|
Return to Home Page Return to Book Contents & Summary LIVING BELIEF - CHAPTER 5 THE SELF, ONLY IN AND THROUGH OTHERS: TRINITY In adolescence and early adulthood the traveller needs to find or to confirm his true self-image through his relationships with others. If a person has done this, if he has been lucky enough to have been well loved by his family and friends, then he can enter adult life and set out upon his career with a proper sense of his self-worth. If he has not been crippled by feelings of guilt, insecurity or inadequacy he will not need to defend himself by attacking others, or build himself up by putting them down, or prove his worth to them by displaying the things he owns or the power he wields. If someone had achieved fully and completely this sense of his true value we could say that he was ‘saved’ and that he need ‘sin no more’. But of course very few of us achieve that state fully or permanently. As we saw in the case of Jesus’ disciples after the crucifixion, we can lose our proper image of ourselves at any time if we feel that the love upon which it depends has failed. We need a lifetime of daily reassurance to keep us believing in ourselves, and acting in accordance with that belief, so strong is the original tendency against accepting that we are loveable and of value.
1.
THE
FULLY GROWN SELF -
THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL? We have said that if we ask an adolescent what he is
trying to achieve as he moves towards adulthood he may say that he is trying
to break away from his family, and from the rules and traditions imposed on
him by society, in order to become an independent individual.
He may very well see that state of independence as being the final
state of adulthood and of individuality.
He may experience a time in his early twenties when he is providing for
himself and enjoying the freedom to go where he wants and do what he likes,
with relatively few responsibilities and little need to consult or please
others. This is the state which an adolescent might think of as being the
final achievement and the ideal way of life.
Those who have travelled the road before him should know that this is
not the case, but in our society today people are encouraged to cling to this
carefree state, and to avoid making commitments or taking on responsibilities.
They are sold the idea that only by remaining free and independent can
they guard and develop their individuality.
In the understanding of modern psychology, and of the beliefs of
Christianity, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The adolescent moves from dependence to independence,
but the adult finds that after this comes inter-dependence.
After the period of comparative freedom he begins to form relationships
and to assume responsibilities in which others depend on him and he on them.
In his work he may begin to see that he influences the lives of others
more or less directly, in making or selling the goods they use, building their
homes, teaching their children, caring for their health, or in any of a
hundred other ways. And at the
same time he may come to see that his life and well-being are dependent on the
work of others. In many places of
work he would find that he is part of an organisation or a structure which can
be really successful only if the members of the team at all levels can rely
upon each other. When economic
pressures in a society result in a shortage of work, companies can fragment
into numbers of individuals each fighting for their existence as redundancies
are threatened, and the resulting feelings of betrayal do damage not only to
the self-esteem of the individuals but also to the effectiveness of the
business. Just as we come to experience this inter-dependence and
need for the support of others in our work, so also it becomes more and more
apparent in our personal life. The
young adult finds himself friends from schooldays and college, from work, from
sport or other shared interests, and in these relationships he and his friends
would hope to find encouragement, reassurance, enjoyment, constructive
criticism, practical help, and all those things we need to keep us going and
make us feel worthwhile.
3.
THE CLOSEST INTER-DEPENDENCE, AND
THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY FOR Our relationships range from acquaintances, through the
general circle of friends, to our closest friendships.
We could think of a close friend as someone we have known over a
considerable period, who shares many of our experiences with us, and whom we
can trust with our deeper thoughts and feelings.
It as been suggested that most of us would have no more than a dozen
such close friendships in our lifetime. From
among these we may hope to find someone with whom we feel able to share
everything of ourselves. We
experience love in all our close friendships, but in this relationship we
should at last be able to find and to give the love that each of us needs to
grow into and be our full and real selves.
Erikson proposes that our personal identity only becomes fully realised
and consolidated through sharing ourselves with another.
It is thought that this kind of deep and total commitment can occur
between friends, but for most of us the relationship in which we may hope to
find that love will be the relationship of marriage. Marriage is understood in most cultures, societies and
religious traditions, to be the permanent and exclusive commitment of a man
and a woman to live together in a loving relationship, with the possibility of
raising children together, that commitment being acknowledged and supported by
their community. There are of
course differences in the customs and emphases associated with marriage, but
this general description would find acceptance in most societies. In the last decade the number of people getting married
has declined sharply, but to some extent this is simply a change in the way
people choose to make their commitment to each other.
Many now prefer to live with their partner and bring up a family
together without going through any form of marriage ceremony.
They may say that vows or written contracts would make no difference
to, and might even harm, the commitment they have made to each other. When
such views are criticised it is worth remembering that the ‘agents’ of a
marriage, the ones who perform it, are the man and the woman, and not the
registrar or priest. Therefore if
a couple promise themselves to each other in a lifelong and faithful
partnership, and if they declare that commitment in a way which is in
accordance with their beliefs, then such a union must be a marriage.
The state may recognise such a partnership as a ‘common law’
marriage, having legal rights and implications.
Most religions accept the validity of marriages contracted between
followers of other faiths, and nowadays the people in one culture are unlikely
to say that couples in a very different culture do not really marry because of
the difference in customs and traditions.
