I believe Chris visits here too. He pastors in Bend, Oregon. ‘Tis a small world after all. Well, one other reason I don’t comment much is because it’s hard to keep up with it. You may have the last word if you wish.

However, I still fail to see how we could interpret anything in terms of “Christology rather than Trinitarian theology.” I don’t see how we can insert that troubling “rather than” without getting into major trouble.

But, whatever the case, I don’t think there’s any way to avoid saying that Jesus’s statements about the relationship of glorification between him and the Father reveal something of the nature of the Trinity. The relationship of Jesus to the Father cannot be separated (or even distinguished as far as I’m concerned) from the relationship of the eternal Son and Father. Thus every statement about Christ always bears directly on Trinitarianism, just as every statement about the Trinity directly bears on Christology.

. . . for God to be described as missionary, the events of the gospel story must be revelatory of God’s eternal life, but they need not be definitive of it. . . . what happens on Calvary is a repetition of the pattern of God’s eternal life.

I don’t think we can legitimately not infer from the life of Christ the nature of the Son’s eternal relationship to the Father (however we construe the issue of “definitiveness”). To not do so seems to deny revelation in Christ at a fundamental level.