Is ‘Trinity’ An Unwarranted Complication On The Christian Message?

/1 Comment/in , , /by

“… no doctrine more effectively demarcates biblical Christianity from a variety of modern cults.  Given the historical and contemporary significance of the doctrine, it is lamentable that many Christians today are unable to provide an account of the doctrine’s historical development and its present formulation…” –  John Y. Kwak & Douglas Geivett.

I, like many others in the Christian faith, do believe in the Trinity. But like someone humorously observed, “we often pray to the Trinity that nobody would question us about the Trinity”. Indeed the doctrine is felt by some to be an unnecessary complication imposed on the simple belief in the God. It is understandable but this does not warrant its dismissal by Christians. The fact that we do not understand something does not mean it is not true or real. But to be frank, it is hard to grasp a total understanding of it, isn’t it?  That notwithstanding, I still think we can get a rough idea which can go to strengthen our faith and also help us explain the Christian faith better to those seeking some answers.

In their article Trinity: A Historical and Theological Analysis John Y. Kwak and Douglas Geivett  note that key texts in the Bible about God’s nature fall into three groups:

“(1) those that stress continuity with Jewish monotheism in affirming that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Rom 3:29-30; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5; Jas 2:19), (2) those that represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct individuals or persons (Mt 11:27; 26:39; 28:19; Mk 1:9-12; Lk 11:13; Jn 14:16-17, 26), and (3) those that variously refer to God in the person of the Father (Mt 6:9; cf. Is 63:16), the Son (Jn 1:1-3, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-20; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-4, 8-12; 1 Jn 5:20), or the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).  From these texts it is clear that the New Testament church, without yet formulating with precision the doctrine of the Trinity, fully endorsed the three key theological strands that would later be woven into a tight doctrinal cord: only one God exists; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; and the title “God” befits each of them.”

The Trinity does present a mystery, but as one of the great philosophers and legal scholars of our time, Mortimer Adler, noted, “Any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity and legitimate mystery”. God is the basis of all reality and so his nature and his activity should provide an adequate explanation for what we see and experience in life.

There is a disturbing realization one gets from studying the Bible, on the issue of God’s nature. It becomes unambiguously clear that the God found in the biblical pages is not one that would fit our normal understanding of a ‘person’ as in an individual – one who can only be in one place at a time, is bound by space and changes over time through growth. For we see three persons, all portrayed as being One God together – eternal and infinite in all attributes possessed and also changeless in nature; they do not do things independent of the other. There is obviously a plurality going on in that one word ‘God’. Now some believers, I suspect, believe that we have a singular God who manifested himself over the cause of history in three forms – initially as the Father, then later as the Son and currently he is manifesting as Holy Spirit. But the Bible itself does not postulate a theory of a singular God revealing himself as three persons, each one coming into being after the last one has finished his job. From Genesis to Revelation it is demonstrated that these three persons are eternally co-existing and they work together. So it is not one God manifesting in three different forms over time, one after the other, but rather three persons manifesting their indivisible Oneness of being. “Us” is the word God uses in the creation story at the point when man is about to be created (Genesis 1:26). Yet in the rest of the Old Testament we mostly see God using “I”.

The Theory in Practice

As suggested earlier, what God is like in his being and activity ought to provide an adequate explanation for all that we see and experience. Let us look at a concept which we are all too familiar with – LOVE. Love is the embodiment of all virtue and the highest expression of godliness (indeed the greatest commandment of God tells us to love). God, being God, should not have to depend upon his creation to actualize his capacity to love, for that would make creation as important as the Creator since the Creator would be incomplete without his creation. But the Bible introduces love as an interpersonal quality requiring a subject-object relationship and this is what is shown in the Triune relationship of Father-Son- Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian God (which is the God preached by Christianity) is complete in his love relationship without reference to his creation. The Father loved the Son before the creation of the world (John 17:24). “Beloved let us love for God is love”, admonishes the Apostles John (1 John 4:7-8). I am convinced that the very concept of Love is explained satisfactorily only in the Christian worldview for it is embodied in God himself, the first cause of everything in the created world. On this score alone Christianity stands unrivalled and is therefore a serious contender in the world of ideas.

