Trinitarianism and unity



John Wright Died 1742
"....in the hopes of the Blessed Resurrection...
Saint Andrew - Little Snoring[Link]
© Godric Godricson


The Trinity is a complex doctrine at the core of the Christian faith; requiring study and reflection to be fully understood. 21^st Century denominations often have distinctive views of ‘The Trinity’ and often those denominational views are mutually exclusive and the object of intense rivalry. We can see a continuing development of the doctrine over time from a fairly limited statement of belief by the 4^th Century Church at Nicea to a much more developed statement of  belief during the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council. How a Trinitarian perspective would impact on the afterlife and faith in the resurrection remains a quiet point. Are we, in effect, being lead into doctrinal error by contemporary Catholicism?

Many people initially hear their first account of ‘The Trinity’ from Church services in the Nicene Creed which exposes people to the doctrine and emphasises the central importance of the doctrine. The Trinity is developed as an idea in the Athanasian Creed.

“I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets”.

Wilhelm, Joseph. "The Nicene Creed." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 15 Nov. 2009

The Nicene Creed sets out the very basic and unelaborated tenets of the doctrine without explaining that doctrine in detail and this ‘vagueness’ allows debate, confusion and conflict. The creed also fails to define what it would be like to integrate a Trinitarian perspective into life and also into death.



The traditional power of Catholic theology
Saint Mary - Great Snoring [Link]
© Godric Godricson


 The Roman Catholic Church tried to explain and codify the doctrine as part of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Emphasising that the doctrine is a core  ‘mystery’; the Catechism teaches the doctrine in a ‘pithy’ style that draws upon the historical teaching and cultural traditions of this particular denomination. The Trinity  is a mystery that relies upon God to reveal the mystery to others and cannot, in isolation, be understood by humanity with reference to human reason alone. Equally, the Trinity cannot be understood without reference to the Incarnation. The catechism is a succinct  (although sometimes legalistic) statement of doctrine that tries to free the denomination from perceived doctrinal error. The Catechism also introduces  specific Church terminology such as "consubstantial Trinity"  which are explained; although,  the explanation is sometimes so highly refined that it is inaccessible as a means of  informing Christian life. There is a gap in logic in the that we may expect the Trinity to encourage a greater relatedness on Earth between humans and between the living and dead to mirror an eternal, heavenly,  integration

Building on earlier explorations of the doctrine (and acknowledging that some Protestant denominations totally refute the doctrine); Karl Rahner (SJ) has written extensively in this area such as “The Trinity” (1967). Rahner  developed earlier Creedal statements and catechism towards a  further refined perception and enhanced an understanding of this doctrine by exploring themes such as the “Economic Trinity”  and the “Immanent  Trinity”. Such developments are intellectually complicated and sometimes esoteric although, ultimately, Rahner encourages thinking about the doctrine without reaching an ultimately satisfying conclusion.



"Tradition" filling in the gaps
within Catholic theology
Saint Mary - Great Snoring [Link]
© Godric Godricson


The doctrine of The Trinity is at the heart of the Christian faith and yet the doctrine is one of the hardest to conceptualise and teach for both for clergy and  the laity. The doctrine tries to say something about the nature of God and to reconcile a simple monotheism  with a more complex  ‘Triune deity’.  The doctrine also fails to be a ‘theory of everything’ and sometimes remains an attempt to explain God. The doctrine refutes any assertion that we have three distinct Gods within the Trinity, instead, we have the proposition that within the Trinity we have three distinct personalities; all of which are co-equal and indivisible within a mystical union. Causing much controversy; the doctrine did not become accepted until the 4^th Century at the Councils of Nicea. Some non-creedal Protestant denominations have abandoned the doctrine altogether. A stumbling block for some Protestants; the Trinity is a conundrum whereby any discussion about the ‘one’ inevitably becomes a discussion about the ‘three’ and a discussion about the ‘three’ becomes a discussion about the ‘one’.  In explaining the Trinity It has often been argued (in simplistic terms) that God the father is ‘love’; Jesus as the son is that  Incarnate ‘love’ sent to the world and the Holy Spirit is how that divine ‘love’ is communicated to humanity. There is no attempt to explain how humanity and the history of humanity would be different if we truly understood the Trinity and incorporated Trinitarian beliefs into faith. 

