Jerusalem – The problem that just won’t go away.

On the east side of Jerusalem, over the Kidron Valley – opposite the walls of the Old City and the famed Golden Gate, stands the Roman Catholic Church named ‘Dominus Flevit’ meaning, ‘The Lord Wept’. “As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If this day you only knew what makes for peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes…”

What is the furore all about?

The Israeli / Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades, with extremists on both sides making peace efforts very difficult. The east part of Jerusalem has traditionally been part of the Palestinian mandate since 1948 but had, since the Jordanian war, been in the hands of Jordan. In 1967 Israel forcibly took it back and were then in the unenviable position of being labelled as the occupiers, which recognisably irked them!

Donald Trump’s announcement that the US now recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that they would be moving their embassy to that location, was more of a fulfilment of a campaign promise than it was designed to facilitate peace – a banal piece of ‘statesmanship’ if ever there was one. It suggests more brinkmanship than diplomacy and plays directly into the hands of the Jewish extremists, Netanyahu included.

As to the controversy which it has provoked one has to ask whether it is the statement itself or the effect of that statement that is at issue here because in reality, it will not change the status quo. I would say this: that the answer depends on which side of the fence you find yourself, but the effect of the statement is more likely what is at issue here. There are many different elements at play and it is difficult to pronounce on one without that affecting the other!

Also, as one commentator points out,[1] Trump’s statement is so full of ambiguities and holes, just what is it that he hopes to gain from it – clarity, I think not. It really does seem like something which has been hurriedly concocted and not something to which Trump applied his mind – certainly it appears that no regard has been paid to the consequences of this action.

For example, when Trump talks of Jerusalem does he mean JUST West Jerusalem, or does he lump it all together? He talks of Israel’s sovereign claim to Jerusalem as their capital, which would understandably infer the WHOLE of Jerusalem, surely? But the president then contradicts himself by stating in the same proclamation:

“Today’s actions — recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing the relocation of our embassy — do not reflect a departure from the strong commitment of the United States to facilitating a lasting peace agreement. The United States continues to take no position on any final status issues. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties. The United States is not taking a position on boundaries or borders.”

Just what type of sovereignty was he referring to? Such couched prevarication just exacerbates an already heated debate and jeopardises any prospect to peace that there may have been – but then, maybe that is what they wanted?

Extremism, whether on the left or the right, or effected by Christian fundamentalists, Muslim extremists or indeed Jewish Zionist fanatics, is reprehensible, unproductive and distinctly anti-social but unfortunately it is one of the ills of our time. Thus, as polemical as it may sound and in my humble opinion, the Zionist fanatic who burns or desecrates Christian places of worship, destroys Palestinian houses and takes away their livelihood is really no better than the Palestinian terrorist who destroys peaceful Jewish lives!

However, before we begin discussing each of the peoples of interest in this opinion piece and in the interests of transparency, let me disclose my worldview, my cognitive orientation as an individual because without doubt one’s philosophical outlook on life has great bearing on what you as an individual put forward as your belief.

By religious conviction, I am a committed Christian, a Catholic; one who believes in a society which is based on compassion, moral rectitude, a joy for the gift of life and a commitment to the forces of justice and peace.

So, what grants a people the right to declare the land, be it region or country, as their inalienable birth right, as their homeland.

For the Jewish people, it is religion. It is the promise made by God in millennia past, to the people of the Exodus, of a promised land, a place to call their own. Despite the Zionist tradition regarding the promise made to Abraham as having been given to all Jews, including proselytes and their descendants, it does not, in my view, include every individual worldwide, who happen to espouse the same religious conviction. That is just a convenient way to populate your belief and justify your action!

The same must be applied to the Palestinian claim – they likewise must have had ancient forbears of this land, whether they be Canaanite or Philistine which, I might add, applies to the majority of Palestinian Christians living in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of those ‘Palestinians’ who flowed into the area in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries in search of work and a better life, but surely then they should be treated in the same way that Jewish migration to Israel has occurred?

As religious as I am, I have to say that the emotive and collegial nature of religion does not always make for the most rational means of dealing with disputations such is this.

I do not claim to have the answer, the silver bullet to solving this impasse but I will say this, that Palestinians who have an ancestral claim to living in the area must be equally accommodated in any solution. Perhaps consideration should be given to the creation of a federal state, with some form of autonomous decision making?

---

[1] (Anderson, 2017)

Bibliography

Anderson, S. R. (2017). Trump’s Jerusalem Policy is more ambiguous then it seems. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/11/trumps-jerusalem-policy-is-more-ambiguous-than-it-seems/

Advertisements

On the Misfortune of Being White

PREMISE

I have been considering the contents of an article written recently by Father Russell Pollitt of the Jesuit Institute in Johannesburg titled ‘Understanding White Privilege’. In it he puts forward the opinion that white folk are inherently privileged, whether they believe it to be so or not – it is, he implies, a fact of life. This is the flipside of racial injustice, Fr. Russell says, an odious practice which we here in South Africa are all too familiar with. It would seem that the nefarious side of European history has a rather unpleasant and long lasting side effect – it’s mephitic odour just will not go away, in fact it is, to all intents and purposes, permanent!

