This has potential, I suppose, practically. But lest we spiral out of epistemic control, the message behind the message is not always a more subtle message is it? I don’t look for some meta-meaning behind loving my wife as Christ loved the Church (i.e., sacrificially). It’s not hard to understand or profoundly deep that love for my wife involves sacrifice. Or consider John 3:16. The truth behind the truth is that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever …” You get the idea.

Paul, of course, but I’m not married so sitting through a Sunday morning lecture on loving my wife like Christ loves the Church pretty much excludes me. I can draw principles out and apply them to aspects of my life, but you’ve already gotten to the “truth behind the truth” – why not preach a sermon on loving sacrificially? He isn’t avoiding what Scripture is saying at face value, he is just suggesting that we can understand what Scripture is getting at more fully if we explore the “idea behind the idea.”

Interesting timing. I just spoke to our church this week about a text assigned by my pastor. It was Ephesians 6:1-3, children obey. Since our children are mostly in a children’s program at that time, I had to look for a bigger truth. Since I’m the pastor over our family program, I knew some would be expecting me to tell them how to get their kids to obey them.
I would have much rather taught this all lumped together with Eph 5:21 to 6:9. I think that whole passage is about submitting to one another to bring harmony. I didn’t have that choice. Still I tried to bring that that out as clearly as possible, but focused on our testimony is in the harmony of our homes and our church. I then said in application, if you want your children to obey, you must first model a submissive heart.
I’d love to hear how other people would have handled this passage. This week I’ve been asked to come up after the senior pastor has preach to give parent practical advice how they can avoid provoking anger in their children.

I believe the Truth is always waiting in the wings, and that your approach is exactly where its at. What I find is, that where people get lost is in the situation. Just as Joey did, when he addressed being single. What every group needs to remember is..that when “two or more gather, I am there”. When you forget situations and seek the truth behind the situation, you find we all have a place to relate

Rob Bell and a Trinitarian hermeneutic of Creation? So. Awesome.

This came up a few weeks (months?) ago when David Opderbeck did one of his entries on economics, and a lot of people rushed to criticize the use of the word “scarcity,” but I remain unconvinced that seeing “scarcity” and seeing the world as “governed by God” (I’m, frankly, not sure how God’s being Trinitarian is relevant to this discussion) are diametrically opposed concepts.

I assume the reference to a trinitarian God means that only such a god can/does control everything. Why can’t a unitarian god do the same? It seems to me that the Calvinistic view of God is more in line with total control of history.

Dan Smith – the reference to a Trinitarian God has to do with the inherent notion of community and harmony. There isn’t infighting between the Father, Son, or Spirit due to a fear of scarcity; instead there is a joyful generosity and participation. And we are invited to enter into that pre-existing fellowship. I think that was his point (or at least in part).

Even if the Trinitarian references are to the non-scarcity interactions between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and this is FAR from explicit. So much so I hesitate to grant the point), it doesn’t necessarily follow that belief in such a God (and a belief that such a God governs) requires us to ignore the reality of scarcity in creation. It think Bell is offering us a false choice.

Not so keen on the necessity of a trinitarian God behind the scenes. Can’t the same scaffolding be made from a Father’s love for his Son and vice versa? That’s closer to most people’s sense of reality anyway. It seems that forcing the trinitarian concept is much like forcing a round object into a triangular hole and saying “hey, how clever is that!”

Joey:
Appreciate the concern but I wonder, is Scripture always about me and my personal situation? Isnt’ this just a bit anthropocentric? After all, Paul in Eph 5:22ff is talking to husbands and wives. Naturally, a good expositor will mention secondary or tertiary applications, but the text is not about you; it’s about husbands and wives, primarily.

Scripture tells us that there is only one God, and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. The necessary inference is that there is one Godhead, composed of three divine Persons. The use of the Hebrew uniplural noun for God offers a confirmation of the trinitarian perspective. All other understandings posit contradictions between scriptures. Scripture is inspired of God, and God cannot contradict(deny) Himself. Ergo, all other understandings are false.

With such a variety of personal opinions regarding preaching and exposition, how can I attend a preaching service and trust what I hear?

#12,
Please don’t misunderstand me (and I think this would be true of others of us, but I really can’t speak for them). I am not calling the doctrine of the Trinity into doubt. I am a firm believer in that doctrine.
What I am saying is that the truth of that doctrine seems to be utterly irrelevant to the issue that Bell is trying to raise. Why even bring it up? Why not just mention “God,” rather than a “Trinitarian God”? Or why not refer to the “Christian God” or the “God of the Scriptures”?
Any of these formulations would make more sense.

Mark, because the Trinitarian God is perichoretic and communal and relational; at the ontological basis of all relationships is the relation of Father, Son and Spirit. I think that’s what Bell is getting at.