I am totally happy for people to use threefold formulae that pickup characteristics of God in worship such as "Creator, Saviour and Sustainer" or "source, foundation and end". They sound good because that is how performative English language works.
It is quite something else to claim they are alternative invocations of the Trinity which is a highly constructed theological understanding. My attitude is leave well alone unless you really do have the patience to step into dense 4th century theological debate and culture. Without doing so we might well end up making a right hash of things with the best of intentions.
I'm not at all sure he's taught us NOT to use "formal language of superiority". I think we can if we want to, we just have the option of intimacy now too.
This. And even talking to Him as our Father is still talking to Someone above us.
As for @angloid saying “none of us has any other superior than God,” I have no idea what you’re talking about, or in what context. I don’t believe we live in such a world at all, myself, nor would I want to. I mean, the US officially says “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, but that might be more on a political level, and not all countries adhere to that notion.
Except that none of us has any other superior than God, and God has specifically taught us not to use the formal language of superiority when addressing God.
Thinking about it, I don’t really see either of those as being the traditional Christian understanding basically ever, honestly.
Well, in the sense that that's the only environment in which most people encounter those forms, they now are.
I don't mind if people think of it as "special informal God-language", but I do think that churches who like to use thou and thy in worship have an obligation to explain to their congregants that the point of using thou is that it is intimate and personal. I think it's fine for people to want to use "thou" for God, and I think it's fine for them to reserve that language for worship, and not engage in some anachronistic theatre of trying to re-introduce the tu-form to standard modern English, but I want them to understand that it is "special personal language" and not "special formal crawl on the floor in the presence of your superior" language.
Not that “special formal crawl on the floor in the presence of your superior" language is a bad thing… or informal “crawl on the floor” language, for that matter.
Except that none of us has any other superior than God, and God has specifically taught us not to use the formal language of superiority when addressing God. So, as Frankie Howerd might have said, 'grovel ye not'.
I think you’re missing the humor being employed by @ChastMastr.
Hint: If you don’t recall matters from his personal life that he’s shared or alluded to in the past, consider his screen name.
Humor, but also truth. Indeed, it was realizing my faith and those aspects of my life were compatible—just not compatible with a lot of “modern” notions in our society—that helped me embrace those things I’d struggled with for decades. There’s a whole thread on it on the old Ship from the early 2000s.
The purpose of Angloid's statement seems to me to be simply stating equality amongst everyone under God - and certainly their wording seems to be very much in keeping with English Nonconformist thought. I guess my question is when something becomes a form of tradition, given that Nonconformism has a very particular and very storied history in the UK and in England in particular.
I don't personally think that referring to God using formal language is contrary to the Bible, but it's not like Quakerism (for eg) is a recent invention.
I am totally happy for people to use threefold formulae that pickup characteristics of God in worship such as "Creator, Saviour and Sustainer" or "source, foundation and end". They sound good because that is how performative English language works.
It is quite something else to claim they are alternative invocations of the Trinity which is a highly constructed theological understanding. My attitude is leave well alone unless you really do have the patience to step into dense 4th century theological debate and culture. Without doing so we might well end up making a right hash of things with the best of intentions.
Next time I post, I need to check it's not me who needs to hear what I am posting.
In this context, yes, I'm understanding "traditional" to be older than both Nonconformism and Quakerism. Others' mileage may vary.
I assumed as much (which is not a judgement on my part either way!). WRT Nonconformism in England, its roots are in the Peasants' Revolt - although obviously it didn't begin in a formal sense until much later. England has historically always been rather a hotbed of anti-clericalism even when deeply Catholic let alone generally deeply Christian, which I find interesting given the history of strong Marian devotion in Catholic England - it often seems like people preferred to bypass clerical authority by going to Mary. Anglo-Catholicism however, is very much a Victorian impression of how the medieval English church "should" have been but as with so many Victorian things based on an idea of the past, is not particularly historically accurate. Low Church Anglicanism is a much older invention than High Church Anglicanism - and I think that both are wholly human inventions, and no worse for that.
I personally view the clericalism of Ancient Near Eastern Christianity and the anti-clericalism of medieval England onwards to simply be different regional traditions, informed by local historical and cultural influences. I don't personally think that any human interpretation of ecclesiology, liturgical language etc is "pure" and untouched by external influences - I don't see that as a bad thing though, I view it as a normal part of human variation. I have my own preferences but I don't view them as being more correct than other people's preferences. I am a bit snobbish about the things I do and don't like in liturgy, but I view that purely in terms of personal taste.
