Missing the Depths: A Critique of “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing”

In this essay, I will argue strongly that “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” (TGLO) should be rejected by the 217th General Assembly. Succinctly, TGLO is replete with mishandling of historical texts while inadequately addressing or neglecting altogether several foundational sources. Both of these missteps advance an agenda away from deeper consideration of the Father-Son relationship that is at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. The so-called “rich and varied imagery” which TGLO encourages actually leads to a depersonalizing of the Triune God and leads us to liturgical shallows, impoverishing us from the riches of historical doctrine. TGLO was produced by a special work group under the auspices of the Office of Theology and Worship. TGLO has been six years in the making. Its full text may be found at www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/issues/trinityfinal.pdf or www.theologymatters.com. Meaningful analysis of TGLO, however, needs to be set up by an introduction to key scriptural sources for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Introduction: The Source of Trinity

The word Trinity is nowhere to be found in Scripture. The phrase is a theological term employed to describe and preserve what we know of God. So what makes us think that God is Triune? There is only one answer: because this is the way the Father made himself known through his Son Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. And how do we know that? Only through the scriptural accounts of both the life of Jesus and the witness of the apostles after Pentecost. These accounts are, of course, corroborated by the experience of the believing community in worship and mission as we are brought into living, dynamic fellowship with both the first witnesses and the Triune God himself (I John 1:3-4). Which of the many events and teachings Scripture recounts are key to seeing the Triunity of God? Four, at least, are foundational.

1) The Baptism of Jesus is a major Christian feast throughout the world, especially in the Orthodox Church where the Sunday of Jesus’ baptism is known as theophany and regarded as considerably more important than the coming of the magi. This is because at Christ’s baptism, for the first time, all three Persons of the Godhead are revealed to be at work at once. The incarnate Son goes under the waters, consecrating his ministry in obedience to his Father. Upon rising from the waters, the heavens are opened and the Spirit descends like a dove. Then a voice sounds, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22, cf. Mark 1:9-11; Matthew 3:13-17; John 1:32-34). The baptism in water is linked to the baptism in blood on the cross (cf. Luke 12:50), and in both cases the sinless Jesus is acting in our name and on our behalf. The act of baptism signifies our being linked to Christ’s baptism. This is the external image of our invitation into the very life of the Triune God. The inner aspect will be revealed in John 14-17, as we will see below.

2) Matthew 11:27, Jesus’ Unbroken Oneness with The Father. Early in his ministry, Jesus expressed a deep intimacy with his Father. He said, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22). The Father and Son have an exclusive knowledge of each other. Their relationship forms the basis for how we understand that Jesus, as incarnate Son, is divine, and thus how it is that there are persons within the Godhead. The presence of this passage in the best-attested manuscripts of two synoptic gospels corroborates the fuller expression of this Father-Son relationship in John.

3) John 14-17, The Last Discourse and High Priestly Prayer. These passages take us into the heart of this union between Jesus and his Father. Jesus told Phillip, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:9-11). The Father and his incarnate Son Jesus are so close that they may be said to dwell in one another. Then, we see how that love opens out to include us as the Holy Spirit, a third divine person, is introduced. Jesus said:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans. I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (John 14:15-20)

Further teaching on the Holy Spirit indicates how he shares in the intimate knowing of Father and Son. Jesus said that the Spirit’s work is to “take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14). But Jesus adds in the next sentence, “All that the Father has is mine.” Jesus has already declared that he, “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19). Thus we see a mutual giving of the three Persons to each other, and the Triunity of God is revealed in such love.

4) Acts 2:32-33, Peter’s Pentecost Sermon. Following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, Peter preached to the multitude. He proclaimed the story of Jesus in ministry, of Jesus crucified, risen, and ascended. Then he explained what that history reveals of God and its implications for us: “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are witnesses. Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing” (Acts 2:32-33). The Father gives the Spirit to the Son, the ascended Jesus, who had already given himself in obedient service to his Father. Jesus pours the Spirit out upon the apostles. Throughout, the blessed Spirit gives himself to be given. Thus we receive a glimpse of this lovely Triune communion which has opened out not only to include us but to redeem us.