The language surrounding the Trinity is specialist and exclusive; almost  legalistic. In discussing the Trinity, the theological term ‘person’ can be seen as being outside of common English usage. ‘Person’ may be conceptualised in terms of a separate and  unique. Person in this sense is not like a ‘human person’ or an individual. However, we cannot define ‘person’ simply by reference to what the ‘person is not. Instead, we may use our imprecise language to say that we believe each person of The Trinity to be perfect and whole and co-equal to the other persons of The Trinity.

Substance tries to unify confused human thinking and the imprecise vocabulary used in describing ‘God’ so that ‘Substance’  describes the state whereby the three persons within ‘God’ are unified into one and humanity comes to know God as a unified reality rather than a confused mélange.  The three persons of the Trinity are comprised of the same material or ‘substance’ with no differences between them.

Rather than dealing with the human idea of financial economics,  the Economic Trinity is a theological term that describes the aspects of The Trinity that are revealed to humanity and which are part of and involved with the ‘Economy’ of salvation. It has often been believed in the Latin rite Churches that Jesus is particularly involved with Salvation and Redemption through His Incarnation, Passion death and Resurrection.

The Immanent Trinity is that way of perceiving the  Triune Deity, as having an ‘essential existence’ that is outside of the comprehension and understanding of humanity and which is ‘unseen’ by humanity and which is essentially unravelled to humanity.  In accepting the ‘Immanent Trinity’, humanity has another way of conceptualising ‘God’ who was revealed to humanity through the Economic Trinity. 

Perichoresis; is a term from the Greek language used in English to try and describe a particular situation where the three ‘persons’ of The Trinity are unified together and are sometimes seen to be ‘in community’ or be an intimately close and shared/ inter-related state of existence. Whilst the English language may be blunt and imprecise when dealing with theological concepts first addressed in Greek; perichoresis as a concept attempts to render into a coherent form the idea of a Deity that is  “three personned” and indivisible rather than being three separate ‘persons’ who act in isolation from each other.

The practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for Christian life in the 21st century is immense. The Trinity is clearly expressed in the work of Roman Catholic theologians and the Roman Catholic Church and has reference to the West and I wonder what Orthodox Christians would make of The Trinity and especially with the unity of the living and the dead.  I suggest that  the doctrine of The Trinity was ‘simplified’ in the 4th century CE to make the teaching of essential Christian doctrine easier for Christians to understand and this’ simplification’ was redressed from the 1960’s onwards.  I will suggest that that a developed understanding of the ‘Holy and undivided Trinity’  places a greater emphasis on Christians to understand ‘diversity’, the liturgy and particularly the Eucharist as part of Christian life and community. I would also suggest that The Trinity also encourages humanity to consider the unity of all forms of life and the link between the living and the dead.

I suggest that we need to recognise an inconsistency in Latin Rite Christianity before exploring the practical implications of The Trinity for Christian life.  This inconsistency can most clearly be perceived in the documents of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council (1962-1965) which give the impression that the Trinity is at the heart of Christian life and doctrine. However, the documents are formed within a religious and cultural tradition which is largely “monotheistic”  in outlook and which finds it difficult to incorporate the Trinity. As a result it is often difficult to define what Catholic Christians actually understand about ‘God’ and what Christian communities would be like if a community of believers  embraced more overtly Trinitarian perceptions of God and implemented such perceptions into society.  History and liturgy points towards a monotheistic faith rather than a Trinitarian faith

One problem seems to be that Christian communities have; from the witness and ministry of Augustine of Hippo in the 4^th Century, been taught to view God as a rather monotheistic Deity or as ‘a unity’ and that minimises the ‘triune’ qualities of God.  In effect, the complexities of a ‘triune’ deity have been ‘ironed out’ and ‘simplified’.  A renewed emphasis on the Trinity  would set the church free from any Augustinian perception that stressed the ‘unity of God’ and effectively strip away the Trinitarian qualities from an essentially ‘triune’ deity.  It is unclear what a Church would look like if ‘set free’ from confines that have been in place for so long. In effect, we recognise that The Trinity is confusing, complicated and challenging to understand although it does open up to the Human experience to the concept of ‘diversity’, ‘mystery’ and co-operative endeavour as opposed to individualism.