So long as a man and a woman pledge themselves to a faithful and
permanent partnership in whatever form of vow or promise is in keeping with
their real beliefs, then it would make no sense for them or anyone else to say
that they were not married. But this changed view of marriage ceremonies and
contracts accounts for only a part of the decline in the number of marriages.
There is also an actual decline, at least in Western societies, in the
number of people willing to take on a serious and permanent partnership.
It is common enough for a couple to be having a sexual relationship
without even moving in together, let alone thinking of settling down on any
long-term basis. It has been said
that this is the result of the sexual revolution of the sixties, when women
were freed by the contraceptive pill to enjoy the same kind of choices as men
have had. And with economic
changes in society women can now build careers, and travel, and make homes for
themselves in a way which has never before been possible.
They have learned to be independent, even aggressive, in business and
in their sexuality. Some men have
begun to find this threatening, while others have found that it allows them to
enjoy relationships with women without their having to take on the
responsibilities of marriage and family life. The tensions of this new pattern of relationships
between men and women are now beginning to emerge in all sorts of different
ways. We have said that some
women have become more aggressive, and this has been particularly evident in
the more extreme expressions of feminism, which have attempted to glorify
women in belittling men as virtually dispensable or even downright harmful.
Some men have reacted by forming ‘buddy’ groups in which they try
to bolster each others’ self-esteem by sharing male company and outdoor
pursuits. If the two sexes have
demonstrated in this way that they do not need each other, they have also made
it clear that they are not eager for the responsibilities of having children.
Women have always assumed more of those responsibilities, but now that
they have shown themselves to be well able to bring up children alone, it is
not surprising that men may drift away from the rearing process.
Inner city communities are now voicing very real concerns about the
general absence of fathers, suggesting that much of the trouble and crime they
are experiencing stems from the lack of balanced parenting, and of strong male
role models. For women the availability of contraception and abortion seemed at first to offer only freedom to control their own bodies and destinies. But in recent times it has become apparent that there are difficulties inherent in this ability to choose whether or when to have a child. As women pursue their careers they put off the decision to start a family, and it becomes very difficult to find the right time. In most careers the headway made during one’s twenties and thirties is crucial, so it is understandable that a woman may be unwilling to drop out for any length of time, especially in a field where the competition is intense, or where it is vital to keep up with each new development. But all the while she can hear her biological clock ticking on towards the time when the chance for a family has passed her by. Of course in a partnership the decision to start a
family is not only the woman’s, and here there can be further difficulties
if one partner wants a child and the other does not at that time, or perhaps
at all. Even if the woman is
willing to break into her career, change her lifestyle, perhaps accept a
lesser standard of living in order to have a family, her partner may not feel
the same. Experience does seem to
suggest that it is harder for a man to commit himself to the changes and
responsibilities which come with the start of a family, just as it seems that
men are now finding less reason to accept a full commitment to marriage. This phenomenon has even been explored on American chat-shows
under the heading of ‘commitment phobia’. The unwillingness to give up freedom and independence
has become a problem in our society today, and it has left many people
uncertain and lonely, unable to form the kind of stable and supportive
relationship they need to live and grow.
And the problem is at its most acute when it affects children, an
increasing number of whom are being brought up in one-parent families.
No one doubts that a great many of these have a good home and the care
of a strong and loving parent, but most of those concerned with children’s
development agree that the ideal is for them to have two such parents, each
offering a particular way of parenting, and role models for both sexes.
Above all, the children of such a traditional family could see in their
parents an example of love and commitment to each other which would encourage
them to see these things as important in their own future lives. There are no solutions which can be externally imposed
on this problem, such as stopping divorce and contraception, preventing people
from living together and having children outside marriage, getting women back
to looking after their children in the home, or forcing men to take fatherhood
more seriously. Suggestions of
this kind have been put forward by good and sincere people, each in an attempt
to address a genuine aspect of the problem.
But the plain fact is that we cannot put the clock back, change
economic patterns, or reverse the dynamics of the sexual revolution.
We cannot change the past or remake the present, but we can influence
what will happen in the future. We
must do what we can as a society to protect and support marriage and the
family; but in the end the only really effective way to tackle such problems
is always the same: we have to change ourselves, and the way we think about
ourselves.
4.
THE
CONCEPT OF THE INDIVIDUAL There is one vital element which lies at the root of
many of the problems we have been describing – the concept of the
individual. In the growth of
careers for women, the removal of prohibitions against having sex and children
outside marriage, the new attitudes to relationships, the idea has developed
that to be an individual a person must be ‘free’.
This means freedom from responsibilities, ties, commitments, freedom
from traditions and habits and duties. The
ideal individual is depicted on television in everything from dramas to
commercials as someone different, separate, doing their own thing, defending
their rights in face-to-face confrontations and always winning, adopting dress
and life-styles to please no one but themselves. The portrayal of sex and violence in the media may have
damaging effects, but these may be no worse than, and may even grow from, this
glorification of the rugged individual as someone who does what he wants,
takes what he can get and needs nobody. If this defiant self-sufficient loner is not what a
real individual is meant to be, what then is he supposed to be like?
How does a person grow to be a true and unique individual?
We have to repeat what has been proposed throughout the present work,
supported by people’s experience and the findings of psychologists, and
illuminated by Christian doctrine: the truly individual self exists only in
and through relationships with others. This
is the truth at the heart of human experience, and it is this truth which lies
at the heart of the Christian beliefs, in the doctrine of the Trinity as it
was revealed in the Incarnation. We
must now examine this most difficult and mysterious of doctrines, but before
we can do that we must ask why the belief about God is said to be central to
all Christian truth.
5. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: WHAT IS MAN? Who am I? What
does it mean to be human? What am
I supposed to make of my life? These
are the questions which people have asked themselves in every age and culture,
as they start out towards a career, and at the mid-life crisis, at retirement,
or at any point when they meet new directions or disappointments or
challenges. Of course most people
don’t set out the questions to themselves in so many words, and it would be
easy to imagine that only intellectuals, or those with time and money for
endless therapy sessions, are able to indulge in this kind of deep
questioning. But this is not
true. Every one of us, from the simplest to the most sophisticated, has the
need to understand something of himself and his place in the scheme of things.
It may be that the intellectual does this more consciously, using
philosophy, literature and other such expressions of human thinking to help
him, but if he does not have that openness to truth which comes from the heart
rather than the head, he may gain little from his studies.
We have suggested that there are forms of expression which allow
everyone, from the child to the philosopher, to explore the deepest of our
concerns. Fairy tales are, as we
have said, just such vehicles, as are legends and sagas, poetry, novels and
plays. But the forms of human
expression most urgently concerned with the mystery of the human condition are
the religious traditions: it is their myths and scriptures, doctrines,
rituals, symbols and practices, which provide people of every age or
intellectual ability with tools for exploring their own identity and meaning.
6.
DIFFERENT
VIEWS OF MAN, RELATED TO DIFFERENT VIEWS OF GOD Each of the great religions proposes a different view
of what man is, and of what he is meant to do in his life.
It may not always occur to people that the first and foremost place in
which each religion sets out that view is in their belief about God.
Whatever a religious tradition says about God indicates what it
believes about man, and the way it sees man is reflected in what it believes
of God. A tradition may for instance see God as the ‘All’, and
may then describe us, our world, everything good and bad, as parts of that
complete ‘Whole’, that ‘All’ which is God.
As parts we are as yet unaware of our particular significance, but we
must each do our best to fulfil the function set before us at birth.
The ultimate destiny of all the parts is to be absorbed at last into
that All which alone understands, and which is in itself, the complete
pattern. This is a very
inadequate description of the deep self-understanding offered in the Hindu
tradition, but from it we may glimpse a faith which can claim to embrace all
faiths, a culture which values all living things. Hinduism puts less emphasis on the individual than on his
place and role in society, and the society which has developed around it can
tolerate inequalities, injustices and sufferings as being inescapable but
transient facets of the One Reality. To take a very different example, we see that in the
Jewish tradition God is described as Father, as King, as Saviour and, above
all, as Judge. These titles tell
us that we are children, subjects, debtors, and, above all, members of a
covenant community bound to observe its Law so that we may be declared
righteous at last by our ultimate Judge.
A Jew may measure his goodness and his fulfilment in terms of his
observance of the many and exact laws of his faith, and this could be thought
to result in a narrow and legalistic view of life, but in fact Judaism has
been seen as encouraging a particular richness and depth of humanity.
The Jewish view of God and of man has united families and a race in a
way unique in human history, and has offered the moral strength to withstand
sufferings unmatched in that history.
7. ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME? Even from such brief and inadequate sketches of these
two major faiths we can see that they suggest quite different pictures of God,
and therefore of ourselves in our world; and the same would be true if we were
to look at the central doctrines of other world religions such as Buddhism or
Islam. The followers of every
religion will be doing their best to live good lives; their moral codes may
differ in detail, yet each person in adhering to his own code will be treading
the path of love, honesty and duty. But
their different ideas about why they are doing so, about themselves and what
they are trying to achieve, will result in very different attitudes,
life-styles, customs, cultures and societies.
A good man who is an Aborigine sees himself and his world in a way
which is radically different from that of the good man who is a Christian, and
neither can be blamed for their opposing views of the land which they both
inhabit. That which is, for the
Aborigine, the sacred Mother Earth is, for the Christian, a resource for the
further development of human life, and these different emphases must result in
very different feelings and actions. It is often suggested that all religions are really the
same, and it is well to realise how unhelpful, and even patronising, this idea
can be. Each religion is offered
as a unique way of seeing meaning in our lives, and each is a notable
contribution to man’s struggle to understand himself. If we say that all such ideas are really the same in the end,
we might as well give up that struggle, not only in the sphere of religion but
perhaps in that of philosophy and the arts as well. The argument is usually put forward in the form that
there is only one God and that we just see him in different ways.
It is true that almost all faiths, from primal to modern, have declared
the belief that there is one Supreme Being; even those beliefs which have been
called ‘polytheist’ are more properly seen as systems in which ‘gods’
or ‘spirits’ are aspects or assistants of that Being.
It is also true that each of the religions sees God in different ways.
What is not true is that they ’just’ see him in different ways,
implying as this does a mere matter of taste or culture. If, as we have argued, the way we see God radically alters
the way we see ourselves and the world, and the way we think we are meant to
live, then this must be of fundamental importance to the individual and to
society. But even if one accepts that the different views of God
do make these fundamental differences, may we not assume that the various
beliefs are nevertheless equally valuable, and in that sense, equally ‘true’?
There is a strong and sound instinct in us which insists that this must
be so, and that is our instinct for natural justice.
It does not seem ‘fair’ that a good person should not really
understand what his life is meant to be because he has followed the ‘wrong’
beliefs, especially since the beliefs we follow are usually dictated by the
family and society into which we happen to have been born.
This is a compelling argument, but we may suggest that it would also be
unjust if someone who tries to find and follow the highest truth does no
better with his life than someone who just treads, however dutifully, whatever
path he happens to have had set before him.
And we are not just arguing that it is the effort which makes for the
better life but that the paths themselves are better or worse, more or less
‘true’ for human living. One
extreme example may help to illustrate this.
The Nazi view of God was that of Wotan, Lord of Valhalla, and this was
an expression of their belief in the warlike heroes of the pure Aryan master
race, destined to cleanse the earth of all that was inadequate and inferior so
that only those who were truly worthy would survive to live in a glorious new
world. That belief was wrong.
It was untrue, and the society and the individuals who followed it
diminished their humanity and our world in pursuing it. But people will then argue that all religions should be regarded as equal and ultimately the same because the differences between the various faiths and philosophies have been the cause of most of the bloodshed and oppression that the world has seen. If we could only accept that really we all believe in the same thing, the argument goes, then all this would stop and we could live in harmony. This argument just won’t do. Of course we must stop killing and hurting those who don’t believe as we do, but you cannot bring this about by pretending that they really do. Most, though not all, religions forbid such violence anyway; so it is not religious belief which gives rise to aggression but rather elements such as fundamentalism, racism, politics and the desire for power and wealth, using religion as a cloak and an excuse. So-called ‘religious’ conflicts are waged by imperfect men for ends not dictated or even allowed by their beliefs, under the pretext of defending religious truth and freedom. We are, then, facing the difficult idea that some
people may have access to a more truth-full view of human life than others do,
by accident of birth and upbringing. But
this only echoes our other experiences. Some people have a better chance, through no merit of their
own, to have a good and satisfying life, while others live out their lives in
poverty, illness, ignorance or frustration.
The religions attempt to deal with this apparent injustice in various
ways; the Western faiths try to spread their truth to all, so that everyone
may have the chance to choose what is best; the Eastern faiths propose that,
through many rebirths, everyone will eventually come to fulfilment.
And in all religions there is an understanding that in the end only God
can know who has lived in the truth and who has not.
8.
CHRISTIANITY
CLAIMS A UNIQUE REVELATION One of the great religions, that of Islam, proposes
that the relation between man and God is essentially that of servant to
absolute Master, whereas, as we have said, the relationship is often described
in Judaism as that of a plaintiff before his Judge. Christianity has taken from its Jewish roots the
understanding that we are images of God, and from the revelation of Jesus in
the Incarnation that this means that we are meant to be as God is. This is the relationship of man to God in Christianity.
But what, then, is God? The Christian claim is that in Jesus Christ mankind has
the full revelation of God, and therefore of man. From this revelation the doctrine of the Trinity has evolved
as an attempt to express in words and ideas that truth about God and
ourselves. Yet, of all the
Christian doctrines, that of the Trinity is the one most likely to be passed
over quickly as abstract, mysterious, impossible to comprehend, and of no
practical use in people’s lives. From
what has been said we may now see that nothing could be further from the
truth, since the doctrine of God lies at the heart of the Christian attempt to
express the meaning of human life. As
such we are right to describe it as a great mystery, in the sense that any
true understanding of ourselves and of God must lead us towards a vision which
we can never fully grasp or possess. But
the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, not a useless riddle about fitting
three into one. It is an
expression of the mystery of human existence.
If we look at the doctrine in the light shed for us by the doctrines of
Creation, Salvation and above all, Incarnation, we may hope to penetrate a
little way into that mystery.
‘Three in one’: that is how many Christians might
answer if they were asked for a description of the Trinity. . But three what
in one what? Answers to ‘three
what?’ may include three aspects, three parts, three persons, three gods.
‘One what?’ can elicit replies such as ‘one god’, ‘one being’,
‘one person’. Taken
individually many of these replies would raise serious philosophical and
theological difficulties, but once people start combining them, then the
problems get worse. Put ‘three
parts’ with ‘one god’, for instance, and you get a god who comes to bits
in your hand, like a machine, or a doll with removable limbs. And if you combine ‘three persons’ with ‘one person’
you have a god who is a three-headed monster, or somebody with the abnormal
condition which psychiatrists know as ‘multiple personality syndrome’. It is certain that the perfectly sensible people who
offer these answers do not have any such strange pictures of God – but this
indicates a very important part of the problem: they haven’t looked at them
as pictures at all. We have said
that religious language, like all of the deepest human language, gives us not
literal explanations and descriptions but rather metaphors and illustrations
so that we can get some picture of what is being revealed.
But if we then take up interpretations of the words used without
visualising the picture they suggest, we may find that we are talking about
our beliefs in a way which makes no sense about God or about anything else.
