Sunday, August 7, 2016

HBLT (hook; book; look; took) and MWGYW (me-we-God-you-we)

HBLT (hook; book; look; took) and MWGYW (me-we-God-you-we) are two different methods for communicating God’s message to an audience, whether in church setup or group setup.  Below is a brief summary of the methods used. For more information and for further study, please refer to the bibliography.

HBLT: A Bridge Through Time
                            Hook                        Book                     Look                      Took
                         (present)                    (past)                 (present)               (future)


Why HBLT?
It is God’s nature to plan; spontaneity is not God’s way of working in the majority of situations. “God is not a God of disorder but of peace…everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” (1Cor14:33,40) God is not haphazard; He has a sovereign plan for our lives for He designed His world by very exacting plans. We were created to His own image and we have the tendency to make plans as well. Should we not develop plans for teaching the Word of God as well?
HBLT is a trip through time, from the student’s world, back to the Bible’s world, again to the actual student’s world, then to the future (action and life transformation). HBLT is a guide to method choice and a way to simplify lesson planning.

A Plan for Teaching (Acts 17:16, 22-31,34)
Paul in Athens addressed the philosophers at Aeropagus on Athens’ Mars Hill. While waiting for Silas and Timothy, he became distressed by observing a city filled with idols, utterly lost and in need of Christ. So many idols exist, even on one the inscription “to an unknown god.”  How did Paul approach a people so much in need for the truth of Christ?
1.      Gains their attention by entering their world and hooks them:
a.       Makes observational needs assessment: he starts where they live.
b.      Tells his observations, “you are very religious…I even found an altar ‘to an unknown god’…”
c.       Stimulates their interest and curiosity while giving direction to his teaching, “that unknown god I am going to proclaim to you…”
2.      Presents and explores the truth with them and points out to Christ and the means of relationship to God.
a.       Helped them identify with a general implication for all persons, “God overlooked such ignorance, but now commands all people everywhere to repent.”
b.      Teaching ministry moved from general implications to personal application. Response can be either rejection or acceptance. The important is that all are brought to the place of response, the point of action.

Four Lesson Elements
The four elements are meant to give you a clear idea and a clear direction; they are not mechanical steps, but there is opportunity for flexibility and interaction.

1.      Hook; from student’s world to Bible’s world
There are several qualities of a good hook:
a.       Gains learner’s attention:
                                  i.      Build common ground with your learner/audience.
                                ii.      Know where they live, where they are.
b.      Surfaces a need (tension with co-worker, chronic illness, need for friendship and sense of belonging, encouragement, attention, recognition, acceptance, understanding, decision-making, guidance, sense of identity, healthy relationships).
                                  i.      Group Needs Assessment is a guide to devising the hook which should surface the need in a non-threatening, thought provoking manner.
                                ii.      Students’ perceived needs are different from true needs. The teacher must open students’ minds and hearts to the spiritual needs Scripture addresses.
c.       Sets a goal;  the Direction Step
                                  i.      The hook provides a reason for listening; either tune-in or tune-out.
                                ii.      Set a goal they want to reach and they will be with you.
                              iii.      Let them see Scripture with the mind of Christ and set worthy learning goals is part of the teacher’s task.
d.      Leads to Bible study (Book)
                                  i.      When you capture interest.
                                ii.      Set a goal.
                              iii.      Lead your students to the Bible.

2.      Book: clarification of meaning and exploration of truth
a.       Clarify meaning: the aim is to give students biblical information and help them understand it. Many methods are available, i.e. methodology:
                             i.      Participatory: buzz groups, small group reports
                           ii.      Teacher-centered method: cover quickly and give points
                         iii.      Audio-Visual: charts, visuals, power-points, video-clips, outline, etc…
                         iv.      Divide class into small groups; give questions for them to explore meaning, and then let them write on overhead transparency with marker to display findings.
b.      Lead the class to meaningful and purposeful exploration of the biblical truth foundation which can serve for several classes.

3.      Look: identify implications of truth to daily life
    A.    From book to look: you move to implications of the Bible study
    B.   Guide the class to discover and grasp relationship of implications to daily living.
    C.   Knowledge must be tempered with “spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9).
    D.   You can use a combination of case study + probing questions to encourage discovery of implications from the group’s study.
    E.   In the look section, the teacher encourages response took section and helps them plan specific ways.
    For example, Pete’s students discovered that the sources of joy (Philippians) were to get out the gospel and sacrifice self for others and the Lord. That guided discovery learning was done through group inquiry method but they had to identify implications for that info to Christian living. Pete guided the class by asking a question that revealed the life implications, “but what does this mean for the pattern of our daily lives?” This is the issue explored in the look section of HBLT approach.
In Pete’s case-study given to the class, they concluded that by those old couples moving to a retired nursing home to be looked after, as they dreaded the move, they are on a commission to a new mission field, will be able to share their faith, minister to others, and deepen their dependence on Christ the Lord.

4.      Took: response phase → change
a.       A response is required: it will take place outside of class in weekday life because faith demands response for growth and reality, otherwise, it is dead.
b.      For change to take place, move from general to implementation to actually plan how to implement the truth learnt.
c.       Bible teacher help students respond by leading them to see God’s will and by helping them to decide and plan to actually do.

LESSON PLANNING WORKSHEET
    Date: 11 July 2010
     Location:  Church (6th flr)
        File Under: JDG/071110/do you love me
    Target Group:  Jesus’ Disciples (JDG)
    Gender: female; Age Range: 25-35
    Status: married women and singles; Social Class: middle to low class
    Challenges: work, raising children, and witnessing to Christ.
    Those women are overwhelmed by the amount of work and home related responsibilities. They often betray their love for Christ, in so many ways, feel depressed and ashamed, and lose hope of ever being true disciples. The do not know how to live a life that witnesses to Christ.
    Passage:
    John 21:15-17

    Cross-reference: John 14:19-24,31; 2:24-25; 16:30; Matt 12:48-49; 7:15-23; 21:28-32; 1John 3:18
    For further reading: John 10; Ezekiel 34; Isaiah 40; Zech. 11; Psalm 23
    Exegetical Idea: To love Christ is to be committed to watch over His own people, mature and newly born, His commandment.
    Pedagogical Idea:  In spite of past denials or betrayals, Jesus will call his disciple out of his weakness, renew his calling, and give him the responsibility to watch over His people, either by teaching the word or attending to their needs to ensure their spiritual growth and maturity.
Lesson Aim(s)
    Cognitive (Head): Jesus’ disciples­ are to reflect on Jesus’ stance with Peter, to discriminate between past events and present commitment, and to realize that Jesus does not focus on our denials and betrayals but rather on renewing our commitment of love to Him through looking after His people.
    Affective (Heart): Jesus’ disciples are to be convinced that they can express their love to Christ in simple ways. They are to plan to meet once a week to pray and discuss how they can express their love in a practical way, whether at home, or at work, or market place, or else.

    Behavioral (Hands): Jesus’ disciples are to spend quality time with their families around the Bible study, or to plan home activities such as preparing sandwiches for the orphanage next to their home then make Bible study, or take their children to visit children’s cancer hospital and distribute hymn tapes or coloring book and pencils as a token of love, or to offer the gospel to the old sick lady or pension homes while attending to physical needs (such as bathing them, feeding them, combing their hair).
HOOK
    The Hook: a short story

     What do you think? A woman had two daughters, and she asked the first, “Mary, please go to the market place and buy me four pounds of green beans.” She answered, “I will not,” but afterward she regretted it and went. Then she came to the second and said, “Cathy, please clean the household and wash the dishes.” And Cathy said, “okay, Mom, I will,” but she did not.
1.    Which of the two loves her mother? Why?
2.    What is the measure of love, in this story?

BOOK
Content Outline: teacher-centered
1- Background to Text
    After resurrection, the disciples were afraid, depressed, hopeless, lonely, felt betrayed and deceived by their master, Jesus, Who appeared to them three times. This passage talks about Jesus’ third appearance with his disciples while Simeon-Peter had gone back to his first profession that of fishing fish instead of men. Jesus asked Peter three times whether he loved him or not? Was it a an agape commitment that of a covenant love or just a brotherly friendship? Jesus reinstated Peter to watch over His people as a proof of love. Jesus equates love to care-giving.
2- Biblical Truth: love is deed in action
    “Do you love Me?...feed My lambs…tend My sheep…feed My sheep” 
3- Application: love to Christ is expressed by carrying out His commandment of tending and feeding:
     a-  Bible study with family or other
     b- Visitations to children’s cancer hospital and orphanages.
     c- Looking after old retired people’s home, while letting them know that they were sent by Jesus as an expression of love.
     Methodology

      Mini Lecture by the teacher who provides background information about the author, the gospel, the historic event, and original recipients of the message; the overall message, repeated words, analogy, questions posed and answers provided.

