by Josie Smith.
When Moses cheekily asked God for his I.D., the answer was something like ‘I AM’. That’s three letters in our alphabet, but what a complexity of meaning! Not just ‘I am what I am’ in the present tense, but ‘I always was and always will be.’ It even carries the meaning ‘I continuously cause all things to be’. The Name is both noun and verb, both Being and Doing. The very nature of Being, in fact, in whom all things and all times and places and people have THEIR being. No wonder people refused to pronounce the name of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity came out of experience, not theorising. People were certain that the transcendent yet immanent ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ was the one creator God. Embodied in Jesus they recognised ‘the way, the truth and the life’. And in the Pentecost experience they knew that this too was God in action. But our human minds want to know what all this topsy-turvy three-in-one maths means. How can three aspects of Divinity be ‘co-equal together and co-eternal’? (The Church has been split by the Filioque clause – the ‘and the Son’ bit – for centuries, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son, and how they can be co-eternal in either case, really gives people sleepless nights.)
When Jesus was asked questions his reply was so often in the form of another question – What do you think? Who do you say that I am? Are these your words, or did someone else tell you that? Or he painted a simple picture – the Kingdom of God is LIKE – yeast, a mustard seed, a pearl. He spoke of a lost coin or a missing child or a shepherd with his flock. Or bread and wine, the stuff of everyday nourishment, which for us now carries such a wealth of meaning in Holy Communion. A picture, a story, a symbol, to take away and reflect on. Even Jesus couldn’t describe that which cannot be described. The Kingdom is like – is like – is like.
The Trinity has been likened to a shamrock leaf, or a triangle (a very strong structure) or water which comes in many forms from clouds to solid ice and which is essential to life. We can drink it, wash in it, cook with it, drown in it. We are largely composed of it. It formed the continents over geological time, and continues to do so. A plait of hair is another three-in-one symbol. But these are only clues. COVID isn’t that little green thing with knobs on which we’ve seen pictures of. God isn’t a shamrock leaf and the Kingdom isn’t a pearl. I like to think of the doctrine of the Trinity as a clue – a representation – a map, if you like. That black line on the map is, we know, a road, because we have been taught to read a map. But we can’t begin to imagine the lives of all the travellers on that road, nor yet their speed, destinations or missions, their home lives or their work. Those contour lines tell us that we are approaching hill country, and there are little symbols which give us all sorts of clues about the terrain. But sitting at home gives us no idea of the weather out there in the real world.
The map is not the country. These small, everyday, fertile ideas (the map, the credal statements) are there to help us to get out into the real wind-in-the-hair country with wide views, with miles between us and the horizon in all directions, where God is the total reality surrounding us and filling us. God whose name and nature is Love.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Thank you Josie, I really like the way you have pointed to the mystery and challenge that encapsulate our strivings to name God and to know God, something that of course is beyond all of us! I am going to use this at Local Preachers meeting this afternoon.
LikeLike
In the 14th century the writer of “The Cloud of Unknowing” was clear that, “God can be loved but he cannot be thought. He can be grasped by love but never by concepts. So less thinking and more loving.”
We can hear a piece of music which we thoroughly enjoy, which can set us dancing, move us to tears or stir us up to action without our knowing what it is called, who wrote it or who is performing it. And we don’t have to understand church doctrine to enjoy a close relationship with God.
Blaise Pascal, the famous philosopher, wrote, “The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.” When he died, a piece of paper was found sewn into the lining of his jacket containing the following note: ‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars. Certainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace.’ What was important to him was the God of living faith, the God we personally experience, not the abstract theories of theologians. It’s the quality of our relationship with God that is crucial; and how that shows itself in our daily lives. Faith isn’t knowing about God; it is knowing God’s presence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simply, thank you Josie
LikeLike
My issue with Trinity is that it implies some sort of metaphysical other-reality and something in me wants to bring it back to earth. I want to universalise and secularise concepts about the nature of “God – the “God” that is here with us now, that cries when we cry, that laughs when we laugh, that suffers when we suffer. Jean Lucy Marion made the distinction between idol and icon and this led me to understand that in making Trinity a credal condition of belief we are staying into idolatry. How can I retain the unconditional nature of the love of God for all humanity and yet accept “Trinity”? Richard Rohr stresses the Oneness of God and yet suggests that there is something deeply relational about God. He maintains that the principle of one is lonely, the principle of two is oppositional and moves towards dualities and preference and the principle of three is inherently moving, dynamic and generative. For me this brings God back to earth. Could I go further and suggest that in every meaningful ethical conversation between two people God is present?
LikeLike