A picture of a god with three heads or removable parts does not make
any sense for us. It is not ‘true’
– not of course in the sense that it is not factually correct, since it is
not intended to be – but in the sense that it illuminates nothing and offers
no insight into our meaning. The
Church has been very careful to choose and guard the words used in expressing
its doctrines so that the revelation it has received is not distorted into
such false images, and it is to this tradition we must look for the ‘picture’
words which can best offer us the Trinity truth of God and ourselves.
It is strange that, in trying to talk about the
Trinity, many Christians shy away from the word which their community has used
from very early times, and use instead terms which that community has
specifically rejected. ‘Parts’,
as we have suggested, does not fit the picture of wholeness and unity which
the word ‘God’ evokes, not only in Christians but in people of every
religion and culture. The early
Fathers of the Church made this clear in declarations such as the following:
‘The divine nature is indivisible and uniform and without parts.”
(Gregory of Nazianzus Ep. 243) If we look at ‘aspects’, however, we do find that
this has found favour in various religious traditions. The primal religions, for instance, such as those of the
African, Native American and South American tribal societies, give respect to
the spirits or ‘gods’ of the river, the mountain, the animals, the
village, or whatever is of most importance in their lives, while acknowledging
one Supreme Being. The spirits
are understood to be only subsidiary powers, but the people deal with them in
their daily lives, as they appear more approachable and involved in man’s
affairs than is the great Creator. The
same may be said of the polytheist religions such as those of ancient Greece
or Rome. While there were many
gods and goddesses, each overseeing some aspect of life such as war, death,
love, they were all depicted as being agents or relatives of the king of the
gods. The Hindu tradition, having
developed from such beliefs, sees the one Supreme being, Brahman, in ‘thirty-three
million’ aspects, personified as individual gods and goddesses. Perhaps because of this long tradition of ‘aspects of
the one’, the Hindu’s belief in three main aspects of the Godhead –
Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu – has sometimes been equated, even by Christians,
with the doctrine of the Trinity. But
this is to misunderstand what that doctrine is saying about God and man.
It also ignores the fact that ‘aspects’, like ‘parts’, was
specifically rejected by the early Christian community, as for instance in the
Church’s denial of the ‘Modalist’ heresy in which Sabellius proposed
that the Godhead was a ‘monad’, a single unit, which expressed itself in
three operations.
The doctrine of the Trinity evolved over the period of
the first four centuries of Christianity, with much heat and passion as
well-intentioned and often brilliant men tried to do justice to the community’s
understanding of the revelation of God which it had received in Jesus. The
technical term which emerged as the only one acceptable for expressing what
the Three are was ‘Persons’. This
is the word which some Christians today have difficulty in using, and it is
not wholly surprising since even at that time it could not have been thought
of as being in any sense a description of what God is.
We know that words cannot capture God and that we can only use them to
suggest what we understand and believe of him, knowing that what we say must
be wholly inadequate. The early
Fathers were well aware of this limitation and in effect they used their
language more to prevent the wrong thing from being said than to say the right
thing. According to the orthodox teaching of the main body of
Christianity, the best expression we can give to our understanding of what
Jesus has revealed is that God is One in three Persons.
That this understanding was present from the very beginning of the
community’s history can be seen in looking, for instance, at the blessing
which St Paul gives at the end of his epistle to the Galatians: ‘The grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all.’ (Galatians
12: 14) This epistle has been said to be the earliest part of the New
Testament, written around 54-55 AD, and the words Paul uses appear to be in a
ritual form, already familiar through use.
Then in a passage in St John’s gospel Jesus speaks of himself and his
Father and the Holy Spirit as of persons in a relationship with each other,
functioning in particular ways within that relationship: ‘When the Spirit of
truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his
own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you
the things that are to come. He
will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take
what is mine and declare it to you..’ (John
16: 13-15) When the term ‘persons’ was decided upon it had
been chosen by people whose culture and ideas were very different from our
own. What they meant by ‘person’
is not the same as the modern idea which has developed from political and
legal views of the individual, from biological discoveries involving genetics,
from anthropological studies of different peoples, from psychological views of
mind, personality and behaviour, and from many other sources.
It may therefore not be possible for us to use the word in just the way
in which it was originally understood. It
is, however, the word which the tradition has given us, and which the
Christian community still accepts as the best term to use for excluding what
we don't believe about God and for finding the truth about ourselves. It may be helpful for anyone who finds it difficult to
think of God as three Persons if they consider how most people would describe
what a person is. In the earlier
chapter on Creation we suggested that a person is a being who is self aware,
conscious of his emotions, and able to choose his actions.
Those words do of course apply to Jesus, and since he is all that God
is, it can be said that they apply to God.
It is true, however, that in a technical sense we can never use any
words literally of God; they must always be understood metaphorically.
But few religious people, and certainly no Christian, could bring
themselves to say that God does not have awareness, feelings or will. The scriptural writers clearly felt that it was more
appropriate to refer to God as having such qualities than as not having them.
When Moses asks God who he is, the writer presents God as saying ‘I
AM WHO I AM’ (Exodus 3:
13-14), which seems like an absolute statement of self-awareness.
In every part of the Bible we read of God’s feelings of pity, anger
and love; St Paul gives us a memorable picture of such emotion when he writes
of the Spirit’s interceding for us ‘with sighs too deep for words’.
(Romans 8: 26)
Then of course the whole of the scriptures are meant to show us the
actions of God with his people, based on his particular choice of that people
for his work of salvation. One difficulty that some people experience in thinking
of God as Persons is that they tend to think of a person as having a body.
This is understandable, and indeed in a previous chapter we have said
that Judaism and Christianity see persons as essentially bodily presented.
Once again, we know that the word does apply to Jesus: he has a body,
and we therefore say that God is ‘incarnate’, ‘embodied’. Yet we might still find it inappropriate to use the word ‘body’
in connection with the Father, let alone the Holy Spirit.
There are, of course, very different types of bodies even within the
human race; and when we speculate about whether some of the higher animals may
have the qualities of personhood, or when our science-fiction writers suggest
the existence of persons on other planets with very strange bodies, we may
allow ourselves to think of the ‘bodily’ presence of the Father and the
Spirit in a less restricted sense. St
Paul speaks of those who have died as having ‘spiritual bodies’ in heaven
which are as unlike our present form as the flower is from its seed.
Perhaps, as always when we are talking of God, it is best to accept the
use of a word, even when it cannot apply in any way that we could normally
understand, simply because it makes much more sense than not to use it. If God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit, are Persons, then
we need to speak of their eyes watching over us, of their arms holding us, and
of their lips speaking to us. Nothing
else makes as much sense.
When we looked, in the chapter on Creation, at the
development of the human being, and especially when we looked at the way in
which the self-aware human may have emerged, we said that selfhood is not
formed in introspection or isolation but through relationship with others.
Relationships are the necessary condition of selfhood, of personhood.
We have seen that the Bible refers to God as self-aware, as feeling and
as choosing, and have said that this supports the use of the word ‘Persons’
which the Christian community has chosen for the doctrine of the Trinity. It is important that we now consider the fact that throughout
the Scriptures the Persons of the Trinity are described overwhelmingly,
exclusively, in terms of their relationship.
The very names by which we know the first and second Persons of the
Trinity are not names as such but statements of relationship, ‘Father’ and
‘Son’. And ‘The Spirit’
is not a name but a pronouncement that he is the spirit of the Father and the
Son. The fatherhood of God the
Father is the nearest we can get to expressing what he is; the selfhood of
Jesus is defined by his sonship; the Person of the Holy Spirit is described by
what he is from the Father and the Son. Each of the Persons of the Trinity has been revealed to us only in terms of his relatedness to the other Persons, and in their actions each is spoken of as acting in and through the others. Yet this in no way diminishes or reduces their individual personhood: on the contrary, it is the absolute basis and necessary condition of that individuality. The Persons of the Trinity do not assert their individuality by acting in order to separate or distinguish themselves from one another, in order to ‘gain their freedom’. The individual personhood of each is wholly affirmed by the others. We cannot speak of their ‘growing’ each other, as we would in the case of human persons, since God is total fulfilment. The word used in the gospels to express how they uphold and affirm each other is ‘glorify’. In his prayer at the Last Supper Jesus says: ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee……I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made’ (John 17: 1-5) No one can attempt to define what God is, yet we can
and must use language to express what we believe to be most true of him.
The best such expression, and the one which Christians would most
surely accept is ‘God is love’. (John 4: 8)
But love is not an abstract, existing in space.
Love, we saw when we examined the term, is something which exists and
happens between persons, an activity and a feeling and a relationship between
the Persons. Love is the One in the Three.
The One is not as such a person: it is the oneness of the relationships
between three Persons. We could
say that the oneness, the nature of God, is the unique loving relatedness
which the Persons share. We may
say that God is the love in three Persons.
The Persons of God are different but One in equality, and they are
absolutely united, One, in their relationship of love.
If we try to envisage this we do not, of course, get a literal picture
of God, but neither do we see a machine or a monster.
Our picture will look something like a family, and while this cannot be
an objective description it cannot be seen as inappropriate to Christian
belief in the Father, Son and Spirit. God
is a family, a union, a unity of loving Persons: each wholly individual, yet
only in and through their mutual love.
13. WHAT DOES THE TRINITY DOCTRINE OF GOD TELL US ABOUT OURSELVES? We have said that in each religion the understanding of
what God is reflects and is reflected in that religion’s understanding of
man. The Jewish belief in God as
Saviour and Judge describes man as one seeking to be saved and justified.
The Islamic picture of God as absolute Master describes man as finding
his fulfilment only in submission, as the word ‘Islam’ indicates.
In Christian belief, Jesus has revealed that man is made to be as God
is, and that God is Persons existing in and through love.
In religious language, ‘god’ is the term which indicates that which
is the summit and meaning of all things, the beginning and end of all there
is, the Alpha and the Omega. There
cannot be anything better, or higher, than that which God is.
In Christian belief, therefore, there is nothing higher or better than
persons existing in and through love. This is the summit and meaning of all
things, the beginning and the fulfilment of all that exists. The picture of ultimate meaning which the Trinity doctrine
reveals is that of persons existing wholly in and for their relationship of
love.
14.
