What can ‘three persons in one God’ mean?
Today’s Post
Last week we took a final look at Jesus from our secular perspective, noting how quickly the highly integrated understanding of John became a victim of the endless human trend toward dualism. From our secular perspective, we saw how John’s vision strengthened the immediacy (immanence) of God in human life and how Teilhard sees Jesus as the ‘signpost’ for this spark of universal becoming. From Teilhard’s insight, this spark, found in all the products of evolution, is only capable of being recognized as such by the human person. In our final look last week, we saw how easily the labyrinthine statements emerging from the pronouncements of theologians can be ‘reinterpreted’ into statements about the human person, and by doing so increase their relevance to human life.
The evolution of the concept of Jesus and ‘the Christ’, did not end with the pronouncements of the Council of Nicaea, but set the stage for a following inquiry into the ‘nature’ of God. This week we’ll take a look at this third stage of the theological evolution of the concept of God: the Trinity.
The History of the Trinity
As Bart Ehrman notes in his book, “How Jesus Became God”, unlike God, Jesus and ‘the Christ’, the Trinity isn’t addressed as such in any of the books of the Old or New Testament. The idea of God as the supreme supernatural creator somehow intertwined in human life is a common thread of the Jewish scriptures (the ‘Old Testament’). As we have seen, the understanding of Jesus and ‘the Christ’ evolves over time in the New Testament into the early days of the new Christian church, but the concept of a third ‘person’ wasn’t developed until late in the first three hundred years of its existence.
Richard Rohr relates the history of the idea of ‘the Trinity” as it began in the Eastern Church and later moved to the West:
“The Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century first developed this theology, though they readily admitted the Trinity is a wonderful mystery that can never fully be understood with the rational mind, but can only be known through love, prayer, and suffering. This view of Trinity invites us to interactively experience God as transpersonal (“Father”), personal (“Christ”), and even impersonal (“Holy Spirit”)—all at once.”
The idea of something (or someone) involved in the formation of the universe, and in how this process is reflected in human life, shows up even in the Old Testament. It is strongly suggested by Jesus, for example, in his statement to the apostles that a ‘Spirit’ (an ‘advocate’) would be sent after he was gone.
It wasn’t until the early days of the church’s theological development that this agent began to be considered ‘God’ in somehow the same way that the relationship between Jesus and ‘the Christ’ was being considered.
In a nutshell, the new church began to consider God as being ‘triune’, somehow composed of three separate but unified ‘persons’ whose agency in reality was reflected in three separate facets. The most commonly used terms ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ are of little use in making sense of this complex concept. Thus in the same way that the church required belief without understanding (as we saw in the final determination of Nicaea that Jesus was both God and Man) as an ‘act of faith’ necessary for salvation, it was soon to follow with the statement that God was also ‘three divine persons in one divine nature’.
And, in the same way that the controversy over the nature of Jesus was debated up until the Nicaean council, that of the Trinity continued to be debated. As the Arian controversy over the ‘nature’ of Jesus began to dissipate following the Nicaean council, the debate moved from the deity of Jesus to the ‘equality’ of the ‘Spirit’ with the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’. A key facet of this controversy lay in the lack of scriptural clarification of the ‘Spirit’ as a person of God in the same way as was the ‘Son’. On one hand, some believers declared that the Spirit was an inferior person to the Father and Son, emerging as a result of the ‘love between the Father and the Son’. On the other hand, the Cappadocian Fathers argued that the Spirit was a third person fully equal to the Father and Son.
This controversy was brought to a head at the Council of Constantinople (381) which affirmed that the Spirit was of the same substance and nature of God, but like Jesus, a separate person. Gregory of Nazianzus, who presided over this council offered this erudite but ultimately vacuous explanation:
“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me”.
As Karen Armstrong concludes in her book, “A History of God”,
“For many Western Christians . . . the Trinity is simply baffling”.
Richard Rohr agrees with Armstrong that of all the Christian statements of belief, that of the Trinity can seem furthest from human life and thus can tend to reduce the relevance of Christian teaching to human life. The church didn’t make it easier with Nazianzus’ cryptic statement, or by declaring such statements to be ‘objects of faith’ which must be believed without understanding even though such belief was a prerequisite for salvation. But as we saw last week, faith is much more than adherence to precepts, it is an essential aspect of human existence.
So, what secular sense can be made of this strange teaching?
The Next Post
This week we saw how the new Christian church expanded its concept of God from the Jewish ‘Father’ to a complex triune but difficult to grasp concept.
Next week we will consider this concept of a ‘triune’ God from the perspective of our search for ‘The Secular Side of God’.
We believe in a living God whose image and likeness, we were made. The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. We are the image of God, because the Divine Life which all living things have, is the same Life that Christ is, given to us by the Father. We are like God because we have the power to give birth and transmit the Life of the Son of man, by the the Holy Spirit. God is always transcendent of our understanding. And yet for we humans to see the One God as the Divine Life, in all living things is the Way of the Truth, that sets us free from fear and worry. As Life is also the Resurrection and Life of a living God.Deacon’82 Environment and Global Interdependence.
I have a complementary view. I find the Trinity simple, not baffling. The “solution” to this bafflement is the gradual simplification of the very distorted theological view of God by modern people–religious as well as secular. “supernatural” is a term that misleads, and, in my view, today is meaningless, or virtually meaningless. The same meaningless and empty concept is “person” (we are not even sure how this word came to us. It is vaguely Roman/Latin, but we find no such source. We do not think with the same English concepts as did the Greek Fathers, nor the Semitic bible writers.
I use the analogy of the trinity that it is as simple as the x, y, and z of algebra, but even that is too complex. I use it, however, because it suggests how three “dimensions” can be the same, and different.
My “Trinity” is my life. I am grateful (eucharistein) to the loving Creator for creation–for my being. I realize that my freedom, self and mutual love are not the same thing as “creation,” but depend on me and my humanity–something I share with the “Child of God” who called himself the “this human child” (bar nasha). Yes, both of these are mysteries and infinitely so. With science and age and experience I grasp my createdness, but feel free not to “explain it” but to explore it (see Gabriel Marcel and the distinction between mystery & puzzle) . With age and experience, I experience my and their humanity around me–what gave and gives me both physical livingness and that more mysterious “hyper”-living which is peace, acceptance, love, humbledness, joy and constant appreciation (and I realize that is what Jesus was talking about when he refers to a “spirit”–an outlook, a “turning me towards” what is important in life, and so much else. I do not think of God as “super-natural” as “nature” itself is so full of mysteries–waves and e-mc2 and DNA and insanity and dinosaurs and one-way? time, and so on. I cannot say God is natural nor supernatural–the distinction is gone for me.
Finally, I would never use the word “cryptic” as though it is in a crypt, a secret mystery like some ancient civilization or Pharoah tomb. These three–and I avoid the term “person/soul/psycho/ego” altogether–are what I live–and, in my opinion–what everyone lives without consciousness of it.
The Holy Trinity is an ideal example of the deficiencies of systematic theology and the excellence of ascetical
theology. The Trinity is clearly a mystery; it is not meant to be understood but rather real persons to be loved, to be related to, and effectively to be adored. No wonder it seems cryptic. If you were to try to explain your wife to someone you’d be limited to an inadequate biography or perhaps struggling attempts at poetry and probably ultimately fail. However she is your end all and be all and the most important person in your life. Similarly if we were to try to describe the Holy Spirit we’d be left with doves and flames an an elusive invisible driving wind but ah! if you were invited to relate to the Holy Spirit that’s a reality of an entirely tdifferent color. She is the Love that fills your heart the inspiration that illuminates your mind, your consoler, friend, advocate and guide and perhaps a good rival for your wife as the most important “person” in your life.