Readings: John 16:12-15; Romans 5: 1-5
Who was Jesus of Nazareth? It is a question that has been asked from the moment he was born, and many answers have been given. Indeed, within the scriptures over two hundred names and titles have been attributed to him. Many of them are of no consequence today but the question is still a very real one. The question is asked in a contemporary musical, `Who are you? What are you?` And the answer is given, `He`s just a man`. But even the musical recognises him as a Superstar, a kind of (dare I say it) superman.

The big question is, of course, `Was he divine?`. There are those who say that he was, that he was God in human form. I do not because it assumes the existence of a personal being who comes down from heaven. I do not see God as a being but as the ground of our being, the Spirit, the energy of life, calling us to fullness of life. In this sense, Jesus is `the God Man` a man so filled with the spirit of life that he becomes the prototype for evolving humanity, `homo humanus` or however else you like to describe him. `In him was life and that life was the light of humankind.`

The scripture readings today refer to the Spirit of Truth, Jesus of Nazareth and God the Father. The readers of the New Testament and the Christians of those days had no trouble with these terms. God was being experienced in three different ways.

No problem until some bright spark says, `How is this so? Every day we say the great Shema that the Lord our God is one, and now we are equating Jesus with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And so the discussion commenced. It took 325 years for it to come to a head, and at the Council of Nicea it was officially decreed that it was a case of `God in three persons, blessed trinity`.

The issue may appear to be one of mathematics. It is not. It is about the question, `Was Jesus divine?` and the answer to that question depends on the meaning we give to the word `divine`. What do we mean by the word `God`? It was an issue that was crucial in the early days of the Church. It is an issue that is crucial today.

I am not unaccustomed to saying that I do not expect you to agree with all that I say this morning. I say it doubly today, the day that is designated as Trinity Sunday. What I wish to do is to share with you how I perceive the issue. You may see it differently - and that`s OK.

Let me set the scene by referring to one of the smallest and one of the best books in my possession. Its author is David Head and it is subtitled `ABook of Prayers for the Natural Man`. The prayer of the author at the beginning sets the tone

`Grant I beseech Thee that all who read this book may be conscious of the deep spiritual insight of the writer, that copies of this book may make an impressive sight in the study on the bookshelf which is level with the eye, and that, amid all the congratulatory applause, the writer may remain conspicuously humble`

You should be able to judge the tone of the book by that prayer.

There are many other striking prayers like, `Bless all the natives in foreign lands, and keep them there.`

There is a prayer before public worship, `Grant O Lord that I did turn the oven down.`

And then there is the inscription on a tombstone, `To the memory of my son, killed on the roads by a senseless drunk. Thy will be done.`

Why do I think of David Head this morning? Because it was he who wrote in his diary, `It was Trinity Sunday today. Our minister preached on `Kindness to Animals`.

Today is Trinity Sunday and I am not going to preach about kindness to animals. I am going to preach about Jesus and about God. The best advice I ever received on preaching was from William Sangster. In Australia for the Cato lecture he took the trouble to visit Mullewa where a young trainee Minister lived in a room at the back of the Church. His advice was `Preach about God, about Jesus and about fifteen minutes`. He also advised me to keep my sermons. `They will keep you humble`. He was right on both counts - although some might doubt that the humility has come through as it should!

To in any way understand the so called Doctrine of the Trinity, one needs to remember three things:

Firstly, on the surface the debate was about whether Jesus was divine, whether Jesus was God. As I said when commenting on the scriptures, the underlying question is `What is God like?`This was, is, and forever shall be the central question. It is the central question for us in the Church today, and I must admit that nothing bugs me more than people assuming that my understanding of God is what they learned in Sunday School, or their State school scripture classes - that God is a super human being in some kind of heaven who controls the world and determines what kind of afterlife we shall have. I am sick and tired of the kind of religious discussions like those they have on Q & A. I find myself crying out, `This discussion is rigged!`Fred Nile may be a nice guy but if you put up a flyweight against a heavyweight, the result is a foregone conclusion. Every time one of the current atheists steps on stage I feel like saying, `Tell us first about the God you don`t believe in, because I suspect I don`t believe in that kind of God either!`

The crucial question for all of us, and for all time, is `What do you understand by the word `God`?

The Council of Nicea and the doctrine of the Trinity is about whether Jesus was or was not God. The answer to that question depends on what you mean by the word `God`. I think it was William Temple who said, `We so easily assume that the meaning of the word `God` is clear and Jesus is an enigma. In fact the reverse is the case`. The crucial question is, `What do you mean by the word God?` It is the central question for our day and it has been over the centuries. It certainly was in the 4th century when the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the Nicene Creed.

Secondly, we need to recognise, as did Thomas Aquinas, that `The supreme knowledge we have of God is to know that we do not know God`. The Hebrews were very strong on this and when someone made an object to represent God, they almost went berserk. So strong were they on the idea that God is indescribable that at one point they dropped the vowels from their word for God. Even the name of God was incapable of being understood! The interesting thing is that when they came to the conclusion that the non pronouncing of the name of God was counterproductive, they discovered they had forgotten the vowels. They then took the vowels from the word for `Lord ` and came up with the word `Yahweh`. It`s all a bit over the top for me but it does make the point that when we speak of God we are trying to describe the indescribable. St Augustine said much the same thing some nine centuries after Aquinas. `When you start to experience God, you realise that what you are experiencing cannot be put into words`. Such a statement also points up the fact that the Christian faith is not a philosophy, a system of teaching or a code of ethics. It is about experiencing an indescribable God.

Thirdly, an understanding of the historical scene is crucial to an understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Let me give you a potted history. It is the year 325AD. The Emperor Constantine has converted to Christianity on the rather odd basis that God gave him victory at the battle of Milvian Bridge. All it needed was to paint a cross on his shield and presto victory was his! Christianity became the State religion and that which had been persecuted started its long downhill run to the political correctness with which it is bedevilled today. In the fourth century it was very different and the debate was alive and vibrant. There was a guy called Athanasius who maintained that Jesus was `of the same substance` as God, that he had existed in perpetuity, and was `begotten not made`. He was strongly opposed by another guy called Arius who spoke of Jesus not as God made flesh but as `the Son of God` - as one related to but distinct from God the Father. The Emperor Constantine had had enough of their arguing and called a council to decide the matter. It was held in Nicea in 325. Athanasius won the day and from thenceforth Jesus was held to be of `one substance with the Father, begotten not made`. Arius was sent into exile and the Church started singing `God in three persons - blessed Trinity`.

There is, however, an interesting slant on the word `person`. In their efforts to describe the indescribable the early theologians started speaking about the persona/personae of God. The original meaning of the word `personae` was not that of an individual person. It referred to the masks worn by actors in Greek and Roman theatres. What the early theologians were saying was that God appears to us in different masks, appears in three different roles if you like. The word `persona` has morphed into the English language as `person` and today we sing of `God in three persons, blessed Trinity`. The guy who started speaking in terms of `one God and three persons` confused the issue and, by the time Athanasius and Arian appeared on the scene in the 4th century, the situation was really confused ! It was even more confused after the Council of Nicea with Jesus being described as `eternally begotten of the Father, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father`.

The Nicene Creed so called is still the creed designated as the creed to be used in the liturgy of the Uniting Church each Sunday. I hasten to add that one shouldn`t hold one`s breath to hear it recited in our services. For the life of me, indeed for the life of the Church, I cannot see why we who live in the 21st century should think and speak in terms applicable to the 4th century. We who live in the 21st century need to rethink the Christian faith in terms in the light of understanding and insights not available to the people of the 4th century. To speak today in terms of a heaven above and hell below and Jesus coming down from heaven and ascending thereto is a recipe for irrelevance - an irrelevance that is richly deserved and which we know only too well today. The same goes for singing, `God in three persons, blessed trinity`.

The problem with creedal statements is that, in an evolving world, they fast become out of date and the Church finds itself defending the indefensible. There are some, of course, who say `I have no problems with the Creeds. I demythologise them as I go`. I find that approach quite bizarre! To do it in any other aspect of life, would bring howls of derision. Others say, `But when you are talking about God, you have to speak in terms of metaphor!` I agree but let them be metaphors of the 21st century not the 4th century. Indeed a metaphor depends for its effectiveness on both parties having the same picture with which to relate. To use word pictures of two thousand years ago is a recipe for disaster. I have a friend who says that the Church`s problem is that the world has lost the ability to think metaphorically. Not a bit of it! It thinks as metaphorically as it has ever done, but it does not think in the metaphors of the 4th century!

One of the problems with the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicean Creed is that they narrow down rather than widen our understanding of what we mean by the word `God`. Creeds feed the desire for certainty where there is no certainty. They expect us `to sign on the dotted line`. They are the Courthouse of control rather than the continually changing camp of the pioneer. They are determinative rather than descriptive. Arius, you will remember, was sent into exile after he lost the argument at Nicea!

Another problem I have with the Nicean Creed (and it may well be`my` problem) is that it speaks of God as a person. I find the formlessness of God a far more satisfying metaphor. When I use the word `God`, I do not mean an all powerful person pulling the levers of the world. God for me is `the creative energy of life`, the energy of the universe. God is the life that pulses within us and invites us to fullness of life. God for me is `formless`, just as, wind, breath, sound, light, fire and electricity are formless but are known by their effect. My working definition of God is `the energizing spirit of life calling us to fullness of life`, and I think it really is time we stopped thinking of God as `a being` and started thinking of God as `the ground of our being` - the spirit of life surging through our arteries. Personified imagery, such as `heavenly father` has dominated our thinking of God for far too long and it is time some of us came out as non-theists. In the event of this not being done the insight of the burning bush and the use of the verb to be to describe God may well be lost.

Val Webb in her book Like Catching Water in a Net is very good on this question of `formlessness`. She maintains that `we have become so saturated with Divine images of a Being separate from us with human characteristics and feelings that, for most of us, it is impossible to think of God apart from this`. (1) What we have done in effect is to make God in our own image. It is so easy to create a human shaped idol that responds to our needs and her question is, `How can we escape centuries of . . . making the divine like ourselves.` (2) The Nicean Creed certainly does not help us in this respect.

What then are we to do with the doctrine of the Trinity as expounded in the Nicean Creed of the 4th century? I would suggest that we leave it there, and look at the issues in the light of the 21st century. If we do that we will soon find ourselves coming with the same questions as Arius and Athanasius but coming up with very different answers. I am not suggesting that we stop thinking about the nature of God. I am not suggesting that we cease asking how Jesus fits into the picture and the relevance of both for life in the twenty first century. These are questions that need to be asked and they are not being asked. They are questions that need to be answered and they are not being answered. What we do instead is to recite the questions and answers of the 4th century.

I trust that it is also apparent that `creed` is not the right word for what we may end up with. It is too prescriptive. Indeed, I would suggest that the most we can say today is, `This is how I presently understand the word God, the significance of Jesus, and how to be responsive to both today.` As most of you well know, what I say today may well be different to what I say in six months` time - and I have no problems with that. We really do live in an evolving and changing world and the Christian faith is dynamic in every sense of the word - as should be our statements of faith.

Was Jesus divine? If you see God as an almighty `person` you have all the problems of Nicea. If however you see God as the `ground of our being`, the creative energy of life pulsating in our arteries then Jesus is divine in that he reveals and personifies the ground of our being, the life style that leads to fullness of life. Within this understanding of God, Jesus was fully human and as a human being, revealed the nature and purpose of God as `the ground of our being`. Jesus was not an `emptied God`. That would compromise his relationship to the rest of humanity. Jesus was fully human and as a human being revealed the nature and purpose of God. Pilate came much closer to it when he unconsciously said, `Behold, the man!` Jesus for me is homo humanus, the epitome of God`s goal for humanity, not of course in the trappings of the 1st century but in the sense of fullness of life, a way of life, a different approach to life than the one in which we are mired. Faith is not about a set of beliefs. It about a way of life pioneered by Jesus of Nazareth, a way of life which if followed raises us to a higher level in the evolution of life. It is about seeing a different dimension in the life of our day, and committing oneself to it.

As you may have guessed, I am not a great admirer of life as we know it today. As Studdert Kennedy puts it in his first world war poem,`I`d drink myself blind drunk if I could not look up and hear God speaking through the silence of the stars`. Creation is not some kind of Eden which is to be restored. Creation is in the future and we are called to love it into being. Salvation is about the species and not a small piece of it named Neville, and I for one do not long for some kind of eternal heavenly life. I will be content if I have in some way contributed to the evolution of human kind into fullness of life - the life that glowed not in a halo around the head of Jesus but in the crown of thorns and in the holes in his hands and feet. Some would say I am a dreamer. Well may that be! But I am not the only one. There are millions of people who see in Jesus the way, the truth and the life and I am humbled and proud to be one of them. Many there are who will argue with us - and that`s OK. But in the end, it`s not a case of arguing. It is a choice - and I choose Jesus of Nazareth as representing homo humanus - not as a finished product but pointing us to the way, the truth and indeed to life itself. Jesus is the man from God`s tomorrow.

I close with one of my favourite stories. A guy was walking along a cliff top overlooking the sea when it gave way. As he fell he managed to grasp the branch of a tree growing out of the cliff face. As he hung there he called out as loudly as he could, `Is anyone there?` and out of one of the nearby clouds there came a booming voice, `Let go and I will catch you.` There was silence for a moment and then came the voice of the guy hanging on to the tree. `Is there anyone else out there?` Yes there is - but don`t let`s think of God as an all powerful father figure in the sky who can save us if we call upon him.

Conclusion
The essential problem we face today is our understanding and our image of God. The theologians of the fourth century gave it their best shot and came up with the Doctrine of the Trinity. `God in three persons, blessed Trinity.` They saw Jesus as being of the same substance as God, begotten not made, and so forth. They made Jesus a divine person. To be sure he revealed the purpose and the love of God but `of the same substance as God, begotten not made` - not for me! Rather than seeing their deliberations as determinative, we in the 21st century should reconsider the question of God in the light of understanding and insights of our day. We are Christians of the twenty first century, not the fourth!

Postscript
I recently came across something we used to use in Faversham House Conferences fifty years ago. It described the Church in terms of Pioneers and Settlers with the Wild West presenting two kinds of theology: settler theology and pioneer theology.

In Settler theology God is the Mayor. The settlers look to him to keep things going. In Pioneer theology God is the trail Boss. The trail boss lives, eats and sleeps with the pioneers. The trail boss gets down in the mud with the pioneers to help push the wagon which frequently gets stuck.

In Settler theology, Jesus is the Sheriff - the guy authorized by the mayor to enforce the rules and decide who will be thrown into jail. In Pioneer theology, Jesus is the Scout, who rides ahead to find out which way the pioneers should go, and who shows those on the trail what it really means to be a pioneer.

In Settler theology the Church is the courthouse. It is the settler`s symbol of law, order, stability and most important, security. In Pioneer theology, the church is a covered wagon, always on the move. It is where the action is. It bears the marks of life and movement. It isn`t comfortable but the pioneers couldn`t care less. There is a new world to be discovered.




(1) `Like Catching Water in a Net` : Val Webb P 67