State of Being

What does it mean to be a Christian?

I've been wrestling with that question for a few months now. To some, it would seem that being a Christian is to think and believe the correct things. A Christian believes in and understands (as much as possible) the Trinity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the Kingdom of God. Such a perspective focuses on inerrancy, patristics, apologetics, philosophy, or dogmatics. Existentially, such a perspective focuses Christianity in the mind. One feels closest to God when one understands, thinks deeply, when the mind recedes away from the heart to contemplate the Holy One.

Maybe Christianity is a state of action. Words and doctrines are meaningless apart from their social implementation. These Christians might protest abortion or social injustice. They might volunteer extensively, give their belongings to the poor, or travel the world building wells for impoverished communities. Existentially, such a perspective focuses Christianity in the will and in society. One understands God through the encounter with the poor and needy. It is through the sweat of the brow, the herculean effort to overcome society's injustices, through the sense of satisfaction that one acts against the norm for others.

Maybe Christianity is an emotional state, the poise of remaining still in a chaotic world, of praying continuously, of worshipping in abandon the God who is present here and now through the Spirit. Such Christians as follow this perspective focus on the spiritual disciplines, retreats, praise music, and emotional control. Existentially, such a posture leads one to a state of sensitivity and awareness to one's own spiritual state, and to a paradox of isolation and communion with the world.

It occurs to me that each of these perspectives is, in a way, a distortion of the Trinity. The dogmatic approach would seem to emphasize the Father and our attempt to understand the transcendent through revelation. The social approach would seem to emphasize the Son, and our efforts to pick up our own crosses and follow him on his mission. The spiritual approach would seem to focus on the Spirit, in its daily guidance and direction.

My struggle has been to develop a Trinitarian perspective, where being Christian is to simultaneously experience Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a search for spiritual theology discovered amid the favellas or prisons or AIDS wards of the world. At least, that's what I imagine it to be. None of these isolated approaches seem sufficient. Nor is it sufficient to experience all three of these sequentially. If one is dogmatic in one moment, spiritual the next, and justice oriented the third, one would seem to have three disparate pictures of the triune God without any ability to piece them together, rather than a unitary experience of three-fold diversity, a singularity of knowledge, emotion, and action.

Does that make any sense?