What Kind of God Is Worth It? (part 3)

Another issue that the debate over Jesus' divinity brings up is the subject of the Trinity. First off, let's dispel the Muslim misinformation of what the Trinity is. The Trinity has nothing to to do with the Virgin Mary. It has been and always will be a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being co-equal, co-eternal "persons" of the Divine Unity of God. The Trinity has also been misunderstood to mean 1+1+1=1 (logically fallacious) or 1/3+1/3+1/3=1 (doctrinally fallacious). Jesus isn't .333 of God, which is a fine batting average, but a poor percentage of the Divine nature. Likewise, the "personhood" of the individual members of the Trinity is qualitatively different than when speaking of God as a "person," thus the mathematical objections fall. This is not the space today to explore the mystery of what "persons" means, but we must keep in mind that the formal delineations of the Trinity are meant to define the observed scriptural boundaries of, not explain the full substance of, the nature of God.

However, can we determine the need for some sort of plurality within the nature of God outside of revelation? I believe it is possible. If we accept that we are creatures made in the image of God and that God is good, then it can be reasonably postulated that the good things we see in humanity are reflective of some aspect of the inherent being of God. For example, we are creative (though we cannot create something out of nothing like God); God creates; thus, the correlation between God and his image in humanity demonstrates that creativity is as much a part of God's nature as human nature.

So let's look at this in the realm of relationships. Human beings are relational. Relationality is good. Therefore, as beings in the image of God, we can deduce that God, too, is relational. However, relationality implies plurality. So what? Someone may argue that the reason for creation is to meet this relational urge in God. But then that makes God dependent upon something outside of himself, which leads down a slippery slope which ultimately makes God no more superior to his creatures, which makes such a God no God at all. By definition, God is self-sufficient. Therefore, God must in some sense be "plural." This lays pre-revelation groundwork for the doctrine of Trinity nascent in revelation and formally codified by the Church.

So either God is radically monistic and non-relational, or God is a unity expressed in a plural nature. Let's consider what would happen if God is radically monistic and non-relational. The image of God in humanity would not include relational aspects at all. Thus, any claims of revelatory literature or authorities (e.g. the Bible, Quran, traditions, councils) regarding anything governs human relations would be either 1) human words ascribed to God (lies), or 2) human words mistaken to be from God (deceits). If the communications regarding human interactions were indeed genuine, they would necessitate a God that has a relational interest in humanity.

Is it possible that a non-relational God would have a relational interest in humanity? If so, then such a God would develop means of communication and pronouncements reflective of such. In other words, God would not use relational language in reference to himself. He would not use covenants, relational imagery, emotional language, or even laws to communicate with us. Additionally, what would be communicated from such a God would be ways by which our relational ways as humans might be curtailed, purged, or otherwise stifled. What we see in the record of claimed revelations from God is a God who prizes relationships and seeks to improve human relational interactions with both himself and with one another. If not (if a non-relational God has no relational interest in humanity), then all claims formerly seen as Divine that have ultimate positive bearing upon anything relational must summarily be regarded as inauthentic. A relational God alone has the right and the inclination to communicate with us relationally and make demands upon our relationality that enhance our relational interaction with God and others.

Because the image of God in humanity and the revelatory record bear witness to a relational God, the proper conclusion is that God is in some way plural yet a Divine unity. Therefore, I argue that a radically monistic non-relational God is an idol not worthy of our emulation, devotion, or recognition. Only a relational dynamically plural yet one God is worth it.