I was thinking the other day about the Holy Trinity. Triunity, whilst something key and in a way unique to orthodox Christian theology, appears in differing contexts in many cultures and beliefs. To point to a few of these, and some concepts which are naturally described in base-3, at random:
The division of Being into Mind, Body, Spirit.
The division of Culture into Art, Science, Religion.
The Celts have been traditionally strongly tied to triune imagery: the Triskelion (the triune knot common to Celtic art). The division of Life into Mother, Father, Child. The division of a woman's life into Maiden, Mother, Crone. The Faery triad of Oak, Ash, Thorn. Examples are numerous.
In Hindu theology, the Brahmanical triad consists of Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva (respectively the Creator, Preserver, Destroyer).
The Taoist maintains the Great Triad (Heaven, Human, Earth).
We live within three spatial dimensions (hence the stability of the tripod).
Our eyes perceive color based on retinal cones which have sensitivities peaked at three wavelengths (red, green, blue) - hence three primary colors.
The components of music can be divided into Tone, Rhythm, Timbre.
Our sense of feeling is sensitive to pressure, texture and heat.
We are all subject to the natural and inescapable division of Time into Past, Present, Future.
Even in my own field of work, the symbol of radiation is the three-beamed trefoil, and radiation is commonly classed in three types: alpha, beta, gamma.
There is something compelling and universal about the number 3.
Why is there such pervasive appearance of triune concepts? One reason is that 'three' brings with it symbolism of balance. The division of one into two brings with it a natural conflict - a division based on extremes (think Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, Master and Slave, Teacher and Student, Yin and Yang, etc). Three brings balance to this division, where movement toward one aspect does not equate directly and linearly with movement away from one other.
Consider the Jews coming to terms with the meaning of Christ Jesus. For a people for whom the theology of a single, creator god - the One True God - was central to their spiritual and communal identity, the sudden division of their one God into Father and Son must have been a tremendous theological upheaval - an upheaval to which some were able to come to terms, and others not. Perhaps the advent of Christian trinitarianism was a natural resolution to the bifurcation of God - the One God that, when divided, still remains One. Despite our creedal definitions of Trinitarianism, and knowing that it is an effective working projection of God, we should be careful not to think that, because this is an effective theology, it is really an intrinsic defining quality of the Eternal Mystery that is God. If we think that we are able to define all that is God in so simple a manner, we must surely know that we have overstepped our capabilities.
But, returning to the functionality of Trinitarianism, it was the triune aspect of time that started me thinking about meanings behind the Christian Trinity, for it seems that our divisions of the Godhead are somehow symbolically compatible with the division of time. Christ, the historical embodiment of God in Man, is representative of the Past; He, as the man Jesus, provides us with an example of God within our time-bound world. His life gives us an anchor in the past which may keep our theology and our lives from drifting. The Spirit is representative of the present - it is the Spirit which we feel amongst us - manifest in our community. For me, it is through the Spirit that I experience God personally. The Father is symbolic of the Future - of creation, of potential, the Author of our future lives.
Thoughts, friends?
Steve
Me:
You forgot the three Fates. Also, in Hindu theology, all is contained within the one Atman, as far as I am aware; Christian mystics often like to point to the "persons" of the Trinity being, in fact, derivations of an eternal Godhead.
The point I was trying to make the other day is this: the Jews (the Old Testament is ripe with this imagery) had three main "components" to God - God, the Spirit of God, and the Wisdom (or Word) of God. However, it is easy to see that the second two stem (or eminate) from the first, Spirit and Word being derived from God, embodiments of God, manifestations of God's character, if you will. I can see how this would very simply and straighforwardly port over to early Christian theology - God is still God, the One God, there still exists the Spirit of God (derived from God), and now Jesus has become the physical, historical embodiment of the Word of God (but is still a derivation from God). What baffles me is the switch from this kind of hierarchy to the doctrine that all parts are totally equal; that now Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is equal with God, and is God. That's like saying my words or my breath or my legs are me. They are a part of me, they eminate from me, but they are not me.
Three is indeed a "magic" number. I understand why three should be naturally chosen over two, since two forces things to be diametrically opposed. But why choose two or three over one?
Steve:
My understanding is that in Hindu theology, the Brahman encompasses all, the Atman is representative of one's soul; and different schools equate the two in different ways. But I know little, so may be wildly wrong. Nevertheless, you are correct that in Hinduism all is brought together under One. But such is also the case in Christianity - all is under One God - or Godhead.
In talking about the Trinity, one must not make the mistake of talking about the three components being God, the Christ, and the Spirit. The three components are the Father, Son, and Spirit - the Father is certainly not to be equated with the God of the Old Testament - the entire Godhead is, instead.
I think there is no great overlap between the references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament writings and the Holy Spirit as referenced in the New Testament and Christian orthodoxy, nor is there the a direct correlation between the Wisdom and the Word, though I think these two are much closer than the Spirit case.
Ultimately, the Trinity provides us with a breakdown of the characteristics of the one God, providing us with a mechanism of conceptualisation of the Eternal and Infinite, by focussing on one or more aspects at a time. This is why I feel most comfortable thinking of the Trinity as projections of the Godhead, like a wavefunction.
One can think of the projections as, for example:
Father = < Psi_God* | Theistic Creator | Psi_God >Son = < Psi_God* | Humanity | Psi_God>Spirit= <Psi_God* | Personal presence | Psi_God>
But you could substitute your own operators in the projection, for we all take different meanings from the persons of the Trinity. Whatever you choose, the three projections (and it need not, in principle, be limited to three, in my opinion) are full projections of the entire Godhead. However, they do not contain all the information (that is, they do not allow you to work backward and reconstruct the Infinite God), as one cannot extract the wavefunction (and, for example, predict interference terms) from measurements of individual probability distributions projected from wavefunctions through measurement.
Ultimately, I don't think there is reason to choose three over one, and that is not what we have in orthodox Christianity - we have both Three and One.
PS - I extend my deepest apologies to everyone else for my geeky scientist's approach to theology - it is sadly just the way my brain works! :-)
Me:
Anyway, physics notation aside, here's a question. You said: "Christ, the historical embodiment of God in Man, is representative of the Past; He, as the man Jesus, provides us with an example of God within our time-bound world." But why should this particular embodiment be important? What about other "historical" instances of God? Biblically, there's Melchizedek, and elsewhere in different times and cultures we see "physical" manifestations of God (like Krishna, Buddha, etc). Is the important thing that the Avatar exists (once or always or ever), or that the Avatar concretely existed once? Because, if one assumes that God could, in fact, manifest himself in history again - in the future - then "God the Son" can't really be considered representative of the past. Ideas?
Teddy:
What about "...as it was in the beginnig, is now, and will be for ever."? (BCP) With God, all things are possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment