Three in one and One in three

 The Trinity, a problem for all ages and a thorn in the side of many monotheistic religions claiming that Christianity is not one of these as it is poly-theistic. Today this is what we celebrate as Christians. This exceedingly anomalous philosophical construct to explain God as it was, is and will be perceived by millions of Christian faithful. The philosophy behind this construct is a problematic as it has caused many a person called into ministry to fail and become a pariah as a result of what was perceived to be a misunderstanding of the construct. All of this philosophical construction was used to try and incorporate the corporate into the incorporate of God. In other words explain Jesus the human in terms of God the beyond human. Our belief in the Trinity comes out of the theological and philosophical debates in the early years of Christianity and much of our belief is contained in the the Creeds, namely the Athanasian, Nicene and Apostles. All of which, particularly the Athanasian, give us the bare bones of the Trinitarian belief. If our construct of belief arises in these debates, how much relevance have these debates for us today and how would we begin to discern the truth of our belief systems without having to rely on philosophical systems from centuries ago?  

Are we too focussed on an analogy with insufficient focus on God's [w]holeness?

Trinitarian wisdom dictates our attempts to convey the truth of three in one and one in three. We attempt this by sinking into the inane with conceptual analogies such as the source of a stream, a candle, a woman or man, a shamrock, etc.  Especially in this day and age when those who are asked to preach more often then not do not have the philosophical or theological background to elucidate the earlier attempts that we hang on to. The concept of three in one and one in three is elusive and as impossible to accurately describe as perhaps God is. This is why we become circumspect with our words and our thoughts when preaching on Trinity Sunday fully aware that we may be reported for saying the wrong thing. Yet, what is the wrong thing when speaking of the incomprehensibility of God? Do we just throw out our past and just acknowledge that we cannot explain fully a relationship that has bugged us for centuries? Is there something some glimmer that we can find in the old adages which can help us understand the incarnation and the relationship between "Father", "Son" and "Spirit"?

Am I dodging the question here by posing more questions? Quite possibly but these are valid questions to pose in the modern age. Unless we can incorporate our modern knowledge into our faith how can we in any manner of speaking interact with the people of today. As the new Archbishop of Sydney said when speaking about the present day "We must engage with all of that [modern society], we must be creative, courageous, contemporary, willing to fail". There is a swirling enigma surrounding our understanding of God. Especially when we begin to celebrate / emphasise one feature over another because we have a complete inability to incorporate all three into one in a manner that the modern mind can encompass while paying tribute to the tradition of three. It is perhaps prudent to turn to what is known as process theology to assist us in thinking towards a modern paradigm that encompasses this three in one. Maybe, it is elements of process theology combined with a healthy dose of modern physics and philosophical meanderings that we need to add into the mix. One of the more unusual ways of thinking that could be incorporated are Chaos theory and an understanding of continual ongoing growth rather than split things into distinct units. We then look at God as a continuing and ongoing process which starts with wells of attraction that form and evolve through incarnation into wisdom rather than spots of specific time. 

We speak of Jesus as the son of God and the only Son of God and yet also in Scripture it speaks of us being made in the image of God and as Children of God who are due God's inheritance as we can call God Abba, how does this become part of our acknowledgement of Jesus as God's only son? At the end of the day when we think of the Trinity we must not be captured and halted in our thinking of God by our traditional analogy of God, for that is all that the trinitarian formulation is as we can see from its history. By focussing on the trinity we focus on the wholeness of God not on the particles that make up God. It means that we start to become [w]holistic in our outlook which means we draw closer in [w]holiness rather than being petty and focussed on division. Instead of splitting the light into its component parts and focussing our energy on one part of the spectrum we begin to realise that God is a lot more than the parts. However, we have a tendency to focus on the minutiae and singularities rather than wholeness. Thus, we focus purely on the analogy of the three rather than the wholeness of God. We are a [w]holey people who should be focussing on the [w]holeness of God who is perfected in love and shown in love and lives for love.

The coming Spirit

 Pentecost, the day tradition has as the start of the Church but in reality it is the start of a movement rather than the Church. It is much easier if we perceive this time as just that the beginnings of a movement because organised "church" as we know it today did not start until much later. During the period as in any period when the Spirit strikes there is an awful lot of renewed and new speculation, thinking, development, theology and dare I say it philosophy. It is this latter which has to a certain extent influenced our later understanding of our common faith background and all the very many different people, faith groups, denominations that are in the world today. During this last week we have consistently prayed for Christian unity but what is interesting about Pentecost is the multitudes of people who were in Jerusalem at the time from all over the Roman Empire. Many will have had connection to the Jewish faith, however, it is more than likely that many of them will have been from differing faith groups of the time, including the Imperial faith of the Empire.