Upon such passages as these, the Church built her doctrine of the Trinity, always recognizing that the doctrine was not the reality but meant to enshrine the precious revelation we received in Jesus Christ. The primary speech remains the revealed language of Scripture. Abstract theological reflection upon Scripture is important, particularly in giving us the boundaries of faithful interpretation, but such theological discourse is ever and always less than the truth-revealing character of the scriptural words themselves.

TGOL: Where’s the Depth?

Frankly I can’t imagine trying to teach faithfully the doctrine of the Trinity without reference to and deep consideration of the above passages. Yet in its theological section, TGOL barely mentions the baptism (line 176, without reflection) and avoids Mt. 11, John 14-17 and Acts 2:32-33 altogether. My training as a literature major taught me always to inquire about the impact of what is not being said in an essay as well as what is proposed. These omissions are extremely telling. They are also stunning. How could a task force with several professional theologians writing a paper that is to be the major study piece on the Trinity for our denomination fail even to probe the meaning of such essential passages? TGOL claims to “plumb the depths of scripture for rich and varied imagery” (lines 86-87). Yet the document fails to explore these most foundational texts in any sustained way.

But is this just my personal bias? Am I upset because my favorites weren’t chosen and other fine passages were? How I wish that were the substance of my complaint! Sadly, I believe these passages were not selected precisely because they take us so explicitly to the relationship between the Father and the Son that is central to the New Testament. TGOL shoots a trajectory that leads the church away from using the primary speech of Father and Son. In spite of the paper’s protestations that it is ever anchored to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (ll. 330-44), a bias against this reality pervades the document. As a result our “liberation” in language actually sends the church from the depths to the shallows. The paper fails to lead the church toward the heart of the Triune reality.

This mistake of neglect is so obvious it is embarrassing to mention. Good piano teachers do not instruct their students in improvisation until basic chord structures are learned. Coaches do not teach one-handed leaping catches until thousands of repetitions of basic catching have been taught. The questions then arise, “Has the Presbyterian Church already been sufficiently trained in the depths of the Father-Son-Spirit relationship that TGOL may play variations in language without considerable exploration of the foundation? Would any of us suffer from the boredom of redundancy if the basic texts had been addressed?” Hardly. The classic material is new material to the vast majority of us. We are not properly taught about Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not ready to move on to variations, or even consider why, or if, they are needed. The paper’s acknowledgement of Father, Son and Spirit as our “anchor” is insufficient because that anchor remains below the surface of consideration. The reason such an anchor actually tethers (let alone creates, enlivens, sustains and pulses through) all discussion of the Trinity is not explored.

In this essay I will demonstrate that this bias away from the Father-Son relationship exists by examining:

1. Lapses in scholarship which lead to an inexcusably poor use of cited material. This includes altering of quotations, truncating of quotations from Scripture, and use of quotations from theologians for purposes strongly out of context with the authors’ larger argument. Tellingly, nearly every alteration tilts in a direction away from historically orthodox expressions of the Father and Son.
2. Changes made between drafts of the paper which reveal movement away from naming and considering the Father and the Son.
3. Missteps in theological reflection which follow from the above and then find expression in liturgical forms.

1) Lapses in Scholarship

Writing this section goes against my grain as a lover of theology and Bible study. I don’t want to spend several pages appearing pedantic as I point out mistake after mistake in TGOL. Yet I dare say that if presented with a paper so full of “alterations,” the very professors who are authors of TGOL would return the paper for serious correction or reject it altogether. The accumulation of errors all points in one direction, so much so that an agenda is revealed. In fact, the presence of so many inaccuracies and changes breaches trust with the reader. How can I believe what people will say who use historical sources with such revision and not mention that they are doing it? Did the work group think no one would check their references? Scholars simply may not alter texts to read the way they desire. The task of scholarship is to take historical material on its terms, not our own.

It is both embarrassing and tedious to enumerate the following. But such unraveling is necessary to reveal a bias so tightly woven into the paper that it might otherwise escape conscious detection even as its purpose has its effect on readers.

