Was it inevitable?
Media attention to the General Assembly’s action on “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” focused almost exclusively on the paper’s discussion of language used to speak of the Triune God. This tight focus was further restricted to one or two examples extracted from a selection of biblical and traditional images for God.
An editorial cartoon suggested that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was replacing “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” with language as silly as “rock, paper, scissors.”
A nationally syndicated columnist seemed to think “Larry, Curly, and Moe” was a cute way to characterize her claim that the church considered “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” to be “patriarchal leftovers.”
And, of course, there was the old standby: Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Meanwhile, a Beliefnet blogger held a “name that Trinity” contest, and an op-ed contributor characterized the avalanche of ridicule descending on the PC(USA) as “liberal Christianity paying for its sins.”
Hostility and mockery has come from within the church as well. Yet much, if not most, of the harsh criticism is based on media reports about “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” rather than a reading of the paper itself. Sermons, church newsletters, and congregational Web sites all seem to assume that sensational headlines and sophomoric humor accurately represent the contents of a significant theological paper. Without reading the paper, available in draft form for nearly a year, too many Presbyterians have been too ready to believe and spread the worst.
Perhaps it was inevitable, for discussion at the Birmingham General Assembly was almost exclusively confined to a section on language used to speak of the triune God. Most of the paper’s rich exploration of the Trinity in the church’s faith, worship, and life was ignored as commissioners expressed their opposition, puzzlement, or approval of some examples of biblical and traditional images that can “amplify and enrich our understanding of God.”
Presbyterians who read “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” (readily available at www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship ) will discover that the paper seeks to show that the Trinity is not an abstract mathematical puzzle, but rather that “The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary of the gospel of Jesus Christ — it cannot be understood apart from this gospel, and the gospel cannot be fully understood apart from the doctrine of the Trinity,” and that “Far from an ivory tower doctrine, it is a doctrine concerned with the truth of God and the reality of our salvation.”
Readers of the paper know that it resists any tendency to discard or diminish the naming of the one triune God, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” To the contrary, the paper states that, “The language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rooted in Scripture and creed, remains an indispensable anchor for our efforts to speak faithfully of God. … If our lifeline to the anchor is frayed or severed, the historic faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic church risks being set adrift,” and, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the root out of which grows a rich vocabulary of praise.” This vocabulary of praise, which “must always be guided by the words of Scripture and creed that speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is never intended to replace the church’s centuries-old language of praise or to provide alternatives to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but rather to enrich our understanding of the one Triune God.
Thus, the paper sets forth eleven sets of biblical and traditional images that can “amplify and enrich our understanding of God.” Most of these three-fold echoes of the Trinity are not intended to correspond to the persons of the Trinity, but rather are ways to express the whole work of the Triune God. Each passes three careful tests: 1) the terms must have an inner relationship, 2) the terms must be either personal or functional — the two should not be mixed, and 3) functional language may amplify our understanding of the Triune God, but it cannot replace personal language.
Among the examples cited in the paper are: “As we worship, the Triune God is the One from Whom, the One through Whom, and the One in Whom we offer our praise (Rom. 11:36)” — “As we read, proclaim, hear, and live out the message of Scripture, the triune God is known to us as Speaker, Word, and Breath (Heb. 1:1; Jn. 1:1; Jn. 20:22,; Ps. 104:30)” — “As we grow in grace, the triune God is our Sun, Light, and Burning Ray (John of Damascus, First Apology)” — “In celebrating the communion of our life together in Christ, the triune God is Lover, Beloved, and the Love that binds together Lover and Beloved (Augustine, The Trinity)” — and “As we seek to live in faith, love, and hope, the triune God is for us the One Who Was, the One Who Is, and the One Who Is To Come (Rev. 4:8).” Of course, one of the eleven has been singled out for special opprobrium: “As we are born anew by water and the Spirit, the triune God is Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, and Lifegiving Womb (Isa. 49:15; Mt. 3:17; Isa. 46:3).”
Some Presbyterians may find these images helpful in comprehending the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. Other Presbyterians may find them puzzling at best. But clearly, these patterns are not ways of (in one columnist’s words) “gelding the trilogy” as an accommodation to the times. In reality, the church’s Trinity paper cuts against the times by seeking to recover a deeply Trinitarian faith that is too often lost in an age of the generic god of “Touched by an Angel” and “Joan of Arcadia.”
Just as clearly, these patterns are not intended as the language of prayer, as if Presbyterians are now encouraged to pray to “Gift, Giver, and Giving” or “Rock, Cornerstone, and Temple,” or “Mother, Child, Womb.” And, explicitly, the Trinity paper emphasizes that the baptismal formula — “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” — is not to be altered.
Perhaps it was inevitable, but it is tragic that so many Presbyterians have excoriated “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” on the basis of media reports, without ever having read it. However, I do not assume that all readers will agree with everything in the paper. That is why the General Assembly commended it to the church for study. Careful reading, study, and discussion throughout the church can identify possible ambiguity and lack of clarity in the paper. It can also find ways to make the paper even more helpful in deepening the church’s understanding of who God is, how we can worship God more faithfully, and what life shaped by grace, love, and communion can be.
Joseph D. Small is coordinator of the Office of Theology and Worship, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