     Small Group Discussion, after mini lecture
     Jesus’ disciples are to explore:
     Q1: what were Peter’s emotions, given his denial to Christ, when Jesus confronted him with the question: “do you love Me?”
     Q2: did Peter understand the meaning and kind of “love” involved in the question?
     Q3:  why was Peter grieved when Jesus asked him a third time?
     Q4: where do you stand in your love to Christ? What kind of love is it? How can you develop it?
LOOK
     Back to our story of Mary & Cathy:
     1-  How could Cathy’s attitude towards her mother be changed or improved?
     2-  If this was a lack of love to her mother, how could she deal with it?
     3-  Was Peter’s betrayal to Christ a lack of love?
     4-  If yes, how could Peter love Christ or develop his love for Christ, i.e. take it one step higher?
     Goal Setting
     The group is to encourage one another to love Christ; express love in deeds; pray towards that goal and for the Holy Spirit to provide ideas for expressing love.
      Group Commitment
      Every two members are to make visitations once a week and to pray together before going to outreaches.
TOOK
     Group commitment to spend quality time with their families in Bible study (family altar) and in activities.
     Group prayer for outreaches; group outreach-report.
     Evaluation:



MWGYW  Approach
Create a Map
Andy Stanley and Lane Jones

ME (common ground w/ audience)
*        Find common ground with audience
*        Share genuinely a dilemma you, as communicator, are facing; otherwise, it will be difficult for the audience to trust you, you will be resisted and argued against.
*        Don’t assume a relationship with the audience unless it is a weekly audience, then the ME is not as critical.
*        Don’t skip the introductory remarks; big mistake!
*        Build connection with audience as noted by a head-shaking in agreement.

WE1 (tension in many areas)
*        Broaden the tension to include everybody.
*        Spend some time applying the tension to as many areas as you can so as to spark an emotion in as broad an audience as possible.
*        The goal is to surface the issue of unmet expectations.
*        Don’t transition from “WE” to the next section until you feel like you have created a tension that your audience is dying for you to resolve.
*        Focus on the question you are intending to answer: “what should I do about that?”
*        Application is not a section of the message, it is the context of the message.

GOD (divine right)
*        The goal here is to resolve the tension
*        Point people to God’s thoughts on the subject
*        The “good news is” ….
*        Background text: explain and engage the text:
o   Do not skip along the surface of the text
o   Do not go down so deep and stay there till the audience gasps for air
*        Engage the audience with the text: take them with you on your journey:
o   Do not just read
o   Do not just explain
*        Take the audience with you on your journey

YOU (application)
*        Tell people what to do with what they have heard
*        Answer to the question you have been asking
1.      So what?
2.      Now what?
*        Find an application that everybody can get on line
1.      Sets you up for the WE aspect of the message.
2.      Allows you to stay focused and concise in your communication
*        Broaden the application by thinking of :
1.      concentric circles of relationships such as:
§  Family
§  Community
§  Work
§  Marketplace
2.      Various age stages or groups:
§  Teenagers
§  Singles
§  Newlyweds
§  Parents
§  Empty nesters
§  Single-mothers
3.      Believers and unbelievers
4.      The person who is not there

WE2 (casting vision)
*        WE is about vision casting; a moment of inspiration.
*        As you did in ME, you gathered your audience around your shared frailty, misgivings, or temptations.
*        It is a moment of inspiration; call upon your audience to imagine
*        Paint verbal pictures of what could be done and should be done.

MWGYW Approach
John 21:15-17

ME
Every night, after finishing work and home-related responsibilities, I relax and watch TV until I fall asleep. I wake up the following morning my head filled up with the things I watched and my senses become vulnerable and tempted. This weighs me down; I get depressed and ashamed with such a feeling of inadequacy and unworthiness to be a disciple of Christ. I feel that I have betrayed Jesus because I know witness flow inside-out; my inner life should bear witness to God in the secret place where nobody watches me.