A. Altered Quotations, Incorrect Citations

As we begin, I acknowledge that members of the work group may argue that some of what I call alterations occur when Scripture is cited as a source but not directly quoted. Thus their reading would not be an alteration. While that may be technically correct, the questions remain, “Why do you prefer your paraphrase to what the text cited actually says? What understanding does your paraphrase promote and why is that consistently away from historical Father-Son articulation contained within the actual source?”

1) Lines 196-7 quote (yes, setting words off in a separate paragraph, even without quotation marks, is quoting) from the Confession of 1967. The opening word of the sentence has been altered from “This work of God” to “The work of God.” Without further examples of altering, this instance might seem innocuous. Yet the sum total of revised quotations in TGOL causes us to examine each one. The use of “The” is declaratory and may simply begin a thought concerning “The work of God” in general. The use of “This” would ordinarily send the reader to a prior statement, asking “Which work of God do you mean?” If we had been directed to a prior statement, what would we have seen? A clear articulation of the Father-Son relationship that is the foundation of Christ’s saving work! “He is the eternal Son of the Father1, who became man and lived among us to fulfill the work of reconciliation.” This redirection navigates us away from the Father-Son relationship.

2) Lines 365 discusses “the biblical depiction of God” as “beloved child.” Mt. 3:17 is cited, which in the Greek clearly refers to a son.

3) Line 379 speaks of “the child of God” though the context of the two passages cited clearly refers to a son. Is. 9:7 is quoted concerning the justice he brings; Is. 9:6 declares that “unto us a son is given.” Though TGOL here cites Luke 2:46-55, in as much as Luke 2 only has 52 verses, it is clear that Luke 1:46-55 is meant, a passage known as the Magnificat, in which Mary glorifies the Lord who caused her to conceive the Son of God (explicitly stated just 11 verses earlier in Lk. 1:35).

4) Line 381 cites John 3:30-6 as referring to being born again of the Spirit of God, though that discussion is actually much earlier in the chapter.

5) Line 381 describes the Spirit’s work with a reference to Is. 46:1-4 but that passage has the LORD as a referent rather than the Spirit of the LORD who is mentioned in, for example, Isaiah 61.

6) Lines 396-7 cite Romans 11:36 as the source for “the One from Whom, the One through Whom, and the One in Whom” we offer praise. The actual Greek text is properly rendered with masculine pronouns, as all major English translations do, “For from him and through him and to him are all things.” Granted, TGOL is not making a direct quotation, but its rendering deflects the reader from the reality that the language of revelation uses masculine pronouns for God.

7) Lines 410-11 cite Isaiah 49:15 in support of declaring that “the triune God is Compassionate Mother.” In fact, the LORD does not describe himself as a mother, but speaks of his remembering of his people as exceeding the love of a mother for a child.

8) Lines 410-11 cite Mt. 3:17 as the source for calling God the “Beloved Child” when the proper rendering is “My Son, the beloved.”

9) Line 417 cites James 1:17 as the source of the description of God as the Giver. I do not dispute the use of the term “Giver,” but must note that James 1:17 speaks of the “Father of lights” as the source of every gift.

10) Lines 1579-1587 quote Ephesians 3:16-19. “God’s glory” has been inserted instead of “his glory,’ though the Greek text explicitly uses a masculine pronoun. Also, TGOL renders “God may grant” though there is no theos in the Greek text. Similarly, the proper translation would be “through his Spirit,” not “the” Spirit. TGOL quotes Scripture in the way it desires it to have been written rather than according to what the Bible actually says. This is especially troubling considering that TGOL takes pains to bracket “We” when altering vs. 16’s “I” to be more inclusive. Why not be forthcoming about alterations throughout?

11) Line 1490 renders “The LORD” as “The Lord,” perhaps a typo but typical of the failure to recognize the significance or plumb the depth of the Name God has himself revealed, as I shall discuss in section 3 below.

