Homoousios, Hypostatic and Other Cutesy, Romantic Words
March 10, 2010
When I was 21, I was crazy about a girl who was moving to England. It was silly to hope, but I couldn’t help it. In the weeks before she left, we spent a lot of time together. It became obvious that she was feeling the same as me yet neither of us could admit it. How could a relationship work over such a long distance?
Sure enough, three weeks after she’d settled into her London flat, it all came gushing out. We were separated by thousands of miles—yet in finally releasing those emotions—we felt closer than ever before. Our interactions took place mostly over the phone or email and we were thrilled when she got a new computer because we could use video chat to be even closer. For a while, romance overcame our separation.
But eventually, I came to realize that nothing could ever quite cover that distance. It didn’t matter if it was her voice over the phone, little notes in my inbox or even her smiling face on the monitor—she was never really, truly there. We could talk for hours but it wouldn’t satisfy. I wanted to take her to coffee, to surprise her at work, to smell her hair, to touch her hand—in short, I desired her presence, not just her attention.
It was this notion of presence that was at stake during the Christological controversies of the 4th century. Arius had pushed God to such an insurmountable distance, that the presence of God in the Incarnation could not be possible. Sure, Christ was a special being, but he was still just a creation—like anyone else. Thus for Arius, God existed at a distance and the cross was little more than an elaborate video chat.
Nicaea rejected this notion of skype Jesus. For Athanasius, no creature—not even the first creature—could redeem our sin and reconcile this world to its Creator. God’s presence within creation as well as without speaks to our being both body and spirit. The world is good. God dwells in it. But it needs to be renewed. The incarnation makes God’s immanence and transcendence concievable.
Surely the incarnation as fully God and fully human is a matter of relationship. But this relationship extends beyond God-Human into the very center of God’s being. It is in God’s very nature to yearn for another and thus one who loves requires also a beloved.
I was crazy about her, but my beloved in London and I eventually broke up—though not until after she’d moved back home. This wasn’t because we lacked chemistry or desire for one another but because we were two separate people who realized our very different lives could not be joined together.
But in the Trinity, such a separation is impossible. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one in substance, meaning their wills cannot conflict nor can there ever really be a reliable dividing line between the three persons of the one God.
Now, God is not your boyfriend and romance is certainly not the only way to picture this unity. The goal of this post is not to encompass the variety of ways we speak of God as three in one but to center our dialogue on the idea of relationship. The Trinity is not a distant, hazy philosophical concept but an approachable, devotional and necessary reflection. The discussion is not complete and we are not meant to arbitrarily believe it. Rather, it is an ongoing conversation that will inevitably leak into our lives as grace, church and mission.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
March 11, 2010 at 8:58
Thanks for this. Great way to understand the creed in context.
I wonder if you’ve read Thom Stark’s long blog series questioning the Trinity (in particular, that Christ is God)? Because I feel, like you, that the Trinity is a necessary reflection. But given that our particular church tribe is filled with people that don’t believe that it is ‘true’, is it necessary?
http://thomstark.net/?p=1130
March 11, 2010 at 9:41
I think this is a great conversation starter.
Another analogy that is meaningful to me (and I think compliments your own) is one of art. Each of us has a drive to create and enjoy “art” (some to greater or lesser degrees, of course). In that desire, I think we find an important truth about God’s relationship to his creation. Why do painters paint? Why do sculptors sculpt? Why do musicians play or sing? (etc., etc., ad infinitum) They create beautiful things, because they delight in them. In some mysterious way, we are close to God and “in his image” when we embrace this fact. God made us, because it delighted him to do so. He took on flesh, because it delighted him to do so. He redeemed us, because it delighted him to do so. And, so, we have the Westminster Shorter Catechism saying, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The RCC Catechism says, “For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence.” And the BCP says, “we are free to make choices: to love, to create, to reason, and to live in harmony with creation and with God.”
You say:
“Surely the incarnation as fully God and fully human is a matter of relationship. But this relationship extends beyond God-Human into the very center of God’s being. It is in God’s very nature to yearn for another and thus one who loves requires also a beloved.”
I sometimes imagine that this yearning is like my own yearning for beauty: to see the reflection of the creator not only in his creation, but also in my own personal acts of creation. So, while that relationship takes on romantic connotations, it also takes on those deeply personal relational elements of delight and beauty.
March 11, 2010 at 12:47
I’ve never heard the Arian heresy summed up like this before, but “skype-Jesus” is a pretty catchy way to help the concept stick.
March 12, 2010 at 8:19
What?! God is not my boyfriend?! And I thought that was the crux of celibacy… You’ve crushed all my hopes and dreams.
On a less sarcastic note, I’m diggin’ the “skype-Jesus” phrase also.
March 12, 2010 at 9:23
@Joey
Wow. I’d had no idea thom stark existed. I like his premise and his presentation is provocative. I’d like to read more but there’s so much. What’s worth it? (Perhaps the Christ Hymn stuff?)
@Shawn
I think most metaphors for the Trinity inevitably sway either towards Tritheism or Monarchianism. It’s only by using both we can hope to conceive something of God’s triunity.
March 12, 2010 at 10:49
Thom is someone from my own denominational background (Christian Church/Church of Christ) and I get the impression (I could be wrong) that he’s involved with an Episcopal parish.
He’s an amazing writer. His posts are too damn long, but he will respond to every comment, in depth.
To get an idea of who he is, his writing style here:
http://thomstark.net/?p=539
And the conclusion to the “Oh My God-Man” series is a great synapsis.
He mentioned in a comment how Epsicopals have a habit of saying the creed while keeping a list of footnotes in their minds. I think he’s right.
