Sun, Jun 12, 2022
More light and truth?
John 16:12-15 by Craig de Vos
Sermon for 'Trinity Sunday'
Series: Sermons

“We limit not the truth of God

To our poor reach of mind,

By notions of our day and sect,

Crude, partial, and confined;

No, let a new and better hope

Within our hearts be stirred:

The Lord hath yet more light and truth

To break forth from His word”.

 

This hymn, which we have just sung––

based on a farewell address given to the first pilgrims as they set sail for America––

challenges us, always, to be open to new insights.

However, I suspect that––

for many––

the assurance that “The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word”

is an assurance that we will continually glean new insights from our reading of scripture.

That is… 

most would presuppose that the “Word of God”–– 

to which this refers–– 

is the Bible.

But, within the Bible itself, it is Jesus who is…

pre-eminently…

the “Word of God”.

Understood in that way…

the hymn is encouraging us to be continually open to new insights…

about even the core of our faith:

about the person of Jesus…

the nature of God…

and of God’s dealings with humankind.

And it’s encouraging us to be continually open to new insights…

even when those new insights go beyond––

or, possibly, even contradict–– 

what has been believed previously… 

or what the Bible seems to say.

For some people, of course, such an idea may sound heretical.

And yet… 

it’s something that has always happened…

and always will happen.

For example… 

nowhere in the Bible is there any injunction against––

nor condemnation of––

the taking of one’s own life.

On the contrary, there are at least two stories that suggest that the taking of one’s own life––

if done for noble reasons––

is at least morally neutral, if not actually commendable.

But the belief that ‘voluntary euthanasia’ is morally reprehensible––

and, indeed, a grievous sin––

is treated by religious authorities as sacrosanct.

What few would realise is that that belief––

which stems from St Augustine in the fifth century––

is based almost entirely on ideas drawn from Plato’s philosophy…

about the nature of God and of God’s sovereignty over creation.

In formulating that belief, St Augustine went beyond––

and, it would seem, contradicted––

the testimony of Scripture itself.

And, I would argue, that since it is based on a primitive…

and, indeed, an outdated understanding of God…

it’s a belief that’s ripe for rethinking.

In this case, we need to go not just beyond scripture…

but also beyond inherited tradition.

 

The idea that understanding God calls for openness to new insights––

even when those insights go beyond or contradict the testimony of Scripture––

is an idea that’s clearly implied in our reading this morning from John’s Gospel.

Here, the author asserts––

through the lips of Jesus––

that the Spirit’s role is to guide us in the way of truth;

to further our understanding of God.

He’s not envisaging that the Spirit will simply remind us of what Jesus said.

For the author of John’s Gospel––

who, more than anyone else… 

has creatively and abstractly interpreted and invented sayings of Jesus––

nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather, the Spirit is one who will lead us beyond what Jesus said…

because there is so much about God––

both about God’s nature and God’s ways––

that we have not understood…

and cannot understand…

because they must, by necessity, be bound by…

and constrained by…

contemporary knowledge and experience.

How God was understood in the past was always bound by their worldview.

It’s wrong for us to be constrained by their formulations. 

We should not be bound by that in the way that we envisage God…

or God’s being in the world…

or God’s relationship with us.

All theology––

all belief––

is a product of its time, its culture, and its worldview.

It is, inevitably, contextual.

Thus, John Wesley helpfully suggested…

that our beliefs ought to come from a dialogue or interplay… 

between Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

So we should not be afraid to revisit even deeply held beliefs…

in the light of new knowledge or understanding or experience.

 

And today… 

perhaps of all days…

dare I suggest that the concept of ‘the Trinity’ is ripe for re-interpreting…

or even reimagining.

Indeed, I have much sympathy with the prominent process theologian, John Cobb, who admits:

“I believe that the fixation on the Trinity as the distinctively Christian way of thinking of God has done a great deal more harm than good”.

Let’s face it…

it’s nothing if not confusing.

It defies logic and common sense!

For the first Christians… 

the idea of the Trinity developed fairly naturally out of their experience:

they experienced God in Jesus––

as if God were, in some special way, present in, and working through, Jesus;

and they experienced God’s indwelling and continued presence––

which they named as “Spirit”.

These were, in the first instance, reflections upon their experience––

and, in particular, their experience of God’s activity or God’s acting.

It was only much later, that people began to speculate as to what it might mean…

and how it could work…

at an essential level;

in other words, what did that mean for how we conceptualise or understand the nature of God’s being.

And that’s when the troubles began.

They began to speak in terms of the “one substance” of God…

which was manifest in “three persons”.

That clearly reflected their philosophical and metaphysical presumptions.

But today… 

in our world…

how can we talk about the “substance” of God––

as if God were a part of the “material” world?

A similar argument underpinned the debates about the presence of Christ in the Communion elements…

during the Reformation period.

And none of us… 

I presume…

would hold to the view of some sort of magical change of substance there.

We’re quite comfortable working on a metaphoric or symbolic level.

Why not the same with the nature of God––

and the three-fold ways in which we experience God?

 

So… 

perhaps… 

it would be better to revert to an older idea of the Trinity––

and it’s a bit odd for me to say it––

and go back to St Augustine’s formulation.

He suggested that––

like in the ancient theatre where the one actor could play several roles…

or persons––

so, in relation to God, can we not think of God as one ‘person’ or one ‘being’––

and I use those terms loosely and metaphorically––

who can act in different ways;

and can appear to take on different roles…

and, if you like, act out different ‘characters’?

Can we not just leave it there?

 

In the end, of course…

in the way that we live our lives…

it probably doesn’t really matter.

 

But what Trinity Sunday invites us to do––

more than any other day––

is to contemplate the mystery of God…

who is experienced in diverse ways…

and who is–– 

and can only ever be––

understood metaphorically…

and within the constraints and confines of contemporary thought.

We should not…

we cannot

be bound by historical formulations or ancient orthodoxies…

when they no longer speak to us… 

or when they no longer make sense of our experience or knowledge.

After all… 

“The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word”.