Trinity Part VIII: "Trinity Schminity! Why Does It Even Matter?"
A question I've wrestled with too.
Why even bother writing about the Trinity? I mean if 98% of Christians accept or affirm it, and I don’t disavow fellowship with trinitarians, as one commenter put it:
”Trinity Schminity! Why does it even matter?” …
And, I’ll be honest. A part of me feels the same:
Why do we get caught up in all these theological debates? Isn’t faith about trusting and walking with God, not arguing over doctrinal fine print?
But here’s why I think it does matter (and not in a “kick people out of church” kind of way, but in a “this affects how we relate to God” kind of way.)
I know that for many, rejecting the Trinity places me on the fringe of orthodoxy. In some circles, it practically earns me a seat next to Arius in the heretic’s hall of fame (even if I don’t fully agree with his theology either).
But I’m not interested in rebellion for its own sake. I’m interested in truth.
And truth, if it is truly divine, should be able to withstand scrutiny without resorting to mystery or coercion.
I’m not rejecting synthesis.
I’m rejecting conclusions that only work by repeatedly redefining plain language across Scripture.
So I say this clearly: I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine.
Not as defined by the ecumenical creeds, not as taught by post-Nicene Christianity, and not as quietly assumed by most modern churches.
But I do believe in God the Father, in Jesus the Messiah, His divine first-begotten Son, and in the Spirit of God that moves and works in us today.
And I believe they are not the same being.
The “Uncaused Source”
At the deepest level, this isn’t just about clarity.
It’s about source.
Scripture consistently presents one uncaused source, the Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come.
If God is defined by being the uncaused source, then that identity cannot be shared without redefining what “God” means.
And, if that distinction holds, then we’re not just dealing with different language about God.
We’re dealing with a fundamentally different understanding of who God is.
1. It shapes who we worship.
If God is a mysterious “three-in-one,” then we spend our lives trying to connect with a concept.
But if God is simply the Father, and Jesus is His Son, as Scripture plainly says, then we’re relating to Persons with a clear relationship between them. Not metaphysical riddles.
That changes prayer, obedience, worship, and love.
2. It shapes how we understand Jesus.
If Jesus is God, then His obedience becomes performance.
It becomes harder to explain how His obedience is genuinely dependent rather than expressed within a shared divine identity.
But if Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine in origin yet truly distinct from the Father, then His submission is beautiful, not theater.
His exaltation means something. His prayers are genuine. His role as mediator makes sense.
And this isn’t just about one or two verses.
Across Scripture, Jesus receives life, authority, and mission from the Father, consistently and without reversal.
3. It shapes how we talk about the gospel.
The Trinity often turns the gospel into philosophical jargon: “God sent Himself to satisfy Himself so He could forgive us for breaking His laws…”
But the actual gospel is simpler:
God sent His Son.
His Son obeyed unto death.
God raised Him up and gave Him authority.
Now we are saved through Jesus, to the glory of the Father.
That structure matters. From God, through Christ, back to God.
Not a closed loop, but a directed relationship.
There’s a difference between:
- something we don’t fully understand and
- something that requires its definitions to shift depending on the passage it is trying to explain.
4. It shapes our courage to question.
For many of us, especially those from rigid church backgrounds, the Trinity was “untouchable.” You had to believe it. No questions allowed.
So part of writing this was to show that it’s okay to ask hard questions, challenge assumptions, and wrestle with Scripture honestly.
Not because I want division but because I want clarity.
I’m not trying to win a debate. I just want people to feel like it’s safe to think, to seek, and to say, “Wait… this doesn’t quite line up with what Jesus actually taught.”
You don’t have to reject the Trinity to walk with Jesus.
But you also don’t have to blindly accept it to belong in the body of Christ.
TL;DR: Why does it matter?
Because it shapes how we see God, how we relate to Jesus, and how we share the gospel.
And because truth should never need to hide behind mystery or intimidation.
The Danger of Mystical Reflection
Often when challenged, defenders of the Trinity will say:
“God is greater than we can imagine. He is mystery.”
That sounds reverent. But it can become an escape hatch for doctrines that don’t align with Scripture.
God is greater than we are. But He revealed Himself clearly:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other.” (Isa. 45:5)
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)
God invites us to reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18), not hide in contradiction.
Mystery should inspire awe, not obscure clarity.
Eight Unanswered Questions
If the Trinity is biblical truth, we should be able to answer these plainly from scripture:
Where does God say He is a three-person being?
Where does Jesus ever teach that God is a three-person being?
Where do the apostles ever teach that God is a three-person being?
Where does Scripture say we must believe this to be saved?
Where does Scripture say to teach this doctrine to others?
Where in scripture are we warned that denying the Trinity is damnable heresy?
Where does Scripture identify more than one subject as the one from whom all things come?
If Jesus sits at God’s right hand, and hands all back to Him at the end, who is supreme?
