Subordinate Authority

My church recently had the joy of receiving new members. During the service, there were vows taken before God which I witnessed. Also witnessing these vows was a friend of mine who was only visiting the church this particular Sabbath. He later asked me some questions which got me thinking about the issue of authority. Here's what he asked:

How do you rectify proclaiming that the Bible is the source of truth and that you must submit to the authority of the church? I noticed that [the new member's] vows are book-ended by these two statements. The first is about the Bible being the only source of truth, the last is affirming submission to the authority of the church. Maybe I misunderstood the statements, but I know they were both mentioned. ... It just seems to contradict if you claim sole authority in the Bible and yet you submit to the authority of the church as well.

The vows that my friend took notice of are as follows (also found in the Constitution of the Church):

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?
4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?

The questions my friend was asking led to a discussion on the topic of authority, particularly subordinate authority. I have an example which I believe demonstrates what I mean. My wife is the nanny for 3 young boys (you can read about her adventures here). My wife was hired for this job by the 3 boys' parents. These parents have authority over their children. When my wife watches them, the only authority she has is the authority that the parents give her. In a sense, she is under their authority as pertains to how she treats their children. If they commanded the kids to not eat dirt and my wife said it were OK to eat dirt (or fed them nothing but candy, or had them watch violent movies, or instructed them to bite one another, etc. (which she doesn't do!) ), she would be removed from her post and replaced by another. Her authority is a subordinate authority. If the church fails to exercise it's authority in accord with what God prescribes in the bible, He may choose to cut off that branch of believers and grow a new shoot elsewhere (just as He did with unbelieving Israel).

I believe that the bible is God's way to tell His church what He wants them to know. But then the question comes up, what are the key things which the bible teaches? How are we to interpret it? This is one reason why the church to which I belong is a confessional church. The WMCF, Testimony, WMLC, WMSC are standards which are subordinate to God's word in the bible. They summarize what the church believes the bible says. If any error is found in these standards, these errors are to be removed so to align them with the scriptures. I submit to them only because I believe that they accurately summarize what the bible teaches. I submit to the authority of the church because I believe it is being true to the Word made flesh.

The issue of authority is very important... especially for people who consider Jesus their Lord. The church each of us attends has an impact on what we believe and how it plays out in our life. This is a good thing provided the church teaches truth. But if a church's teachings are marginal, eventually the belief of its members become marginal as well. Whether explicitly or implicitly, members of a church submit themselves to the doctrines (and dry theology) they receive there. This makes the issue of choosing and committing to a church important.

Questions I'm challenging myself with:

Have I read all of the confessional standards of my church? Do I challenge them against the scriptures (rather than challenging scriptures against them)? Am I submitting to the church I belong to as a subordinate authority?

Credo for Today?

While on a date at our local bookshop, my wife and I settled into comfy chairs and did some reading. Always interested in what God is doing in other branches of Christianity, I picked up "Credo for Today ~ What Christians Believe". I am a Christian, so I generally like books which talk about what I and my fellow Christians believe. This book was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed to be an exposition on the Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church.

The first thing I turned to was the index. I skimmed down to something which I would find interesting. I flipped to Chapter 3, which is titled "Creation: Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution". I was expecting to discover a contrast made between the belief that Christians hold and the theory of evolution. For those of you familiar with my blog, you'll remember that I hold that God literally created the world and believe in a young earth model. I am a Creationist. I was shocked to discover that Cardinal Ratzinger was not affirming the biblical account of creation, but was seeking to reconcile it with a man-made theory. In the short read I had of the chapter, I learned that he dismissed the importance of how God created the world. His emphasis, instead, was that God created the world. He believed (and asserted that all Christians believed) that it doesn't matter if God created the world in the way He said He did, it only matters that He created it. I think this has a profound significance on one's view of God and how that God reveals Himself. If God reveals Himself in falsehood, is he a good God? So, from the first chapter I read, I disagreed with the pope. This was not looking good.

I read on. I was looking for something with which I could agree. I turned back to the index. I saw that there was a chapter entitled "Jesus: The Only Begotten Son of God". At last! A chapter I thought I could agree with. Five pages devoted to our savior. Then I noticed the next chapter, which is entitled: "Incarnate of the Virgin Mary: 'You Are Full of Grace'". This particular chapter was 19 pages. Five pages for the savior, 19 pages for his mom. I decided to put down this book. I'd need to look somewhere else to find something on the topic of "What Christians Believe".

Just AND Justifier

"I'm just saying..." "I was just about to..." "Just to the left of that..."

The word "just" is used commonly. The word "justifier" is not. Both of these words are used in Romans 3:26, and understanding both terms is crucial to understanding Paul's argument.

