The placing of Trinity Sunday after Pentecost Sunday in the church calendar always seems strange to me. Pentecost celebrates the life Jesus lived now beginning its journey, travelling through the lives of his followers throughout the world. Pentecost speaks of freedom, liberation, creativity, wonder, colour, joy, diversity, transformation, renewal, grace, forgiveness, peace. It is contagious, inebriating, overwhelming, carried by the winds, free, flowing, turning the world upside down, lifting up the down trodden, passionate and so much more. Trinity comes like applying the brakes full on. "Hang on before you go further you need sound doctrine. When you baptise, when you explain this pentecostal wonder and it's connection to baptism, explain that it is baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
This 'trinitarian' formula seems out of place here in Matthew's Gospel. Neither Mark not Luke have it in their Gospels. It seems from the book of Acts that people were baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 10:48; 19:5). Could it have been inserted at a later date? Could it be that the formula was inserted back into the Gospel by the early church rather than the Gospel giving the formula in the first place? Why?
Unless the words 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' are used at baptism, some Christian denominations will not accept that a baptism has been properly administered and a person will not be accepted as part of that denomination.
The formula is used to distinguish which God is being spoken about and the appropriate way or what is considered the orthodox way for Christians to think of God. Why limit the words in the baptismal formula to these words, why not baptise 'in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit, and of love and forgiveness and grace' and so on? It seems a bit strange to build a whole doctrine based on one verse of scripture and then pin one's life to it or use it as a dividing point rather than an including point. I think it very important that the church today emphasises inclusion, what we share in common, a common experience, an experience of Jesus, a common concern for the world, rather than emphasising difference and therefore exclusion.
In the wider scheme of things surely it is not the formula that is most important but the experience, the discipleship. The love of God, the love of the world, the discipleship comes first and then trying to make sense of the believing.
Do I spend too much time trying to figure out the theology? Would my life be fuller, richer, more meaningful, more helpful to others and this world in which I live by spending more of my time living the life that Jesus speaks, that which we name as discipleship?
Trevor, my thesis on the gospel of Matthew was predicated on the Great Commission was NOT written by Matthew, and if you read Eusebius, we find another version of the 'Great Commission'. Eusebius records it as saying “go and make disciples of all nations in my name” which seems to me a more plausible rendition. Eusebius does not quote the Great Commission in the full form until after the Council of Nicea, a highly suspicious thing!
ReplyDeleteJohn (I presume) I'm very glad to hear that there is some reputable research that I can quote next time on this. So you reckon it got stuck in there after Nicea?
ReplyDelete