PCUSA Misses Opportunities with New Trinity Language

We thank the many gentle readers who in recent weeks have sent us links to delicious items for our SWNIDish comments. We apologize that having an actual life outside of cyberspace prevents us from taking more of these opportunities.

But with a hat tip to JB in CA, here is an item, late but still significant, that we cannot ignore.

The Presbyterian Church in the USA has debated the use of revised language for the Trinity. Among suggestions are "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb," "Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace," "Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides and Storm That Melts Mountains," "Giver, Gift and Giving," and "Speaker, Word and Breath." It is also reported that "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" is already in wide use.

So why would any Christian or quasi-Christian group want to do this? Reasons are as predictable as they are straightforward:

• God is bigger than our concepts and shouldn't be put in a box.
• Some people find the gender issues in Father and Son problematic.
• Other metaphors don't help people understand the Trinity.

So what of it? First, we're heartened that many Presbyterians simply think that the new language sounds dumb. We agree. It would appear that every clever, vaguely religious-sounding list of three is eligible for consideration. So how about these trios, all of them capable of connecting with some demographic segment?

• Earth, Wind and Fire
• Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod
• Moe, Larry and Curly
• Burger, Fries and Coke
• Tinker to Evers to Chance (bonus points for those who can identify the reference)
• John, Paul, George and Ringo (why not four?)

We invite gentle readers to leave their own suggestions in the comments.

As recently reported by LarkNews (attention: Satire Alert!), the PCUSA has launched an ambitious campaign to lose only 5% of its membership in the coming decade. Doubtless these additional innovations will aid that program.

The real problem with all this, however, is not public relations, at least not exactly. It's unChristian views of God.

As Elizabeth Achtemeier has argued cogently and decisively, Israel rejected predominantly feminine language for God because of its association with fertility cults. The whole "womb" thing demonstrates how right Achtemeier was that this tendency is not just an ancient one.

There's a different kind of problem with other formulations. Those that name physical objects tend toward pantheism. Those that name actions tend toward modalism. Those that arbitrarily lift elements of biblical narrative leave listeners with an understanding of biblical interpretation that is ... how to put this delicately? ... confused.

There's a reason that some of us think it's wise to stay close to what Christians have done from the beginning. Among many other things, it's a handy way to avoid really bad stuff.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen!