Introduction
Last week we began to explore the concept of the Trinity. We discussed the idea’s origin and early concepts and finished with a description of Trinitarianism, the explanation prevalent in many modern Christian denominations. Trinitarianism explains the one God and the Trinity as the “Three in One”; three distinct entities/personalities: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost combined into one entity known commonly as God.
There are other explanations however, and one of the most popular early competing concepts was Modalistic Monarchianism. It too recognizes the importance and reality of the Trinity but explains it in a slightly different way. How so?
The Difference
At issue is the definition of what one means by “one God.” Just as with Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchism also emphasizes God as One; and also recognizes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The difference is that Monarchists don’t see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate entities or personalities, but rather see them as three “aspects” of the same entity, God. God IS one but chooses to express Himself as different “aspects” or forms that humans can relate to. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ARE all God, just different aspects or ‘views’ of Him.
The Miriam-Webster dictionary defines “aspect” as “a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded.” In other words, aspect means that an object/thing may be viewed, regarded, or perceived as being different things when considered from different directions or viewpoints.
An Example
The best example of this idea that I’ve heard is that each of us becomes a different person when viewed from the aspect of people who are observing us. Take me for example. I, Richard Collinsworth, am a real existing person. I am always “myself,” but I am also different persons to different people who I know. To my wife, I am Husband; the person with whom she has elected to spend the rest of her life and whose sole purpose it is to irritate her to the ‘nth’ degree (or so she would claim. Personally, I don’t understand what she means by that!) To my children, I am Father; the male entity by which they were brought into the world (created) and whose purpose is it to say “no” to their every wish and request (am I seeing a trend here?). To my Parents, I am Son; the creation of their union and the person whose purpose it is to make their lives as difficult as possible by constantly irritating my sister (man, I’m not sure I like where this is heading!) To my Friends, I am frequently what they need me to be: Comforter, Confident, or Helper. To the members of my Sunday School Class I am Teacher; the person whose job it is to make difficult concepts understandable and uncomfortable concepts acceptable. To strangers in need, I can be Savior when I give them $5 to get something to eat or pay for their bus ticket to the Salvation Army location downtown.
The point is that while I am always “me” and complete within myself, to almost anyone else, I am what they think I am, or what they need me to be. They each perceive a different “aspect” or view of me depending on where we are to each other and depending on what we are each prepared to do to/for one another. I am the Husband, the Father, the Son, the Friend, and the Savior at the same time, but I am not limited to any of these “aspects”. I am all of them and more for there is more to me than any of them are likely to see/experience at any one time.
A Further Point
These different perceptions or aspects of me can affect or be affected by the quality of my relationship with other people. With any relationship, its quality is directly proportional to the effort that the respective parties put into it. If my wife and I work diligently to cooperate and to make sure that our shared experiences are of high quality, then our interpersonal relationship is likely to be strong and healthy and she will view her Husband favorably. If, however, we neglect each other and routinely ignore the needs of the other the relationship will deteriorate and become less strong. In that circumstance, I will still be Husband, but her perception will not be favorable, and our relationship will suffer.
If my friend and I try to spend time together and share common interests, that relationship is likely to be strong as well. But if neither of us makes an effort to spend time with the other and we see each other only occasionally, that relationship, will be tenuous and weak. I will still be Friend to that person, but the relationship will be of lesser quality.
The same is true of our relationship to God. We’re taught that God is always trying to make His relationship with us as strong as possible. That’s one reason He sent Jesus. However, if we ignore the relationship or take it for granted, we are not doing our part to make the relationship strong, and the relationship will suffer. He will still be God and we will still be Child, but our relationship will be weak and unfulfilling.
This is the idea behind Modalistic Monarchism. That God has, is and always will be, and that He relates to each of us in a way or ways that make Him more accessible, real, and recognizable. He presents whichever “aspect” of Himself we need most at any particular moment.
Aspects of God
So, the one God acted as the Father when He created the universe and all that is in it. As the one Power in the Universe, everything emanates from Him and is created by His will. He was/is the Father of Creation and everything that has been, is, or will be in it. This is His “Father” aspect, and the one which the early Jews first perceived and began to worship as Yahweh (I Am).
Another ‘aspect’ or expression of God was Jesus. God incarnated as a physical person (Jesus) on Earth to show His love for us, to model how we were to relate to Him, and to explain how we were to relate to one another. Jesus WAS fully a man. He suffered and died as any man would when subjected to the horrible cruelties inflicted upon Him during His crucifixion. And, because He was the example for all who believe in God and in Him, He rose from the dead to demonstrate that He, not Death, was the final arbiter of life and death. The Jesus continued on after his resurrection and appeared to dozens of people before He ascended into Heaven. He continues still where He “…sits at the right hand of God…” as stated in the Christian Apostle’s Creed. But rather than being separate from God, He is an “extension,” or “aspect” of God. Thus, He is both still fully “God” and is still fully Jesus.