Yet, in the spirit of ‘audi alteram partem’, it is only fair, nay a moral imperative to listen to a balancing point of view. A view which attempts to bring this very real and very valid point into some form of contemporary context.

ADMISSION

Firstly, though the general premise can be applied to the global ‘Black v White’ tensions, I am writing from a South African perspective and so examples tend to reflect the South African dynamic.

That apartheid happened is an unassailable fact which bears no denying and for which there needs to be redress; superficially, this has supposed to have been happening for the last twenty-three years through such vehicles as affirmative action, BEE, land reform etc., or so the official line is communicated.

And to set the record straight on my part, regarding my own perspective, slavery, colonisation and any other condescending racial practices are not figments of some ancient mythical legend. No, they were very real, very hurtful and DID benefit those who conquered; but then that was the lot of any conquered nation, whether conquered by the Roman Empire, the Vikings, the British, the Boers – even I venture to say the Zulu’s under King Shaka. As white South African folk, we cannot deny that we were recipients of such privilege – a privilege denied to the black populous of the time. We had access to good education – they did not, a superior health care system – they did not and were beneficiaries of lob-sided infrastructural improvement – which they were not, amongst probably many others.

One could also perhaps argue that South African children born post 1994 also benefited in an offhanded sort of way, from the ‘privilege’ afforded their parents; though this should reduce significantly as time moves forward.

So in writing this piece, I personally am impelled to acknowledge that simply through my ancestry I have benefitted from oppression, I am a recipient of privilege and always will be.

RESPONSE

Anyway, it is what it is and no amount of wishful thinking on my part is going to take the effects of apartheid away. I am not some form of liberal apologist, but contemporary observation alone would tell one that from a general black perspective, white privilege appears as real as ever, to what degree of reality is debateable. That perception though, I would venture to say, is not created so much by white privilege as it is exacerbated through the machinations of professional opinion makers with a very different agenda. A very poignant example is the hollow aphorism, ‘White Monopoly Capital’, which seems bound to be repeated ad nauseam within the public space.

It seems that this racial epithet, ‘White Privilege’, is one that is permanently pinned to anyone unlucky enough to be born white, whether they deserve it or not – it seems to be some sort of perverse and ancient curse, something akin to the ‘original sin of Adam’!

But why? Why am I doomed to carry this Albatross around my neck, even unto to my dying day, causing me to stoop low with some intangible and anonymous form of guilt? What unspeakable thing is it that I have done to deserve such infamy? Well the truth of it is, nothing that heinous really! I have not knowingly instigated racial tension, however (and this is what Fr. Russell is getting at, I think) because of my racial classification (White, Caucasian, European – whatever) I have been the recipient of some form of privilege stemming from the oppression or subjugation of others and in the South African context, this would refer to the Black population. I’m fine with that statement, rather embarrassed, but fine. After all, one cannot deny the truth albeit that varying forms of this epithet are all the rage in contemporary political South Africa!

I speak and position myself here also from a global perspective – that is from a stance which covers the entire grouping racially defined as being ‘white’ but also not confined to any specific country or community. Obviously however, given my domicile, much of what I say is referenced to the South African environment.

So why would this dreaded millstone be the lot of any fair skinned person yesterday, today and probably tomorrow? Is there any specific timescale for its removal or is it something as permanent as the air we breathe? Was it always like this, or is this a fairly recent phenomenon? If the rhetoric in South Africa is to be believed, then it started the moment Jan van Riebeeck set foot on Cape soil, though I think it is bigger than that!

Massingale^[1] defines whites as being an agglomeration of various labels. He mentions that it is important to note how the term ‘white’ is a fluid category which, over the years, has evolved to include groupings from other parts of the world – encompassing peoples of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (presumably peoples of Arabic descent). Wikipedia^[2] also groups Asians into that same ‘white’ category. Massingale further clarifies that, rather than being a racially distinct grouping in terms representing skin colour such as white or black, this term refers more to a socio-political grouping; this makes sense to me as it then explains the grouping of different ethnic groups into the category ‘white’.

However, at the foundation of it all is the archetypal concept of ‘black’ vs. ‘white’; again Massingale points this out^[3] when he says that this concept remains the critical reference benchmark for measuring a social group’s position in public life. He quotes renowned American sociologist, Joe Feagin^[4] describing the relationship between black and white peoples as ‘archetypal’, the foundation upon which whites’ treatment of other non-European groups has been centred.

In a way I find this characterisation of me as a ‘white’ person quite demeaning. It seems to imply, if you will excuse the hyperbole, that white people are the source of all that is evil and bigoted in the world and that is simply not true! Fr. Russell terms this state of affairs a ‘disease’ and the only way to treat it is to understand its anatomy and thereby eradicate it by attacking the very source of the ‘disease’!

