Brief synopsis of the readings: As of last Monday we are officially out of the season of Easter and back into Ordinary Time. And our first reading returns to the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures). We read in the book of Proverbs that its author was created “when [God’s] purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works.” This author explains that he (and we) were in God’s mind before the world where we live was even created. In John’s Gospel Jesus tells his apostles that he has much more to tell them, but it’s too much for them now. Instead he will send them the “Spirit of truth” who will tell them of the things to come. Finally he says: “Everything the Father has in mine; that is why I said: All he tells you will be taken from what is mine.”

The Feast of the Holy Trinity doesn’t often concern most of us, but let me ask a provocative question: if polled, would the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all vote for the same candidate for President of the United States?

Provocative yes, but also fascinating. Most, but not all Christians grew up with a belief that God exists in three persons and they are somehow in relationship with each other, but the Trinity is a mystery that doesn’t often occupy our mind.

But it wasn’t always that way. We Christians were born out of Judaism and they taught explicitly that God was one person with one will and one plan. This came in response to the previous belief that there were several gods in competition or cooperation with each other. Jews worked hard to understand that the buck stops in one place with one God.

Given that, what do we do with the passage in Matthew where Jesus’ disciples were called to baptize all peoples in “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? And further, what do we do with the beginning of John’s Gospel where we are told that the “Word” was with God, and was God from the beginning? These debates formed much of the growth of the first few centuries of the Christian church.

In fairness, some Christian churches walked away from the whole thing and declared that there really is only one God and God is not part of the Trinity (the most notable are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists). But when asked, most of us have struggled with what the Trinity means, and more to the point, what it means in our lives.

Clearly this isn’t simply an intellectual doctrine. If it were, we wouldn’t spend any time with it. The history of the first 4 Centuries of the Christian Church boiled over with debates over this doctrine, and St. Patrick (in the 5th Century) is revered for using the three leaf clover to explain this to the people of Ireland (ie, it is the existence of these leaves that makes the clover).

And I have to confess that most of us don’t think of the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as equals. Instead I think we normally think of the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit as being “less than” the Father. And there were certainly those in the early Church who argued that. Most Christians feel this was settled in the Council of Nicea in 325 when the Trinity was declared homoousios (of one substance). Many of us recite the Nicean Creed every week where the Son and Holy Spirit are “consubstantial” (one in being) with the Father.

Fair enough, but what does that mean for us? I go back to my original question: if the Father, Son, and Spirit were registered voters in the United States, would they all vote for the same Presidentail candidate?

Other than being a provokative question, it also appears silly to many people. Of course they would and furthermore they would vote for the candidate I plan to vote for.

You see, too often when we think about the relationships in our lives we tend to think of them as sharing much with us, and most of them do. Most married couples share beliefs and values, and tend to enjoy the same activities. It’s no coincidence that most of us met our spouses participating in some activity, whether it’s jogging, golf, or giving blood. Our courtship often centered around these activities and allowed us to grow into a marriage. Children of that marriage often continue those same activities.

But our understanding of each other as being different persons in committed relationships by design much go much deeper. No couple I know introduce their spouses as a golf parter or a member of their bowling team. At some point we move beyond what we do and see each other in terms of who we are.

But too often we look at all of our relationships not simply in terms of who we are to each other, but who the person is in terms of what I expect. A couple who disagrees over who to vote for in an election doesn’t concern me nearly as much as a couple who can’t find a measure of mutual respect and love because they disagree.

Many years ago I had an experience in my first year of seminary. There were six of us who all felt called to religious life and living in the same community. Alas, there was one person who I clashed with. Both of us shared the same belief that the formation team had gravely erred in allowing the other to even enter the seminary. I experienced a particularly difficult meeting with one of the directors. I told him that perhaps the best this other man and I could do was “peaceful coexistence.” I referred to a belief of Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971) who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964. Speaking in the context of the Cold War with the United States he described a situation where two parties may not enjoy living together but have no choice. Khrushchev used the analogy of the farmer who depends on his cow for his livelihood but has no money for a barn. Therefore he and the cow have to live in the sam home. He does not like this because the cow is dirty and smells bad but he has no choice.

As you might imagine, this did not go well for me. My director, patiently and through grit teeth, explained that the two of us cannot live in community without a healthy and mature respect for each other’s gifts and talents. We were not called to be best friends, but we were called to live together in a way that brings out the best in each other.

It is certainly true that our opinions often originate in our values but that’s not always true. I’m dismayed by much of the discourse I hear these days, and much of it comes from the belief that if two people disagree they come from different values, and it means that one person is right (moral) and the other is wrong (immoral).

In other words, in any disagreement I can’t be right unless you are wrong. Our discussion then devolves not into “tell me more about what you think” but “how can I convince you that you’re wrong.”

Last week I spoke about how different languages open us to more nuance and better understanding. This week I hold that we can learn our best lessons from those who come at an issue from a different origin.

The call of the Holy Trinity asks us to come together over love more than agreement. It calls us not simply to acknowledge differences or even be comfortable with them, but to celebrate them. If one parent values hard work and the other values family, can they raise children? Of course they can both value work and family, and both are good, but between them they can both support and raise their children. Their children lose out if the breadwinner and the nurturer both argue that the other isn’t “pulling his weight.” The children win if each recognizes, reveres, and loves the values of the other.

We don’t think much of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but I think we should. The love between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit calls us all to love one another in a way that allows us to be who we are and allows us to love those who share different values.

Oh yes, and God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would all vote the same way as me.