Intro, Chapter 1

[Barb]

I’m finding the book to be easy to read, yet dense; that is packed with information that provokes and prompts a lot of questions

1. In the introduction, on page 9 Reeves says “… but the truth is that God is love because God is a Trinity.“ Why do you think this is?

2. On page 18 Reeves states “ The irony could not be thicker: what we assume would be a doll or peculiar irrelevance turns out to be the source of all that is good in Christianity.“ Do you think this is true, that the trinity is the source of all that is good in Christianity? Why? If not, what do you think is “the source of all that is good in Christianity”?

3. Comment-I found the sidebar/box re: Arius and Anathanasius distracting, but I feel that way about most sidebars! And there are a lot of boxes in this book!!! Still, it supported the author’s premise that the foundation of God is Father.

4. Is Father God’s primary role? What about Creator, Ruler, King, Provider, etc.? Aren’t they all equally relevant?

5. If this turns into a debate on eternal submission of the son, be nice, be Godly, and be brief. (But I am curious about ESS. I’d never thought much about it until internet discussions ensued)

6. Page 28-the cascade analogy from Father to Son to the Church was significant because Reeves says this is to be replicated in marriage “He (husband) is the lover, she is the beloved.” That entire passage turns the traditional meaning of male headship/wifely submission on its head. (Note: I’m also reading “Worthy” by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Eric Shumacher so I’m tuned in to women in the church right now)

7. Pg 30-the section re: the Spirit at Jesus’s baptism compared with Genesis 1 remind me how much I love the symmetry and continuity of God’s Word over multiple books, authors, and centuries!

8. We’re made in God’s image. God is Trinity. How do these line up? Where does imago dei fit in the Trinity???

[Matthew]

Sorry, I haven't started yet. I've been working too much overtime. Soon though! Can't wait to engage with your questions.

[Bob]

Agree this is an easy read but dense. I never thought of God primarily as Father but more as Lord etc. but I do see Reeve’s pointes in “for it is only when we see that God rules his creation as a kind and loving Father that we will be moved to delight in his providence.” I have always addressed and seen God as Father. I guess I never had a hierarchy of titles like Father, Lord,

I am also glad he does not fall into the mindset that God needs us to be happy and to love. I hear that in todays music with lines like He didn’t want heaven without you. I get the idea but it borders on heaven as being somehow incomplete or deficient without us. We have to remember that Father Son and Spirit lived in perfect loving relationship with each other before the creation.

[Bob]

Appreciate the way book is unfolding. Chapter 4 page 104 this comment really stood out. If I don’t enjoy Christ, I won’t speak of him. Or, perhaps worse, I will, but without love and enjoyment—and if my mouth does give away my heart, people will hear of an unwanted Christ. And who would want that?

Can see where the title of the book comes from. How often can we saw we delight, we enjoy our Father.

[Barb]

I agree that we need to remember God doesn’t need us and the Trinity were perfectly fine before Creation. God’s aseity confounds me.

[Amanda]

It's been a crazy month and I'm just now finishing the first chapter.

I thought Reeve's idea that God's essential identity is Father and, therefore, everything he does (create, rule, etc) he does as a father was fascinating. It also makes a lot of sense to me. One of the church fathers (Augustine, maybe? I'm feeling too lazy to look it up right now) was commenting on Jesus referring to the disciples as "children" and wrote that fatherhood is an essential part of the identity of God, so while Jesus is not the Father, he is fatherly.