At the heart of the Christian faith is the teaching of the incarnation, and through the incarnation, the revelation of the Trinity. While we might have found hints concerning the Trinitarian nature of God through natural revelation, we would not have been able to come to conclude its truth on our own, especially because the teaching o the Trinity transcends our comprehension. We must always keep in mind that the truth transcends us, and if it transcends us, it transcends what it is we can say about it, which means, words always fail to properly describe it. When we speak of the faith, when we express the truth which we have apprehended, there is always something which is lost; our theological discussions concerning the mystery of faith are all attempts to translate the mystery into something comprehensible, something which we can understand, and so it always leaves something out. This is why we must be careful and accept the limitations inherent in all theological expressions; at best, they serve as pointers to a truth which cannot be spoken of because it is a truth which transcends all our apprehensions (and our theological attempt to explain the truth is itself an act of apprehension). Nonetheless, it is a truth which we can experience for ourselves, and when we do so, we will find that the experience we have, and the understanding we have based upon that experience, transcends words, and when this happens, we will realize the difficulty involved in trying to translate that experience to others, as all we have to share with them is words. To be sure, it is not the only kind of experience we might have which becomes difficult to speak about, indeed, we can and often have many of them, and if we do, then we will appreciate that kind of experience more and appreciate the difficulty others have when they are trying to relate such an experience to ourselves.
Most of the time, our theological explorations do not come from personal experience, but rather from study and the memorization of what others have told us about it. No matter how authentic those words might be, no matter how guaranteed they are to point to the transcendent truth, when we study them, we tend to focus on the words more than the truth they are meant to point to. We have been warned not to do so, to keep to the spirit of the words and not their letter, but that often is very difficult when we read texts from long ago; focusing on the letter, on the words, despite how much those words have changed meaning, is easier, and that, sadly, is what many do, especially when study religious texts like Scripture. We then try to explore the implications of what we have come to believe and accept, to take what we have learned, combine it with reason, to come to all kinds of necessary (or at least, likely) conclusions, forgetting that the foundation we are using, the conventional representation of the truth found in words, is not the truth in and of itself. As a result, we end up reifying the distortions that emerge from the way the truth was translated into words.
The more we try to logically deduce more and more “truths” based upon the letter, the more problems will emerge in regards what we establish, similar to the way a translation of a text based upon a translation is further removed from the original text than the original translation and, when comparing the two to the original, the translation of the translation shows significant distortions. The more a text is translated in this fashion, that greater the distortion which will emerge: a translation of a translation is going to be superior to a translation of a translation of a translation. The same is true in regards theology. The further along the chain of reasoning based upon some foundational text, a text engaged by the letter and not by its spirit, the more such distortions will emerge, however logical the chain of reasoning might appear. This is why it is important to point out the difference between conventional truth, the truth which is brought about in and through conventions, and the explorations of the truth which emerge from such conventions, with the absolute truth.. One of the ways we can emphasize the limitations of words is to point out that there are times in which we must be silent, for then, we are showing that there is an element of the truth which cannot be put to words. Paul understood this, which is why he said there are things he cannot speak about when discussing his own mystical experiences (in the third person):
I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows — and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter (2 Cor. 12:1-4 RSV).
The greatest truths transcend conventions, and if they are expressed in and through conventions, the limitations involved in doing so must always be kept in mind. Sadly, many do not understand this, which is why they turn what they hear into absolutes, and in doing so, the distortions become embraced as they become presented as a part of the absolute truth itself. Thus, what should serve as a pointer to the absolute truth becomes rather a dead end, as people embrace the pointer rather than the truth itself, and so a simulacrum of the truth replaces the truth itself, which is what happens with idolatry. This is why we should not boast in our knowledge of various theological expressions if we do not understand their meaning, what it is they are trying to show us about the truth. When we accept the limitations concerning the attempt to explain the truth in words, we will realize people can and will do so in many different fashions, which is why we must not assume different presentations of the truth necessarily contradict each other. What is important is not the word choice, but the meaning intended by those trying to explain the truth (a point which ecumenism has learned and used to help Christiana find common ground).
Love should serve as our foundation for exploring the truth with others, for in and through it, we will have the hermeneutic which allows us to engage what others say in such a way we do not look to find contradictions when they are not there. Love will help us to accept that differences in expression do not have to entail real differences in the object of our faith. Love builds bridges, so that, when we embrace it, even those who seem to be enemies can become our friends. We should not seek to divide, but to unite. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish” (Lk. 6:34 RSV). We will be known as sons and daughters of the Most High if we do the work of the Son of God, Christ, in the world. Christ came into the world to show the world the way of love and how it is superior to the way of sin (unlove) by healing the harm which sin caused in the world, including the divisions which sin made in humanity. The more we seek to divide, the more we seek to be seen as superior to others, such as in the way we express the teachings of the faith, the further we find ourselves from doing what is expected of us, and the more distorted our own expressions be; but the more we embrace the way of love, the more open we will be to others and their expressions, and less we will find ourselves becoming attached to the distortions of the truth contained in conventions. Truly, the more we love, the more open we will be to the transcendent truth, realizing that our greatest apprehension of it will not be with words but in loving silence.
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.