally fixed the true doctrine of
the Trinity” (Krüger, 1977:333). Cyril was instrumental in dealing with
Nestorius who rejected the “bearer of God” title applied to Mary, the
mother of Jesus. In opposing the title given to Mary, Nestorius of
Antioch set himself up against more powerful Patriarchs, Cyril of
Alexandria whose parish had a significant amount of financial resources
and political influence (more than often these two go together) and
Rome. Cyril took it upon himself to destroy Nestorius and so he did.
Forcing him to sign a most humiliating document, it was in this letter
and the appendix of “Heretical Statements” that we find the
declarations defining the doctrine of the Trinity.Unitarianism and PatripassianismNestorius was neither the first nor the most significant opponent of
the prevalent Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Many others opposed
various aspects of the doctrine, most significantly the divinity of
Jesus and the nature of the Holy Spirit. There are many ways of
classifying all these controversies. I will limit myself to mentioning
two classifications of the Trinity that depart from the prevalent
Christian view: Unitarianism and Patripassianism. Unitarianism declares
the complete union of the Godhead rejecting the notion that there are
three “persons” in the Godhead. Tertulian first used the notion of
“persona” to describe the Trinity circa 175 AD. The Unitarian doctrine
views the Holy Spirit as an attribute of the Father and views the Son
as a created being (see McClintock & Strong, 1970:551-556).Patripassianism declares that the Father suffered and was given in
sacrifice alongside with Jesus (the term literally means ‘the passion
of the Father’). Patripassianism as well as Unitarianism and all the
other views on the Trinity are based on some passages from the Bible. A
detailed discussion of these goes beyond the scope of this paper. The
main points to ponder are summarized in three questions: Is God an
immutable, far away, all knowing, and all encompassing, far from human
frailty God? Is the Trinity a mutable one, each member having a unique
opinion and each member learning from each other? Is the Trinity in
“need” of companionship and enjoys the pleasures of intimacy with
humans and between themselves?Seven years away from the of the start of the third millennia and many
debates, church councils, political maneuvering, and Bible studies
after Theophilus and Cyril wrote their theologies I have the task of
explaining in a Christ center way the implications of the doctrine of
the Trinity today.DisclaimerWe All Speak From Our Vantage PointsAs expressed by our own Adventist Southern Californian theologian
Richard Rice, although “theology seeks to express the faith of a
religious community, rather than someone’s private opinions, it
inevitably reflects the viewpoint of its author” (1985:xvii). Following
Rice, I do not view this perspective as a weakness but as strength, how
else can we learn about the unseen God if not by the reflections of
humans like you and me? This analysis is a personal reflection on the
meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of the
human need for relationships.I must say a word or two about who I am. I am a male, middle class
mestizo who lives in Colton, California. I am a Harvard educated
ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I have lived
among very orthodox people who view the Bible as having an answer to
every specific question. And I have also lived among those who view the
Bible as a book to be interpreted in light of today’s realities. I can
feel equally comfortable among both groups. It will be from this
perspective that I will talk to you. Like Theophilus, Cyril, and all
writers on this internet Campmeeting series who wrote before me and all
those who will write after me, we can only reflect and think within the
framework of our experience, one perspective at a time.We Need Each OtherThe first point that I wish to make in regards the doctrine in
consideration is the fact that our God is a Trinitarian one. Before we
make up our minds in regards to what is true we ought to listen to at
least three perspectives from three different people, like the Godhead
we all can benefit from diversity of perspectives. Diversity of
opinions begins with God. I will latter explain myself.Ellen G. White Advises SilenceEllen G. White declares that silence is golden when trying to define who the Holy Spirit is, she says.

  It
is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit
is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, “the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” It is plainly declared
regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all
truth, “He shall not speak of Himself.” John 15:26; 16:13. The nature
of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the
Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring
together passages of scripture and put a human construction on them,
but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church.
Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding,
silence is golden (White, 1911:51-52).