The Bible answers #8 clearly: the Father.
The other seven? Still waiting.
If You’re Still Hung Up on the Trinity...
Then pause and ponder:
Why does Jesus call the Father "the only true God"? (John 17:3)
Why is Jesus consistently described as given authority, rather than possessing it inherently?
Why is the Spirit never worshipped or prayed to in Scripture?
Why did the apostles never debate, defend, or define a triune God?
At the heart of it is this question: If the Father is the only true God, in what sense is that statement still fully true if God is three persons?
The truth is simple, powerful, and liberating if we let go of inherited complexity.
Why Do People Want to Believe in the Trinity?
Not because Scripture demands it.
But because:
It sounds reverent to call Jesus “fully God”
It feels protective to say the Spirit is a divine Person
It helps distinguish Christianity from other monotheistic faiths
It gives a tidy philosophical answer to confusing verses
It satisfies emotional comfort and inherited tradition
It justifies centuries of doctrinal creeds and councils
But God’s truth isn’t decided by tradition, philosophy, or emotion.
It's revealed in Scripture.
At the end of it all, Scripture gives us a simple structure:
One God, the Father, from whom are all things.
One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.
That’s not a philosophical puzzle.
It’s a relationship.
And everything flows from that.
Thank you for all the time you’ve put into these pieces. These things have been most helpful in sorting through my own feelings that something is off with the Trinity doctrine. In talking to some, it sometimes seems like it has become a doctrine that produces a feeling of superiority toward those who don’t just accept it because “everyone else does.” Being around that mindset is almost traumatic to someone who has carefully and intentionally pried themselves away from a different exclusivity doctrine in recent years. The Trinity doctrine also has vibes of exclusivity for me. No more organized religion for me. I will worship God alone and follow what is clearly in scripture…not a doctrine that continues to cause confusion and division.
Hey Jon, thank you for your writing and for this series. I appreciate the honesty of your wrestling. I’ve read all the posts so far and thought this might be a good point to start some dialogue, if you’re interested.
I’m pretty familiar with where you’re coming from. I rejected the Trinity most of my life as a 2x2, first largely out of ignorance, and later because I actively tried to understand and refute it as non-scriptural. At one point I even debated a Christian school headmaster to convince him that our not believing in the Trinity shouldn’t disqualify us from attending (it didn’t work). So being considered a heretic doesn’t particularly frighten me, and I don’t see you as less of a brother because you are wrestling with these questions honestly.
When I began deconstructing, I decided I wasn’t going to believe something simply because I inherited it or because it was considered “orthodox.” I wanted to test things carefully through prayer, experience and study. If that led somewhere non-orthodox, so be it. Ironically, where I eventually landed is not really along denominational lines, but ends up looking fairly orthodox in many respects.
One of the biggest things I took from my experience in the 2x2s is that theology produces communities and cultures. What we believe about God eventually reveals itself in how we treat people, because theology shapes our imagination of reality itself.
One thing I’ve wrestled with is whether certain forms of subordinationist theology can unintentionally create new mediation structures. In the 2x2 world, the workers functionally became spiritual intermediaries, and that concentration of authority led to abuse. I don’t think that was merely accidental. If God remains ultimately distant and inaccessible, and if access to Him comes primarily through exalted representatives, then hierarchy can begin to feel built into reality itself.
That raises questions for me like: why is Jesus exalted, and what makes that exaltation unique? If exaltation comes primarily through obedience, does that risk making proximity to God feel tiered, where the “most obedient” become the closest mediators and examples for everyone else? I’m not asking that rhetorically, I genuinely wonder how different Christologies shape the kinds of communities we build.
What increasingly drew me toward a more classical understanding was the covenant trajectory of Scripture itself. The Bible begins and ends with humanity in unbroken communion with God: Eden and New Jerusalem. Between those bookends is the story of humanity alienated from God’s life, grasping for control, trust fractured, communion broken, mediation necessary.
But throughout covenant history, God does more than merely issue commands. He reveals Himself. The covenant is not just a static legal arrangement but a relationship moving toward restored communion. God meets people where they are and progressively makes His faithful character known.
That’s part of why I eventually came to see Jesus not as a departure from that trajectory but its fulfillment: not merely a messenger pointing to God, but God’s faithful self-revelation within history. In Jesus I see both faithful Israel and faithful humanity: humanity as it was always meant to be in perfect trust and participation with God.
The Father/Son distinction also began making more sense to me in that framework. I don’t think of the Father and Son as competing beings, but almost as transcendence and revelation held together. The Father represents the inexhaustible depth of God beyond our grasp, while the Son is God’s self-revelation within creation and covenant history. Nobody knows the Father except through the Son, but through the Son we truly come to know the heart and character of the Father.
Anyway, sorry for the long message. I’ve appreciated your writing, and I’d genuinely be interested to hear your thoughts.