WE1
Don’t we all feel this one way or another, at one point or another? We confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord over our lives but our deeds deny Him! The truck-driver who gets angry from standing in a long traffic cue and starts reviling; the household wife who cheats on her husband in the home expenses; the woman that pretends to love her neighbor, yet gossips and damages her reputation; the friend who abuses her friend by gossiping on other people’s lives to damage their image; the single-mother who neglects her children and gives priority to her own private life; the doctor who commits illegal actions with his patients; the engineer who designs a building with improper foundational measurement in order to cut on cost; the CEO who oppresses his employees to cover up for his mistakes; the family that prefers to go to a movie during the weekly time reserved to erect the family altar; the pastor who counts on past sermons and do not seek the Holy Spirit to know the needs of the audience; the minister who discloses his flock’s secrets and betray their trust.
Aren’t we all denying and betraying Jesus in a way or another? Do we love Him? What to do? How to react to our betrayal?

GOD
The good news is that God does not look to our betrayals and denials but is more interested in renewing our commitment of love, not just any love, but covenant-love to Him. He not only will accept you but reinstate you to your former position, if not higher.
Jesus knows you are struggling with this feeling of betrayal for He knows the hearts of men (John2:24-25) and their frailty. Jesus encountered an even graver betrayal and denial from His inner circle disciple, Peter. Yet, after resurrection we see him ….

Background text at this juncture….. with biblical references as appropriate (John 14:19-24,31; 2:24-25; 16:30; Matt 12:48-49; 7:15-23; 21:28-32; 1John 3:18)

Biblical Truth… Love is deed in action
“Do you love me?  Feed My lambs…tend My sheep…tend My Lambs…”

YOU
“Do you love Me?” How will you interact with Jesus’ question? What will you do? So what if you have betrayed Jesus? Will you let your betrayal drive you further apart from Him?
Or
Will the single-mother start to look after her little ones and present her body as a living sacrifice to Christ? Will the housewife start to bless her neighbor and seek to pray for her/with her? Will the truck-driver spend time in prayer during the traffic light cue? Will the doctor seize opportunities to present free sample medicines to his needy patients and gospel literature? Will the engineer calculate the cost of material and search in the market place for the best cheapest price of constructing material and the difference given back to his client? Will the CEO call his employees to spend the first ten minutes of the working day in corporate prayers to develop the sense of Christian family? Will the pastor lay himself for his sheep just as Jesus did? Will the pastor spend more time seeking the Holy Spirit for the needs of his flock? Will the minister preserve people’s reputation and cover up in love for their weaknesses?


Jesus still asks you: “Do you love Me?”  If you do, then…
WE2
Look-up; Get-up; Make-up; Team-up
(Vision-Casting)
LGMT

Look-up: to Jesus and reflect on how he dealt with the issue of Peter’s betrayal and be encouraged by his unconditional everlasting covenant of love. He will never deny Himself even at times when you do.
Get-up:     to embrace His love which will wipe off all your inadequacies and regenerate strength and love.
Make-up:  for the lost time which has hurt you and those around you and for the broken relations.
Team-up:  with Jesus’ disciples: teach the word, go on outreaches, present works of mercy, or else as guided by the Holy Spirit.  Fit in His plan:
“Feed My lambs…Tend My Sheep…Tend My Lambs”

Can you imagine if every one of us looks-up, gets-up, makes-up, and teams-up, how would the Church be? An ideal picture of revival where God’s people, Jesus’ disciples, are looking up to Jesus, getting up daily from their inadequacies and weaknesses, making-up for wrongs and hurting, and teaming-up with other disciples as one, in commitment to the covenant of unconditional love.
Only then will you be able to answer:
“Do you love Me?”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Richards, Lawrence, and Gary J. Bredfeldt. Creative Bible Teaching. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 1998.
Stanley, Andy, and Ronald Lane Jones. Communicating for a Change: Seven Keys to Irresistible Communication. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Multnomah Publishers, 2006.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology

SUMMARY
The book is composed of six chapters dealing with the person and work of Christ, written by theologians from various inter-disciplinary subfields of theology (systematic, historical, philosophical, and practical). 
J. Scott Horrell, in “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,” tightens the relationship between the economic and immanent Trinity by drawing a social model of the Trinity.  By social Trinity, Horrell means that “the one divine Being eternally exists as three distinct centers of consciousness, wholly equal in nature, genuinely personal in relationship, and each mutually indwelling the other,” and affirms the “perpetual distinction of roles within the immanent Godhead” (p.44). Horrell, based on biblical evidence, established the loving interpersonal relationship in the social Trinity and a hierarchical order of the Godhead in relation to creation with “preeminence of the Father, joyous collaboration of the Son, and the ever-serving activity of the Holy Spirit” (p. 67-68).
Donald Fairbairn, in “The One Person Who is Jesus Christ: The Patristic Perspective,” discusses the Christological controversy initiated by Nestorius and opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, in the fifth century.  The author argues that the controversy was not about two different schools of thought (Antioch and Alexandria), or the nature and person of Christ, but about who the one person of Christ is.  He consents with Cyril’s Christology that “the one person of Christ is in fact God, the Logos, the second person of the Trinity,” and that salvation is participation in God to share “by grace that very same fellowship that the persons of the Trinity share by nature” (p. 80, 96).  The author argues that the Chalcedonian Definition was a doctrinal development of previous theological formulations and not a document mediating between two schools of Christian thought and exegetical interpretation—Antioch and Alexandria. 
Garrett J. DeWesee, in “One Person, Two Natures: Two Metaphysical Models of the Incarnation,” discusses two models of incarnation, one historical dyothelite and one contemporary, to give content to the two-nature formula to rebut John Hicks’ objection that the Chalcedonian formula is meaningless.  He overviews the historical development of the Chalcedonian Definition that left ambiguous terms undefined opening the door for heresies and disputes over Christ’s two wills (dyothelite) and one will (monothelyte)—this latter was condemned as heretical.  He argues for the contemporary model that asserts that “the second person of the Trinity, the divine Logos, is eternally a person with a divine nature…apart from the incarnation.  At incarnation, the set of properties that define human nature are assumed by the Logos and thus are exemplified by a divine person.  Christ’s human nature realized its personality only in union with the divine” (p. 144).  
Bruce A. Ware, in “Christ’s Atonement:  A Work of the Trinity,” argues that the “success of the atonement depends on the identity of Christ as the theanthropic person, the One who is both fully God and fully man in the incarnation” and that the atonement was the work of the Trinity in fellowship—the Father and the Spirit in conjunction with the Son (p. 156).  The author examines Anselm’s question, “why did God become man?” and seeks to lay a rationale for understanding why without the Trinity there could be no atonement and hence no salvation.  Anselm answered this pressing question by arguing that “it is necessary for a God-man to pay the price [of sin, because] no one can pay except God and no one ought to pay except man” (p. 158). 
Klaus Issler, in “Jesus’ Example:  Prototype of the Dependent, Spirit-filled Life,” argues that “Jesus Christ’s supernaturally oriented life on this earth resulted from predominant dependence on the divine resources of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, while employing his own divine powers infrequently, if at all” (p. 189).  The article presents the imitatio Christi and the author’s dependency thesis with two lines of biblical evidence related to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, then draws “orthodox Christology for practical Christian living…to enrich the doctrine of sanctification”  (p. 191).  He too discusses some implications pertaining to Jesus’ childhood.
CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
The thesis of the book argues for a Christology in the context of the Trinity—salvation through atonement requires incarnation that requires the Trinity.  It is the seed of conversation between a philosophical theologian (DeWeese) and a practical theologian (Issler) and builds on the groundwork and axioms of the first four ecumenical councils.  Nicaea I (325) is contra Arianism affirming “God alone can save;” Constantinople I is contra Apollinarianism (381) affirming “what is not assumed is not healed;” Ephesus (431) is contra Nestorianism affirming “God alone can save us” through the incarnation of the Son who is homoousios with the Father and homoousios with Mary theotokos (God-bearer); and Chalcedon (553) is contra Eutychianism affirming two natures of Christ in hypostatic union without confusion, or change, or separation, or division (negative theology).  Each article has introductory summary, axioms for Christological study, key terms grouped separately with Latin and Greek equivalents, further readings suggested, and study questions.
