Perhaps evangelical theologians have tried too hard to hammer out a precise definition of who Jesus is. They try to formulate a rigid definition which (they hope) encapsulates the truth in a nutshell. But this approach is doomed to fail because of the limitations of human language. But I’m not convinced the narrative approach is a better alternative.

Unless we enjoy mental gymnastics for their own sake, the main purpose of our theology should be to guide our behaviour … towards God and towards our fellow man. After all our cogitations and discussions have ended, each one of us is left with the question of whether we should behave towards Jesus as though he were God or not.

To do so if it is improper would be to break the first commandment - Exodus 20:3. But to fail to do so if it is proper could be just as disastrous - John 5:23 and John 8:24.

In the end, our high-faluting discussions boil down to this very practical question of whether we should treat Jesus as God. I think this is where the rubber hits the road for the man in the pew who struggles to understand perichoresis and homoi-ousios/homo-ousios.