This seems like a useful metaphor at least, for the all-important admission, essential to all Theology worthy of the name: that God is infinitely powerful and complex, therefore, as some have said here, all our human ideas – and theologies – about God, are inevitably imperfect, incomplete. God is so complex that none of us have really seen God “full”y, or learned to “face” him, face-to-face. (As Job however at times claims to? Though Job has seen God only indirectly, in a “Leviathan”?).

Especially, the Beatific Vision usefully suggests that we do not really know God adequately – largely because we cannot face the difficult, painful, disillusioning side of him. We cannot “face” God, because we cannot face our Fear; of the “awe-ful” side of God.

All these Biblical aspects of The Beatific Vision seem useful to a progressive theology. While then too, the Bible is essentially a collection of variously, slightly different “appearances” (cf. “parousia”) of God. Including what is conventionally (mis?)named the “trinity”; God appearing as The Father, then Son, then (albeit mostly invisible) Holy Spirit. But here note, our vision of what God is like, is … changing. Progressing? which implies a certain LACK, in our registering of earlier appearances; even of the Trinity itself?

Especially, the “beatific vision” institutionalizes epistemologial and theological modesty; the real “humility” that scholarly theology needs. Biblical references to the Vision rightly suggest often, that none of us, no theologian, on earth, have seen God fully; perhaps therefore, even our idea that God is a “Trinity” is inadequate. No one will know, till the Beatific Vision is attained; until we see God “face-to-face” in the end, in Judgement Day.

I like this Vision idea therefore, because it keeps Theology open; non-dogmatic. Open to scholarship, and speculation – and progress. No one should dogmatise too much about God, or “the Trinity,” or in general rest too comfortably with old theological ideas … because probably no normal human being to date, has ever really adequately, fully “seen” or known God. And no one will. Until Heaven, it seems. So that the subject of God, is still an open question. And available for scholarly questioning, exploration – and new discoveries.

Especially though, the Vision suggests that there will be something FRIGHTENING and disillusioning, about seeing God as he really is. Which suggests in turn, that if elements of current postmodern or rational theology frighten us, then after all, that might be a sign we are on the right track. After all.

My preference is for “fellowship.” It’s transparency to the Scriptural narrative of covenant relationality commends it to me and, being a relational category, it follows on straightforwardly from the doctrine of the Trinity. But from what you have told me, J. Edwards is able to pull it off in an entirely trinitarian way. I will look forward to seeing how you trace that out.