The Trinitarian Nature of Being

Communion as “Revealed Relation”

If we are committed to a genuinely communal ontology, then we must discover a “method” of approaching the mystery of being that is consistent with the logic of communion. We must discover a “communal epistemology” that allows us to see the world through “communal eyes.”

The first thing we must do is determine the various “players” already on the scene before we even begin our inquiry into the true nature of being. Since “communion” signifies unity-in-distinction, we have a prima facia reason to believe that there are multiple, distinct aspects or “sides” of existence that exist together in a relationship of mutual interiority. In fact, I believe there are precisely three “sides” of our being that we must take into account. All three are united in the fact that they are a gift from God (hence, all three are created, that is, distinct from yet necessarily in relation to God): (1) our own being, (2) the other’s being, and (3) the actualization/revelation of the union between ourselves and the other. Why is it necessary to make this threefold distinction? The answer to this question is central to our task of developing a communal ontology that takes seriously the revelation of the Triune God as the Creator. 

We are distinct persons (or “hypostases”), and, in a sense, we are “absolute” or “singular.” St. Sophrony of Essex says this explicitly in his spiritual autobiography, “We Shall See Him as He Is.” We each are absolute insofar as we have the power of self-determination; we choose, in the end, who we are. Likewise, we are each “centers” of the world insofar as we are the perspective or the “point” from which we engage with the world. We must note that since we are the  “point” from which we engage the world, we must always stand in relation to “the world,” or what we have called “the other.” The other signifies something distinct from–yet standing in relation to–us. The “other” is the one we are oriented towards, the “end” towards which our active being is directed. As we have said, all three “sides” of being are mutually interior and mutually implying, so it is not even logical to speak of an “isolated person” who is not always-already standing in a positive relation to an other. Rather, from the very beginning of each of our existence, we are distinct persons acting in relation to and in union with others. Our “activity” is what the Fathers of the Church call our “energy,” which is a term taken from Aristotelian metaphysics and is closest to the English term “actuality.” Our actuality is our being; it signifies our irreducibly distinct (personal) existence in relation to an other.

The key point here is that our activity, which is our being (being is an energy even in God, and it is a common misunderstanding of Orthodox theology that “essence” is God’s “being” and energy is merely His outward manifestation), is always a directed movement, that is, a relation. A relation implies both unity and distinction, and the fullest realization of relation (God’s eternal life, which we share in through theosis) is identical to the fullest development of one’s distinct self and (or in and through) one’s union with the other. The Father, Son, and Spirit are irreducibly distinct but fully united in their mutual interiority. This mutual interiority consists of the three Persons performing the same activity (energy) in their respective hypostatic “modes” (for lack of a better term). The Father, Son, and Spirit each love, but the Father loves in a paternal way, the Son in a filial way, and the Spirit in a spiritual way. Each engages in and possesses the same “energy” or actuality, but this energy is only actualized in and through the Trinitarian communion wherein each Person expresses the divine nature in their irreducibly unique, that is, hypostatic ways. Since all the attributes/energies of God are realized in communion, they are identical to the three Persons energizing/acting “in” and “through” one another from all eternity. 

Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” because we are created as “sons” of God destined for adoption into the internal life of the Son. Our own activity/energy/actuality begins and ends in the Son, as we can only exist in relation to God. God first creates us from nothing, and the further cultivation/perfection of our contingent being is only possible through the realization/consummation of the relation that is our being. Our creation from nothing is the beginning of our existence as a distinct being from God, but since distinction always implies relation, we know that our being is only fully realized in our union with God. Christ is the only “way” to the Father because the very meaning of our being (in its fullest, ontological sense) is the actualization of our relation to Him as adopted sons, which occurs in our being united to the eternal Son through the Spirit. In being united to the eternal Son, who is the only true “way,” we take on the same mode of relation to the Father that He has by nature. The Father first moves towards the Son (and I use this language purely analogically and do not at all imply this union occurs in time) as the “monarchia” of the Godhead and the Son reciprocates this movement in turn. As “sons of God,” we are meant to engage in this same relation in a creaturely mode, which consists of the synergy of our own activities with the activities of God. This synergy is realized through our entrance into the Son's inner life, wherein we share in His eternal act of reciprocating the Father’s original movement towards Him. 