THE
TRINITY IS THE PATTERN FOR ALL CREATION The Christian tradition asserts that we cannot know the
ultimate truth about ourselves unless it is revealed to us by God, and this
must surely be the case since such a revelation is also essentially a
revelation of God. Yet when we
receive that revelation it is also the case that we recognise its truth, in
that it matches our experience of our world, and of being human.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an abstract formula but a truth that
we can recognise in what we know. The
pattern that it suggests can be traced in every aspect of creation: in quantum
physics all matter is seen as presenting itself simultaneously in the unifying
mode of waves and in the individuating mode of particles; in plants and
animals we see the individual cells each performing very differently according
to the place which it occupies, yet all functioning in unison with the other
cells throughout the organism. The
same pattern of existence as the cohesion and co-operation of individuals is
seen in the animal species, instinct-based in the lower animals, more
adaptable and complex in the higher species.
Everywhere we see the pattern of the individual existing and
functioning only in relation to the group.
Order, progress and life are patterned in this direction, whereas lack
of coherence and co-operation lead to the destruction of the individual, to
chaos, dissolution and death. The Trinity shape can be seen to be the life-promoting
pattern in and of the universe. But the ultimate form of cohesion and
co-operation is not that which is seen in atoms or cells, or even in adaptive
animals. It is seen in persons.
The doctrine indicates that the meaning and purpose towards which the
universe is formed is that persons should exist and grow towards their full
potential, in and through the love they receive and give.
15. PERSONS:
THE ULTIMATE VALUE AND MEANING OF ALL THERE IS Is this true? Christians may say that it is, but would they, and those who
are not Christian, recognise from their experience that it is true?
Most people, when they are brought to some crisis in their lives, come
to realise that people, friends, family, are all that really matters.
A family watching the destruction of their home, their possessions,
their livelihood, by war or natural disaster, will tell each other that it
doesn’t matter so long as they are all safe and together.
Children know the importance of people and love, and they only come to
reject that belief when abuse or neglect destroy it, or when the world teaches
them to value pleasure, money or power instead. It does seem that most people feel that the individual
person, growing through his relationships, is what is really important.
Yet a great many ideologies, philosophies and religions suggest
otherwise. Both Communism and
Fascism put the state above the individual, and they were neither the first
not the only political ideologies to do so. In such a regime no personal relationship could count against
loyalty to the state; children would be expected to accuse their parents of
political crimes. In the
religious area, the Eastern traditions hold a belief in reincarnation which
must deny any ultimate reality to persons.
The soul, it is said, migrates through many life forms both animal and
human before achieving its final goal of existence without separate personal
form. The mother we have loved in
this life, in her familiar appearance and gestures and memories, would be
reborn as an entirely different individual, perhaps as a man from a very
different culture, perhaps even as an animal.
The person who is my mother would be gone for ever. One important viewpoint from which people now question
the importance of the person is that of science. We may say that the meaning and purpose of all that exists is
that persons should live and grow in and through their love for one another,
but science seems to suggest that persons are in fact very insignificant, mere
pinpoints in the vastness of the universe.
We have been told that we inhabit a speck of matter, a planet revolving
around a very minor star at the edge of one galaxy among billions.
Even on our earth it is pointed out that we are one among millions of
species, a latecomer evolving from others, and destined to pass and be
replaced like all the others. Physically we have been told, we are nothing but a fragile
structure consisting of water and a few minerals. Mentally and socially we have been described as near automata,
reacting to environmental stimuli in programmed patterns of learned behaviour.
Looking into the vast depths of space, or even contemplating the
mountains, seas and storms of our own planet, and the events of its long
history in which we figure so briefly, may we not feel it unlikely that our
little selves and our interactions are of any great consequence, let alone
being the meaning of all these? Such ideas are still expressed, but they are no longer
the commonly accepted view in the sciences.
The more that scientists have discovered in recent years, the more they have come to wonder not only at the majesty of the
universe but also at the majesty and mystery of the beings who are conscious
of it and of themselves in it, and are able to penetrate its secrets even to
the moment of its beginning. Certainly
we may be seen as one species among many, but now we are appreciated as unique
in our potential for and development of communication, in our adaptability
and, above all, in our self-awareness. No
longer are we seen as puppets jerking to every pull on our strings, but as
thinking, planning, choosing beings, vitally influenced and shaped by
everything we experience, yet each unique and capable of creative
understanding and behaviour which shapes that experience.
Ultimately inexplicable, irreducible and mysterious, each with more
possible brain-cell connections than there are atoms in the universe, we may
no longer be dismissed as insignificant. Such changes in thinking about the value of the person
have had their echoes among the ideologies.
Fascism was forever discredited once people had seen its inevitable
result in the heaps of bodies discarded as of less use than the heaps of
shoes, spectacles, hair and teeth retrieved from them. Communism foundered on the human desire to express something
of ourselves in our work and earnings, and on our need to feel at home among
our own possessions. In all
religious traditions, people and the love between them are valued, as their
moral codes clearly indicate, even if their doctrines do not appear to express
the belief that this is the absolute and ultimate value.
16. MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY: THE HUMAN IMAGE OF
THE TRINITY Not all of us will marry and
have a family, though all of us have emerged from a relationship of some kind,
and from some form of family. And
all of us, whether married or not, will find much of the life-giving and
supportive love we need from family and friends.