But what is the source? It is, according to Massingale, white attitudes; their [whites] false sense of superiority over other groupings which contributes to the aura of privilege and which pervades every white individual. He says that “a change in attitudes, the loving acceptance of individuals and groups.” is what is needed^[5];this is a very broad description of the ideal that white attitudes must embrace.

And yet, who defines the content of these attitudes, who says when this change has actually occurred. Also who would actually make the decision to drop the racial epithet – ‘white privilege’? There is no worldwide governing or ruling body, no worldwide committee on racism – would it come down to a United Nations directorate initiating the racial emancipation of the white grouping? It just seems so unreal!

CONCLUSION

Given the fickle nature of humanity, it is unlikely that there would ever be consensus in this regard, thus perpetuating the label ad infinitum. To me the secret here is the simple analogy, asking are you forever looking backwards, or are you looking forwards but not forgetting where you have come from.

Paul Kivel in his book Uprooting Racism, says “Racism is not going to end tomorrow or next year. … How do we nurture and sustain ourselves for what may well be a lifetime struggle?”^[6] Indeed, this makes my point, the whole premise of white privilege (benefiting from racist actions) is open ended and thus it appears that this epithet is one I will just have to live with.

Changing is a personal choice really and measuring an individual is feasible, but measuring the entire white grouping to determine whether attitudes have changed in the desired manner is utopic at best and is definitely not measurable!

I’m reminded of a quote by Machiavelli – “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”^[7]

Bibliography

1. Kivel, P. (2011). Uprooting Racism – How White People Can Work for Racial Justice (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers. Retrieved 2017
2. Massingale, B. N. (2010). Racial Justice and the Catholic Church (Kindle ed.). Maryknoll, New York, USA: Orbis Books. Retrieved June 2017
3. Wikipedia contributors. (2017, June 6). Asian Americans. Retrieved June 07, 2017, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Americans&oldid=784177725
4. Wikipedia contributors. (2017, January 30). Joe Feagin. Retrieved June 07, 2017, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Feagin&oldid=762667856

---

[1] (Massingale, 2010, p. 2)

[2] (Wikipedia contributors, 2017, p. Asian Americans)

[3] (Massingale, 2010, p. Loc 104/4064)

[4] (Wikipedia contributors, 2017, p. ‘Feagin’)

[5] (Massingale, 2010, p. 175)

[6] (Kivel, 2011, p. 336)

[7] https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/16201.Niccol_Machiavelli

Why Fr. Russell is right! An opinion on Russell Pollitt’s homiletic standpoint.

In business, a project manager’s lot is not an easy one. Their discipline requires of them that they tell their sponsors what they need to hear and not what they want to hear! Well Fr. Russell has done just that and as a result he has attracted the admiration of many – particularly in the lay fraternity, as well as the vitriol of not a few antagonists. In June he wrote a piece (READ) describing how he had walked out of mass in protest against a mind numbing and banal excuse for a homily!

He recently followed up his initial opinion piece (READ) with a post containing some of the replies he had received in response to that initial blog piece and the following one in particular caught my attention:

“I am disturbed that you, as a priest, do not understand that Sunday Mass is about the Sacrament. Go back to the seminary and learn about the Mass! The preaching makes no difference.”

‘The preaching makes no difference’ – that is a sad indictment of the state of the Church’s teaching ability and perversely supports Fr. Russell’s point of view! Of course this statement, source undetermined, displays a frightening ignorance of the liturgy and reveals rather, a defensive retort to an alarming truth!

The homily is an integral and very important part of the liturgy, so much so that in 2015 the Vatican saw fit to publish a papal decree on the matter entitled ‘Homiletic Directory’.[i] The decree noted: “It is very poignant that Pope Francis wished to devote considerable attention to the theme of the homily in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium.” Pope Francis goes straight to the heart of the matter when he says: “The homily is the touchstone for judging a pastor’s closeness and ability to communicate to his people”.[ii] He goes on to say that the homily is not so much a time of meditation and catechesis but rather a dialogue between God and His people, much in the same way as Jesus dialogued with the local multitudes in Palestine 2000 years ago. The homily is meant to highlight the salvific mission of God and the covenantal undertakings between a God and His people.[iii] As Pope Francis clarifies: “The homily has special importance due to its Eucharistic context: it surpasses all forms of catechesis as the supreme moment in the dia­logue between God and his people which lead up to sacramental communion”.[iv]

Pope Benedict echoes this sentiment in his Exhortation, Verbum Domini when he says: “The homily ‘is part of the liturgical action’ and is meant to foster a deeper understanding of the word of God, so that it can bear fruit in the lives of the faithful”.[v]

So, contrary to the contributor’s viewpoint, it seems that the homily does form a very close part of the liturgy. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal is very specific about the place of the homily in the liturgy:

“The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life.” [vi]

In conclusion, it was a finding of the fathers of Vatican II, that the homily is critical to the growth of the Christian diaspora, and aiding in holding firm to the values of Christ.[vii]