B. Truncated Quotations

1) Lines 230-1 quote from Exodus 3:14-15. Every major English translation (including the NRSV which is the English Bible used throughout TGOL), renders the divine name in all capital letters, as “I AM WHO I AM” or “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.” Curiously, TGOL renders it in lower case letters, giving the effect of a descriptive phrase rather than a unique name of the particular God. Further, left out of the quotation is the LORD’s insistence that his name be linked to his historical relationships and activities as “the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” In avoiding such male reference, TGOL also misses those historical relationships which reveal the God of Israel as a particular and not a generic deity.

2) Line 805 cites Eph. 4:4-6 to assert that in baptism we affirm “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God”—and then fails to finish the quotation by including the next phrase, “one God and Father of all.”

3) Lines 1579-1587, as noted above, quote from Ephesians 3:16-19. In a document in which length is clearly not an issue, one wonders why Paul’s prayer and doxology have been shortened at the beginning and end. Not surprisingly, in the verse before TGOL begins quoting, Paul says, “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father….” And the prayer ends with doxology “to him.” Readers are being shielded from the reality of the language of revelation that does not suit the agenda of the paper.

C. Inadequate Referencing, Improper or Neglected Context

1) Lines 349-50 assert that Trinitarian language has been used to support the idea that God is male and men are superior without one shred of documentation (the idea that God is male would be nowhere found among the major patristic or Reformation theologians—this is a “straw man”). It also asserts that hierarchies are necessarily oppressive without any scriptural source. TGOL thus uncritically adopts a feminist reading of theological history in a paper purportedly written for the whole denomination.

2) Line 366 declares that a “biblical depiction of God” is as a “life-giving womb.” Is. 46:3 is referenced. That passage actually refers to the action of YHWH in creating, bearing, carrying and saving his people. To suggest that we then call YHWH “life-giving womb” is to miss the referent. Proper interpretation means that in praising the particular, personal God who has revealed himself uniquely as YHWH, we describe his loving, mighty works partially in terms of womb-nurture. We do not thereby call him a womb. The difference between verb and noun is not inconsequential.

3) Lines 369-76 give the fullest reference in the paper to Calvin, in which Calvin notes God’s comparison of himself to a mother and that “no figures of speech can describe God’s extraordinary affection.” Yet the paper fails to note that Calvin nowhere suggests calling God Mother or Womb in liturgy, and everywhere affirms the name of Father.

For example, look at just three references to the Father from Calvin’s Institutes.

a) First, at the very threshold we meet what I previously mentioned: we ought to offer all prayer to God only in Christ’s name, as it cannot be agreeable to him in any other name. For in calling God “Father,” we put forward the name “Christ.” With what confidence would anyone address God as “Father”? Who would break forth into such rashness as to claim for himself the honor of a son of God unless we had been adopted as children of grace in Christ? He, while he is the true Son, has of himself been given us as a brother that what he has of his own by nature may become ours by benefit of adoption if we embrace this great blessing with sure faith. Accordingly, John says that power has been given to those who believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God, that they too may become children of God [John 1:12]. Therefore God both calls himself our Father and would have us so address him. By the great sweetness of this name he frees us from all distrust, since no greater feeling of love can be found elsewhere than in the Father. Therefore he could not attest his own boundless love toward us with any surer proof than the fact that we are called “children of God” [1 John 3:1]. But just as he surpasses all men in goodness and mercy, so is his love greater and more excellent than all our parents’ love. Hence, though all earthly fathers should divest themselves of all feeling of fatherhood and forsake their children, he will never fail us [cf. Psalm 27:10; Isaiah 63:16], since he cannot deny himself [2 Timothy 2:13]. For we have his promise: “If you, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father, who is in heaven” [Matthew 7:11]? Similarly, in the prophet: “Can a woman forget her… children?… Even if she forgets, yet I shall not forget you” [Isaiah 49:15]. (Institutes 3.20.36)

b) For he is not only a father but by far the best and kindest of all fathers, provided we still cast ourselves upon his mercy, although we are ungrateful, rebellious, and forward children. And to strengthen our assurance that he is this sort of father to us if we are Christians, he willed that we call him not only “Father” but explicitly “our Father.” It is as if we addressed him: “O Father, who dost abound with great devotion toward thy children, and with great readiness to forgive, we thy children call upon thee and make our prayer, assured and clearly persuaded that thou bearest toward us only the affection of a father, although we are unworthy of such a father.” (Institutes 3.20.37)

c. To sum up: under the name “Father” is set before us that God who appeared to us in his own image that we should call upon him with assured faith. And not only does the intimate name “Father” engender trust but it is effective also to keep our minds from being drawn away to doubtful and false gods, permitting them to rise up from the only-begotten Son to the sole Father of angels and of the church. (Institutes 3.20.40)