March 12, 2010 at 10:51
Or rather, I think there are so many different types of people in the Episcopal church.
Some say the creed because they’ve always done it. It’s more or less what Evangelicals hate about the mainline: empty religion.
Some are intellectual and have all sorts of questions about the creed, maybe even denying that there’s any historical truth to it. Yet they say it.
Others pretty much believe the creed on trust. These can even be somewhat smart…or at least I hope we can. Because this is where I find myself.
March 12, 2010 at 11:42
@ Joey,
I’ll echo Reed, Thom is a lot of fun to read, but holy crap is that stuff long – next time I am feeling bad about being long winded I am heading back to Thom’s blog to feel better about myself.
March 12, 2010 at 12:10
tldr is a common comment on his posts (too long, didn’t read). mostly just by guys egging him on.
March 12, 2010 at 12:30
Actually, I’ve only got one TL;DR to my knowledge. And long-winded? I beg to differ. They are long because they are packed full of data. Most of my blog writing is actually quite concise. But concise does not equal short just as long-winded does not equal long.
A note on the characterization in this post of Arius’ Jesus as a “Skype Jesus.” It wasn’t Arius who invented the idea that God’s transcendence required and immanent mediator that was close to God yet created and firmly distinguishable. Arius is actually in touch here with the general sentiment in second temple Judaism. The Wisdom and Logos traditions were concerned with exactly that: which is why Wisdom and Logos is everywhere said to be created, and is distinguished from the God they are said to mediate to the world.
This post also makes it sound like Arius took the view he did because of theological presuppositions. Actually, multiple places in the New Testament say that Jesus was the first creature, most notably Colossians 1:15. (See my post on that.) Arius was actually interpreting Scripture better than Athanasius. Where I differ with Arius is that I think even the language of Jesus’ preexistent creaturely status is metaphorical—just as the language of personified Wisdom was metaphorical, which was then applied to Jesus. Arius and Athanasius were both wrong to interpret preexistence language about Jesus literally, but as far as literal interpretations go, Arius’s was the more exegetically sound.
March 12, 2010 at 12:31
FTR: My defense against the charge of long-windedness was meant to have a smiley at the end of it. Forgot.
March 12, 2010 at 12:35
*required AN immanent mediator
March 12, 2010 at 12:43
By linking to Thom’s post I inadvertently led him here! Pull the fire alarm!
March 12, 2010 at 12:48
Way to go, Joey.
March 12, 2010 at 12:51
I so much prefer talking about Anglican politics than Christology
March 12, 2010 at 13:24
Thanks for visiting Thom!
To be honest, I’ve not done enough reading to engage in a thorough discussion of 4th century Trinitarian controversies. My intent with this post wasn’t so much to adequately outline the historical circumstances of Nicaea as it was to come up with an inventive, approachable way to get layfolk to engage the trinity. (The original setting for these thoughts was an assignment on how to teach Trinity in the parish.)
This was the best I could come up with. My hope was to open the Trinity to more devotional reflection rather than a “dusty doctrine” answering questions no one is asking anymore—an attitude I used to have. My apologies to Arius if I miss represented him.
March 12, 2010 at 13:26
It’s okay Joey, we welcome all misfits.
Welcome Thom!
Tony, that’s because when you fight about Anglican politics you get to say things like “gay” and “Whiggery” in the same sentece.
March 12, 2010 at 13:29
That’s fine. My apologies for blowing dust onto a fresh discussion. I’m sure no apology to Arius is necessary. He has more pressing concerns at present, I imagine, such as burning in hell.
March 12, 2010 at 13:34
I do like Whiggery
March 21, 2010 at 12:57
There are “trinities,” of sorts, in various religions. This summarizes five:
Mahayana and Vajrayana vehicles of Buddhism speak of Trikaya, or three bodies: Nirmanakaya is the Buddha in human form, Sambhogakaya is celestial Buddha and Dharmakayais the formless essence, or Buddha-nature. The Theravada primarily addresses the historic Buddha. The “Three Jewels” are the Buddha, the dharma (his teachings) and the sangha (the community of monks and nuns).
Christianity has its Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit referring to God, Jesus
Christ and their spiritual bond of unity (some say the Godhead). Interpretation of the essential nature of each, and their relationship, differed among the churches. In Christian mysticism, the three ways of the spiritual life are the purgative in being purified from sin, the illuminative in true understanding of created things, and the unitive in which the soul unites with God by love.
Hinduism’s trimurti are the threefold activities of Brahman: in Brahma as creator, in Vishnu as sustainer and in Shiva as destroyer. Saccidananda are the triune attributes or essence of Brahman: sat, being, cit, consciousness and ananda, bliss. The three major schools of yoga are bhakti, devotion, and jnana, knowledge and karma, the way of selfless action. Raja yoga can apply to,
and integrate, all three in mental and spiritual concentration.
In Islam, nafs is the ego-soul, qalb is heart and ruh is spirit. Heart is the inner self [soul], hardened when it is turned toward ego and softened when it is polished by dhikr, remembrance of the spirit of Allah. This is a three-part foundation for Sufi psychology. Initiation guides them from shari`a, religious law, along tariqa, the spiritual path, to haqiqa, interior reality. It is a gradual unveiling of the Real.
In the Kabbalah of Judaism, sefirot – sparks from the divine – have three fulcrums to balance the horizontal levels of the Tree of Life: Da`at (a pseudo-sefirot) is knowledge combining understanding and wisdom; Tiferet is beauty, the midpoint of judgment and loving kindness; Yesod is the foundation for empathy and endurance. They also vertically connect, through the supreme crown, the infinite and transcendent Ein Sofwith its kingdom in the immanent Shekhinah.