Horrell argued that “the Scripture’s record of God’s revelation in human history (the economic Trinity) should inform and control how we think about the eternal relations of the Godhead (the immanent Trinity)” (p. 47).  He clarified two background issues—revelation and the infinite, and person and nature—that shape a threefold approach: evidence for a social model of the Godhead; biblical data supporting eternal order in the Godhead; and synthesis of biblical evidences for an “eternally ordered social model” (p. 47).  He argued that subordinationism is heresy and non-heresy; heresy in terms of relegating the divinity of Christ and non-heresy in  terms of eternal obedience to accomplish His role as Savior (p. 72). 
The strength of Horrell’s article resides in the logical progression of arguments supported by biblical evidence more than logic.  He constantly drew distinctions between the Eastern Fathers and the Western Church in their various conceptions of the Trinity and terms such as “origin,” “begotteness,” and “procession,” which set the background before the reader to understand how the Church got divided over inadequate language and terms, which could never fully describe the conception of the Trinity.  This comparison highlights the ways finite people conceive of the Infinite God; no matter what they reach in understanding about the Trinity, the knowledge will only be full in heaven.  He approached the eternal Son of God in the social Trinity with extreme humility and balance, reiterating that language is inadequate to describe the complex relationship between the three members of the Godhead, while warning of not “slipping into either modalism or tritheism into which other solutions tend to fall” (p. 59).  However, he did not expound on that warning statement, which by itself is a thesis that needs further explanation.  The language and terms used are difficult and intimidating but this effect is mitigated by various explanations, repetitions, and rhetorical questions posed in different sentence structures.  Repetition of the unfamiliar meaning of “Social Trinity” was the hymn that helped the reader follow the thesis the writer is trying to prove. 
With open understanding and stretched horizons, was there really a serious reason for the division of the church?  If this article serves a precious lesson, it is not about driving home the eternally social model affirming distinctions of roles within the immanent Godhead, or the mutual indwelling of the three members of the Trinity in the Godhead without confusion of self-consciousness (perichoresis), or the immanent Trinity with ontological equality yet also eternal order, but that God is infinite and the mystery of the Trinity can never be fully comprehended.  In humility, we just have to receive God’s biblical disclosure about His identity, the way we understand it, and accept differences (precluding refuted ecumenical heresies) that should not divide the church.  Horrell has well explained the mutual love and self-givingness of the three members in the divine fellowship, which should be a powerful dissolvent for all divisions and schisms in the Church.  If this is how our Triune God acts in interpersonal relationship in the Godhead with self-givingness, wouldn’t this teach the Church the everlasting lesson of love and unity along with John 3:16 and 17?
Fairbairn, in his discussion of the Christological controversy initiated by Nestorius and responded to by Cyril of Alexandria and defined in the Council of Chalcedon, explains his understanding of the Greek word prosopon, which means mask worn by actors to change character or appearance.  Applying it to Jesus, it asserts Christ was “two different subjects, the Logos and the man Jesus, appearing together as one prosopon” (p. 83). The question Fairbairn tries to answer is, “Who was born, the Logos or the man Jesus? Who died, the Logos or the man Jesus?”  He goes on to further assert that the Chalcedonian definition is not only about the union of two natures in one person (Christ) and addresses the Christological controversy from two different perspectives—the literal-historical-exegetical School of Antioch that emphasized Christ’s humanity and the allegorical-exegetical School of Alexandria that emphasized Christ’s divinity.  The author argued that the controversy was not because of literal or allegorical exegetical interpretation of the Bible or the two natures of Christ, but “whether God the Logos was personally involved in human experience,” or “whether the one person of Christ is God the Son” (p. 88, 92).  
This article dwelt on Cyril’s Christology that affirmed that Christ is God the Son, the Logos who personally experienced human life in incarnation by uniting flesh to his own person and undergone suffering in his human flesh and not in his divine nature (101-103).  Cyril’s concept of salvation as participation in God to share “by grace that very same fellowship that the persons of the Trinity share by nature” is a source of joy and hope (p. 96).  The language of the article is simple and concepts heavy; but once concepts are understood, they create satisfaction and praises to who God is and to the Logos’ work of salvation by bringing God to humanity.  The author’s comparison between Theodore/Nestorius’ and Cyril’s soteriology helped explain Cyril’s insistence that God himself, the Logos, is the one personal subject in Christ.  Fairbairn highlighted the recurring phrases in the Chalcedonian Definition of “the same one” and “one and the same” which relay that “the one who is consubstantial with the Father is the same one who is consubstantial with us,” the Logos, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity (p. 105).  Cyril’s contribution to the Chalcedonian definition resides in using the words that draw a line between physis and hypostasis; “ousia and physis are used for Christ’s twoness and hypostasis and prosopon of his oneness” (106).   The author believes that the Chalcedonian Definition does identify who the person of Christ is, contrary to most theologians who have confused between the primary emphasis (union of two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation) and the new contribution.  The author comments on Cyril’s insistence on God’s impassibility and fails to explain God’s suffering, reiterating, “let the mystery be adored in silence” (p. 107)
Ware’s article, “Christ’s Atonement:  A Work of the Trinity,” delves into the reason why the Trinitarian personhood is necessary for Christ to be our atoning Savior by drawing the relationship between the Father and the identity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and the identity of Jesus Christ—the relationship that is the source of efficacy.  He explains the submission of the eternal Son to the eternal Father by alluding to the patriarchal language of the bible and the patriarchal culture then relates it to a biblical passage (Mal 1:6) about the son honoring his father and the servant respecting his master.   God’s rhetorical question emanates from the eternal Son who honors His eternal Father; hence, the author rules out subordinationism or relegation of consubstantiality and co-eternality and approves the eternal submission, on which he grounds the sending of the Son and not the Father or the Spirit (p. 160, 168).  He refutes the egalitarian view that purports that any person of the Trinity could have accomplished the incarnation based on the eternal Father-Son relationship and the eternal commissioning of the Father to His Son (Ps 2), who submits to incarnation, being empowered by the Holy Spirit.  It is this Father-Son eternal relationship that explains the identity of Jesus as the atoning Savior sent by the Father, which is reiterated in the gospel of John, the Synoptics, and 1 Cor 11:3 (p. 163-167).   Ware goes on to relate the indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit to Jesus—the Spirit-anointed Messiah—to the work of salvation and to the identity of Jesus as Savior, by referring to biblical references (p. 171-173).   Though Ware rules out subordinationism, in his explanation of the Father being the architect of salvation, he falls into this trap by saying “the Father’s supreme position of authority over all” (p. 174).  Language is indeed inadequate to fully get across divine ontological relational concepts in the Trinity.  Ware brings challenging questions raised by Jesus’ own utterances that relegates His deity and refutes it on grounds of human limitations and restrictions that Jesus had to accept and live as a fully human being, while being fully God.  The Holy Spirit partakes in salvation through regeneration and quickening that was enabled through the blood of Jesus on the Cross.  “Must God be Triune for Christ to be a Savior?” is the question the author answered in his article.
The book is a pleasure to read, however, heavily theological and definitely not for beginners.  Not all parts are intelligible but the overall impression is satisfactory and the book leaves you with a wonderful sense of how great a God we worship. It is a must book for theologians, seminarians, and professing believers.
CONCLUSION
The book has covered Christology in Trinitarian perspective from various angles so as to give a comprehensive picture of who Christ is and His relationship to the Trinity.  Horrell discussed the “Social Trinity” affirming the distinction of roles in the immanent Godhead, with distinct centers of consciousness, equal in nature, personal in relationship, and mutually indwelling the other.  Fairbairn consents with Cyril’s Christology that the one person of Christ is in fact God the Logos and that salvation is participation in God to share fellowship in the Trinity.  DeWesee discusses two models of incarnation and advocates for the contemporary model
asserting that the divine Logos is eternally a person with a divine nature apart from incarnation and that at incarnation the Logos assumed the human properties.  Ware answers the question, “Why the God-Man,” and argues that atonement in the work of the Trinity—the Father and the Spirit in conjunction with the Son.  Issler defends the dependency thesis that Jesus’ life on earth resulted from a predominant dependence on the divine resources of the Father and of the Holy Spirit and presents the imitatio Christi.

Sanders, Fred and Klaus Issler.  Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology. Nashville, Tennessee:  B&H Academic, 2007. (227 pages)