APRIL 18 — So, Zakir Naik is all over the news. Controversial preacher oozing supremacism and extremism. Dammit, for once I want to see a "controversial speaker" who just tells people to love and forgive each other. Maybe this shows you the kind of controversy society prefers? Meh.

Anyway, a friend of mine read some of Dr Zakir’s views on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He said the controversial doc’s take on this doctrine was shallow and uninformed. 

I then decided to Google the man and his views and found Dr Zakir’s blog in which he shares two posts on the Trinity.

Below are some excerpts from these posts which sum up three of the biggest objections to the Trinity. I hope my responses help:

1. “If you analyze, the word 'trinity' — it occurs nowhere in the Bible. If you search the full Bible, the word 'trinity' doesn’t exist anywhere in the Bible – It’s not there in the Bible.”

Look, even the word "Bible" doesn’t appear in the Bible, okay? Doesn’t mean it can’t be used. The issue is whether or not the idea of a Trinitarian God is strongly implied.

Well, guess what, the term "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" is mentioned. That’s the “formula” that Jesus told his disciples to baptise people in (or with). Which then leads to the question of why these terms are mentioned, and mentioned for baptism (which is, like, "divine registration" or absolute confirmation of Christian identity, yeah? Don’t play-play.)

2. “Jesus said that his Father is greater than him, so this means that Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God."

This one could get a bit complicated, so let’s tease it out.

Christians believe that Jesus and his Father are "one God." At the level of being or (to further wax philosophical) ontology, this means that Jesus and his Dad are of equal status. Therefore, whatever Jesus meant by "My Dad is greater than me", he probably didn’t mean, "My Dad possesses higher-level divinity than me."

The fact that most of the early Christians were Jews also rubbishes the idea that Jesus was some kind of "Standard 6" god compared to his Father who was some "Form 6" god. Why? Because the Jews have been clearly, categorically and unanimously worshipping ONE God for millennia. These Jews (who became Christians), with such a mindset, would never suddenly "shift" to worshipping two gods (with one being a lesser god!) all of a sudden!

The Jews were among the strictest mono-theists in existence, so if they worshipped Jesus (which they did) and/or put him "on par" with YHWH their God (which they also did), then this can only mean that they considered Jesus as God too.

So if we’re clear on this, what could Jesus have meant by saying his Father was greater than him?

Well, let’s take the example of a bicycle’s wheels and its seat. Unless you’re on weed, you’d probably agree that the wheels are functionally more important than the seat, no? But this doesn’t mean that the seat is any LESS of a bicycle than the wheels.

Christians believe that Jesus was "from" the Father whilst at the same time sharing the same eternal "stuff." Narnia author C.S. Lewis asks us to imagine two books on the table, one stacked on top of the other. The book below clearly supports the one above, correct? But further imagine that both these books existed from eternity.

Ditto, the Father "supporting" (or begetting) Jesus. It is in this sense that Jesus considered His Father "greater than" him.

3. “If you ask the Christian Church… they tell you that the Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Ghost is a person – but they aren’t three persons – they are one person’. Person, person, person, but not three persons – one person – What language is this? 1+1+1 is equal to 3, it's not equal to 1.” 

I don’t know which Christian church Dr. Zakir has been speaking to, but the PJ-ians in my congregations would say, “The Trinity is three persons, but one God."

Dr Zakir keeps repeating that 1+1 +1 = 3, not 1. No kidding, Sherlock.

But what about 1x1x1?

The Trinity is undoubtedly a paradox because prima facie it looks "off." There are 3 "things" which people call 1 – how do we resolve this? Certainly not by simply repeating the paradox (which Dr Zakir seems to enjoy doing)!

Let’s break it down further.

The Trinity means that God is one God in three persons. Three persons i.e. three centres of consciousness known and worshipped as one God. The Father is a person and God; the Son is a person and God; the Holy Spirit is a person, and God.

This image won’t work for everyone, but have you seen pictures of a three-headed dragon? Pretty cool, right? It sorta resolves the paradox in that there are three heads (or persons) but it’s still just one creature (or being).

1x1x1 = 1

Putting the reptilian overtones aside, the Trinity means that God is one, but not alone. God is love and love is something which exists between and among persons. 

That’s in fact the biggest takeback from the doctrine. Really, we’re missing the point if our key concern is resolving the paradox of 3-in-1 and so on. At the end of the day, it’s about how personal love was, is and will always be at the centre of the universe.

The Trinity for Malaysia?

A few final thoughts.

If you hold a conference in Penang, wouldn’t it be legitimate to call your conference a Malaysian conference? Would you take flak from some wise-cracker who said, “Hey, don’t you DARE call your conference a Malaysian conference since you’re only holding it in one state?!”

And a conference held in Penang is 100 per cent Malaysian, not 80 per cent or 50 per cent or whatever. Somehow Penang is fully Malaysia without in the least denying that our country has other states.

Malay, Chinese and Indian all encapsulate the "Malaysian" because we adhere to and grow with each other. A Chinese is already Malaysian but she is most Malaysian when she shows compassion to and solidarity with a Malay and Indian. 

In fact, Trinitarian thinking is something our law-makers could consider because the concept entails that the Many draws value, strength and purpose from the One (and each other), and vice-versa.

Back to the states analogy.

Malaysia is 13-in-1. Let’s agree it’s quite un-Malaysian when some states (not least Sabah and Sarawak) are treated like unwanted children left alone. 

Terengganu and Selangor and Sabah are one and the same with all the other states. Whilst Selangor may be "greater than" Kelantan in the sense that it generates more revenue, it remains true that both states are 100 per cent Malaysian and no state is more or less Malaysian than the other. Period.

Make sense?

*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.