‘Lumen gentium’, promulgated by Pope Paul (1964) as part of Vatican II, clearly moves on a little from Augustine’s simplified statements and acknowledges  that the doctrine of the Trinity is at the heart of the Christian community.  ‘Lumen gentium’ is a document set within the historic epoch of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960’s and acknowledges that the Church has been made one with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In effect, the modern ministry of the Church is officially and formally identified with the ‘ministry’ of the Economic Trinity without which Christian life and community is devalued. As part of the process of change within the Church; the ideas of the French ‘Nouvelle Théologie’ often focused and amplified the 16 documents of Vatican II  and concerned itself with renewing Christian life and Catholic expressions of worship.

An intellectual, academic and hierarchical  ‘re-discovery’ of the Trinity  became possible in the 1960’s. Catholic ‘intellectuals’ in the widest sense  began  the process of re-discovering The Trinity and also re-conceptualising humanity's relationship with a Triune God. Rather than simply seeing God the Father as a remote and distant figure; Latin Rite Christians are now more easily able to perceive God ‘in community’ or in ‘perichoresis’ with the other personalities of the Economic Trinity. A strengthened emphasis on the Trinity paradoxically informs humanity’s own relationships with each other, the living and dead. The worldwide Church is potentially offered the option of moving away from hierarchical and domineering structures based on ‘power’ and move towards patterns of behaviour that are inherently more collegiate. If we see the Latin Rite tradition as re-discovering the Trinity from the 1960’s;  we may also suggest that the Church  has the possibility of contemplating the more perfect interaction of the Church (as the mystical body of Christ on Earth)  with the Triune Deity.  It is probably in the hands of the laity how long they will allow the ‘formal Church’ to take in this reflection on purpose and direction before deciding to press the matter by either their action or increased indifference.

Whilst the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and a well educated Catholic elite has been able to re-discover a Trinitarian God hidden behind monotheistic ‘overlays’; it is not always clear that official teaching has effectively been communicated ‘downward’  to Catholic Christian communities. It is not apparent that parishes understand what a more Trinitarian God would mean for a Christian life in the 21^st Century or their own relationship with God or participation in The Eucharist.  There always remains a question about the resources that are given over to the training and education of the laity in parishes. In an age when people perceive a shortage of priests it seems convenient to train the laity.

For contemporary parishes and communities; It is in the Eucharist that they collectively come into the Presence of God in the most meaningful way. This is a very real although undeclared problem for Catholic Christians. That problem seems to relate to the question, “Is  it just Jesus that I receive at the Eucharist?”. For many Catholic Christians; the answer to this is “Yes!”. The common sense  perception being that the words of institution were delivered by Jesus and that Jesus alone is present in the Eucharist.  However, this cannot be correct.   Rather than the common sense perception of Jesus alone being present at the Eucharist; a restatement of the Trinitarian dimension is required whereby the Eucharist sees us  unified with all the consubstantial persons of the Trinity joined in ‘circumincession’.  The Trinity also re-states an idea of reintegration that is hard to accept from a monotheistic standpoint.

Despite reforms in the 1960’s. the present celebration of the liturgy may be characterised as being monotheistic in nature; even if the actual words reflect the Trinitarian formula. We perceive the current Eucharist as  a “fragmentation” of God into constituent  parts and this is unhelpful.  Christians should arguably  “Live the life of The Trinity” within the Eucharist and this is perhaps the direction of travel as a logical consequence of Vatican II; post conciliar theologians and even the development of alternative and diverse theologies such as “Liberation theology” and even “Queer Theology”. Humanity may begin to see ‘Diversity’ and ‘Freedom’ as a major outcome of a re-exploration of ‘Trinitarianism’. Rather than the rather false and self conscious ‘sign of peace’ given in English parishes at the Eucharist are we being directed towards a real and more perfect unity as Christians that reflects the unity of the Trinity?

The modern Church forgetting
old knowledge

© Godric Godricson

One  area of Christian life to be addressed as a result of  Vatican II is the collegiality of the Church and in I do not simply mean the Collegiality of the Episcopacy. Instead, the Church itself seems to require a degree of change that leads to a ‘real’ diversity being developed. Just as Jesus is not present in The Eucharist in isolation; then no one group in society can be seen as being dominant or the sole representative of humanity within the Church. Can humanity  collectively aim to form  individual societies on Trinitarian principles of perichoresis? In effect such unity would require the diminution of  social distinction and a situation whereby social class is less important than it was and whereby other divisions of status and rank are erased in our collective service to a Triune God. This will be extremely painful for organised religion which often works within the frameworks of society. I hesitate to use the term ‘the Priesthood of all believers’, although the idea of a unified Trinity does perhaps communicate something to us of the unity that God sees as being both natural and part of that Immanent Trinity that remains mysterious. I also believe that a Trinitarian view of faith allows humanity to integrate the living and the dead.

