Trinitarian formulae in worship
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
I understand that quite a number of folk, arguing that God does not have human gender or, at least, wishing to escape from male pictures of the Divine, prefer not to use Trinitarian ascriptions of praise or benedictions which include the word "Father".
As an antidote to this, quite a few modern formulae include titles such as "Creator ... Redeemer ... Inspirer". I can see the logic to these, but I dislike them because (a) they go against received tradition; (b) they sound impersonal; and (c) they make the first Person of the Trinity into the sole Creator, whereas I believe that the whole Godhead was involved.
What do others think? Have you found better versions?
(Please note that I have deliberately put this into Ecclesiantics rather than Purgatory).
As an antidote to this, quite a few modern formulae include titles such as "Creator ... Redeemer ... Inspirer". I can see the logic to these, but I dislike them because (a) they go against received tradition; (b) they sound impersonal; and (c) they make the first Person of the Trinity into the sole Creator, whereas I believe that the whole Godhead was involved.
What do others think? Have you found better versions?
(Please note that I have deliberately put this into Ecclesiantics rather than Purgatory).
Comments
It seems to me the issue is once you try to bring in analogies which are more likely to be gendered, though shepherd isn’t. Almost any anology, or quality, that isn’t parenthood will be gender neutral.
Generally prayer can get round the pronoun issue by being addressed directly. If you were to amend the Lord’s Prayer for example:
Our God, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
You can change one word to keep the text as given by Christ without really changing any of the meaning. Or you could just use the name:
Jehovah, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
(I once heard a sermon which started out by insisting on the personal nature of the Holy Spirit and then used "it" throughout...
I suppose another option, would be to use an address made by Christ in another context, using “Eloi”; which I believe means “my God” and maintains both a direct address and a level of intimacy ?
Its not quite Abba, Daddy is it.
Although the Apostles' Creed does start, "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth..."
Now that to me , and a few of my fellow Elders, suggests that it claims that the Father is the sole creator.
Interesting point about the Apostles' Creed - thank you.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men."
John 1
The first verse of our second hymn today was -
Written in 1935 by Alan Gaunt
I rather like it. I think it covers the 'Three persons one being' concept very well.
As I understand it, things like “Creator, Redeemer, Inspirer/Sanctifier” (I’ve seen “Sanctifier” before) are, well, the old heresy of Modalism.
I don’t go to churches where they mess with the Trinity that way.
My understanding of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost” involves the relationship between the Persons, in Eternity, regardless of or “before” Creation. But creating, redeeming, inspiring, sanctifying, etc. are what God does to Creation, not within Himself. Even apart from Modalism, this is another aspect of how I understand the Trinity to be.
I am sticking with the traditional invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As for viewing the latter as feminine, generally the Church has considered the Holy Spirit to be masculine, at least in relation to us, so I will continue to do so.
I’m not a huge fan of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, but I do tend to think that if a Big Deal is going to be made that that phrase suggests that only the Father is Creator or only the Son is Redeemer, then similar criticism can be made of the Creed. I do not think Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer is inherently and necessarily modalist; rather, I think without care and contextualizing (catechesis?), the potential for a modalist understanding is there.
The approach that currently holds sway in my denomination is usually referred to as “expansive language.” This approach doesn’t seek to avoid all masculine language for God. In particular, “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” is still used. (And it must be used for baptism.) And “Our Father” is still typically used in the Lord’s Prayer.
But under an expansive language approach, care is taken that that kind of masculine language isn’t what’s exclusively heard. It’s balanced or complimented with other ways of talking about or referring to the Trinity.
For my money, that sort of approach highlights that we’re attempting to talk about a mystery that no one phrase can adequately describe, and it does so without simply ignoring or jettisoning traditional, received language.
I think 2 Corinthians 13:14—“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit”—provides perfectly good scriptural warrant that while “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” is unquestionably an important part of our received tradition, it isn’t the only acceptable trinitarian formula. (And Paul even refers to the First Person of the Trinity simply as “God.” Yet I never hear anyone claim that suggests that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God.)
Effectively, though, we believe that all Persons of the Blessed Holy and Undivided Trinity are 'involved' in anything God does - if we can put it that way.
So yes, as has been said above all Persons of the Trinity are involved in Creation. Yet God the Father is the only Person credited with that in the Creed - presumably to convey that 'monarchical' sense of first cause as it were. But I'm no expert so I'm speculating.
We tend to stick to traditional gendered language though, but are not unaware of the difficulties that can cause.
I mean it is worth pointing out that some people choose to use it/its for their own personal pronouns as a way of reclaiming depersonalisation - I think you (general you) could make a case for using "it" in solidarity with that.
I personally tend to view the titles of the Godhead as quite separate to pronouns/notions of gender - having the role of Father doesn't mean that God is male, it's a job description.
I think you could make such a case, but it would not resonate with the vast majority of people.
Humans referring to themselves as "it" is a minuscule minority habit. A far larger number of humans find it offensive to call people "it", and would not engage with language that suggests that God is an object or an impersonal force.
Relationships are part of the core of who God is. The persons of the trinity are in a relationship with each other, and we are called to be in a relationship with God. Language that obscures this (and despite the existence of humans who like to call themselves "it", I think "it" generally reads as impersonal) does not help this.
It's bad enough that we have large numbers of people who thnk that "thee" and "thou" are special formal God-language.
Part of the problem is that English, in common I'm sure with many other languages, doesn't have non-gendered singular personal pronouns.
I think you can reasonably argue that English does have singular "they".
Singular "they" is famously older than singular "you".
Famously?
https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177
Well, in the sense that that's the only environment in which most people encounter those forms, they now are.
Interestingly the medieval quote at the start of that is actually being used of the group, not of a specific member of the group.
Each man infers a group, more than one arrived.
At best it's ambiguous.
No, “each man” is singular.