Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: How does the Godhead function? Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 90 09:28:28 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico Lines: 30 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article OFM writes: [ The term "mode" has a bad association, because of the heresy known as "modalism". However modalism said that the persons simply represented ways God related to the world, but did not represent any distinction intrinsic to God. Thus the new terminology that some are using for the Trinity -- Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer -- is heretical, because it characterizes God by three different ways he related to the world and us. I am using the term "mode of existence" to refer to different ways in which God exists and relates to himself, so I am talking about a distinction intrinsic to God. --clh] I've thought a lot about this new terminology, and I don't particularly like it either. Do we have alternatives that don't offend those in our midst who stress that neither Father nor the Son are male or female? Jesus was surely male, but the eternal Logos cannot be meaningfully said to be essentially male any more than it can be said to have brown hair. Is there another terminology we can use? The only that comes to mind is "Lover, Beloved, Love" which captures it all quite nicely, I think. What do others think? -mib -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!