This is what makes the coming of the Spirit so interesting as it bypasses and overshadows a particular faith. Each time that the Spirit has moved it has done so in a manner that has upset the established understanding of Church or rather our established understanding of Church. It is perhaps significant for us that our understanding is but a small drop in knowledge formulated by ourselves about something that is incomprehensible. The movement of the Spirit in the world collapses our philosophical and deeply thought theological positions on the nature of God as it did in the first Pentecost. We can only contain God within our own paradigms and from what we can deduce. Unfortunately, for us, the fact that we cannot know God means that those paradigms, like any model, are just that but we treat what we think is God as God and then the Spirit comes along and demolishes our understanding by showing God in a new light and a new way. This then takes of in a new form that becomes the way or our way or some such which everyone thinks is how God wants us to be.

The Truth lies behind the obscurity of our thoughts deep in our hearts

This is the foolishness of our own thinking and does not reveal God, only the Spirit the advocate as John calls the coming Spirit (Jn. 14:26). If we see the Spirit showing us a multitude of different things each time that the Spirit's work is seen in the world is it not about time that we paid attention to what the Spirit is saying? From the start when the Spirit descended on the disciples they were in the midst of a diversity that was overwhelming from all corners of the earth and it is to them that the Spirit spoke (Acts 2:8-11), not just to the Jewish faith. There is an assumption that we take away from reading the passage in Acts (and what we presume to be the reason for so many to be in Jerusalem at the time) that they were all part of and /or connected to the faith an assumption. It may be highly likely but we cannot guarantee its truth. If the Spirit speaks to all people and this is the advocate who speaks the truth then what does this say to us who do not accept others? God's truth is love, the Spirit of God in all its forms conveys that love to those that listen. We however only accept one truth and cannot comprehend all truths. We latch on to one thing ignoring the fact that in another time and place the Spirit has said something totally different. The disparity of the Spirit's voice is as disparate as the monastic movement and the charismatic movement. Both were driven by the Spirit both display the truth and yet they are so far apart that it is almost impossible to believe they are the same Spirit of God giving us the truth.

If we are to believe that the Spirit is the purveyor of truth (Jn. 16:13) then both ends of the spectrum are the truth. Just as the dichotomy of particle and wave are present in light so the dichotomy that we appear to see in the Christian faith is representative of the wholeness of God and no one aspect is THE truth. The only truth that the Spirit brings is the truth of God's love in all its varied and glorious forms. We cannot single out one or the other it is both and for God's love is revealed in many varied ways so that we can be accepted for who we are within the spectrum of God's grace and love that is never ending.

Unity includes diversity

 Christ in John's gospel prays that all those that follow, mainly his disciples in the first instance, for them to be unified "That they be one" (Jn. 16:21) but also to be consecrated as holy in God (Jn. 16:17). By implication of course we see this as being extended to ourselves as followers of Christ. In the lead up to the coming of the Spirit next week at Pentecost we pray for the unity of the Christian faith in the world in accordance with this, Christ's prayer. However, as usual we have our selves to blame for the disunity in the world, which in itself has created the need for such a week of prayer.

Looking from the bow end of history as it pierces into the unknown waters of that which is to come, we can look back along an ever widening wake that ripples outwards from where we are. We can see in those endless ripples and the wake that we have created points of disturbance and eddy, even right back at the beginning of our journey. In the story from Acts today we read of a need to select a new "Apostle" in lieu of Judas' betrayal (Acts 1:21-26). Any decision we make whether by lot or by our own choice disturbs the wake of history as there can immediately be a "what if?" question posed. Each what if disturbs our past and renders a slightly different future or ripple that proceeds forward with us to the bowsprit of our journey. In most cases such decisions create ripples of angst and discomfort when others who have chosen differently to us interact with us. In times past that angst has led to violence and sufficient disruption to create a new choice and a new eddy in the wake as we move forward.