In short, if one is going to bring in Calvin for reflection on the Triune God, it is only proper scholarship to acknowledge and express the overall thrust of his teaching, rather than use one section to advance an agenda Calvin himself would not have approved.

4) Line 423 cites Eph. 2:20-21 to call God our Temple while failing to see that Eph. 2:18 is the controlling phrase, concerning access to the Father.

5) Line 426 cites Mt. 10:34 to call God the Sword that Divides while failing to note the context which is the equating of acknowledging Jesus with Jesus’ acknowledging us before his “Father who is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32-33).

6) Line 435 cites I John 4:8 to affirm that God is love but neglects to mention the context for how we know this truth 4:14—“the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

7) Lines 535-7 cites Hilary of Poitiers to support the idea of the inadequacy of our language for God (which is the grounds for “supplementing” Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This passage totally fails to see Hilary’s overriding concern that this very inadequacy of our language drives us to use those names which God has revealed as precise and primary. I will quote extensively from Hilary below.

8) Line 799 cites Mt. 28:19 and suggests we use this language “to demonstrate our ecumenical commitment” rather than our obedience to Christ’s command which is the thrust of the passage. Moreover we are told that we are free in baptism “to supplement this language” (line 801) but no source in Scripture is given to support this. In summary, at least twenty-two inadequate uses of source material is beyond unacceptable in a paper six years in the making and intended for use by the whole denomination. In fact, these changes cannot be mere accident. A definite bias exists.

2) Changes Between Drafts of TGOL

TGOL was released in a series of drafts. We may consider the import of changes made from February 2004 through May 2004 and September 2005 until the final report released publicly in April 2006. First, since the early drafts “Triune” and “Trinity” now join “scripture” in beginning with lower case rather than capital letters, though our confessions capitalize all three of them. Is there meaning in such grammatical “demotion”? A few changes through the drafts actually move toward acknowledgement of the Father-Son relationship. Many more, however, move TGOL away from the historic expression.

A. Changes toward acknowledging Father and Son:

1) Line 220 now reads “together with God the Father” replacing the “Father Almighty” that was in quotation marks.

2) Lines 339-40 inserted “as Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” adding those names to the phrase “the one triune God known to us from scripture and creed.”

3) Line 1184 now makes reference to “access to the Father” when referring to Ephesians 2:18.

B. Changes away from expressing the Father-Son relationship

1) Line 449. The phrase from the Feb 04 draft “When Father, Son and Holy Spirit freely give themselves to each other there is no withholding of life and love” has been modified to “The love of the Triune God is full and free” by Sept 05 and then to “God is love” in the final version.

2) Lines 497-8 in the Mission section. Feb 04 read, “The Father sends the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.” That excellent, clear and pithy phrasing was changed in May 04 to “God has sent Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Then, by the final version it has become, “God has sent Jesus Christ to accomplish our reconciliation with God and sends the Holy Spirit….”

3) Line 639. The references in Feb 04 to the ancient hymns known as the Gloria and the Te Deum, both strong on acknowledging the Father and Son, have been removed by Sept 05.

4) Line 992, Eucharist Section. Feb 04’s “giving thanks for the work of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit” has since been removed.

5) Line 1094, Embodying God’s Love Section. Two quotations from John have been removed since Feb 04: John 14:26, “whom the Father will send in my name” and John 20:21 “As the Father has sent me, so….”

6) Line 1225, Welcoming Love section. Feb 04’s “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ever open to each other” has been removed.

7) Line 1482, Sharing Love section. Feb 04’s “Within the Koinonia of the Trinity, communion enhances the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” has been removed.