Bibliography

1. H.H. Pope Benedict XVI. (2010, Sept. 30). Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini – The Word of the Lord. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2016, from The Holy See – Apostolic Exhortations – Benedict: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
2. H.H. Pope Francis I. (2013, Nov. 24). Apostolic Exhortation Evangelli Guadium – The Joy of the Gospel. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2016, from The Holy See – Apostilc Exhortations – Francis: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#The_joy_of_the_gospel
3. H.H. Pope Paul VI. (1965, Nov. 18). Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation – Dei Verbum. Retrieved 2016, from The Holy See – Document of Vatican II – Paul VI: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
4. The Roman Catholic Church. (2010). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Retrieved 2016, from The Vatican – Roman Curia: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

---

[i] http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20140629_direttorio-omiletico_en.html

[ii] (H.H. Pope Francis I, 2013, p. Part II # 135)

[iii] (H.H. Pope Francis I, 2013, p. Part II # 137)

[iv] ibid. emphasis is mine.

[v] (H.H. Pope Benedict XVI, 2010, p. The Importance of the Homily # 59)

[vi] (The Roman Catholic Church, 2010, p. The Homily GIRM # 65)

[vii] (H.H. Pope Paul VI, 1965, p. Sacrosanctum Concilium # 52)

Satirical Insensitivity

Zapiro is normally an insightful satirist, highlighting the ills in South African society with humorous skill. On April 9^th, in the Mail & Guardian Newspaper, a cartoon was published which was meant to satirize the ousting of Zwelinzima Vavi from the trade union movement Cosatu by his erstwhile protagonists, S’dumo Dlamini and Bheki Ntshalintshali. He did this by using the crucifixion of Christ as the basis of his satire, obviously inferring that Vavi’s adversaries had ‘nailed him’ to a cross.

The timing of the publication clearly indicates either a particular ignorance or understanding of the Christian faith or worse, a total insensitivity toward and disregard of the centrality of the crucifixion to Christian belief. In the norm I find Zapiro to be incisive and witty, but here I believe a line was crossed – it is hoped that the newspaper in question might acknowledge this – for Christians, like their Abrahamic cousins, can also be offended.

In the beginning……..

The Beginning…

‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth….’ So starts the Judeo/Christian narrative describing the creation of existence.

The complex processes which govern the physics of universal existence have been around since the foundation of the universe; they are the physical laws of this universe and definitely pre-date the earth! The earth is about four and a half billion years old and Homo sapiens [1] (that’s us), well we are a recent addition to the evolutionary scene. We have been around for only the last 12 000 years or so, as is evidenced by the appellation attached to our species – ‘of the Holocene Epoch’ [2] The evolution of human ‘thought and cognisance’ has taken this long to reach its current sophisticated level of insight, in addition we also know that time and the evolutionary process (amongst many other factors) were prime movers behind our present state of existence – this is science fact.

Taking a literal view of Genesis has, up until fairly recently in human history (Judeo/Christian history in particular), been the cornerstone of Western understanding; with the evolution of enlightened thought do we hold our heads in our hands and proclaim the end of human spiritual reality as we know it or do we re-look at the meaning to be taken from these ancient narratives and contextualise the thought processes of the past, bringing contemporary meaning to them? I certainly think so!

The Christian idea of the world is that it originated in a very complicated process of evolution but that it nevertheless still comes in its depths from the Logos. It thus bears reason in itself.

Joseph Ratzinger – Pope Benedict XVI [3]

There are certainly those who would discard such contextualisation out of hand, in ‘their’ certain knowledge that there is nothing else – nothing but pointless, nihilistic existence, a sea of unanswered questions! One can say with certainty that the provision of empirically proven answers to the metaphysical questions – who are we, what are we and why are we here, which would satisfy theistic detractors, is unlikely? Where do we ultimately come from and to where and what are we finally destined are heady questions indeed. However if, as some would have us believe, we are just the by-products of chance and star matter, what unique by-products we are! All logical thought determines that we shouldn’t be here, but here we are nevertheless!

Probabilities Chance!

How does one calculate the odds or rather the probability of this universe coming into existence? Well you do need a foundation in the known to relate to, which in the case of the universe we don’t have – we can only hypothesize based on current theoretical knowledge. It is said that probability is the measure of how likely an event is to occur out of the number of possible outcomes.[4] Well logic and intellect say that the number of possible outcomes for our universe must have been infinite; thus the probability of this specific universe coming into existence must, for all practical purposes, be zero. Yet it did!

Cardinal Schönborn clarifies chance well when he quotes Professor Walter Thirring[5]:

It is so far “beyond human capacity to conceive” the degree of precision in this event,[6] which occurred in microscopic fractions of the very first seconds, so Professor Thirring says, that he exclaims, “And that is supposed to have happened by chance – what an absurd notion!”

Schönborn was discussing the exacting conditions required for the universe to come into existence.[7]

Analogous to this is the question – ‘what are the odds of YOU coming into existence – not just your physical substance but your metaphysical being as well; that which makes you, you’.

