We are struck by interpretations persons put upon the words they see or hear. Communicators presume they will be heard and understood. Many are not heard because they are slovenly in their speech or writing. The receiving person may be inattentive, perhaps unskilled in listening, or may have lost some of the acuity for hearing sounds. Even so, the message is present. Assuming the message is well originated, the sender is burdened with the weaknesses of receivers. Those listeners are defensive, of themselves and their points of view. Some just don’t care. Many have sensitive feelings, and want to win conversations, and debate in confrontation. Meaning is made secondary to winning – an unworthy first ideal.
We affirm the Trinity of God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The response of a friend may immediately be negative. One, a Muslim friend, believes that three gods have been asserted, which is blasphemy for both Christianity and Islam. (One God in three persons is likened to several fingers, one hand.) Another denies trinity, but will accept one God, for those believing in any God. There are those who still believe in many gods – some stronger than lesser ones. Another will shy away from believing that Christ is deity, therefore there must be some other representation of who God is. Some persons say that they are polytheists (many gods), or pantheists – that God is everywhere, and not to be identified with personality. So the story goes.
What should the response be by the listener/reader to the straightforward statement that: God is a Trinity, three persons in one God? The response ought to be in some form of questioning? Did I hear you correctly? Would you embellish your statement? In what way does the statement relate to our conversation? Other questions may move the exchange along sensible routes. In the exchange, the theology becomes clearer, or it may become confused. The listener may stimulate the friend to investigate his/her statement further so as to better support what is asserted. A faithful friend will permit recourse. The ultimate end will be to the benefit of both persons in the conversation, at least in understanding if not in agreement. We continue to hold out for the ideal, even if we don’t gain it. A careful theologian would embellish his remark, with standard arguments and analogies used in theology. The least knowledgeable person, would, and should, say in all humility: I am unprepared to defend the Trinity of God, except that I have faith in the Trinity based on Scripture, and the way that faith works in prayer and life. There is no embarrassment in admitting ignorance, if that ignorance is not the fruit of sloth and evasion. Only through a study of Scripture do we understand the Trinity of God, and other doctrines helpful to faith. We are made noble in seeking truth at any level of experience. However, no matter how devoted we are to study we will never have enough to present total truth in life. One may sing of perfect love at a wedding, which would imply full truth about love and its application, but the marriage will not be perfect. I need not have perfect information about God. I need not know much about my physician, but I have great confidence in his advice of truth about my health. In point of fact, I may know only little about God, but what I do know is enough to meet my need. Christ does not demand that I offer a careful syllogism of logic about him, or who the Father is, or who the Holy Spirit is. My concern is only that I love and trust Christ for my own rescue from a flawed mortal situation with a promise to a perfect immortal one. It is an offer I can’t refuse, especially in that the alternative appears totally dismal. When I came to that commitment I had no idea about the theology of what is the whole story. Clarity came later. Even that is not total clarity. Although my present context is extensive, it is incomplete. Others have less information, and they are as composed in their faith as I presume in myself. It is good for any and all persons to rest themselves in a biblical faith to meet spiritual needs, provide life comfort, and offer hope for life immortal (a key point).
If I am wrong about all this I have lost nothing. If right I have gained everything. Even if wrong the faith has given me a sense of worth, a constructive morality and purpose. If wrong, I wouldn’t change even if I found reason no longer to hold a sacred vision. As I view the alternatives there is nothing in them that makes sense of the human context – all chance. There is true mystery in all. God began it all. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020