8) Line 1552, Celebrating Love section. For the second time this sentence from Feb 04 has been removed, “The Father sends the Son in the power of the Spirit.”

9) Line 1609, Love’s Blessing section. Feb 04’s “The blessing of Father, Son and Holy Spirit overflows and bathes us” has been removed.

Now the last mention of “Father” is in line 1228, nearly 350 lines from the end. The last quarter of the paper on the Trinity never mentions the Father, a rather long stretch from our supposed anchor.

3) Theological Missteps

Failing to ask, “By What Name Does God Desire to Be Called?”

TGOL acknowledges “God’s own self-disclosure in Jesus Christ” (line 235) and “the witness of scripture” (line 159) as determinative of how we know or say anything about God. Yet when it comes to “Naming the Triune God” (lines 308-381), TGOL speaks mainly of this as an activity in which we engage. The paper fails to ask the obvious, “Does God name himself for us? If so, what name does he give us? And, once the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, how does Jesus himself teach us to name God?” These questions are not without answers. But the answers from Scripture would not lead TGOL where it wants to go.

In Exodus 3, God directs Moses to bring news to the Hebrews that he has heard their cries and will soon enact their deliverance. Moses asks God how to reply should the people ask concerning this God, “What is his name?” God replies, “I AM WHO I AM. Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14). Further on, God adds “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exodus 3:15). God names himself YHWH, or I AM WHO I AM, rendered in English by the all small caps word, LORD. This name distinguishes our God from all others. The words “God” and “Lord” have come to be so generic in English usage that we might easily confuse our God with any other God, as if all religions have the same God. The particular LORD, however, is the means by which our God specifies his particularity and communicates how he stands in relationship to his people Israel. That the LORD I AM is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob means he has bound himself to a particular people through particular acts of covenant making, of saving, and community forming. We celebrate a God who makes himself known, on his terms, yet in our midst.

A theological reflection on what names we will use for God certainly needs to include, if not begin with, this foundational revelation that our God makes his name known to us as YHWH. This would help TGOL later in navigating how metaphors of impersonal objects are used in worship. The authors might then have seen the constant tie in Scripture between such metaphors and the proper, personal name of the LORD. We would all have benefited from a sustained examination of the relationship between I AM and Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed names. Alas, none was forthcoming.

Moreover, TGOL never explores the way in which Jesus himself answered the request, “Lord, teach us to pray…” (Luke 11:1). If Jesus is the self-disclosure of the Triune God, what he says about addressing God would properly be considered of first importance in all our liturgies. TGOL does nothing with the Lord’s Prayer in which we are commanded, “When you pray, say Father…”(Luke 11:2). Nor is mention made of the magnificent gift the resurrected Christ gave us when he said, “…go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’” (John 20:17). Jesus ushers into the communion which he has ever enjoyed with his Father, a gift beyond compare, established in his victorious resurrection and ascension. I long to know more about what this message given to Mary means for prayer and worship.

To be working in the Christian tradition on the topic of naming God and yet fail to explore the crucial scriptural texts, in which both God names himself and our Lord teaches us how to pray, is a colossal theological misstep. It cannot but lead us in a direction away from the glorious heart of scriptural revelation. Then, no matter how many “rich and varied” words we pile up, we yet remain in the shallows.

Making Abstraction the Reality

The purpose of theology is to reflect rationally upon the way God has revealed himself to us. Abstract phrases are used to protect and to illumine the concrete words and events of revelation. For example, homoousios (of the same being) does not appear in Scripture, yet this Greek word is of immeasurable help in our thinking about how Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully God. Trinity is not a Scriptural term but expresses the truth enshrined in Scripture that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God, one God yet distinct in three persons. We need theological phrases, abstract reflection and logical, rational discourse on the meaning of God’s self-revelation.

