I have been reading a book. I like reading books but this book is unusual - I bought this book in 1979 and only just finished reading it.

The book is Early Christian Doctrines by J N D Kelly. It was originally written in 1958 (my edition is from 1977), has over 500 pages and is still available on Amazon.

Much of this book is to do with how the early Christians reached their doctrine about the Trinity, something I have always been fascinated by. As my minister in Invercargill, Tania Shackleton, rightly pointed out on Trinity Sunday, the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. So why did the early church come to understand God in this way?

Thankfully (for me and probably for you) I am not going to explain that but the process reminds me of something happening in our country today.

How early Christians reached the doctrine of the Trinity was a long process and confusing to modern minds, using strange Greek words like homoousion, hypostasis and prosopon, and their Latin equivalents. These words do not translate easily (even Latin speakers of the day mistranslated the Greek at times) and over time, early Christians even changed what they meant by them so that one person’s orthodox statement in one century became heretical in the next. Debates about the Trinity were drawn out, with opposing groups not listening to each other, deliberately misrepresenting their foes and calling for Synods to resolve issues then making sure only one side was present in the debates and decisions!

It was surely inappropriate for one party to reinterpret without hearing from the other party. To make true sense today you need to know this history, the meaning of Greek words at the time they were used, and how exactly they applied them. Without this you can easily reach understandings that are quite wrong as many do today. No wonder most of us today say, “I do not really understand the Trinity but I will accept the conclusions early Christians reached.” 

This reminds me of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what it meant when it was signed by Māori chiefs. It seems only fair to accept that their understanding (using Te Reo Māori) should take some priority over the English understanding where they differ since Te Tiriti was effectively imposed by the British Crown and it would be Māori who would suffer if it was wrongly applied.

The Treaty Principles Bill, coming to parliament, seems to want to re-interpret the Treaty as being between all New Zealanders and the Government (= the Crown) and not between Māori and the Crown. This would write out Māori from consideration. It is surely inappropriate for one party to reinterpret it without hearing from the other partner. 

Hang on a minute, I have just written that - one side imposing views and not listening. Who would have thought that Te Tiriti and The Trinity, as well as looking and sounding similar, would have so much more in common?