In considering the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for Christian life, it is evident that humanity is heir to a diverse Christian heritage  which requires hermeneutics to fully determine. Society is very far from the unique perfection inherent in the Trinity. However,  from the 1960’s and the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council we may question whether or not we are experiencing a process whereby the Holy Spirit is directing Christian life as a whole and Catholic theological study in particular towards a more reflective position. It is the case that if the Latin Rite Churches are to survive that they must change radically and it may be that ‘et Unum Sint’ (that they may all be one) is the direction in which the Trinity offers to humanity as a model for Christian life?

Relics and the veneration of the dead

© Godric Godricson

Full of life

God in the sacraments in Malta
© Godric Godricson

The ‘God of hope’ seen in Jesus is one and the same as that same God seen in the Book of Exodus. We can see that instead of a new idea born out of nothingness He is "the absolute future" (Karl Rahner) or, figuratively, the Lord of the future, who says, "Behold, I make all things new." 

It may be deduced that the Revelation of God to mankind contained within the Hebrew Bible must be understood to be able to understand subsequent developments in terms of hope and the development of hope for mankind.

In the debate,  we can see that the idea of ‘hope’ was always contained within God’s relationship with mankind as portrayed both within the Hebrew Bible and in God’s message to the people of Israel. The idea of ‘hope’ for the future remained  ultimately undeveloped in the area of Sheol and the afterlife although it became amplified through time and was ultimately revealed. 

In the Resurrection of Jesus we have a fulfilment of the earlier messages contained within the Hebrew Bible and so strongly is that message of Resurrection hope portrayed; that Saint Athanasius, writing in the 9th Century AD,  can evoke the story of Lazarus in such terms.

God in the sacraments in Malta
© Godric Godricson

 “…but into the midst came Jesus, the Storehouse which is full of life, the Mouth which is full of sweet odour, the Tongue which frightens death, the Mighty One in His commands, the Joy of those who are sorrowful, the Rising of those who have fallen, the Resurrection of the dead, the Assembly of the strong, the Hope of the hopeless.”

Humanity has been given hope in Jesus and the suicidal God becomes the store for all that is good. It is hardly surprising that death is vanquished and burial becomes associated with religion. Churches become the focus for burials and the horrors of overcrowded burial sites become understandable

Hope and Justice



Giving the best of human work to God in Malta
© Godric Godricson



An Israelite belief in the afterlife is evident over time and amplified in II Maccabees and I Enoch. In effect, it could be argued that in the centuries immediately preceding Jesus, the idea of a bodily resurrection was well understood and would not have needed a detailed explanation. The association of death, religion and burial was already made and understood.

The question seems to be "What was it in the conceptualisation of the Resurrection of Jesus that unified earlier Jewish beliefs in a physical resurrection?" What was contained within post exilic and apocalyptic traditions which had the power to inspire gentiles with no knowledge of such religious traditions?  It seems that a new facet gained prominence in Jewish beliefs surrounding resurrection as a concept and specifically in the Resurrection of Jesus. This new facet departed from the emphasis of the earlier Hebrew Bible  and  this new facet was the idea of ‘Hope’. The dark, vague and forbidding Sheol of the earlier  Hebrew Bible was  sometimes ameliorated by positive, or hopeful, images although the most optimistic post exilic and apocalyptic imagery surrounding resurrection did not contain such ideas of hope as made manifest in the Resurrection of Jesus.  In this Christian death we see something better than life on earth and something to be desired,

The success of The Resurrection as an idea is that it unites ‘hope’ with ‘justice’ and ideas of theodicy.  It may be that an early belief in God; without hope of reward is subsequently seasoned by ideas of ‘justice’. This development in theology evidences a change in the way that the relationship between mankind and God is perceived by humanity. We now have a positive carrot to encourage humanity and to balance the stick.

Karl Barth and "Wonderment"



Hemblington - All Saints [Link]

© Godric Godricson

For Barth, the ‘study of God’  inherent in the term ‘theologian’ is not enough to define his own specific perception of what it is to be a  ‘theologian’ and I want to say something about Barth and his view of "Wonderment".