Lollardy was emerging around the time of the Peasant's Revolt and a radical priest, John Ball, I think,was among the ring-leaders. 'When Adam delved and Eve spanne/Who was then the Gentleman?'
It's a bit of a stretch though to see it as the antecedent of 17th century Nonconformity, although there are some echoes of course.
Most historians these days note that it was a largely a revolt by yeomen and the better off 'middling sort' as they would come to be known rather than 'peasants' as such.
At any rate, I'd agree there was a long history of anti-Papacy and anti-clericalism here even when the country was deeply Roman Catholic. That wasn't unusual. Look at the struggles between the French kings and the Papacy, although I'd agree it was more of a grass-roots thing here.
There's a strong anti-clerical sentiment in Greece and other majority-Orthodox countries too, so it's not an entirely Western European thing.
Nor do I see there as a completely direct correlation between Western European feudalism and Marian devotion, but yes, it provides some of the context for that.
I do agree that no Christian tradition or expression, Big T or small t is 'neutral' and somehow unaffected by the socio-economic and historical and political conditions in which it emerged. Of course not.
The Incarnation took place at a time of Roman occupation and after centuries of turmoil and the emergence of acute Messianic expectations. None of these things happen in a vacuum.
The same thing applies to the language we use. There's not anything 'neutral' about that either.
The purpose of Angloid's statement seems to me to be simply stating equality amongst everyone under God - and certainly their wording seems to be very much in keeping with English Nonconformist thought. I guess my question is when something becomes a form of tradition, given that Nonconformism has a very particular and very storied history in the UK and in England in particular.
I don't personally think that referring to God using formal language is contrary to the Bible, but it's not like Quakerism (for eg) is a recent invention.
As a nonconformist papistically-inclined Anglo-catholic, thank you!
Not sure if anyone has brought this up in the thread yet, but I think maintaining the traditional wording of the trinitarian formula is particularly important for baptism for ecumenical reasons, so that as many Christian churches as possible can recognize each other’s baptisms by using the formula that is most agreed upon.
Coming from a small or big c Catholic perspective, I think the words of liturgy are a form of divine revelation just like the words of Scripture are, so I would rather unpack the gendered and patriarchal seeming parts of them in preaching and catchesis rather than try to compose new words that attempt to contain the theological nuance of the Trinity without any gendered terms. I also think that even trying to make a non gendered form of the trinity is not possible in many of the world’s languages (including Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin!) where every word has a gender.
I like the mind-twister of an idea that the Triune God and divine persons like God the Father transcend the concept of Gender, and that the use of terms like Father and capital H He/Him pronouns for it are just names and pronouns and don’t tell us anything about any gender that God does or doesn’t have - just like nonbinary human persons can use he/him or she/her pronouns without identifying as male or female (I’m not saying that God is nonbinary - because I believe God transcends even gender concepts like nonbinary-ness).
Not sure if anyone has brought this up in the thread yet, but I think maintaining the traditional wording of the trinitarian formula is particularly important for baptism for ecumenical reasons, so that as many Christian churches as possible can recognize each other’s baptisms by using the formula that is most agreed upon.
Not sure if anyone has brought this up in the thread yet, but I think maintaining the traditional wording of the trinitarian formula is particularly important for baptism for ecumenical reasons, so that as many Christian churches as possible can recognize each other’s baptisms by using the formula that is most agreed upon.
Yes, that has been discussed.
I also think that even trying to make a non gendered form of the trinity is not possible in many of the world’s languages (including Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin!) where every word has a gender.
The flip side of that is the “gender” in such languages is grammatical rather than biological or sociological, and it’s understood that grammatical gender can be completely unrelated to biological/sociological gender. I mean, I doubt that French-speaking people view tables as female just because they are grammatically feminine.
Then you have languages like German, with three grammatical genders. And in German the word for girl (Mädchen) is neuter rather than feminine because nouns ending in the diminutive -chen are always neuter.
I’m guessing speakers of languages where nouns carry grammatical gender might be more accustomed to separating images of maleness and femaleness from gendered nouns than are English speakers, since in English any gender of nouns is always related to biological/sociological gender.
I believe that there is actual, nonbiological, metaphysical meaning to the notion of God as “masculine” in relationship to us—that, while the patriarchal concepts within the societies that God used have been misused terribly in our fallen world, they are still getting at something deep and profound (symbolically or in other ways)—but I absolutely believe that, in our society now, men and women definitely should have fully equal rights; and also that metaphysical “masculinity” and “femininity” are aspects of both men and women, and all other male and female creatures (and for that matter, all things within Creation), somewhat like the concepts of Yin and Yang.
