Trinity?

June 11, 2017

Susan Adams

Trinity Sunday     Matthew 28:16-20

Video available on YouTube, Facebook

The Sermon was delivered by John Salmon

When I was a young Anglican and 'being prepared for confirmation' – as we used to say – by an esteemed canon of St Mary's Cathedral as was, I was introduced to the clover leaf.

The canon thought it was his duty to introduce my group of young teens to a core concept in Anglicanism. He was going to teach us about The Trinity he said.

Some of you will remember 'confirmation class' and the teaching about what was considered 'essential for an Anglican to know'. I don't think we were taught the catechism as least I don't remember, but, how to understand the Trinity, we were certainly taught and that I do remember.

And I don't remember either what we were taught about the bible! But, along with a very clear memory about the importance of the Trinity, I learned that, if you protested against 'silly rules' you could get them changed! I learned the Trinity was like a three leafed clover, and I learned I could get away without wearing a hat and gloves – which were expected refinements to women's dress at that time – and that I would be expected to wear to church once I was confirmed into adult membership. Trinity and hats and gloves are forever linked in my mind.

I have never worn a hat to church, but like all good Anglicans I certainly did learn to picture God through the idea of the Trinity, and to speak about God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And, I certainly did learn that challenging what seems to be normative, can have life changing outcomes.

Just as I gave up the hat and gloves as essential for church attendance, I later gave up the Trinity as important to my faith and practice as an Anglican. But, I am still protesting unjust and 'silly' rules and do see critique and protest as key characteristics of my Anglican faith!

Canon Charles taught us that just as the clover leaf had three separate and distinct leaves but was one clover leaf, so God had three separate and distinct aspects but remained one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Ghost, as we said back then. He clarified this further by asking us who we were and noting that we were, at the same time, daughter, sister, and friend – or another similar combination of persona – or, more simply 'three or more ways of being' but still one person. It was not till many years later that I discovered we had been carefully taught what was probably one of the church's most important heresies. It was an easy way of understanding why these three, God, Jesus (because that was who we thought the son must be), and Holy Spirit, were seemingly interchangeable in prayers. But of course this is not so, they are not interchangeable and each have their separate identity and role in the Christian story.

When it come to the Trinity that is a fascinating story. It's a story of pragmatism and power, of identity and difference, of interfaith and cultural contexts.

How we understand the Trinity and why we have the Doctrine of The Trinity, it seems to me, are largely based in cross-cultural miscommunication, with words like hypostatis, homoousios, and homoiousios, being bandied around. (John might talk about this later in the discussion time). These words originated in the Greek language, and were translated into Latin, and later into English, but without a direct concept link and without a Biblical reference either. And now we are trying to make sense of them 1700 years later in our contemporary English without a frame of reference either! Gobbledygook they were and so they remain!

Arguments as to whether God was three persons but one God, and who came first and was therefore the most important, and whether Jesus was really God, a divine being or truly human, flew around... none of it made a lot of sense to me back then and I must say it still doesn't! But, as I mentioned I have learned something of the story of how this confusing and convoluted doctrine came to be on the first place: courtesy of Constantine, in 325, when he was anxious to clarify who was Christian and therefore entitled to the tax exemptions he had settled on the Christian church so he could unify the bishops behind his campaign to consolidate his empire! (John will talk more about this in the discussion after church today).

So, 1700 years later, is there anything helpful to us in the notion of Trinity? Certainly the Anglican Church here continues its affirmation of the doctrine, and only last year we were reminded by one of the Auckland bishops that the correct formula for the Trinity was 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. Notwithstanding this, there have been many attempts to update the concept, and to make it more relevant by using such language as 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer', and similar that allows for less anthropomorphic concepts to take hold. We are familiar with these here at St Matthew-in-the-City. A couple of weeks ago I used a Trinitarian blessing citing 'the curiosity of Eve, the courage of Mary and the energy of Sophia', and another proclaiming 'love, hope and challenge'. You can tell I am well schooled in the use of 'three', but three doesn't make THE TRINITY that is reserved for the formulary Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

No matter what words are used, or how Trinity is reframed these days to express the essence or 'beingness' of God, or what formularies are approved by the Church for speaking about God, I still want to say there is nothing essential about Trinity for Christian faith or for speaking about or addressing God.

The helpful thing for me regarding the Trinity and the various combinations of 'threeness', is to remind me there are many ways of coming to know and to speak about God, and many ways to give emphasis to aspects of our Christian faith – but there is nothing essential about 'three' – apart from this being considered the perfect number.

The reading from Matthew's Gospel we heard this morning ends with Jesus' instructions to his disciples to 'make disciples' and to teach them to do as Jesus taught them. In other words, feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, comfort those who are troubled, and to care for the earth. The longer passage, of which this is a part, contrasts this with the guards who are pledged by money to report on activities that indicate any signs of the renewal of activities such as these for they may disturb the status quo. What the words 'make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' suggest is that, the life changing impact of the heirs of God is not ended! It suggests that the story of God's activity in the world since the beginning: to bring justice and compassion among all people, is not over. It suggests that those who join those committed to such work will not be working alone, but rather with Jesus (one we know as a son or child of God) and with the Holy Spirit in continuity. It's our challenge, still, to choose which group we will commit to: the guards who pledge to maintain the status quo, or the disturbers, the ones who challenge and protest.

For me it is important not to get side tracked by the seeming 'Trinitarian Formulary' of this verse and to use it as a proof text. Rather it is important to recognise the efforts of the writer of the Gospel, the one we call Matthew, who was writing for a Jewish audience, to hold to the teaching of Jesus (in a world where there is a panoply of Greek and Roman Gods), that God is One God, and this God is with us when we choose justice and love, compassion and peace. The words of that text, which scholars tells us, are all too often used to justify the Trinity, were rather, for the gospel writer links with the language of the First Testament writers and intended to prove the veracity of Jesus teaching, ministry and a challenge to his followers.

For me it is a text that, rather than 'proving the Trinity', links past, present and future. It enables me to stand with the First testament writers and Jesus as they struggled to understand the intimate pervasive presence of God; the courage of Jesus in challenging the status quo of his day and all that held in place practices and protocols that inhibited the life and flourishing of the people; and the future that I am willing to engage with and act to ensure will be life giving for future generations.

We each find ways to interpret the teachings of the church so that our faith is not stultified, and we can be very glad that our traditions set before us a precedent in which this is not only acceptable but necessary. I encourage you to keep asking questions about doctrine and formularies – these are human constructions and a may or may not be helpful any longer to your faith.