Theology is ‘real’ for Barth and framed within the human experience of time and space rather than being a purely dry or dusty academic pursuit. Theological study is not some ‘fantastical’ pursuit or  the study of some heroic fable set in some remote and mythological time. Unlike the story of Gilgamesh or mythical stories from the Middle East, the history of Jesus is real for Barth and what may be described as the ‘Risen Christ’ is to be discovered and pursued in both an historical period but also in humanities  continuing encounter with the mystical reality of God. Barth is not describing a new 'Osiris', a death cult or anything other than the 'Risen Christ'.

The normal tools of the theologian in the study of the reality of God are not enough for Barth who tries to step outside of human experience and  who presents the concept of theological ‘wonder’ as a central feature of how the theologian may conceptualise  God and perhaps then go on to encounter God through Jesus as the second personality of the triune God.  Barth has a very clear conception of the role and nature of theology, defined in opposition to totalitarian oppression, that may be at variance with more usually accepted conceptualisations in a more liberal and ‘humanistic’ tradition . 

Hemblington - All Saints [Link]

© Godric Godricson

Barth may be seen to define ‘ wonder’ occurring “when someone encounters a spiritual or natural phenomen that he has never encountered before”.  

However, Barth indicates that the pursuit of theology  and  theological ‘wonderment’  leaves an indelible imprint on the theologian  and this is for Barth is expressed in terms that sound similar to descriptions of an ordination in that unspecified ‘indelible’ changes occur. The person who studies theology and experiences theological “wonderment” is said to be “afflicted” by theology. It is clear that, for Barth, there is an intensity involved in the study of theology and one suspects that in the ideas of Barth there is a personal cost involved in the pursuit of theology. Barth is arguably stating  that there is a cost  to the individual in encountering the Risen Christ that cannot be found in other study and research? Intense and committed; as the ideas of Barth undoubtedly are, how do we analyse Barth’s arguments and evaluate them? Certainly, Barth is correct in seeing that the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus as the fulfilment  of God’s plan, however, is Barth’s ‘other worldliness’ always helpful in an understanding of the nature of God and Revelation?  Does Barth diminish too much the role of humanity in his wish to describe the centrality of God? Hpw does death and seperation become defined for Barth?

Hemblington - All Saints [Link]

© Godric Godricson

Barth  introduces biblical stories about ‘wonders’ as evidence of the smaller lights that lead to the larger light. We may perceive the image of a finger that consistently and irrevocably points towards Jesus in a specific historical epoch. The signs and symbols of Biblical events are merely that; signs and symbols, all of which point like a finger to the divinity of Jesus and the cosmic significance of Jesus. Barth goes into depth about the manner in which Jesus fulfils scriptural accounts about the Messiah. Using the metaphor of “lights”;  Barth expands the concept of ‘clues’ that are there laid out and to be found by the theologian, all of which point to God.

The concept of theological “wonderment” is one which implies a single minded focus on the study of God to the exclusion of all other areas and in some ways Barth advocates a single minded focus on God which is commendable but which may also restrict thought and development. 

An evaluation of Barth and “Wonderment”  should consider the thought of Barth himself who in “wonderment” emphasises the eternal and unapproachable ‘otherness’ of God and how God (as the eternal creator) mystically points to Himself through Jesus rather than through the experience of humanity.  In his work; Barth points to the centrality of the Word of God rather than the actions of humanity. At Cana; human beings are the extras, or perhaps the little lights, that point to the centrality of Jesus and the greater light  made evident there. 

Hemblington - All Saints [Link]

© Godric Godricson

Struggles within pre-war German theology  influnced Barth and we must generally question  the effects of German National Socialism on German religious observance and the challenges presented to Christianity of all persuasions and ‘confessions’ by Nazism. Similarly, translation from the German langauage  may have to inadvertent emphasis on certain aspects when compared and contrasted to a more ‘Anglo-Saxon’ approach to theology. 

Barth appears to contain a particular intensity that springs from the German experience and which may not be applicable to other experiences of Christianity. Barth may not have relevance to others ‘theologies’ and in any attempt to place tradition at the centre of faith he may also restrict thought and change. Tradition is hardly likely to be sympathetic to ‘liberation theology’, ‘feminist theology’, ‘black theology’ or even ‘Queer theology’.