Author Ali Binazir sums it up succinctly:[8]

The probability of your existing at all is 1 in 10^2,685,000

To put some perspective on this, the number of atoms in the body of an average male (80kg, 175lb) is 10²⁷. The number of known atoms making up the earth is about 10⁵⁰. The number of atoms in the known universe is estimated at 10⁸⁰!

So what’s the probability of your existing? It’s the probability of 2 million people getting together – about the population of San Diego (USA) – each to play a game of dice with trillion-sided dice. They each roll the dice, and they all come up the exact same number – say, 550,343,279,001.

Absolutely improbable…you say and I would agree – the chances that you would be here are basically non-existent – yet you are here, you must be because you’re reading this! With such odds against your chanced existence, why would you not believe in a creative power such as that described in the Book of Genesis? This is not a punt for the cause of literal creationism as posited by fundamentalist factions of Christianity, nor must it be construed as support for the antithesis, but rather a voice seeking reason and understanding; a voice seeking contemporary meaning behind the reading of the Book of Genesis’ creation story.

Genesis – A society making sense of the unknown

The authors of Genesis did not possess the knowledge and understanding of present-day society; in fact I would risk stating the obvious by saying that their worldview was very different from ours given that a worldview is based in part on perspective or how you as an individual see the world around you – Nor did they care, says Boadt [9] I concur with his proposition that the benchmark opening timestamp for Israelite history (and consequently the Christian story) is the Exodus and that all preceding events were an attempt by the writers of Genesis to show God’s purpose with the Israelite people by a gathering together of tribal traditions on ancient ancestors stemming from pre-history.[10] Boadt suggests that as a people, the Israelites needed to understand “how they came to be a people and a nation”[11]

It has been put forward that, while the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) in its final form stems from a period later than that of the ‘United Kingdom’[12], ‘…it preserves the literature that had its origin in the United Kingdom’[13]. Indeed, Boshoff, Scheffler, & Spangenberg indicate that the bible actually developed around that literature.[14] This would infer that early traditions were mainly verbalised, passed down from generation to generation. At the same time this would exclude Moses from being the physical author of the Pentateuch, though he may very well have been instrumental in the initiation of the tradition of the exodus etc.; this would concur with Boadt’s assertion that Israelite history started with the Exodus.

In the later exilic period when the Israelites were held bondage in Babylon, Babylonian literature contained various accounts which seem to parallel Genesis accounts: [15]

1. The Enuma elish (Akkadian) – A Babylonian creation epic.

2. Enki and Nihursag – A Sumerian paradise myth

3. The Ziusudra flood – a Sumerian myth

4. The Gilgamesh epic – An Akkadian flood myth.

5. The Atrahasis epic – An Akkadian flood myth.

It is not entirely beyond reason that enculturation of the Israelites while in Babylonian exile would have enriched their traditional knowledge base and that they consequently incorporated aspects of these into their own traditions.

Matthews and Moyer put forward that the Israelites wanted to show God’s sovereign role in their creation as a people[16]; while Boadt postulates that Genesis can be seen as a pre-cursor, a preface to the beginning of the Israelite peoples.[17] They describe Genesis as an etiology of the founding of the Israelite nation and the human race in general, a search for an understanding of their origins.[18] Understandably, these writings are based on a worldview of the authors within their own time frame – the coalescence of this worldview with contemporary knowledge will invariably produce strange and confusing inconsistencies and consequently the contemporary fundamentalist clash!

This does not mean that valuable truths cannot be had from these very early writings; indeed, as I was reminded recently – all scripture is divinely inspired. As such is it a stretch to believe that Genesis illustrates the ancients need to describe the transcendence and all powerful nature of their God; it initiates the covenantal relationship which became prevalent in Israelite and subsequently Christian belief. It describes most clearly to me what they and indirectly Christianity are as a people.

Bibliography

1. Binazir, A. (2011, November 9). What are the odds? Retrieved November 17, 2014, from visual ly: http://visual.ly/what-are-odds

2. Boshoff, W., Scheffler, E., & Spangenberg, I. (2011). Ancient Israelite Literature in Context (Third ed.). Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa: Protea Book House.

3. Christoph Cardinal Schonborn. (2007). Chance or Purpose – Creation, Evolution & A Rational Faith (English ed.). (H. P. Weber, Ed., & H. Taylor, Trans.) San Francisco, California, USA: Igantius Press. Retrieved November 18, 2014

4. Collins Online English Dictionary. (2014). Holocene. Retrieved December 03, 2014, from Collins Online Dictionary: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/holocene?showCookiePolicy=true

5. Fr. James V. Schall, SJ. (2007). The Order of Things (First ed.). San Francisco, California, USA: Ignatius Press. Retrieved November 19, 2014

6. Fr. Lawrence Boadt, CSP. (2012). Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (Second ed.). (Fr. Richard Clifford, SJ, & Fr. Daniel Harrington, SJ, Eds.) Mahwah, N.J., New York, USA: Paulist Press. Retrieved November 28, 2014

