« | Main | Correction.... »
June 30, 2006
What a mess!
Last week the PCUSA was in Birmingham, Alabama for the big General Assembly conference. At issue were a couple of key votes among the many issues they were discussing. First, there is the whole issue about upholding the chastity and purity clauses for ordination. Mark Roberts has been blogging on this issue and their "schizophrenic" decision as he put it regarding this issue. Second, is the issue of encouraging Presbyterians to use new words to reflect the Trinity. Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not suffice. Now most of you who read my blog know that I am always battling for the right of women in ministry and that I get pretty upset about the emphasis on Biblical manhood and patriarchy. But even I find this whole PCUSA thing quite ridiculous.
On one level, we can never find words that are suffice at describing God or the Trinity, but when we start picking words that almost seem ridculous and cause others to break down in laughter, something seems amiss. On another level I am also okay with God being described in more feminine terms. But I don't know how we begin to begin to describe the Trinity in more feminine terms without losing some important theological concepts. And to be completely honest, I could live with people saying Mother, Daughter and Holy Spirit, as I have friends in ministry who do that. I have acutally been told by others as well that I should start using more feminizing language in my talk about God.
I haven't done enough theological research or followed the PCUSA stuff in such detail that I clearly feel free to discuss at length some of these issues. As a pastor and as a male, I strive very ardently to use neutrual language when necessary, especially when it used horizontally (he, she, they, etc.). But I have found it much harder to apply that to my vertical language towards God. I find Father, Son and Holy Spirit suffice, though others may not. I am open for discussion, but I find many of the other choices that PCUSA has pushed for as almost laughable. Here are some samples:
The specific references to the Trinity in the report:
--Sun, Light and Burning Ray
--Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb
--Giver, Gift and Giving
--Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace.
--Lover, Beloved and the Love, and Binds Together Lover and Beloved
--Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River
--One From Whom, the One Through Whom, and the One in Whom We Offer Our Praise
--Rock, Cornerstone and Temple
--Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides, and Storm That Melts Mountains
--Creator, Savior, Sanctifier
--Rock, Redeemer, Friend
--King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love
--One Who Was, the One Who Is and the One Who Is to Come
Source: "The Trinity: God's Love Overflowing," a report by a committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA)
As one theologian said, I can live with speaking about the Trinity in supplementary ways, but not replacing or substituting Father, Son and Holy Spirit for these:
Daniel L. Migliore, a member of the committee that spent five years crafting the report, said critics miss the point. "What we are speaking of is supplementary ways of referring to the triune God-- not replacements, not substitutes," said Migliore, professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Or as my pastor said in the Los Angeles Times:
The Rev. Mark Brewer, senior pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, is among those in the 2.3-million-member denomination unhappy with the additions.
"You might as well put in Huey, Dewey and Louie," he said.
Posted by rhett at June 30, 2006 09:47 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/472
Comments
Jesus was/is a daughter?
Posted by: Brent Thomas ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rhettsmith.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 30, 2006 11:10 PM
Huey, Louie and Dewey
That makes as much sense as any description of the trinity I've ever heard.
The only think that makes sense to me is to treat "God" as a title or a status. The scriptures are too clear to seriously argue that God is not a personal being. Moses spoke with Jehovah face to face as one man speaketh with another. I don't know how to make that into a metaphor. In fact, all the descriptions of God in the Bible lead one to picture him as looking like a man.
The fact that Jesus is a God and that the Holy Ghost is a God, shouldn't confuse anyone about the fact that they are three separate beings. What sense would it have at Jesus' baptism, for Jesus to be standing in the water; God's voice coming from heaven and the spirit descending in the form of a dove, if they are all one being? Why would Jesus need to be acknowledged by his father if they are the same being?
Posted by: AST at July 13, 2006 08:09 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