In essence, Barth’s works fit into a German speaking post war epoch when german theologians tried to exorcise the ghosts of their own past. Some of the ideas presented by Barth are part of this intellectual and historical process. Equally, Barth’s views are perhaps focussed on an overly traditional ‘other worldliness’ that reduces the need to consider the human response to God and the natural world.

God as a novelist

The faith of the Maltese people
© Godric Godricson

The idea of God writing individual human activity like a novelist writing a role has its attractions and from this image we doubtless gain a real idea of a personal relationship to a God who is with us and we also develop, manifest and maintain the concept of a God who is with us over time. The author of our lives is there and we have a directing force as others also have a directing force.

Julian of Norwich doubtless had that idea of a directing and personal God when she wrote down her ‘shewings’ and she described her experience as being ‘enfolded in love’. For Julian, there is God who is a reality and God who can be known and who intervenes in our lives.

In a contemporary sense, the novel is a comforting and acceptable genre; although there is a problem in the idea of the novel  in that we are sometimes left with the idea that the novel must have a good ending. If we are in the novel then perhaps we must have a positive outcome? Regrettably, if we hold to the idea of a novel (and with God as the writer) perhaps hard issues and adverse circumstances are harder to bear?  if we believed that we would have a positive ending then a bad outcome is perceived with greater pain and sentiment. In believing that God is ultimately good then we believe that we will have a good ending. We believe that God directs and leads us and in this there is a temptation to give up free will and expect certainty rather than surprises.

An account of lives lived in faith
© Godric Godricson

Against this backfrop, we come up against hard ideas of human suffering. Why Me? We ask why God is not protecting us and we may develop ideas of worthlessness in a meaningless milieux. In perceiving God as a writer and having God in that paradigm has its disadvantages. God acts in the world and we accept that as people of faith and He speaks over time, however, we have a problem and I want to share that problem. I sense that in conservative or even traditionalist Christianity we perceive God as always being with us and interested in what happens to us. We are sometimes in despair when we see God as being absent  from our lives. How then do we talk to God about such occasions? How do we make representation to God?

I hear about past relationships and past pains and in all of this I hear questions. Why did that happen? The problem is asking God about that point in time. We have the concept of theodicy and I could discuss that with people. However, it seems that at some fundamental problem people do not have the words to simply ask God about issues and questions. If we are used to a directing and magisterial God how do we work up the courage to ask questions. Understanding about theodicy is not enough to people who cannot conceptualise asking God a question.  I have friends in the Reformed Jewish tradition who can ask questions of God and they ask “What were you thinking God?”. They “qvetch” and “plotz” about issues and in many ways this is healthy and is engaging with God. My Jewish friends have perhaps moved beyond being simple characters in the novel of their own lives and they have become more like interactive characters who want explanations.

God is the glue that holds the world  together but we have an increasing duty on us to interact with God as we move towards maturity. I know that metaphors are ultimately bound to failure but if I push this metaphor a little further;  we must increasingly learn to co-author the novel as we understand more about God and His world.

"Through a glass, darkly" - 1 Corinthians 13:12



"Through a glass, darkly"
An overused phrase!

© Godric Godricson



I am not given much to speculating on the works of Paul who I generally dislike for the way that he argusably mislead Christian thought. In retrospect, Paul seems a ‘Johnny come lately’ who came to dominate the followers of Jesus through his ‘activism’ and came to adversely influence Western Christology.

Yet, in the phrase, "Through a glass, darkly", Paul does capture something of the human experience of life on Earth and our search for immortality and that reflects on the cemetery and burials. We jointly and collectively have an experience of life that abruptly and sometimes without warning takes us from this world of the living to the world of the dead. We do, in fact, see "Through a glass, darkly" and we perceive little of the world that comes ahead which is always 'the other world'. However, just because I accept Paul's statement on one level it doesn’t mean that I accept Paul on all levels.



Momenti Mori Malta

© Godric Godricson



Paul seems determined not to understand the world of the living in all its confusion and magnificence. Instead, Paul seeks to positively compare the life ahead to the one we have now. Paul so much believes in the idea of the heavenly Kingdom that he devalues life on Earth and Paul presents a positive life as being narrow and uncomfortable. Like a permanent hair shirt, Paul tries to ensure that human existence is so uncomfortable that we desire the freedom of the afterlife. Paul was probably a man without joy in his life and without the love of his fellow citizens. I suspect that Paul was feared by his associates rather than loved by them and his denigration of pleasure and joy probably became accepted rather than being an idea that was warmly embraced.