  Her
advice is to study the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit. In this
paper I will concentrate on the nature of the relationship of the
Trinity with us and what can we learn to help us understand God’s
character and love for us humans. Instead of building a statue of the
Trinity or the so-called logical attributes thereof, I wish to describe
the goodness of God (see Exodus 33:18-20) as it relates to us. I will
describe God’s backside–which has been revealed, not God’s face–which
has not been seen.Biblical AccountsGenesis 1 and 2Genesis 1:26-27 no uncertain ways that there is an authoritative,
legitimate, image of the Trinity on earth. “Then God said, ‘Let us make
man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them.” Genesis 1:26-27 was mentioned by all the
theologians I read (about twenty), they all discussed it from the
standpoint that it declares a plurality in God, therefore the doctrine
of the Trinity can be documented with this and many other texts. This
is completely and absolutely true. The God of Genesis is plural, the
Creator of Genesis consulted in a heavenly council before creating our
first parents.I have no idea of what when on in their dialogue, what I know for
certain is that they came up with a design. This design is a reflection
of God, the image of God. As presented by our prophetess Ellen G. there
is no question about the fact that we humans, male and female, reflect
God.

  There
is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees
of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. . . .
Man was to bear God’s image, both in outward resemblance and in
character. Christ alone is ‘the express image’ (Hebrews 1:3) of the
Father; but man was formed in the likeness of God. His nature was in
harmony with the will of God” (White, 1958:45).
Therefore
if we look at the best human traits, both in our physical “outward
appearance” and psychological ways, “character,” we will find the only
authorized image of the Trinity. To accomplish this task we will
examine the passage in question with the question: What can we learn
about the Trinity from the story of the creation of humans?Diversity Within The TrinityThe first lesson that we must learn from Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with
diversity, “male and female he created them” is what the Bible says. It
was not one of them who bore the image of God it is both. When we
examine the female body and compare it to the male one we can only
wonder what kind of a dialogue the Trinity had when creating humans.
‘Man will have this and that organs in this and that shape, woman will
have this and that features shaped in these unique ways.’

 
From the biblical record we cannot ascertain whose hands got dirty with
mud in the process of creating Adam, what we do know is that humans
were created with a hands-on method rather than a voice-command method.
Many parts of the creation account declare that God ‘spoke’ things into
creation. For humans the method was hands-on, the “LORD God formed” man
and woman into creation.

 
It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the nature of God’s
gender qualities, though the Bible refers to God mostly with male
metaphors, female ones are also used (see Rosado, 1990). It is assume
by the author that God indeed has both male and female attributes;
though God is neither male nor female per se. Since both males and
females carry the image of God; in whatever way(s) they carry God’s
image, then God is like them in those same ways (see White,
1958:45–“Man [humanity] was to bear God’s image, both in outward
resemblance and in character”).Appreciation Of Gender Differences (Diversity)
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 explain the creation of the first man and
woman. The story unfolds in steps. First man is created, then all
animals are brought to him, then his need for companionship is
declared. Lastly the woman is created from one of man’s rib and is
brought to him. Equality is declared and companionship established.

  Genesis
2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
living being.” Genesis 2:21-22 “So the LORD God caused the man to fall
into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s
ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman
from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the
man.”

 
The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:7 “formed” is also used to describe
the action of a potter shaping or forming a clay vessel into existence.
God’s hands got as dirty as any potter’s hands when working with clay!
What implications does the fact that both men and women represent the
image of God have on the doctrine of the Trinity? Historically women
have not been led to believe that they carry in their bodies as much
the image of God as men do. That is why the Mexican poet Amado Nervo
exhorts the female readers of his poem to esteem their bodies. Taking
the risk of insulting both the individual capable of reading Amado
Nervo in Spanish and those who cannot do so, I will translate a portion
of his literary work entitled “Tu Cuerpo” [Your Body] dedicated to the
Mexican women.

  Why
would you despise your body? It is, in the first place, the marvellous
temple of a hidden god. It is, at the same time, a work of art by the
eternal Artisan. Study it from all vantage points. Look at its
harmonious exterior; analyze its anatomy; enter deeply into the
tortuous mystery of its cells; all in it is beauty, is strength, is
grace, is an enigma. God personally modeled its shape (Nervo,
1988:171).