It is supremely in marriage, however, that a person can experience that
full and consistent affirmation of their self-worth which is necessary if they
are to achieve their potential. Nothing
can surpass the knowledge that there is someone who has chosen to love you
above all the others, and will love you unconditionally and without end.
Secure in such a love a person can grow on from day to day, no matter
what difficulties or sufferings life may bring to them.
And of course the children of that love can grow in that same security. When Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity of
three Persons united in love, it is affirming what people know.
Persons are the summit of all that exists, with their capacity to know
themselves and each other and to make meaning, and to act freely in accordance
with that meaning. And the power
that gives life to such beings, and supports and grows them towards their
fulfilment, is the love which they receive from and give to each other.
17. TRINITY: THE EXPRESSION OF OUR ULTIMATE MEANING When we think of the doctrine
of the Trinity in this way we may be able to feel that it reveals and
illuminates the truth in human lives, rather than setting us a difficult and
abstract puzzle. It shows us that
we are to spend our lives growing ourselves and each other in love, and that
every purpose is subsidiary to this. This
is what it tells us about man. We
can never really know what it tells us of God.
If we are unfathomable to ourselves and to others, then it is sure that
the mystery of the Persons of God in their love may be studied unceasingly by
the greatest of minds and the best of hearts, without hope or danger that it
will ever be captured by our understanding.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty ****************************************************************************************************************
From adolescence we should
begin to see ourselves truly and have a proper self-esteem, having accepted
the love others have given us. Christian
teaching says that in the Incarnation we are able to see our full self-image
and receive the love we need, if we will believe in Jesus as giving us that
self-image and that love. But we
need a lifetime of support if we are to grow in our true image.
1.
THE FULLY
GROWN SELF: THE INDEPENDENT
INDIVIDUAL? The adolescent may believe
that independence is the ultimate state for the individual, but it is only the
transition stage.
2.
INTER-DEPENDENCE We grow from the dependence of
childhood through the independence of adolescence to the inter-dependence of
adulthood.
3.
THE CLOSEST INTER-DEPENDENCE, AND THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY
FOR GROWTH: MARRIAGE Marriage is the closest form
of inter-dependence, and offers the greatest opportunity for growth.
But changes in Western society have made it increasingly difficult for
people to commit themselves to the responsibilities of marriage and the
family.
4.
THE CONCEPT OF
THE INDIVIDUAL A vital element in this problem is the popular concept of the individual as ideally ‘free’ and ‘self sufficient’. But the truly individual self exists only in and through relationships with others. This is the truth which lies at the heart of human experience, and at the heart of Christian beliefs in the doctrine of the Trinity.
5.
THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: WHAT IS
MAN? Our most fundamental question is 'What is man, what is he meant to be?'
6.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF MAN, RELATED TO DIFFERENT VIEWS OF
GOD Each of the great religions
suggests a different answer, and it is to be seen in the religion’s belief
about God. Whatever a religion
says about God indicates what it believes about man.
7.
ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME? Each religion has a different
view of God and of man, and those views radically affect the lives of
individuals and their societies. It
is neither helpful nor truthful to say that they are all the same really.
8.
CHRISTIANITY
CLAIMS A UNIQUE REVELATION The Christian belief is that
man is meant to be as God is, and that in Jesus we have the full revelation of
God, a revelation expressed by the Church in the doctrine of the Trinity.
9.
THE TRINITY:
THREE IN ONE The Trinity is said to be ‘Three
in One’ – but three what in one what?
If we use inappropriate terms in answer to this we get a very distorted
picture of God, and no help in understanding ourselves. 10. THREE WHAT? 'Three' - not 'parts' or 'aspects'
11.
THREE PERSONS ‘Persons’. We cannot use this in a literal sense of God because no word
can be used of God in that way. But
this is the term which is most surely appropriate of Jesus, and of the Father
and the Spirit as he related to them in his words and actions.
12.
GOD
IS ONE ‘One’ – not one being or
person as such, but the oneness of the relationship between the Persons.
We may say that the one God is the love in three persons.
This oneness does not diminish the individual Persons: it constitutes
them. They are each ‘glorified’ in it.
13.
WHAT
DOES THE TRINITY DOCTRINE OF GOD TELL US ABOUT OURSELVES? The Trinity doctrine tells us
that God is Persons existing in and through love, and therefore that this is
what man is meant to be.
14.
THE
TRINITY IS THE PATTERN FOR ALL CREATION The Trinity pattern of
individuals existing and functioning only in relation to each other can be
seen throughout creation, in atomic and cellular structures, in animal
societies, and supremely in persons.
15.
PERSONS:
THE ULTIMATE VALUE AND MEANING OF ALL THERE IS People generally believe in
the absolute value of persons and love, even though not all religions give it
this emphasis, and various ideologies and scientific views have directly
opposed it.
16.
MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY: THE HUMAN IMAGE OF
THE TRINITY Marriage and the family
present a human image of the Trinity. They
offer the best opportunity for, and expression of, persons growing in the love
they receive and give.
17.
THE
TRINITY: THE EXPRESSION OF OUR
ULTIMATE MEANING The doctrine offers us not a puzzle about God but the ultimate truth about human life. Return to Home Page Return to Book Contents & Summary Start of Chapter 5 Go forward to Chapter 6 |