In the Modalistic Monarchianism explanation, the Holy Spirit is another aspect or way that God presents Himself to us. We’ve already seen that the Holy Spirit is represented numerous times in both the old and the new Testaments. It is represented variously as “breath,” “wind,” “fire,” and as “spirit.” The Holy Spirit/Ghost is frequently the aspect that either connects directly with man (Jacob’s wrestling with God [Genesis 32:22-32]) or acts in a concrete way in the World (as when it flows over the assembled disciples and apostles at Pentecost endowing them with the power to go into the world and to spread Jesus’ message [Acts 2:1-11]). The Holy Spirit is also the aspect of God which Jesus referred to when he said, “… and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever. The Spirit of truth …” [John 14:16-17]. In many ways, then the Holy Spirit is represented to be the aspect of God that works directly in the world and through man to achieve His goals. It is also the mechanism that God uses to provide insight and revelation to further His word today. As an aspect of Him it also is both fully “God” and the Holy Spirit.
Thus, according to Modalistic Monarchianism theology God IS at all times the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost. There is no time when the Three are not present and active, but at no time are they separate from God.
A bit of History
At one time, this explanation of the Trinity was at least as popular/accepted as Trinitarianism. But as we’ve already seen, early Christianity was rife with different interpretations, explanations, and ideas. There were many theological “winners” and “losers.” In fact, there were even two “camps” of Monarchianism. I’ve explained Modalistic Monarchianism here because it’s closer (and more understandable) to the Trinitarian explanation. The other was “Dynamic,” also known as “Adoptionism.” It was even further removed from Trinitarianism and was not as widely accepted.
Monarchianism in all forms was largely supplanted as the official position of the Church after the First Council at Constantinople in 359 AD and was even seen by some thereafter to be heresy. I’ve presented it here because I believe that to be able to understand God (as well as any of us are able) and to form fully our own relationship with Him that we sometimes need explanations and ways of relating to Him that may not always be within the strict themes of Doctrine.
Conclusion
Use these thoughts as “fodder” or “food” for thought as you seek to refine your own understanding of and relation to Him. Personally, I relate better to the Modalistic explanation than I do to the Trinitarian explanation. For me, it’s simply easier to relate to. You may have some other explanation or idea that may make even more sense than either of the two I’ve presented. If you do, I invite you to share it with us at Exploring Christianity; because that’s what we’re doing … Exploring our Christianity. This is a site for Those Interested in Christianity, so let’s explore together.
Please remember that these are my own ideas and are not meant to do anything other than to provoke thought in the reader. We all need to use our own minds, develop our own conclusions, and see how those influence our faith. I am simply here to present ideas for your consideration. Thanks for your time. I look forward to receiving your questions and comments as to how to make this site better.
Until next week,
God Bless You All
Richard
August 24, 2018
Hello Richard,
You present a very difficult topic in trying to understand the Trinity. I thank you for your thought provoking development as you explain Modalism. The Bible is clear however, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons and not just three expressions of God. I believe the Trinity cannot be understood fully with our finite minds and as a result we sometimes try to understand it by making it understandable by our human reasoning rather than leaving the parts we don’t understand as mystery. Surely there are other events and concepts in the Bible that we don’t fully understand and that does not make them less true.
I do appreciate your effort and detail in presenting the different topics in your blog. They are very good and thought provoking.
Thanks
Jim:
Thanks for reading Exploring Christianity and for responding with your thoughtful comments. My belief is that the more “discussion” we can have about our faith, the stronger it will become for all of us, regardless of whether we all agree on everything or not.
I share your idea that there are some things in and about God’s Universe and His Plan that we are simply never going to fully understand. We may comprehend them (i.e., recognize that they are there), but we’re unlikely to fully understand them until we meet our Maker in Heaven. I look forward to that meeting because I’m hoping that all will be made clear to me then. And, I agree that the Trinity is one such concept.
In the meantime, the best we can do is to think about these topics/concepts and try our best to understand them as fully as our limited minds and perceptions will allow. That is why I try to offer different “views” of such topics. I may offer my opinions, but am careful to remind the reader that it’s not my task to convince them of believing one thing or another.
Again, I thank you for your participation and your comments. Please keep reading and challenging when and where you feel it’s appropriate.
Richard
I’m with you. The Modalistic explanation is far easier to understand or envision…..I’ve always felt this way about the Trinity
“Hi Richard. I loved the concept that you gave as you continued to talk about the trinity. I personally think that are basically the same. I appreciate your insight and knowledge to educate me better on the things of God and Jesus. Thank you for all your hard work that you put into this each week. You have a great week and look forward to your next blog.”