26 It was to show his [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let me present two definitions:

Just - Rightly judging something and assigning the appropriate punishment or reward.

Justifier - A person who declares someone to be righteous.

The word "just" is, perhaps, easier to understand by examples of what it is not. Consider a judge in a courtroom. A thief is on trial who stole $10,000 from a poor elderly lady. After hearing the extensive evidence which proves the thief committed the crime, the judge prepares to pronounce the verdict. The defendant, lawyers, witnesses, and clerks wait with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant not guilty, he is innocent; a free man". (!) Imagine the thoughts going through peoples heads if such a thing happened. "Was the judge paid off?" "Did he hear all the evidence?". The prosecuting attourney gains approval to approach the bench and upon arriving asks, "Your honor, this man is guilty, why did you pronounce him not guilty?" The judge responds, "Oh, I know he's guilty. I just wanted to be merciful, so I pronounced him not guilty."

In the above example, the judge is certainly merciful to the thief... but is in no way just. He is an unjust judge. In the example above, this same judge is the justifier in that he does declare someone (the guilty thief) righteous. This is an example of someone who is unjust and justifier. In the next example, I'd like to demonstrate the inverse...

We'll start with a similar scenario... a judge in a courtroom... A thief is on trial. He stole $10,000. After hearing conclusive evidence, the judge prepares to issue his verdict. The courtroom waits with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant guilty of all charges. He must repay the $10,000 and any other penalties the law requires". This time no one is surprised. I doubt anyone reading this would be surprised. This is because the judge's ruling was just. A just judge issues the correct ruling according to the law. Notice also that in this scenario that the judge's ruling was that the defendant was guilty. This judge is just but is not a justifier.

I think these two scenarios prepare us for reading Romans 3:26. Putting it in context shows that Paul has just underscored that no one is righteous. In verses 9-19, Paul declares that all people have sinned. We are all like the thief in the above scenarios... only worse. The thief's crime was theft, and his penalty was relatively small. Our crime is punishable by death. Our crime deserves death. So the question of whether our judge is just and whether our judge is justifier is terribly important.

Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see in this passage:

• All have sinned.
• God is a just judge.

If these were the whole of the story we would have to conclude that God justly condemns all because all sinned. If these were all the facts, the judge would already be able to give His sentence, and He would not be a justifier. Indeed, this is the way God could have left it... there is nothing which forces God to be merciful... and yet He has been merciful. God is a justifier. He has declared those who have faith in Jesus to be just. The crucial point:

• The righteousness of God has been manifested in Christ Jesus to be received by faith.

God declares faithful men to be righteous (he justifies them) because through faith they are 'clothed in Christ's righteousness'. God is not like the judge in the first scenario... he doesn't simply render a verdict which is false. God retains His justice. He also justifies men - through Christ. He justifies sinful men... even someone as sinful as I am. I know I am guilty of the charges against me. Even so, God has, through Christ, paid the penalty for my sins and accounted me righteous.

I recall a professor in college had a sign posted on his office door which read something like "Justice is eye for an eye. Anything less than justice is mercy." (I'll note that while I never had a class with this professor I knew from others that he was not known for his mercy.) I think the statement definitely made me think. I think it is definitely true that where there is no definition of justice that there is no possibility of mercy. I don't think, though, that mercy always has to come at the expense of justice. As I've discussed above, God is just. He has shown His people mercy in the purest sense of the word. This is a marvelous thing. For this, I praise Him.

The gospel of ... linux?

My wife and I recently purchased a new laptop. It came with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic. I had decided a while back that I would stop purchasing software from Microsoft when other better (or, more importantly, free) alternatives were available. So, I decided to try linux. I planned to install it in parallel with Vista to allow use of either operating system. Long story short, the install was easy and painless and Ubuntu (the version of Linux I chose) has been pretty easy to use so far.

Once Ubuntu was installed, I wanted to take my nerdiness to the next level. I started looking at the Ubuntu forums. I downloaded a Ubuntu pocket guide and reference by Keir Thomas. It's a fun read, really, but one thing I noticed in the first few paragraphs irked me a bit:

The fact you’re reading this book might mean you already know about Ubuntu, but one or two readers might have bought the Print Edition of this book (or downloaded the PDF) on a whim to see what the fuss is all about. These people might lack specifics, and remain unconvinced of the benefits of Ubuntu. So, I’m going to burn through some precious pages of this slim volume to evangelize and explain just a little.

