Trinitarian Language

Originally posted - Saturday, November 25, 2006

Presbyterians revisit the Trinity
From the Associated Press: (http://www.theologywebsite.com/)
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit"--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer and Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairwoman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God. (original lyrics can be found here: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/r/praisegf.htm)
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, said she was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the 10 Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly is to vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional presbyteries some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
-----------------------------------------
Now comes my commentary on this issue. There is no single "analogy" for the Trinity in the history of Christianity. However, there is one that is used significantly more than any other, including in the Bible. This is "Father, Son, and Spirit." I get the whole "God isn't male" deal. I'm not arguing that he is. What I'm saying is that when theology feels like it can re-interpret the Bible, it is too secure in itself. When theology feels comfortable enough to say "this is what the biblical author meant to say" it has overstepped its bounds. Theology was meant to organize subjects within Christendom, not re-write them. Karl Barth warned against inhumility in theology.

11/26/2006 -

Here I am a few days after I wrote the above section. I got to thinking about this issue. It is ironic that I would talk about how I didn't think these people should go beyond the Bible (or at least be extremely careful in doing so). Why is it ironic? Well, that is exactly what Trinitarian theology does. It is "the next step" to the Bible. The word "Trinity" isn't even in the Bible. Though it appears the basis for the Trinity is there, it took early church fathers many years to finally set a doctrine on the matter. Did they go beyond the Bible? I think that depends on perspective. They (they, here, means the early church Fathers such as Tertullian and Augustine) believed they were only "clarifying" what the Bible laid out. Remember the purpose of the Gospels wasn't high theology but to tell us of the good news. So of course, the Bible magnifies the work of Jesus over the person of Jesus/The Son and the Holy Spirit.
The reason the church felt the need to "clarify" (very dangerous in my opinion) was because of the multitude of heresies (even more dangerous). The unity of the church was valued more highly then. The culture didn't call for individual truth like our postmodern world does.