The Trinity made comprehensible.

 

Tomorrow is Trinity Sunday

I have two special reasons for being interested in the doctrine of the Trinity. One, because I live in a row of houses called Trinity Terrace, (so named because it says in my deeds that the builder bought the land from the ”Masters and Fellows of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Cambridge.)  The other arises from an incident when I was at junior school.

I was a fairly biddable school boy, not so much from innate goodness as fear – corporal punishment was rampant - but one occasion when I transcended the rules and suffered the indignity of being “kept in” (thankfully not the “double ruler”) sticks in my mind.

The church in which I was baptised and sang in the choir from about the age of seven had Choral Matins as its main Sunday morning service.  Every month in which there were five Sundays, we sang on the final, extra Sunday the Athanasian Creed instead of the usual Apostles’ Creed.  Whether there was some theological basis for this, or it was just a quirk of the vicar, I have no idea.

When I was in Standard 3, as it was then called, around the age of nine, the teacher said something, I don’t remember what, which trigged me to whisper to my desk-mate “the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost, incomprehensible and yet there are not three incomprehensible, but one incompressible.”

“Peter Wrigley, were you talking?”

“Er, well er . .”

“You will stay in at playtime and write down what you said.”.

So I did.  How I spelt it I wouldn’t like to say.  Nor have I any idea what Miss Parr made of the bit of paper I nervously handed to her, but I was allowed to go out and finish playtime.

So, with that background, allow me to explain what I believe is a rational basis of that which St Athanasius found incomprehensible.

God the Father.

It is not irrational to suppose that somehow the universe began.  I hesitate to write that some one or some thing began it, because that implies a person or a physical entity.  Better, I believe, to think of a cause. Better still, a force. 

There is nothing particularly modern about this idea.  The Church of England’s  Thirty-nine Articles, agreed in 1562, stipulate that “God” is not an old man with a long beard, resting on a bed on the Seventh Day, but “without body , parts or passions.”

Maybe the force has a purpose, or maybe not.  Maybe the force is benevolent, or maybe evil, or perhaps indifferent to what happens to the universe and the creatures in it.

Maybe the force intervenes in the universe and the lives of the creature in it.

Maybe not.

Maybe we shall never know.

But it is probably best for humankind to think positively and assume benevolence.

God the Son

The world’s different religions have different interpretations of the nature of the force. or forces, where, as with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, there were assumed to be numerous Gods, each with a different purpose. Our tradition is based on the opinions and teachings of what we call the Old Testament Prophets and what many believe to be the final revelation in the life teaching and example of Jesus Christ, along with  the writers of the New Testament Epistles.   Some regard additions by later sources  (eg the Early Fathers  Julian of Norwich, George Fox, various Papal pronouncements, Don Cupitt) as adding to our understanding.  Muslims go further and believe that Mohammed (peace be upon him) has the final say.

From these revelations we learn that the Force is benevolent, can be simply described as “love,” is endlessly forgiving and, “like a father,” wanting us to love even our enemies and care for each other and the creation.

God the Holy Ghost

Most Christians have already moved on from ghosts and now refer to the “Holy Spirit.” I suggest we can now take a further step and refer to the "Force."  The Force is still at work in the world (maybe even the Universe) and is available, if we so wish, to latch on to in order to help us lead the kind of lives we are intended to live: to strengthen our resolve and to protect us from any “perils and dangers” we might encounter.  This, again is not a fanciful idea.  We all find “safety in numbers” and assume that associating with others with similar aims by some mysterious means creates a bond, a force,  which strengthens and enables us in fulfilling our goals.  Regiments try to embolden their soldiers by appealing to its  “spirit,” traditions and ceremonies: football supporters  assume that cheering the teams creates  a force on spurs them on to victory.

Star Wars provides us with the modern version:  “The Force be with you.”

QED.

Or “Amen.”

It’s not incomprehensible, but perfectly logical and believable.