7. Horn, S. O., & Wiedenhofer, S. (2008). Creation and Evolution – A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (First ed.). (M. J. Miller, Trans.) San Francisco, California, USA: Ignatius Press. Retrieved November 19, 2014

8. Matthews, V. H., & Moyer, J. C. (2012). The Old Testament: Text & Context (Third ed.). Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Academic. Retrieved November 28, 2014

9. Prof. Pheme Perkins, Ph.D. (2012). Reading the New Testament – An Introduction (Third ed.). Mahwah, N.J., New York, USA: Paulist Press. Retrieved November 28, 2014

10. Walter Thirring. (2014, October 29). Retrieved November 30, 2014, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Thirring&oldid=631679337

11. wikiHow. (2014, October 28). How to Calculate Probability. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from wikiHow: http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Probability

---

[1] Homo sapiens (Latin: “wise man”) is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the human species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

[2] “Recent Period” – Collins Online English Dictionary. (2014). Holocene. Retrieved December 03, 2014, from Collins Online Dictionary: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/holocene?showCookiePolicy=true

[3] (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, 2007, p. Opening Page)

[4] (wikiHow, 2014)

[5] Austrian Physicist (Walter Thirring, 2014)

[6] The Big Bang theory

[7] (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, 2007, pp. 39-41)

[8] (Binazir, 2011)

[9] (Fr. Lawrence Boadt, CSP, 2012, p. Pos. 1973 (Kindle))

[10] (Fr. Lawrence Boadt, CSP, 2012, p. Pos. 1980 (Kindle))

[11] (Fr. Lawrence Boadt, CSP, 2012, p. Pos. 1967 (Kindle))

[12] United Kingdom of the Israelites – c.1050 B.C. – c.930 B.C., the reigns of David and Solomon.

[13] (Boshoff, Scheffler, & Spangenberg, 2011, pp. 95-96)

[14] Ibid.

[15] (Boshoff, Scheffler, & Spangenberg, 2011, p. 53)

[16] (Matthews & Moyer, 2012, p. Pos. 1251 (Kindle))

[17] (Fr. Lawrence Boadt, CSP, 2012, p. pos 1967 (Kindle))

[18] (Matthews & Moyer, 2012, p. Pos. 1940 (Kindle))

A Trinitarian Dilemma

This post attempts to lay a simple foundation for defining the Doctrine of the Trinity in a way that allows me to accede to an acceptable level of intellectual assent. As my knowledge grows, I would hope to expand on this foundation.

The Doctrine of the Trinity has always been a very difficult concept to grasp. Indeed, I would imagine that its perceived complexity is, in many instances, used as an argument against it. But is it that complex and difficult to understand? Certainly on the face of it, it would seem extremely illogical, a mathematical conundrum – 3 is 1 and 1 is 3, add to this the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, believing there to be only one God – “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4), professing a tri-personal god then, seems to be a logical contradiction in a Christian sense?

My personal belief structure has always seen the need to make logical sense of a concept or thought, to proffer proof of its veracity, allowing me the option of providing an acceptable level of intellectual assent; the higher I can raise that level, the stronger my faith in that concept can become. This ‘process’ helps lead me to an ever strengthening commitment to my convictions; and it is at this point that I can begin to embrace faith.

Belief in the Trinity is central to and the most important concept of Christianity and it is with this background that I approach the concept of the Divine Trinity, the core of Christian belief and of salvific theology.

This post does not purport to address all and every question on the Trinity, far from it. However, let me share some of my concerns regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity, the questions and worries which have come up while contemplating this difficult subject.

1. Contravention of the law of non-contradiction: the doctrine appears to endorse the thought that God is one but also three. Simply put, one cannot be both one and not one at the same time!

2. A belief in three: is this not just polytheism? This would certainly seem to be the view of those holding differing or antagonistic views toward Trinitarian Christianity.

3. It is understood that God is transcendent, He exists above and outside the realm of His creation. Man can or is able only to make sense of that which exists within the sphere of his existence, his rationality. That which is outside of his existential domain remains a mystery (an unknowable knowledge). When hypothesizing on something for which there is no grounding in what can or could be known, then that which man tries to understand becomes a ‘mystery’. This is how I see God; He is outside the realm of my existence and consequently my ability to apply human rationality is limited! Nevertheless, I must try and comprehend – it is an innate need! The logical fallacy I am concerned with here has to do with ‘An appeal to faith’ – how do I justify belief that, on the face of it, appears to be irrational?

4. Were there no truth or understanding to be derived from the revelation of the Trinity, how then has its concept, its dogma survived the test of time? How has it energized and lifted Christian humanity over the centuries without being drummed out as just another heretical belief. After all, did not the learned theologians of the church expel so many other incorrect beliefs? Witness Arianism, Monism etc. Surely something which, prima facie, appears to be a total contradiction to accepted belief, would have suffered a similar fate at the hands of those eminent theologians – wouldn’t it? Or is there something more to be said of Trinitarian doctrine? Are we actually able to rationalize this doctrine within the ambit of our understanding?