The author wants "to evangelize" his readers. The root of the word evangelize is the greek word for gospel or good news. He wants to share the good news ... of Ubuntu linux? I realize that linux is good news to a lot of people. It is free. That is great news. It is constantly being made better, has a spirit of community in people that use it, works right "out of the box", is powerful for accomplishing lots of things, and did I mention it's free? This is not the gospel. This, in fact, is terrible news next to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The good news that Jesus has come to Earth and become human so that He would save His people from their sins is the best news ever. Literally. Ever.

Philippians 3:
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Next to the news that Christ has come, the news that there is a free operating system is like trash... pungent trash. I think this fits with what Jesus said:

Luke 14:

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

I don't think Jesus is negating the 4th commandment, as He elsewhere affirms:

Matthew 15:

4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

I think that Jesus wants us to love our fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers and sisters. The important thing here is the degree of love. Compared to one's love for God, these other loves should so pale in comparison, that they appear hate. Jesus is showing the degree to which we should regard the first and greatest commandment above the second:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

So, I ask myself as I write this... Is my love for the one God primary to my being? Do I love God with all my heart? Do I love God with all my soul? Do I love God with all my mind? Do I love God with all my strength? Do I love my neighbor as myself? Is my love for God so strong that the love for myself and others like hate in comparison? Do I hate my wife in comparison to the love I have for God?

I have no problem saying that linux sucks in comparison to God. Am I ready, though, to tell myself that I suck in comparison to the God of the universe?

on the label "Calvinist"

A Calvinist is someone who agrees with John Calvin. Often, when someone speaks of being a Calvinist, they are speaking of someone who agrees with the "5 points of Calvinism". These points aren't actually written by John Calvin himself but are a summary of his views on salvation and the sovereignty of God. In this article, I'll introduce these points. I rely heavily on the book "The 5 points of Calvinism documented, defined, defended".

I'll start with a point which is foundational to all of the five: God saves sinners.

Psalm 118:

14 The Lord is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.

Matthew 1:

21 ... and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

From this premise all the five points of Calvinism find their meaning. These five points are easily remembered using the acrostic: TULIP.

Five Points - like amazon.com ratings... only not.

Total Depravity - All humankind are fallen because Adam sinned and they are descendants of Adam. Mankind will not choose God of his own power. This point proves that sinners cannot save themselves.

Unconditional Election - Because it is God who saves sinners, the decision of who He will save is entirely His. He doesn't save anyone based on anything in the person (neither inherent in them nor forseen response to His grace).

Limited (or Definite) Atonement - God chose who He would save. He sent Jesus to die for those people. This is a note about the intended scope/efficaciousness of Jesus' death, not it's value. If God had chosen to save everyone in the world, Jesus' death would have been entirely sufficient.

Irresistible (or Efficacious) Grace - Because God is the one who saves sinners, he acts in a way that the sinner cannot resist. He changes the depraved will to a regenerated will. Because God is sovereign, when he wants to change a person's will, their will is changed.

Perseverance of the Saints - Those whom God has chosen to save He will save. God's plan cannot be thwarted by the schemes of the devil nor the old flesh of a sinner whom He has chosen.

What the 5 points do not mean:

Some men have read the 5 points and concluded "If God saves men, He can do it without my help. I don't need to evangelize... in fact I don't need to do anything. If God is going to save me, he'll save me." This line of thinking expresses the thoughts of those that are known as hyper-Calvinists. This is somewhat of a mis-nomer, however, as this line of thinking is not only non-Calvinist, it is non-Christian. Recall that a Christian has Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If a person believes that their responsibility to evangelize (or even have Jesus as Lord of their life) is nullified, that person is not a Christian.

Some people take Calvinism to mean that they are robots and that people aren't able to do what they want to. I've heard that the expression "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" was first said by someone who disagreed with Calvinists for this reason. A common scenario is theorized where someone might really want to please God, but because they are not part of God's elect they will be eternally condemned. I can understand that this would be a very bleak picture of God. God, though, has not left us without light on this particular theorized scenario.

Romans 3:

10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Fitting with the idea of Total Depravity, God tells us that no one seeks after Him. Apart from God regenerating a person's will to enable them to, "no one seeks after God." So, this hypothetical objection to Calvinism is proven to be invalid. I'll note that this may not match what we see. There are often many people who appear to want to please God, but for one reason or another, seem to fall away. I believe these people have these appearances but not true faith. Remember that men can see fruit and judge by appearances, but God judges the heart.

Unity in Mission in the Godhead

I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Trinity. I believe the 5 points demonstrate a unity among the 3 persons of God. Unconditional Election means that God the Father chose a people to love whom He would redeem unto Himself. Limited (or Definite) Atonement means that God the Son loved, lived for, and died for those same people. Efficacious Grace means that God the Holy Spirit draws these same ones to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ. There is profound unity in the Trinity. God is indeed the God who saves.