We can now return to discussing the three “sides” of being (as communion). The first “side” is our own being as a distinct hypostasis. The second side is the “other,” which includes the entirety of creation (and most significantly other hypostases) if we limit ourselves to relations between creatures. The third side we have yet to discuss is the revelation or actualization of the union between self and other. 

A “mono-hypostatic” reality is incoherent, as being is always being-in-relation (to an other). But a “dual-hypostatic” reality is also incoherent because the relation of two alone does not allow for the revelation or actualization of relation/communion. Take, for example, two corporeal objects. They always stand in relation to one another, and they do so precisely because they are united in space. The relation between the two cannot be attributed to either of them alone, which means there is a third element present which is the principle of their union. If two objects are moving towards one another in space, they will eventually collapse into each other. But if they are brought together and then move outwards into three-dimensional space, they can, theoretically, continue to fill this space infinitely. Just as the Spirit of God is the “third” in Whom the communion of the two is actualized and revealed, according to the Bible, it is this same Spirit who unites all creatures to God and to each other. 

In ourselves, we possess no capacity for relation with the other. Think about this carefully: if we isolate “ourselves” at any point in time, nothing about this self alone allows for any change whatsoever. The only way I can relate to another thing (which is synonymous with existing at all) is if I “transcend myself” towards an other, and this power of “self-transcendence” (or “ekstasis” in Greek) is not an intrinsic power of creaturely being, just as “nothing” alone could never become “something.” The power of self-transcendence is not within any creature alone. The tricky part of all of this is that we always-already exist in a revealed relation (communion) with others, so, strictly speaking, it makes no sense to speak of “ourselves” in isolation. Even when we isolate ourselves conceptually, as a sort of “virtual distinction,” everything that has been isolated only exists insofar as it is in relation to the world and to God. Even if you use your power of self-determination right now to think of a random word, you only did so because you are reading this post, and you can only think of a word because you received language through your socialization. Once we begin to think through the relations that constitute our existence, we realize that the entirety of the created world is a relational network where everything has a positive and intelligible connection to every other thing. But every created thing only ever exists in relation to each other; nothing in creation can (in the ultimate and primary sense) facilitate the communion between creatures. Nothing possesses the “gift” of existence in themselves precisely because it is a “gift of the other.” If every creature is contingent upon others, then there must be a non-contingent “first giver” who, at every moment, gives the “gift” (of being) that we all share between ourselves. We can only give the gift to the other creature (and the other creature can only give the gift to us) insofar as we have both received it, in the ultimate sense, from God. Thus, it is God Himself, the “first relation” who is not contingent upon the created network of relations, who facilitates the union of self and other. 

The key point I am trying to make is that the threefold distinction between self, other, and the realization of this union is necessary to comprehend being, as being is the unity-in-distinction of these three sides (as being is an energy of God, and the divine energies are intrinsically Trinitarian, as discussed above). With the self alone, there can be no being, as the self only ever exists in relation to an other. With the self and other alone, there can also be no being, as they are always united in or through something distinct from them (for spatial objects, this is space itself). In the context of human beings who are spiritually united to one another, this is only possible because we are united “in” the Spirit. Just as the Spirit is the “giver of life” (according to the Nicene Creed), the Creator of both self and other, this same Spirit is the one who unites the self and other together in Him. He draws us forth from nothing precisely by uniting us to God and the world. Thus, from the very beginning, our being consists of God’s creation of ourselves, His creation of other-selves for us to know, and His realization of our union with other-selves (in Him). The first and most essential point is that God is the Creator of all three sides of (created) being, so we cannot say that God takes a pre-existing being and subsequently puts it into relation with Him and others. If one is familiar with the communal ontology, one is able to recognize that this is not even a coherent idea, as it implies that there is any being prior to and separate from relation. The second point is that the three “sides” of being are not three separate realities but the three sides of God’s creative act, all equally necessary and mutually implying. The self exists as absolute (properly understood) and distinct, about whom Saint Augustine once said “God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.” But the self only ever exists in relation to an other (most fundamentally, and essentially, God), and this relation is only possible in the “third,” who is distinct from yet contains the two. Thus, three is the number of being itself, as being is synonymous with revealed relation, that is, communion.