5. Karl Rahner proposed an anti Neo-Scholastic interpretation of the immanent and economical Trinity – that the one equals the other and vice versa, his ‘grundaxiom’. This is problematic for me as this implies that God is NOT outside of His creation, is reliant on His creation for His existence or properties; I find it difficult to agree with this theory as, how can one be both immanent and transcendent at the same time? Is this not again, a typical contravention of the law of non-contradiction?

6. If there is serious doubt over Trinitarian Doctrine, then it would bring into serious question the salvific actions of God. Denial of the Trinity denies the very divinity of the Christ and the logical consequence is that man is not saved. This goes to the very core of Christian belief and must be answered.

I would suppose that these enquiries barely scratch the surface of that knowledge revealed in Christ – Deus revelatus[1]; I am sure that there are many other questions and opinions which also require elucidation however, for now, these will serve as the foundational seeds for my first foray into the enigma that is the Trinity.

Frank Sheed in his book Theology for Beginners, asks “God is a living God. But what does His life consist of?” This rather insouciant remark has, I think, some deep underlying meaning which helps shed light on the Trinitarian concept, after all God is all knowing love – utterly and entirely. Who then does He love in His eternal existence – Man? Certainly but through Christ, God reveals His love within the Trinity, a love of three persons within one divine nature – an eternal and absolute love. Man is finite and as Sheed says, ‘Finite creatures are no adequate object for infinite love – we cannot comprehend it, we cannot return it’ (Sheed, Theology for Beginners, pp. 31-32) God certainly does love man, His creation but why, in His wisdom and compassion, does He reveal the true nature of His innermost being when, in our finitude, its significance and worth is beyond our ability to comprehend. After all, God does not mock, nor take lightly His revelation to man – there is always purpose to His revelations. But what is that purpose? It is to reveal the love, the all-conquering love which exists within God; to show us the love which awaits us when we accept the salvation given us by Christ, by God.

There is one God, in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An eternal and holy communion of love – a love which knows no bounds. This Trinity, this Communion was the entire message which Jesus the Christ came among us to reveal. It is beholden to us to remember the message contained in Matthew 22:36-40[2]

A way, perhaps, to identify with the Trinity is to look at ourselves; after all are we not made in the image of God? …and God is the Trinity. Bearing in mind the Christian definition of the Trinity, God in Three Persons there is firstly a need, as there would be when rationalising humanity, to differentiate between ‘nature’ and ‘person’ (Sheed, Theology & Sanity, pp. 56-57); the ‘who’ and the ‘what’, the source of our actions and the actions themselves. It is critical to our thesis that we understand the differentiation between these two nouns – for it is by our nature that we are defined and it is by our actions that that which is our nature or essence is revealed. Actions, the verb, are the product of the ‘person’, derived from what defines that person – their ‘nature’. To paraphrase Sheed, nature is the source of our actions, person does them.

But what of that which possesses these two capacities? That almost unknowable essence we intrinsically know to be at our core but which, when introspectively examined, seems fogged and elusive.

This I would put forward, is the third part of the equation, the one which underpins or is foundational to our very existence. Sheed refers to this as our nature’s ‘root reality’; it is that essence, that reality to which ‘person’ and ‘nature’ belong and to which reality, ‘person’ and ‘nature’ are the very tools of existence – this to me is the soul, the very essence of man, the absolute reality of our existence. It is that piece of God which gives us life:

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[3]

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.[4]

As creatures of God we are each created with our own distinct nature making us unique in terms of who we are.

Not dissimilar but admittedly not quite the same, contained within the mystery of the Trinity is only ONE divine nature, ONE source of divine action, one overarching ‘root reality’. There is ONE God but within that divine essence are THREE distinct persons, each equally and fully possessing of that ONE divine nature we call God. As we have seen when rationalising humanity, nature and person are two distinct qualities. Nature does not equal person so it would be incorrect to say one god equals three gods but in terms of the Trinity, it is correct to say one (God) equals one (divine nature) – that there is ONE God but three distinct elements of action within God.

So we have three divine beings capable of action, ‘the persons of the Trinity’ and that from which those actions are derived, ‘the one divine nature’, a derivation which is common to all three persons of the Trinity. That derivation is GOD.

So for me, I have re-enforced within myself the belief that there really is only ONE God, one God within whom is embraced three distinct persons: GOD the Father, GOD the Son and GOD the Holy Spirit.

Amen

Bibliography

§ Pope John Paul II. (2002). The Trinity’s Embrace – God’s Saving Plan (1st Edition ed., Vol. 6). Boston, Ill., USA: Pauline Books & Media.

§ Sheed, F. J. (2011). Theology & Sanity (Kindle ed.). San Francisco, California, USA: Ignatius Press.

§ Emery, G. (2011). The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God (Kindle ed.). (M. Levering, Trans.) Washington, D.C., USA: The Catholic University of America Press.

