Trinity Sunday – 2022
John 16:12-15
Marian Free
May I speak in the name of God – Earth-maker, Pain-bearer and Life-giver. Amen.
Several years ago, as I was preparing to preach on Trinity Sunday I read an article that discussed the language with which we address God. The writer argued quite forcefully that the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit had to be retained as it was the only language that, in their mind, captured the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. From memory, the author was offended by the use of non-anthropomorphic imagery for God on the basis that such terminology was unable to reflect the idea of relationship.
A recent google search led me to an article which argues in a similar way. The author contended that: “These words, “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” mean something. They are not abstract concepts, ideas or words conjured up to impose, as claimed by some, a patriarchal regime.”“These names designate the relationship proper to each Person of the Trinity, that is, they proclaim how each Person is distinctly related to the other Persons in the Trinity: “the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another.”
That is, “the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit to both.”
If we believe that the words of Scripture are the inspired word of God, the very Word of God, and He has given us this very specific language to speak about the Trinity, then our authority to intend to change this – by mere avoidance of being politically incorrect – has no bearing.”
Father Richard along with the author of the earlier article seem to be driven as much by a reaction against “political correctness” as they are by solid theological study. In their endeavour to hold on to their conservative (patriarchal) viewpoint, they have considerably limited the roles and functions of the members of the Trinity and denied their listeners/readers access to the wealth of expressions that can be used to begin to put language to the ineffable nature of God. Unfortunately, “Father” and “Son” ground us in language that is human and not divine and describe one particular relationship (one not shared by father and daughter, mother and daughter, mother and son). Furthermore, the relationship between Father and Son (language which is found primarily in John’s gospel) can, in human relationships be fractured, abusive or non-existent.
LaCugna is another who wants to retain the language of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. She states that: “the language Father, Son and Spirit is relational in that it refers to the roles that each person of the Trinity plays in respect to each other. According to LaCugna: “Creator-Redeemer-Sustainer language does not adequately reflect the language and view of Scripture that God creates through the Son and by the Spirit or that God redeems us through Christ.” I am no theologian, but it seems to me that LaCugna’s language suggests an hierarchy within God rather than mutuality; distinction rather than oneness.
Many of the contemporary arguments around the familial language that we use for the Trinity base their defence on Jesus’ instruction to the disciples before the ascension: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” What proponents of this view do not say is that this is the only place in the New Testament which this language is used. The Trinity, as a theological concept does not exist in the New Testament and is a human invention that did not exist for centuries.
The assumption that only the language of Father and Son can be relational is not only anthropomorphic (human) but androcentric (male centred). It ignores the fact that relationships abound in the non-human universe, relationships revealed by biologists and physicists just for starters. In limiting us to the language of Father and Son, people like Father Richard reduce the relationships between the persons of the Trinity to those experienced and expressed by human beings. A God who is beyond understanding surely cannot be contained by the language of a human household, or by language that emphasises human relationships. God transcends all our attempts to define God which is as good a reason as any for us to experiment and play with language – knowing as we do that no language is adequate for God, let alone for the relationships between the persons of the Trinity.
The use of a wider selection of epithets for the members of the Trinity allows for the expression of a wide range of human experience – in relationship with one another and with God. It also frees us from seeing God – and the relationships between the three person of the Trinity – in human terms. Language such as that found in the New Zealand Prayer Book: “Earth-maker, Pain-bearer and Life-giver” adequately captures the roles of the three persons of the Trinity and liberates us from imagining God in terms of the parental, paternal language of Father and Son. The use of non-familial, non-anthropomorphic language expands, rather than diminishes our understanding of God. Abstract expressions force us to consider the nature of the relationship rather than allowing us to rely on familiar and comfortable images. There is enormous power in the imagery ofexpressions such as: “World-Weaver, Hand-Holder, Breath-Bringer,” “Mother, Lover, Friend,”“Mighty Creator, Eternal Word, Abiding Spirit” and there is nothing about such imagery to suggest that the individual expressions cannot be in relationship with each other.
It is not a bad thing for our presumptions to be questioned, our illusions shattered, and our use of language challenged. God who cannot be contained, Jesus whom the tomb could not hold and the Spirit who blows where she wills will never and should never be captured by the limitations of human language. What is essential is that no matter what language we use that we do nothing to detract from “the eternal oneness, inseparability, and mutual indwelling of each of the divine “persons”” of the God who is three AND one.
Tags: androcentric, anthropomorphic, m;utuality, oneness, relationship, Trinity
Swallowsrest 