Imagine the alternative: If God chose men based on what he foresaw, or worse, did not choose men at all, he basically set out a way for men to come to Him and waited for them to do so. He would only love men when they first love Him. This seems quite the inverse of 1 John 4:19.

1 John 4:
19 We love because he first loved us.

Furthermore, if Jesus' death is for everyone, then what truly decides if they are saved is not what He has done, but whether they accept it or not. Instead of "Jesus saving His people from their sins" it would best be described as "Jesus enabling people who chose Him to save themselves from their sins".

Perhaps worst of all, if the Holy Spirit's job is to draw men to God, and He equally distributes grace to all men toward repentance and faith, then He is a failure. If God is trying to save all men, then either all men will be saved or God is failing. Now, God does tell us His revealed will that we are to evangelize to all men:

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God's revealed will is that all men should be saved. This is the goal that we as men should shoot for because we don't know whom He has chosen. His secret will is to save those whom He has chosen.

Applying the Label

I am a five-point Calvinist. As a summary of reasons why and how predestination makes sense, and how to understand that God saves sinners, I think the five points are incredibly helpful. At the very core, Calvinism lets God be God. It elevates God in His supremacy. It also puts man in his place. It reminds me that I am ever a debtor to God and His grace shown to me. If I was once a child of wrath but now am a son of God, then I cannot point to myself and say, "look what a great person I am." God is the one who has made me who I am, and if he saved a wretch like me, then I can and will proclaim the gospel boldly to all men regardless of how clean or wretched they look on the outside. It will be for them what it has been for me: the grace of God alone that saves men from their sins.

Belief in the Invisible God

God is invisible. I suppose I should say that God chooses not to show himself. If God wanted to show himself, he surely could. When we say that God is invisible, it is in no way a slight against His power... in fact, it underscores it.

Exodus 33:
18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”

God is so utterly different from mankind, so much more powerful, so much more intense, so much more... well, just more... that man would die if God were to fully reveal Himself to him. God also does not give us images to see Him. In fact, he commands that we not create images with which to worship Him.

Exodus 20:
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands [2] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Leviticus 19:
4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.

When my wife and I go to see a movie based on a book we've read, I usually enjoy it. My wife, however, gets annoyed. "That's not how it happened in the book." This has always been the case. The movie is never the same as the book. There are good reasons for this... sometimes the words of the book leave room for ambiguity, to leave room for the reader to ponder, yet in a movie it is hard to leave ambiguity. Most often, the book has so much detail that a verbatim movie would be so long audiences would lose interest. This illustrates the negative side of images used in worship. God is so much more than than we can comprehend, that any image created by us would be an epic failure at portraying God.

There is a positive side of images used in worship (I do not mean positive as in "good", I only mean it like "added"). Once my wife and I have seen a book turned movie a few times, we both find that the movie heavily influences the way we read the book. For instance, when I read the 6th Harry Potter book, The Half Blood Prince, I see in my mind Ron as Rupert Gint and Harry as Daniel Radcliffe. Even the character Dudley, who in the books is a blonde, is burned into my mind as being the dark haired Harry Melling. When my wife reads to me on long car trips, the voice she reads for Hagrid matches the actor, Robbie Coltrane's (my wife does a great impression, I might add). This illustrates the point that images in worship sometimes introduce or "add" notions that aren't there. They might cause someone to be "blinded" by what they see or have seen.

Spiritual blindness is truly the matter at hand. To be blind of something is to not see it. This is, perhaps, the antithesis of faith. Faith is knowing of things which cannot be seen with natural senses. It is agreement that these things exist. It is also trusting, or a steadfast assurance in those things.

Hebrews 11:
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

I think this gets to a very fundamental theological point. Although God could reveal himself in a way that is undeniable, He has chosen to reveal Himself in ways which are subtle. God hasn't recently caused the sun to stand still in the sky, or to flood the entirety of the earth. Instead, He relates to His people through revelation and faith. Consider this: Jesus performed miracles before large crowds. There were some who saw them and believed, while there were some who saw them and did not. Some responded in faith and saw Jesus for who He really was.

Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

God's revelation of himself is like this. Two people might read the bible and one respond in faith and the other not. Faith is crucial to having a relationship with the invisible God. When I say that God is invisible, I do not mean that He does or has not revealed Himself or conveyed truths through things which are visible. The bible is one example. The sacraments are another: God conveys spiritual truths through the sacraments. Baptism visibly represents the washing away of sin (something which is invisible). Circumcision visibly represented for Israel the cutting away of their hardness of heart. The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, is something that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled, but it points to Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross which is not physically seen, touched, tasted, nor smelled today.

Incidentally, I agree with scripture that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Some have made statues and paintings of Jesus. Such actions should give God-fearing people serious pause. God the son chose to take on a human body and become flesh. This was God's act of self-revelation. It would seem a great error to take the Mona Lisa to a Kinko's, print off a black and white 8 1/2" x 11", and hang it on my wall. Doing so is no service to Mona, and shows no respect to Leonardo Da Vinci. We should guard against idolatry. Indeed, it seems that some have elevated bread and wine to the position of Jesus Himself. I won't get into all the arguments for why they would believe this, but I will state firmly that if the bread and wine are not God, but are worshipped as if they were, those worshiping and teaching the error will one day answer to the invisible God on charges of idolatry.

1 John 3:
2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

I charge those reading this, as I do myself, to rely on the invisible God by faith. I've heard of someone saying, "I've had lots of friends that have died. I don't hear any of them coming back to tell me how great heaven is." I'm saddened by this person's loss, but moreso for their lack of faith. Someone has come back from the dead: Jesus Christ. He has told us in the bible and through the preaching of the word what we must believe to go to heaven. Do we believe Him? Do we serve Him? Do we have hope in the invisible God? If not, the best hope we could have is that He does not exist.

on the label "Trinitarian"

Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). They are done so because they are baptized into the name of God. One might ask, then, why they are not baptized into the "names" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This observation leads to the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because it is revealed in the bible. Some have noted, however, that the word "Trinity" doesn't occur in the bible. Neither does the word "Sacrament". Words like these are used to describe an idea (indeed, all words follow this pattern). Rather than saying "the things instituted by Christ which are appealing to the 5 senses (taste, touch, sight,...) and communicate spiritual truths" we say the word "Sacrament". Indeed, we could say "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" instead of "Trinity"... but why use the definition when the word is more convenient?

The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. These are three persons. These are one God. They are the same in substance (whatever the God part is in each is the same in the other two), equal in power and glory.

What does the doctrine of the Trinity do for us? A pessimistic person would say "it confuses us". It is true that this is a doctrine that is hard to fully understand. In the end, though we should expect doctrines of God to be beyond our full comprehension. After all, God is unlike us and also has attributes like omniscience and omnipresence. The doctrine of the Trinity helps believers to understand some things about God which would otherwise make no sense.

First, since God has always existed in three persons, it sheds some light on why God would have created the world. Some have presumed that God made the world and mankind because he was lonely. The doctrine of the Trinity helps us to see the error of this. God was not lonely, in fact, He has always been in communion: each of the three persons with each other. God the Father has always loved God the Son. The son is eternally begotten of the father and was from eternity past before the face of the Father. The Spirit has always bonded them in their love. Mankind was created to glorify God, yet this was not to give God a glory he was in some way lacking.

John 17:
17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, ... 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Second, it tells us something of God's character. God exists in relationship within himself. When we think of relationship, like that of a husband to a spouse or a father to a son, we naturally have an emotional imprint of what that relationship means. Consider, though, that our human relationships are but a picture of what a true relationship is. When man was created in God's image, I wonder if it included the way man would have relationship with others of mankind. Perhaps human relationships are a part of being created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man [8] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Third, it tells us something of the unity which is desired among believers. Jesus himself prays for this unity. He does not compare it with a unity among any created thing... but instead he draws attention to the unity which exists within God. Jesus calls this unity as being "perfectly one". As the Father and Son are one, so should Christians seek to be unified. Jesus also prays a reason why such unity is sought. "That they so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me". Unity among Christians is a powerful witness for the gospel. This unity should be most clearly seen in the local body of believers. As a person sees a congregation (as a visitor or as a long time member), they should see the love of God in God's people.

John 17:
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. ...
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

My Theology is Trinitarian. It is no small matter that God refers to Himself in the first person plural ("let us make man in our image"). If God so refers to Himself, we should take note. As this is the God whom I serve, it makes a difference in how I see and relate to other Christians. I believe that God the Father chose a people for himself. I believe that Jesus is God who became man to die for men and women whom the Father chose and gave to Him. I believe the Holy Spirit effectually calls men to Jesus as their savior and lord. If these believers are called by the same God I serve, and were made children of God through the same gospel, then I look upon them as brothers. I love God because of the amazing love that He has had within Himself. I marvel at the fact that He has shared this love with mere men, even me. This is the theology that drives me to love my church, which is but a part of Christ's Church universal through time and space.