  As
every female reader examines her body in front of a mirror, as every
female reader learns about the marvelous physiology of her beautifully
designed body, she learns about God! All female readers are designed in
outward appearance in the likeness of God! This Trinitarian statement
has tremendous implications for the psychological and social well being
of females and males. Although we cannot answer the question if there
are differences, similar to the male and female differences, in the
outward appearance of the three persons of the Trinity, we do know that
the Trinity choose to create us in two likeness, male and female.

 
Both male and female carry God’s image and we do well in affirming the
goodness of this heavenly designed diversity. Just like the male and
female bodies differ in “outward appearance” and physiology, also the
Trinitarian nature must reflect a like diversity. The expression of
diversity in the creation of man and woman does not end with the
physical realities.Diversity Of ReasoningWho
will question the well-documented fact that women and men think in
different ways? One way of understanding these different ways of
thinking has to do with moral reasoning. Carol Gilligan and her
colleagues have clearly documented two distinct ways of reasoning that
males and females exhibit.

  By
listening to girls and women resolve serious moral dilemmas in their
lives, Gilligan has traced the development of a morality organized
around notions of responsibility and care. This conception of morality
contrasts sharply with the morality of rights described by Piaget
(1965) and Kohlberg (1981, 1984), which is based on the study of the
evolution of moral reasoning in boys and men. People operating within a
rights morality–more commonly men–evoke the metaphor of “blind justice”
and rely on abstract laws and universal principles to adjudicate
disputes and conflicts between conflicting claims impersonally,
impartially, and fairly. Those operating within a morality of
responsibility and care–primarily women–reject the strategy of
blindness and impartiality. Instead, they argue for an understanding of
the context for moral choice, claiming that the needs of individuals
cannot always be deduced from general rules and principles and that
moral choice must also be determined inductively from the particular
experiences each participant brings to the situation (Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986:8).

  This observable diversity of moral reasoning between males and females
enriches our understanding of God. I propose to you that God’s moral
reasoning exhibit both patterns of logic. You can not help but to
realize that the laws and regulations of the Hebrew Scriptures seem
sometimes to be contradicted by the actions of God as presented in the
stories of the ways God dealt with humans in those days. A couple of
examples, from the many that can be presented, include the stories of
Rahab and Ruth. The regulations and laws given by God had specific
instructions of whom to exclude from the family of Israel. Prostitutes,
Moabites (up to their tenth generation) as well as inhabitants from
Jericho were all to be excluded. Prostitutes and people from Jericho
were to be killed on the spot, you may read these exclusions in
Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 17-18 and Joshua 6:17-19, but the actual treatment
received by a prostitute from Jericho and a Moabite widow directly
contradict the laws and regulations, you may read Joshua 6:17-19; Ruth
4:1-10; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31; and James 2:25.

 
In order to learn about God’s character we need to examine the stories
that deal with the morality of contextualized relationships. If we only
look at the laws and the morality of retribution we will, must
definitely, miss the true picture of God. Just like between male and
female characters there are varied ways of approaching moral reasoning,
it seems God’s reasoning follows suit.

  Unity in the Trinity

 
Just as true that there is diversity both psychologically and
physically between men and women it is also true that there is a lot of
unity between them. The Bible declares that our first parents became
one, Genesis 2:23-24. “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of
man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The Trinity is
also “one flesh.” Theologians have expressed this in so many words. The
Bible expresses it with the image of marriage. It is only in the
context of unity between a man and a woman in marriage that we can
begin to understand the concept of the Trinity. In the logic of God as
expressed in Genesis, since man and woman were created from the same
essence they ought to become one in marriage. The act of getting
married is described in its biological level of sexual relations. But
the implications are far from only biological.

 
The social implications of getting married are described in clear
terms, man and woman need to separate from their parents in order to
become one. The exclusive type of relationship that needs to exist
within a married couple describes the character of God. God does not
welcome sharing us with other gods. In fact, we are told that God is
jealous, God is keeping a careful score of all our relationship and
what place we give to our relationship with Him/Her. Exodus 20:3, 5
“You shall have no other gods before me. . . for I, the LORD your God,
am a jealous God” (the same idea is expressed in Exodus 34:14;
Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Joshua 24:19). The plural God of Genesis
exist in a oneness only understood in the relationship of a man and a
woman in love.