The tendency to idolise the afterlife as evidenced in Pauline literature is sometimes mirrored in popular culture. The film “Casper” witnesses  the ghost having fun and the film sets aside sadness at an early death in favour of a happy and idyllic existence. “Casper” is an example of the living having an inferiority complex when compared to the dead. In this film we desire the freedom of death so that we too can have fun and be like Casper. This is a great shame and I would suggest that as an alternative perspective, humanity should be determined to enjoy this world for what can be experienced.



A place for transitions

© Godric Godricson



Seeing "Through a glass, darkly" often begins in the cemetery as a place where the living and the dead come into contact and where we begin to say our ‘goodbyes’. We collectively start to reflect upon our humanity and we begin to reflect upon our mortality. Regrettably, this is also the place where Paul’s statement is used uncritically by ministers of religion often without analysis. Quite often, we listen without comment even if we disagree.

In reality, the cemetery is a complicated crossover place of transitions and a site that has often existed for a very long time. In England, cemeteries are often a thousand years old although more modern cemeteries serve the same function. In simplistic terms, the living lay to rest their dead in the cemetery and we see this as a sort of parting of the ways. We can also see the cemetery as a sort of hygiene tool that separates the corruption and decay of death in favour of the garden. In more complex terms, we can also see the cemetery as a metaphysical jump-off point into eternity where we are committed to the geographical location and to the Church as an institution (other religions have their own equally valid version). The cemetery is an entity at a number of levels. Paul arguably would see the cemetery positively because it signals an end to life, physicality and enjoyment and the start of a sort of “Casperian” existence.



The joys of life

© Godric Godricson



Although Paul did perceive the after world, "Through a glass, darkly", this doesn’t mean that life on earth is really without joy or happiness or worth.  This would be to judge this existence far too harshly and with little compassion. Putting it simply, Paul didn’t value life as he lived it and he probably missed out on entirely simple pleasures. Paul’s comment is like the writers of “Casper” who praise the life ahead rather than enjoying the life that we have. “Casper”  as a film makes the life of the ghost more desirable than the life of the living and,  similarly, Paul makes the life ahead more worthy than that we currently have.  Now I can hear some people say “Quite so!” My point is that in ‘bigging up” the afterlife Paul simultaneously denigrates the physical Creation of life on Earth that we experience through our current senses.



The glory of Creation

© Godric Godricson



Paul's often quoted phrase ignores the physical world of light and colour and sound in favour of the unknown. It is as if Paul is getting into the grave and covering himself with dirt in favour of a quick death. This desire for oblivion isn’t natural and seems to be an expression of Pauline fervour rather than a route map for immortality. The zeal of the newly converted?  Paul isn’t someone to be emulated. Instead, Paul is someone to be pitied. Paul has probably never known the joy of the world and seen the colour of flowers and harvested wheat. Paul is seeing  "Through a glass, darkly" because he perceives this world poorly. We can imagine Paul desiring  a death that would hasten the crossing over of his soul to a certainty that was easier to deal with compared to the  uncertainty of life in the physical world. Perhaps in the cemetery way ahead becomes clearer?



The view from the cemetery

© Godric Godricson



So, we have a well used phrase "Through a glass, darkly" that is often quoted and is seen as a sort of standard statement. People with little or no theology use the phrase without criticism and by using the phrase they effectively praise Paul rather than pausing for a moment and praising the whole of Creation. What I would like to emphasis is that life on Earth can be beautiful and joyful. Whatever your religion, (you may also have no religion), life can be fun and by our enjoyment of the created environment we also give thanks for that Creation. The cemetery is a very real starting point for a transition to the ‘other world’ where we start to say goodbye but it is not the centre of our world. We bid farewell to the departed, comfort the living and create pilgrimage points for our family and even our entire culture. We set up monuments and we cry and we also realise the limits as our own mortality. Cemeteries are useful places and we do well to preserve them and the individual identity of the departed for the future.

Listen to the phrase "Through a glass, darkly" in a critical manner and don’t be overwhelmed by it. Pehaps you could have a look at 2 Maccabees  with its emphasis on Resurrection, intercession and prayers for the dead. Much more engaging an arena than Paul and 2 Maccabees implies a communion of this existence and the next. The cemetery becomes more of a place of communication than one where everything goes a little fuzzy.