Yet we must never confuse our theological language with the reality of God or even with the way in which the primary speech of Scripture best signifies the reality of God for human minds. To speak of the “first Person of the Trinity” is helpful theological discourse. But we are not thereby getting “behind” the Father to something truer than this way the Father has made himself known. There is nothing we can utter that takes us closer to the reality signified by the name Father than the name Father itself. Any other naming falls away. Athanasius helped us understand that there was a “time” (before time!) when God was not “Creator” but never a time when he was not Father. There was a time when God was not “Savior” but never a time when he was not Son. There was a time when God was not “Sanctifier” but never a time when God was not the Holy Spirit. God is eternally Father, Son (or Word), and Holy Spirit. In time the Word became flesh, the Son became Jesus Christ our Lord as he took up our humanity into the Triune life. And so the Son is ever wedded now to the name Jesus. These are the names given to us which shoot backwards into eternity and take us most truly, most closely into the presence of God who surely exceeds all our words and finite comprehension. Encompassing all of these is the majestic I AM, YHWH, revealed in Exodus 3 to be the name of our God forever. What if we were asked “Who then is your God?” Perhaps we might reply, “Our God is I AM, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God I AM.”

The misstep in TGOL is to reduce all language to metaphor and to lift up our human role in determining how we will speak faithfully of our God. This is, of course, inevitable when the first misstep of failing to deal with the way God names himself has already been made. So we are led to the tables-turning statement that “we should not insist on the exclusive use of the traditional trinitarian names, lest we quench the Spirit and even foster idolatry” (lines 360-1). Such an assertion rests on setting up two specious alternatives in lines 330—332, either never using Father, Son and Holy Spirit or “only confessing God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Once again, this is a straw man—I’ve never read of anyone who wanted to insist on never saying anything other than Father, Son and Spirit. But that would be very different from holding up those divinely given names as primary speech, speech beyond our choosing and more than metaphor or analogy. In fact, these lines about idolatry in TGOL evoke for me a kind of “chilling” effect on Christian passion to praise the Father. If that is the case, what kind of theological error is it to imply that placing Father and Son as primary is quenching the Spirit whom we know from Scripture is the one who graciously places the name “Abba, Father” in our hearts and on our lips (Rom. 8:17, Gal. 4:8). How ironic it is to imply that orthodoxy may be promoting idolatry even as TGOL will tumble into liturgical forms considering God in terms as impersonal as Table, Food and Host!

Lines 284-301 discuss “two analogies” for the Trinity and put them on a historical par with one another in the “church’s thinking.” There is an immediate historical error to note. The “psychological analogy,” considering the Trinity in terms of the human mind, is not in Scripture and is attributed (in its famous form) to Augustine in the fourth century. The analogy has merit, but can in no way be placed on the same plane with the understanding of the Trinity as a loving communion. That God has his being in relationship is derived from the Father-Son communion witnessed to throughout the gospels and especially explored, as we noted above, in John 14-17. Jesus discusses the Father and Son making their home in the lives of those who love him (Jn. 14:23, cf. Rev. 3:20). John speaks later of the fellowship (koinonia, communion) which believers enter that exists between the Father, the Son and them (I John 1:3). The communion of the Three belongs to primary speech from our God. It is on a far different level than the “mind” analogy proposed later by the church fathers. Yet such a historical mistake made by TGOL more easily occurs when all ways of speaking are viewed as analogical.

A De-Personalizing of our God

The last misstep to mention follows from the other two. Trying to avoid using a personal pronoun and steering away from active engagement of the Father-Son-Spirit reality, TGOL was forced to write and reason in a manner the effect of which is to de-personalize the Triune God. The overriding metaphor of the paper is the abstract “love overflowing” rather than the names of persons. This plays out clearly in lines 199-205. I believe the paper actually wants to speak about God himself, and much of the praise is truly moving. But stepping back from the Father, Son and Spirit to speak of the love of the Triune God leads to a resounding “neutering” in the language. Nine times “it” begins a sentence, so that all that follows seems to be about the abstract quality of God’s love and not about God himself.

