Advertisement
Holy Week resources and reflections

Reflection on “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing”

The task force on the Trinity rightly comments (line 71) that the doctrine of the Trinity is "widely neglected or poorly understood in many of our congregations." This central doctrine of the Christian faith seems optional to some Presbyterians, peripheral to others, and irrelevant to the faith and life of many others. For some ministerial candidates, the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear on their carefully crafted statements of faith presented to their presbyteries. The task force rightly concludes, after observing this reality in our church, that "the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial to our faith, worship and service" and it prays that "Presbyterians will once again find that the doctrine of the Trinity is good and joyful news!" (lines 72-74). 

The task force on the Trinity rightly comments (line 71) that the doctrine of the Trinity is “widely neglected or poorly understood in many of our congregations.” This central doctrine of the Christian faith seems optional to some Presbyterians, peripheral to others, and irrelevant to the faith and life of many others. For some ministerial candidates, the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear on their carefully crafted statements of faith presented to their presbyteries. The task force rightly concludes, after observing this reality in our church, that “the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial to our faith, worship and service” and it prays that “Presbyterians will once again find that the doctrine of the Trinity is good and joyful news!” (lines 72-74). 

The task force presents “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” to the 217th General Assembly as one effort to help the church discover once again the doctrine of the Trinity in all its richness and fruitfulness. It is a hopeful paper that sincerely advocates for theological and spiritual deepening in the church. 

The task force document takes several approaches to this end of theological and spiritual renewal. The paper narrates the mighty acts of the Triune God revealed in Scripture as God’s overflowing love was revealed first in the people of Israel and then uniquely in Jesus Christ. The paper also explores the wealth of biblical treasures that witness to God (lines 395-428), including God as Rock, Cornerstone, Temple, the One Who Was, the One Who Is, and the One Who Is to Come, the Word, the Breath, and many others. The paper is deeply theological, as the Trinity is shown to be “the summary of the gospel” (line 148). It is properly modest, as we are called repeatedly to respect the limits of human language in the face of the unsurpassable greatness of God’s mystery (lines 226-278). 

All of these features of the paper are important: a re-telling of the rich biblical narrative that witnesses to Christian faith, the sturdy theological foundations of Trinitarian doctrine, and a sober reminder of the limits of human language in dogmatic construction. The church can be rightly grateful for these strengths of the task force paper.

Another asset of the paper is a wonderful retrieval of many liturgical and traditional sources that find root in Trinitarian language. The retrieval extends beyond our own Book of Confessions and the Book of Common Worship to contemporary and ancient sources, including those from Iona; our brother in the early 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury; the later twelfth century mystic, Bernard of Clairvaux; the thirteenth century mystical writer, Mechthild of Magdeburg and many others. It is encouraging for Presbyterians to get beyond ourselves, our conversations, and our controversies to listen to the cloud of witnesses that have much to teach us. The church can be rightly grateful for this strength of the task force paper as well. 

I celebrate especially the keen interest of the task force paper in the connections between worship and the Trinity and in the connections between Christian living and the Trinity. At every moment in the worship service, from the call to worship to the benediction and sending, the Trinitarian implications are identified. The sacraments, too, are highlighted as Trinitarian moments of Christian worship where God graces the community. In baptism, we are united to Christ, enlivened to God, and freed to service according to the Spirit (line 805). In the Lord’s Supper, we have communion with Christ through the Spirit. This is the church’s treasured moment of “God’s Love Overflowing”! 

The task force paper describes the Trinitarian patterns of Christian living that emerge from baptism and from the Eucharist vividly and concretely. Hospitality, reconciliation, holiness, justice, generosity, celebration: these are the patterns of Trinitarian living that characterize Christian communities. “God’s Love Overflowing” clearly calls the church to a positive renewal in Christian living. The church can be rightly grateful for this strength of the task force paper, an unambiguous connection between faith and life.

So, there are many gifts of this paper to the church. I found myself at a number of places, however, with disappointments that ought not to go unidentified.

One disappointment is a curious muting of the voices of Scripture and tradition with respect to traditional “Father” and “Son” language. The paper affirms this traditional language (line 331 and line 798) and also affirms a wide range of biblical images of God for use in devotion and worship. Rich images from the Christian tradition are also retrieved. This seems like a wise move on the part of the task force. So then, why the muting of the traditional language? For example, the wonderful words of Ephesians 4:5-6 where the Christian community is reminded of its call to one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” is “edited” in line 804 to exclude reference to “one God and Father of all.” Instead, the quote ends, abruptly to ears accustomed to the full music of the text with “one God.” The omission is so obvious as to raise the question, “Why?” Is this biblical language of God as Father an embarrassment? A hindrance? Because the task force took care to affirm the traditional biblical language, on theological and ecumenical grounds, it is puzzling why Scriptural omissions, which do not model appropriate regard for the integrity of the text, are warranted. 

An even deeper disappointment is why a paper on the Trinity that seeks to be true to the Christian tradition and the biblical witness marginalizes the gospel of John. Although there are a dozen references to John in the paper, none mine the riches of the distinctively “Trinitarian” sections, especially chapters 14-17. These chapters express the mutuality of the relationship between Jesus and the Father into which we are incorporated by adoption. If these rich chapters were avoided because of the Father language, this is truly a sad reflection for the state of theology in the Presbyterian church. 

Yet one other disappointment has to do with a certain “wishful thinking” on the part of the paper with respect to our brother in the faith, John Calvin. It is certainly true that Calvin warmly encourages and supports the maternal imagery of Isaiah 46:3 and Isaiah 49:15 in his commentary, a move that is congruent with what has often been called Calvin’s notion of God’s “accommodation” to our needs and limitations. But in the Institutes’ section on prayer, which the task force paper does not cite, Calvin links the name of God as Father with Christ our Savior and our adoption as children and then instructs us to pray to God as “Our Father,” “the best and kindest of all fathers” (3.20.37).

Calvin seems to assume a difference between the divine name (Father) and divine imagery (father and mother and many others as well). There does seem to be an ambiguity in the task force paper between the question of divine names and divine imagery.  It is an old question, much debated and not simply and easily settled. But the question probably needs to be faced head on instead of avoided. 

This is a paper worthy of service to the church. Its instruction in worship and the Christian life are so fruitful and integrated that my disappointments, though significant, can be bracketed in support of the paper. Perhaps the General Assembly might ask that the final version would include scriptural citations that are full, accurate, and complete, with no omissions that seem weighted. 

 

Leanne Van Dyk is dean and vice president of academic affairs at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Mich.

LATEST STORIES

Advertisement