While I obviously do not subscribe to the idea of the Trinity, I think Scott makes some good observations. I think most Trinitarians are Sabellians, if pressed to explain the Trinity. I also think that the ideas focusing on the relationship of the persons of the Trinity makes more sense than most descriptions of it.

In any case, I don’t find the arguments for the Trinity compelling; it appears to me to be the result of philosophical attempts to make sense of Jesus’ connection to God. That’s not necessarily the evil thing that some make it out to be, it’s just not an idea that I can buy. But I respect that God is bigger than my mind can contain, and if people approach God differently than I do, so long as there’s no harm in their approach I try to curb my objections.

Having said that, I also don’t buy into the “but that’s not what the original Church really believed” arguments either. It’s hard for me to accept that any of us, Trinitarian or otherwise, can really grasp the range of beliefs amongst those Jesus left behind after his death. We have what we have in terms of literature, in the New Testament canon and the works that didn’t make the cut and the writings of the early church leadership; but there is not in my opinion a clear roadmap of what the Apostles really believed, or what people in general believed regarding Jesus in those first 100 or 200 years.

And this is why I think the church developed as it did-an institution with a great deal of hierarchy and organization. Somebody had to make sense of the theological choices out there.

Sorry for rambling…

While the late Catherine LaCugna’s work is very, very difficult, hers isn’t the only way to understand the Trinity. She was an academic and used the language of her vocation for her peers and those who wrestle to get some of the nuances. (Hers is also classified a feminist work on the divine economy, so it is hardly a generalist work.) I suspect an intuitive, narrative approach would work well too. (And it would be interesting if kinesthetic learners get perichoresis better than others.) Catchy slogans cannot, for instance. But above all is a respect for the laity to engage in a richer and deeper understanding of all theological matters than has historically been known. That work will almost certainly be the work of the church, and not blogs.

My personal beef with the doctrine, since no one’s asked, is that it’s based on Greco-Roman metaphysics and cannot be explained without them, short of a LaCugna-esque effort. Hence, the pulpit dodges and the Sabellianism you mention. I personally find the doctine’s synthesis of Greco-Roman metaphysical problems to be beautiful, but that’s after two religion degrees. That inaccessibility is hardly incarnational, IMO.

Cosmology is only important as Heaven - and Hell - are concerned. The world is not flat, and there aren’t three tiers to it.

Science is only important … everywhere else.

I feel the Kingdom Jesus pointed to was the point, not himself. Trinitarianism, for me, is a distraction.

Also, Scott, I just asked a question and provided a personal statement. There is no strawman … I assure you of that much. If you care to go on with this I’ll prove it. Also, my formation is going just fine, thank you. I, however, take serious issue with generalizations levied in my direction (Unitarianism), which you did do with your whole “schmo” remark. I’m done here. I’m off to my ecumenical seminary…

First, a correction. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception concerns Mary’s lack of sinfulness — it was her conception, not Jesus’ referenced — making her a kind of “clean room” for the birth of Christ. I don’t believe it, but mention it because it is the way the theology filled in the gaps and took Mary’s full role as Mother (not incubator) seriously. Why? Were she only an incubator or passive vessel, Jesus wouldn’t have been really human.

I’m hearing the beginning of a deck-of-cards argument, with the Virgin Birth (or some other doctrine) at the foundation. Remove the foundation and it falls. I’ve been there and used to do that, but all you prove is what jerks your chain the hardest. Theology is an art of approximation, held together by the best means of understanding we have. Aristotle’s biology isn’t correct — the Virgin Birth cannot be read as biological fact — but the theology that affirms Christ’s organic interrelation with the other person of Godhead do heal themselves.

I left unitarianism for trinitarianism precisely because the latter has a cohesive metaphysics based on relationship — which is almost exactly the piece you quoted — and the former satisfies itself with being right only to discover it cannot prove the thing it defends. Or more: Arianism does have a metaphysics of relationship but I hinted at that already and others have written about it. Back to the last few generations: little wonder insititutional Unitarians enter a perpetual hunt for the Next Right Thing and becomes either very confused or very smug. This plagues many communions.

In short, I don’t need Jesus Christ to fulfill a purpose: he’s either done something or he hasn’t and my need won’t matter a jot either way.

Since I’m sensing something more than curiosity here, I think you need to take it up with a formation advisor. If it is simple curiosity, and if you’re in an ecumenical seminary, you can take it up with classmates. This kind of in-depth sparing doesn’t translate well in print.

I don’t see how gynecology has anything to do with this, unless you think that incarnational theology is limited to theologies of the immaculate conception. With regards to God as a mere psychological need, unsuported by religious experiences, that is a straw man to argue against. YOu may not share in my experiences, but I see no reason to question your intellectual or spiritual integrity if we do not share the same experience. A bit more humility is in order. I simply would agree to disagree.

This is such a loaded statement. Trinity depends too much on incarnation … incarnation depends too much on the belief that humanity is plagued by and passes original Sin through the male seed … which depends too much on a seriously uniformed 1st century gynecology which rendered females as mere incubators … blah, blah, blah … It’s quite an onion, and I am only nicking the surface.

Which leads me to ask … “Why does one need Jesus of Nazareth to be God anyway? What purpose does it fulfill? Is it for eternal life? Eternal life where? In heaven? Heaven is not where the Bible says it is. So where is it? And did you change the location? Eternal life with what God?” Is this the ONLY reason one needs Jesus of Nazareth to be God?

You are so right about most Trinitarians being Sabellians.