Looking through John 5:19-27; 16:13-15 is just fascinating. The Father entrusts all things to the Son: his authority, his power over life and judgment. But the Son will not do anything by himself; he will only do what he sees the Father doing. The Spirit will not speak of himself nor seek his own glory. He will bring glory to Jesus by taking what belongs to Jesus and showing them to us. Three self-giving, self-effacing persons constitute the amazing God whom Christians worship! Like the noted Christian Apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias often says, it is only in the Christian worldview that the concept of Unity in diversity can be explained in the very first cause – God Himself; we find unity in diversity in the community of the Trinity. It is this aspect of God’s character that we seek to reflect in our life and walk as the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed Jesus, the head of the Church prayed to the father saying “I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one …” – John 17:22.

I still cannot claim a full understanding of the concept of Trinity but I do find comfort in the words of Mortimer Adler that any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity as well as legitimate mystery. God has given enough information to the world that makes having faith in him reasonable. A Christian thus has reason to confidently proclaim and defend the Christian faith in the market place of ideas.

The Homosexuality Discussion

/0 Comments/in /by

The whole discussion about homosexuality is more about morality than it is about constitutional rights or even human rights. Indeed it even boils down to whether morality is absolute or relative. Those who make laws on homosexuality cannot escape the fact that their decisions either come from an absolute morality perspective or a relative one. And whichever perspective it is needs to be defended in the public square. An important question also emerges from this discussion (if pursued long enough) and it is this: Is life all about a person’s happiness? If it is, then why should it be a homosexual’s happiness and not a heterosexual’s happiness and vice versa? If this world was created by a transcendent being (God) rather than mere chance plus matter plus time then our sense of morality must be hinged on his very nature. (Note that if there is no creator then there is no basis for absolute moral claims). If God created this world then it begs the question: Has he given us absolute freedom to make our own morality (i.e. change His morality) or has he only given us the freedom to decide how we want to react to his moral standards? Those who may be uncomfortable with the fact that I have invoked God into the discussion may want to consider this:

Let us just assume that the religious folks are biased because they bring a transcendent personality (God) into the whole discussion so we will ignore their whining since they are not objectively looking at the issues but only looking at things through the lens of their God or gods. We would still have a problem because if we ever consider anyone (religious or not) who is intolerant of the gay lifestyle as being in the wrong it means we have in our heads a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. Yet the only way to say that something is absolutely right or wrong (good or bad) is if there is indeed a moral law based on which we can make such distinctions. For this moral law to be absolute it must have been given by a transcendent being. For if this is not the case then the moral law is relative and subjective. It is this transcendent being whom the religious folks call God and the very person whom some may not want us to invoke into this homosexuality discussion. Alas without the God factor we have no objective moral basis to even condemn the intolerant people since they are also acting based on their moral standards.

Anyone who at this point holds to a relative morality is practically useless in this discussion about whether or not certain rights should be granted to homosexuals. Here is why: relative morality simply says “this may be good for you but bad for me. I am not going to impose my morality on you because I believe it is wrong and you also have your own morality which is good for you.” Such an individual cannot and should not contribute to any public discourse on moral issues since his contribution carries no weight. Relative morality breaks down communication (since words like good and bad, right and wrong may carry very different meanings to the people involved) and makes life unlivable.

While some think the religious folks in this country are being intolerant by speaking out against homosexuality I contend that they are only being consistent with their religious principles. Any public figure or politician who would tell us that he/she is personally against homosexuality yet will not seek to impose (or advocate for) his morality on this nation is inconsistent. Why? If he really believes something to be wrong why would he allow the nation to go in that direction? And how many more decisions is he going to make for this country with such an attitude? The Christian scriptures condemn homosexuality and a real Christian cannot be true to his Lord by preaching otherwise. The Christian is under obligation to preach and persuade the homosexual as well as all men and women who are engaged in all the forms of sins which the Bible so clearly talks about, to repent of their sins and reconcile with God.But I believe that for the Christian message to get through to the homosexual, it must be conveyed with compassion and the desire to see them change because God loves them and wants to save them from their sins rather than with hatred for the mere existence of the homosexual.

What Is Life All About?

/4 Comments/in /by

“Although we agree in calling life a burden very few of us are willing to lay it down. The thought of impending death causes us all alarm”, wrote John Wesley, the father of Methodism. The irony is quite clear, isn’t it? Many of us go about complaining and philosophizing on how difficult and pointless life is. “Life is a waste of time”, one might remark as if to suggest that time were more valuable than life. Yet at the slightest hint of death we hurriedly seek ways to protect our lives. If life is indeed pointless then why protect it or keep it? Why do we get scared at the thought of impending death? Is it because we realize at that moment that life is really not pointless after all?