We are not all the same but we can all be unified

We cannot always choose the same as everyone else because our vision, our understanding that draws us to God differs significantly. Yet, if we were but to draw back a little we can see that we are spectators of the same thing, almost like a physics experiment that is dependent on what we are about to measure. Perhaps, even better, it is as if we are all seated in a theatre watching God on the stage of being. One may watch from the centre, an other from the right and another from the left. Each like the blind man and the elephant see / feel something different and believe that they have the correct view of the whole. In voicing our opinion we are adamant that what we have seen is the only view and thus we become people at odds with each other, divided, raging and unable to form peace with each other. Is it then surprising that our disunity is as it is as we are unable to collapse the wave function into a singularity that is acceptable to all views. We fail in being unable to draw away from what we see to encompass the whole and thus derive some understanding of the unity that is in actuality present, were we but able to see.

Only when we begin to see that our own views are just that, views, we will begin to have some understanding of the holiness of God's multiplicity which eventually forms the unity that is. Even we in our singularity are multiple for no unity can be without it also being some concept of multiplicity. We associate singularity and unity with sameness and uniformity. This is not the case, we only have to look at a swarm of bees or a flock of birds to understand that the unity of a swarm or a flock is made up of a multiplicity of individuals. Unfortunately, we single-mindedly turn what is natural into the unnatural by association of the worst possible traits with one thing forgetting that it is made up of a number rather than being the same. We can see this by our sayings which often come to the fore in some situations "All...look the same"; "all...act the same" (you just need to put whatever it is in where the dots are). Once we put aside those things that prejudice our thoughts and our vision can we begin to gaze in wonder at the actual beauty of the multiplicity in the singularity that is God.

Let us put aside those things that make us different for the moment and concentrate on those things that make us the same. Put aside doctrines that divide and embrace the other for who they are and who they may become in the presence of God. It does not matter to God who you are it matters only in what you do as of all the commandments that we embrace only one truly matters and that is to love the other; not just God and not just our neighbour but the other who is both and all.

Love little or love a lot

 Love is the one commandment that God gives us through Christ and the Holy Spirit. A commandment that is contained in all the laws and commandments ever given and summarised by the commandment to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. Yet, in all of this, we immediately fail this commandment every single day of our lives because we are human and cannot see the beauty of love. All I have to ask you and for your absolutely truthful response "Have you ever turned away from someone either as a result of disgust, pity, prejudice, fear, for not being a friend, for not knowing them, the person that killed as a terrorist, etc?", if anyone was to say yes I would challenge that and put that person in the worst possible situation for themselves and see them turn away in disgust. This tells me that we are not able to love as Christ has commanded us without a lot of difficult and stressful prayer and practice of this commandment. I am not saying that it cannot be done I am just saying for you and me, normal people, we have a difficulty to love everyone.

Love is inclusive of all not exclusive of some

Even in the earliest stages of Christianity there is an obvious hesitation over the acceptance of those that are other. The reading from Acts today (10:44-48) is filled with the negative understanding of those that are outside of the faith living as so called "pagans". Otherwise Peter's appeal would not be required, even if he is speaking with the Spirit. There is an obvious background of non-acceptance that has to be "forced" upon the faithful so that they understand that love knows no boundaries in the actuality of our lived lives If, then, at the start of the Christian movement there is hesitation over acceptance is it any surprise that we ourselves stand within the same dilemma. We just have to list a few examples of what people are willing to do for their beliefs for this to become true for us. Yet, at the heart of the Christian story there is an understanding that God is Love in the deepest possible manner. How then can we not be appalled at the treatment reserved for those that are part and parcel of this country and yet are shunned either because of colour, or where they originate from or their COVID status?

The writer of John's first letter puts it plainly in verse 2 of chapter 5 when he sates "It follows that when we love God and obey his commands we love his children too". We cannot profess a Christian understanding of the world if we are unable to follow this command in truth. No matter how we may dodge the question in word polemics or in doctrinal obfuscation if we are not seen to fulfil this plain request we cannot state our Christian heritage. Following on with the imagery of the vine last week this week's Gospel reinforces our embeddedness within Christ if we are to be true to God's way (Jn. 15:9). The commandments are easy as scripture tells us but easy does not mean that we are able to make them work in our daily lives unless we make them an ongoing part of what we do. This is hard work because it means we have to lay aside those things that inform our prejudices such as our up bringing, our parents and the society in which we live to provide a better way. This is after all what we take on by following Christ. The cross that we bear is the cross of our past, a cross that is heavy with blame and fault. We are asked to put this to the side and pick up a cross made with love.