§ O’Collins, G. (1999). The Tripersonal God – Understanding & Interpreting the Trinity (1st ed.). New York, N.J., USA: Paulist Press.

§ Rahner, K. (1997). The Trinity (Milestones in Catholic Theology ed.). (C. Mowray LaCugna, Ed., & J. Donceel, Trans.) New York, N.Y., USA: The Crossroad Publishing Co.

§ St. Thomas Aquinas. (2002). Aquinas’s Shorter Suma. (C. Vollert, Trans.) Manchester, New Hampshire, USA: Sophia Institute Press.

§ Sheed, F. J. (2011). Theology for Beginners (Kindle ed.). New York, NY, USA: Angelico Press.

§ Sproul, R. C. (2011). What is the Trinity? (Kindle ed.). Sanford, FL, USA: Reformation Trust Publishing.

§ Jowers, D. W. (2004). An Exposition & Critique of Karl Rahner’s Axiom: “The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity and Vice Versa”. Mid-America Journal of Theology , 15, 165-200.

§ ST GREGORY OF NYSSA. (1996, 01 01). http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTIC/PII5-7.TXT. Retrieved 05 14, 2014, from http://www.ewtn.com: www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTIC/PII5-7.TXT

§ Douay-Rheims. (n.d.). The Holy Bible. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-7.htm

---

[1] Deus revelatus – “God revealed in Christ”

[2] Matthew 22:36-40 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[3] (Douay-Rheims) – Gen. 1:27

[4] (Douay-Rheims) – Gen. 2:7

[5] Council of Constantinople II, Anathema 1 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1:114)

---

A House of Cards

A society without an ontological moral watchdog effectively polices itself – it justifies its own actions to the point where it expresses moral outrage and indignation when questioned on its actions, as is currently playing out on the Nkandla stage:

• Madonsela exceeded her powers[i]
• Sizani accused Madonsela of overstepping her mark[ii]
• The ANC is set to take the DA to court for “spreading malicious lies” about President Jacob Zuma and his Nkandla homestead.[iii]
• Public protector Thuli Madonsela said this week that she had feared for her life [iv]

And so on from various organs of the ANC, the ANCYL, the ANCWL etc.

The new democratic dispensation was crafted by selfless individuals, whose aspirations were to take South Africa back from the brink of civil war and guide her forward to a time of prosperity and normalisation, where the poor and homeless would at last find justice. The crown jewel of this new dispensation was the hard fought for Constitution; as Stephen Grootes so aptly puts it, “….the Constitution, quite deliberately, looks after the minorities.”[v] And by minorities I believe that he is not only referring the numerical minorities but to economic and other disadvantaged minorities – those who always seem to get the rough end of the stick!

One of the remarkable parts of the Constitution is the provision of Chapter 9 institutions – those bodies whose critical role it is to protect democracy; the Public Protector headed by Thuli Madonsela is one such body and while I am sure that Thuli Madonsela does not claim deistic (ontological) qualities (though the ruling party seem to have some godly insights!), she does fulfil a very important role. A role which highlights corruption and maladministration which is to the detriment of the country but the poor in particular.

To vilify the messenger, when the truth is brought into the light, is the despicable tactic of those who know they have done wrong and want to take the spotlight off of themselves. It is an ominous sign and does not bode well for democracy in this country. It also throws a shadow over the future of the Public Protectors office; in their avarice, would not the beneficiaries of the ‘gravy’ want to plug the hole which threatens to stop the flow?

The SACBC[vi] is quite right in expressing concern over the safety of the Public Protectors office – “This is not about Thuli. This is about ensuring that we don’t allow political affiliation to get in the way of an important democratic institution,” Fr Pearson said.[vii] For if the checks and balances of the Constitution are removed, then there is no stopping the fall into a failed state.

Perhaps while taking our Lord’s name in vain[viii], Jacob Zuma might want to reflect on Jesus’ attitude to the poor and disenfranchised and to self-aggrandizement in general! As I have mentioned previously, the words of Christ should echo portentously to those in power: “…Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me”[ix]

---

[i] News 24 – 20140328 (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Madonsela-exceeded-her-powers-group-20140328)

[ii] News 24 – 20140326 (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Madonsela-hits-back-at-ANC-whip-20140326)

[iii] News24 – 20140327 (http://www.news24.com/Elections/News/DA-spreading-malicious-lies-about-Zuma-ANC-20140327)

[iv] News24 – 20140323 (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Madonsela-feared-for-her-life-Report-20140323)

[v] (Grootes, 2013)

[vi] South African Catholic Bishops Conference

[vii] (Mathieson, 2014)

[viii] Mail and Guardian – 20140108 (http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-08-zuma-the-anc-will-rule-forever)

[ix] New King James Version (NKJV) – Matthew 25: 40

---

Bibliography

1. Grootes, S., 2013. S.A. Politics – Unspun. Kenilworth(Cape Town): Mercury an imprint of Burnet Media.
2. Mathieson, C., 2014. Church Leaders: We must protect Thuli’s office. The Southern Cross, 26 March, p. 1.