A humorous story is told of a man who decided to commit suicide since life to him had become burdensome and meaningless. After considering a number of methods by which he would accomplish this task he thought it wise to seek a friend’s counsel on the best method. The friend suggested hanging. “What!” he exclaimed, clearly horrified by his friend’s suggestion. “I tried that once and I almost lost my life”, he continued.

We may entertain the idea that life has no ultimate purpose but it is when we are pressed that we realize we really do not believe this idea. Life does have a purpose and this purpose gives life meaning. But what is this purpose? To know the purpose of life you must know why you are here in the first place. When the “why” of life has been established the “what” of life becomes defined, doesn’t it? The Christian scriptures teach that man is created by God and for God. If you accept this teaching then life must be deemed sacred. If you reject this teaching then you are left to your own autonomy since you trace your existence to no supreme being; your life is subject to the dictates of your lusts. You do what you want when you want and how you want. You decide what is right or wrong. In essence you are the standard for your life – you are your own god.

Like some commentators have observed, there are those who have tried to live life to suit their own desires thinking that it will give them happiness yet happiness still eludes them. They seek for happiness in materialism and do not find it. They seek for joy in sex which leaves them empty. They seek for fulfillment in fame and positions of power but they remain unfulfilled. The commentators thus have concluded that the reason for this is that even though such people choose to be happy they seek it in the wrong places. Although not many who find themselves in this situation would readily admit it openly, King Solomon however, is one of the few who do. In the book of Ecclesiastes he says:

I decided to enjoy myself and find out what happiness is. … Driven on by my desire for wisdom, I decided to cheer myself up with wine and have a good time. I thought that this might be the best way people can spend their short lives on earth.

I accomplished great things. I built myself houses and planted vineyards. I planted gardens and orchards, with all kinds of fruit trees in them; I dug ponds to irrigate them. I bought many slaves, and there were slaves born in my household. I owned more livestock than anyone else who had ever lived in Jerusalem. I also piled up silver and gold from the royal treasuries of the lands I ruled. Men and women sang to entertain me, and I had all the women a man could want…. Anything I wanted, I got. I did not deny myself any pleasure. I was proud of everything I had worked for, and all this was my reward. Then I thought about all that I had done and how hard I had worked doing it, and I realized that it didn’t mean a thing. It was like chasing the wind—of no use at all. [Ecclesiastes 2:1-11]

Just think about the last line, “It was like chasing the wind—of no use at all.” It sounds like a rather disappointing end, doesn’t it? Yet these are the words of one who denied himself no pleasure. Christian thinker, Dr. Ravi Zacharias has noted that the lowliest point in life is at the stage when you have just accomplished what you thought would deliver the ultimate and it has let you down. How true! Indeed there is nothing else so depressing than climbing to the top only to find that there is nothing there.

The book of Ecclesiastes ends with the following powerful words: “After all this, there is only one thing to say: Have reverence for God, and obey his commands, because this is all that we were created for. God is going to judge everything we do, whether good or bad, even things done in secret.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

Billy Graham once observed that man is made in God’s image so that there will be fellowship but sin (i.e. rebellion against God and His principles) breaks this relationship. He notes that there is indeed pleasure in sin for a time but soon it turns sour and empty. “The sinner becomes restless and feels the loneliness of sin”, notes Mr. Graham. A person may look quite happy in appearance but something can be missing deep down in the heart. C. S. Lewis, one of the finest Christian minds of the past century, once observed that “God invented man just like man invents an engine; a car is made to run on gasoline and it will not run properly on anything else.” In the same way God made man to run on Himself. God is the food we are supposed to feed on. If we decide not to feed on Him then there is nothing else He can help us with. Lewis explains that “God cannot give us happiness and peace apart from Himself; there is no such thing!” Christian speaker J. M. Njoroge has also observed that “Trying to meet our real needs without God is like trying to satisfy our thirst with salty water: the more we drink, the thirstier we become.  This is a sure path to various sorts of addictions.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer,the German theologian, also noted that happiness and peace depend so little on circumstances; they depend really on what happens inside a person. It was Blaise Pascal who observed that there is a God-shaped vacuum in everyone. A good reading of the Bible shows that indeed God seeks to fill this vacuum with Himself; He longs to give Himself and to satisfy our souls with the richness of his goodness. Our hearts are restless until they have found rest in our maker – God. We have wandered far away from God and it is only in the person of Jesus Christ that we can experience reconciliation with God and have inner peace and happiness. Are you right with God?