The way forward for us, no matter our denomination, no matter who or what we profess to be is to embrace and be welded to love. We can no more proclaim Christ or even a belief in God without understanding and living the truth of this sentiment to the fullest. We can only attempt what Christ embodied as we are not Christ and we do not live in the more primitive era. The fact that life has become vastly more complicated is not though an excuse to cop out but rather to persevere to emulate Christ as much as possible. This may lead us to our own crosses but we do so in conjunction with Christ who would be crucified even today. Learning to love is something that is hard especially when we do not have our own figures of love to follow but only that which appeared in Christ. So let us go out and do what Christ asks Love each other as he has loved us.

Twisted vines of love

 'I am the vine' so says Christ in one of his famous quotes from John's gospel (15:1). Not only is Christ saying this but he is also saying 'God the vine' as 'I am' in Jewish literature sources is tantamount to the name of God. So, in a twisted manner Christ is proclaiming himself God but also asserting that the twisted vines that produce grapes are part and parcel of God. Yet, the analogous writing of John goes even further in stating that we are to be embedded in the vine as branches that source their nutrients and growth potential from the root stock of the vine. So, Christ is the vine, excluding the branches as it is we who are the branches in some cases grafted on, we would assume that the vine is more than just a woody growth.

We must make some valid assumptions at this point or else the analogy will not hold together. The first one is that our concept of God / Christ as the main stem of the vine means that this is composed of love. In other words it is not a rigid structure but rather something that is fluid and ever changing. If we think in terms of rigidity then we become bogged down in human concepts and an inability to become one with God. The second assumption is that all parts of the total plant are bound together by this same structure and it is through this that the Spirit flows to the outer extremities so that we become productive and produce the grape of peace and compassion in our lives to serve as sustenance to the world. If we are happy with this then we can proceed to acknowledge our usefulness to the world.

The interesting thing about these assumptions is that it suggests that our preconceptions of community as a rigid structure must fall away. If we are to be intimately involved with God we must allow for flexibility in our response. The love of God is not a rigid characteristic but rather is more pliable, the moment we become rigid we are likely to fracture from the source. Our broken branches pile up around us and eventually burn as suggested by Christ (Jn. 15:6). It is because we have withered or rather not allowed love to flow into our selves and become rigid in our outlook. The harmony of creation and created things shows us the harmony of God. The interconnectivity of all things demonstrates to us the interconnectivity of God. Thus, the vine shows the interconnectivity of all things when they are harmonised to the fundamentality of God as love. This love that we refer to as God contains all forms of love within it and cannot be described in any one way except perhaps to suggest that love viewed in this way is something that does not induce harm, hatred, disconnection or any other form of violence that disconnects a person from love itself.

It is the pliable growth that bears fruit woody growth

The writer of the letter 1 John suggests that the epitome of love is self sacrifice as seen in Christ's immolation on the cross (1 Jn. 4:9). This is a love that transcends the other and is able to sacrifice ourselves and our ideals to attain the peace which comes in the presence of God. This is what we require in our lives, a sense of the ability to give up all but at the same time to gain all. We tend not to consider compromise or the giving up of a position as something that is strong or the way to obtain what we are after. Usually, if we do not create the circumstances for our win we resort to violence in order to overthrow the alternative. Yet, more often then not it is in the surrendering of an ideal that creates the situation in which both sides of conflict find a win-win solution to the underlying issue. Like Philip (Acts 8:26-ff) we are sent into situations which we might find impossible but it is with the pliability of love that we overcome our difficulties to find a way to obtain our goals. 

It is not by rigid precepts that we are able to minister to the people around us but rather by the flexible understanding that love covers many things and can be viewed from a wide number of places. It is often only when the hard exterior that becomes woody and with less pliability associated with a living plant or vine that pruning and desiccation set in. The pliability of the living vine allows it to wind its way around many different situations and when it becomes hard and woody it is often pruned away to allow for fresh growth. In our own communities we also become hard and brittle unable to twist and turn to find the way forward. In modern times, we can see the resistance of some parts of the church to such change. They may appear at first glance hardy but in time they always wither and do not produce sweet fruit but that which is sour. Let our efforts be more pliable in the face of change and our new reality so that we bear good sweet fruit rather than the bitter dregs of sour wine.