Later on, in the liturgical section, we can see how this plays out further. Line 400 declares the Triune God to be “our Rainbow of Promise, our Ark of Salvation, and our Dove of Peace.” In actuality, God directed Noah to make an ark (Gen.6:14) but was not himself an ark. Historically, the ark has been a symbol of the church, not God. Moreover, God gave the rainbow in the sky as a sign of his covenant faithfulness. He did not equate himself with the rainbow, as if the LORD were a kind of sun god or storm god (Gen. 9:12-17). The Dove of Peace works better because the Spirit did indeed come in the form of a Dove (Lk. 3:22). So it’s not that these images are starkly wrong, but that their effect is depersonalizing, especially as there is little or no counter-balancing use of the revealed names.

By contrast, the Psalms employ object-language in praise of God, but the scriptural use has a different feeling than the liturgy in TGOL. The reason is that the Psalms always stay in dynamic relationship to the particular God, the LORD, who has made himself known and acted savingly in both national and personal history. For example, Psalm 27 uses “light” and “stronghold,” two concrete, impersonal objects in praise of God. But the psalm does so with a constant connection to YHWH, the personal, particular God. The LORD is my light. The LORD is my stronghold. The referent there encompasses centuries of personal interaction between the God who names himself and his people. There is no danger of being left out of the personal relationship through the use of objects.

TGOL, sadly, because of its neglect of the Father-Son relationship and its abstracting of all language, even names, cannot help but give us liturgical forms that create a sense of depersonalization in our relationship with the Triune God of grace.

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, TGOL needs to be rejected by the General Assembly. Yes, there is much that is good in it. Its authors know their theology and their history. But precisely because they do, the lacuna in the paper are all the more inexcusable. The errors of TGOL are woven deeply within its good sections, and it requires considerable time and effort to ferret them out. For this reason, I do not believe the paper can be salvaged. We simply need to do better, and to stand firmly on the foundation of the Father-Son relationship at the heart of the New Testament revelation.

Earlier on, I noted how TGOL cited Hilary of Poitiers without articulating the import of Hilary’s thought. Let us give Hilary the final word:

The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do their utmost to involve the meaning in doubt. We may not on this account add to the appointed form, yet we must set a limit to their license of interpretation. Since their malice, inspired by the devil’s cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while it retains the Names which convey the truth, we must emphasize the truth which those Names convey. We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning. I cannot conceive what manner of mind our opponents have, who pervert the truth, darken the light, divide the indivisible, rend the scatheless, dissolve the perfect unity. It may seem to them a light thing to tear up Perfection, to make laws for Omnipotence, to limit Infinity; as for me, the task of answering them fills me with anxiety; my brain whirls, my intellect is stunned, my very words must be a confession, not that I am weak of utterance, but that I am dumb. Yet a wish to undertake the task forces itself upon me; it means withstanding the proud, guiding the wanderer, warning the ignorant. But the subject is inexhaustible; I can see no limit to my venture of speaking concerning God in terms more precise than He Himself has used. He has assigned the Names—Father, Son and Holy Ghost,—which are our information of the Divine nature. Words cannot express or feeling embrace or reason apprehend the results of enquiry carried further; all is ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible. Language is exhausted by the magnitude of the theme, the splendour of its effulgence blinds the gazing eye, the intellect cannot compass its boundless extent. Still, under the necessity that is laid upon us, with a prayer for pardon to Him Whose attributes these are, we will venture, enquire and speak; and moreover—it is the only promise that in so grave a matter we dare to make—we will accept whatever conclusion He shall indicate. (Hilary De Trinitate Bk 2. 5)

Yet He has, as we said, in ‘Father’ a name to indicate His nature; He is a Father unconditioned. He does not, as men do, receive the power of paternity from an external source. He is unbegotten, everlasting, inherently eternal. To the Son only is He known, for no one knoweth the Father save the Son and him to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him, nor yet the Son save the Father. Each has perfect and complete knowledge of the Other. Therefore, since no one knoweth the Father save the Son, let our thoughts of the Father be at one with the thoughts of the Son, the only faithful Witness, Who reveals Him to us. (Hilary De Trinitate, Bk. 2: 6)

We cannot find terms more precise than the names God has revealed for us to use! Therein lies the power, the majesty, the energy, and the entry into the presence of the Triune God in worship and work.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 2006).