  Need Of Companionship

 
The relationship of man and woman is not only outside of love, it comes
out of a basic human need. The only time during the creation story that
God declared that the creation act was not good was when Adam was
alone. Adam’s creation was declared incomplete without a suitable,
equal companion. Humans were created in a social context out of which
we are incomplete.

  The
LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him.” Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground
all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought
them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man
called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names
to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the
field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. (Genesis 2:18-20)

  Is
it that God needs companionship in order to be complete? Based on what
we learn from God’s image on earth and what the Bible says about God’s
relationships with us, I believe God needs our companionship in order
to be complete.The Needs Of GodIsaiah 43

 
This beautiful poem describes the inner feelings, desires, and logic of
God (presented in the context of Israel and their present truth). As we
read it together let us try to understand God’s reasoning. The God of
these passages has an earnest desire for a close relationship with the
people of Israel. Twice it is declared that humans were created and
redeemed for God’s personal purposes (Isaiah 43:7, 25). The God of
Isaiah 43 declares that the people of Israel were brought into
existence for the sole purpose of proclaiming God’s name to all. Isaiah
43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I
have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I
am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”
Isaiah 43:20-21 “The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls,
because I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to
give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself that
they may proclaim my praise.”
The Trinitarian God has the desire for praise and companionship. God’s
love is expressed through the creative power. And the creation acts are
a definition of God’s being, were God is there is life and
relationships. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression
of infinite love. The sovereignty of God involves fullness of blessings
to all created beings” (White, 1958:33). Praise to God is the act of
sharing with God our lives and giving to God the center of our
existence.

 
The message of Isaiah 43 involves God’s demand for a trial. In this
trial God invites all creatures to explain why (43:9) they have
separated from God’s presence. God’s witnesses are the wild animals,
they have always honor God. But Israel has separated herself from God
and God is calling her into judgment. But the purpose is to save her,
to redeem her, because God needs her.

  God Needs Israel Like A New Groom Needs His Bride

 
It is not far fetched to say that God needs us in the same fashion that
two loved ones need each other. We are not talking about a need for
survival, we are talking about a need for pleasure and enjoyment of
what is good and beautiful. Our nervous terminals and central nervous
system are an image of God’s own sensory system. God is capable of joy
and pleasure as much as we are capable of joy and pleasure. In fact the
greatest joy and pleasure comes from sharing ourselves with our loved
ones.

 
In the context of a sacred bond and total commitment and trust, the
newly weds are to give themselves to each other often for the first
time. This giving themselves to each other is a “need” in the sense
that it is the greatest usage of our capability to share and give
ourselves to others. It is not that marriage is the only way of
sharing; on the contrary, there are one thousand and one other ways of
sharing ourselves. It is not that those who are single cannot give
themselves in totality. It is that in the context of the marital sexual
union the potentials for sharing soul and body are best exemplified.

  Separation Is The Greatest PainThere is plenty of biblical data about how a married couple is supposed
to share themselves with one another. We already reviewed the lessons
learned from Genesis 2, a married couple needs to divorce themselves
from their previously most cherished relationships and devout
themselves to each other exclusively. The element of exclusivity cannot
be overemphasized (Exodus 20:14, 17). Separation is the greatest enemy
of a couple in love–Song of Solomon 5:6-8:

  I
opened for my lover, but my lover had left; he was gone. My heart sank
at his departure. I looked for him but did not find him. I called him
but he did not answer. The watchmen found me as they made their rounds
in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak,
those watchmen of the walls! O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you–
if you find my lover, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with
love.

  Separation
is most painful when it is caused by abandonment of one spouse in favor
of a third person. Just like this type of separation is the most
painful, the greatest joy in marriage comes from a total commitment to
one another.

  Sharing Their Bodies Is The Greatest Pleasure

 
Throughout the Songs of Solomon almost all the human anatomy is
described in the context of the pleasures derived in sharing with each
other. A token of the anatomy of love in the context of marriage
include breasts and mouth, Songs of Solomon 7:6-8.

  How
beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights! Your
stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of
fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its
fruit.” May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the
fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best
wine. May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips
and teeth. I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.

  According
to Paul the sharing of your body in marriage is not only a pleasurable
thing, it is a duty. The duty of love is to share and ownership is in
the hands of your spouse–1 Corinthians 7:3-5:

  The
husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the
wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but
also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not
belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other
except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote
yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not
tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

  These
simple rules are the key to all other relationships. If we are capable
of loving our spouses in such a way that we no longer hold ownership of
our bodies, then we are capable of loving others as ourselves. In
learning to love in this way we learn to relate to God. The God who
choose not to own his own body but gave it away for us to be saved!Jesus And The TrinityJesus example of total commitment is our role model of how the Trinity
loves us, and of how we ought to love one another–Philippians 2:4-8:

  Each
of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the
interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ
Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in
appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–
even death on a cross!

  Loving Jesus and loving our closest neighbor, our spouses, go hand in
hand. In order to understand the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity
and its implications for us today we must do so in the context of
relationships. Relationships that come out of the pleasure for
companionship, not the discipline of legal requirements. Through the
process of marriage I have learned many things about how to foster and
how not to foster relationships. I would lie if I was to say that I am
the perfect husband or that I fully understand how my wife reasons. I
have learned that many times the issue is to learn to enjoy the beauty
of reasoning contrary to mine. Not that I many times we argue about our
mutual logics, we do so, and even enjoy the process. The point is to
submit, not out of logic but out of love for the relationship. The
amazing miracle is that the greatest pleasure is associated with this
kind of logic!

 
The logic of Jesus is the logic of equality in diversity. Treating
others as equals even when we cannot always accept their logic. Jesus
practiced this discipline all the way to the cross of Calvary! This
discipline will bring to Jesus the greatest joy, the joy of saving us
from our sins. That is why Jesus is looking forward to our reunion with
him. When Jesus will be reunited with his first human creation, Adam.
The joy of the reunion brings shivering sparks up and down Jesus’
spinal cord. This promise is extended to all. We all will become the
bride to be reunited with the bridegroom in the joy of total union and
the pleasures of marital companionship–Isaiah 62:4-5:

  No
longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate. But you
will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD will take
delight in you, and your land will be married. As a young man marries a
maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his
bride, so will your God rejoice over you.

  God
is as eager to share with us and be delighted in us as a groom over his
bride. God wants to rejoice in you as much as a bridegroom wants to
“rejoice over his bride.” Are we anticipating this joy by practicing on
earth the joy of sharing with our spouses and neighbors? Like
concentric circles our relationships are to grow, and as they grow we
become more willing to submit to one another. Is there room for
diversity in your life? Are you willing to submit to those you cannot
understand their logic?ConclusionIf we are to live a wholeness life we need to learn from the Trinity some key behaviors/attitudes.

  1.
We do not need to be able to understand in order to believe. Just like
we do not understand the logic of our spouse’s in order to always love
them; we do not need to understand how the Trinity is best described in
order to have a relationship with God!

  2.
We have been created in God’s image and in order to fully appreciate
this image we need to treat male and females as equal. Females carry
God’s image as much as males do! We are both the image of God on earth!3.
Just like we have the need for companionship, God has the need for
companionship. It is not a favor that God has saved us; it is because
God needs us. Out of self-love God saved us!

  4.
Since God needs us we can feel as partners, members of the family of
God. We are not strangers receiving charity, we can provide God with
what She/He needs–companionship!

  5.
God will judge us based on our relationship with Her/Him. Our
relationship with Her/Him is judged based on our relationship with
those closer to us.

  6.
God expects us to submit to one another, just like Jesus submitted
because he needs us. We also need each other and we ought to submit in
order to reflect the Trinity’s ways of companionship.
Are you ready to try?
Dr. Johnny Ramirez Johnson is a tenured professor in Theology, Psychology, and Culture at the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.