Again, I see God (all three Persons, and the Divine Unity) as masculine in relation to us. How the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are masculine and feminine in relation to each other would be a different matter. So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
I was reminded recently that St. Augustine described the Trinity as Lover, Beloved, Love.
So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
I was reminded recently that St. Augustine described the Trinity as Lover, Beloved, Love.
I will have to read more of him! I can see that working, though I would not replace the traditional words with it in liturgy, etc.
@ChastMastr I can appreciate where you're coming from with that (wrt masculine and feminine) but I'm afraid it reminds me a little too much of the way the "divine feminine" and "divine masculine" are deified within Wicca. I know that's not remotely what you mean by it, it's just a personal drive-by association from being online in the early 00s when Charmed was popular 🤭 It does seem a bit New Age or Gnostic to me though - God is identified with feminine language in relation to us in the Bible quite frequently, I don't see this dualism in the actual Bible. If anything the portrayal of God in the Bible is anti-dualist, notably in that God is not presented as having a consort.
I think that if God is real, God has aspects of gender outside of the gender binary - both a lack of gender and genders other than masculine and feminine genders. Limiting God to only masculinity and femininity seems weirdly restrictive to me. It also seems strange to suggest that God couldn't be experienced as feminine in relation to us. There doesn't seem to be a reason given for that, apologies if I missed it.
Biblically (and sometimes experientially) he is--I mean, there's that passage in 1 Peter which presents him as a nursing mother (1 Peter 2:2,
"Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.") And of course Jesus' comparison of himself to a mother hen, and the feminine Wisdom passages which are traditionally considered to be about the second person of the Trinity. I'm sure I'm missing something... Yes, I was. God describes himself as being in labor in Isaiah 42:14, though the image changes soon, so we don't get a full-fledged working out of it. But Jesus does the same thing with his Passion by implication, with all that "My hour has (not yet) come," which he sprinkles all over the place, ending up making the explicit connection in John 16:21. And the disciples go on to follow Jesus' example, as when Paul compares himself to a mother among her nursing children.
I am totally happy for people to use threefold formulae that pickup characteristics of God in worship such as "Creator, Saviour and Sustainer" or "source, foundation and end". They sound good because that is how performative English language works.
.
'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' appears to be the officially acceptable option in my denomination to the usual formula. In our church we continue to use Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I see some value in the option in the sense that the titles are not only gender neutral, but are descriptive of the functions of those members of the Trinity - God the Father is Creator, God the Son is Redeemer, the Holy Spirit is the Sustainer. That kind of thing.
However, I still tend to think that people might prefer to relate to a 'person' of the Trinity rather than a function.
I think you're right. Also that the alternate formula sort of implies that the Trinity divvies up his work, instead of all three persons taking part in each function.
@ChastMastr I can appreciate where you're coming from with that (wrt masculine and feminine) but I'm afraid it reminds me a little too much of the way the "divine feminine" and "divine masculine" are deified within Wicca. I know that's not remotely what you mean by it, it's just a personal drive-by association from being online in the early 00s when Charmed was popular 🤭 It does seem a bit New Age or Gnostic to me though - God is identified with feminine language in relation to us in the Bible quite frequently, I don't see this dualism in the actual Bible. If anything the portrayal of God in the Bible is anti-dualist, notably in that God is not presented as having a consort.
I think that if God is real, God has aspects of gender outside of the gender binary - both a lack of gender and genders other than masculine and feminine genders. Limiting God to only masculinity and femininity seems weirdly restrictive to me. It also seems strange to suggest that God couldn't be experienced as feminine in relation to us. There doesn't seem to be a reason given for that, apologies if I missed it.
Perhaps putting it in terms of yin and yang would be helpful—we are, all of Creation is, yin to God’s yang. Within the Trinity, the Son could be seen as yin to the yang of the Father, but not to us, except in terms of His emptying of Himself in the Incarnation and being subject to the laws within Creation and to human society, all the way up to experiencing death on the cross—so in this sense, He did indeed experience this specific kind of “feminine” experience with us. (And in His resurrected body, remaining incarnate, then in some ways He still does.)
In the sense I am thinking of here, “masculinity” and “femininity” do not map out completely onto male and female sex, nor indeed onto anything within Creation. I’m thinking of Form as masculine and Matter as feminine, going all the way down beyond whatever scientific understandings we have of such things—this is a philosophical view, not one derived from nor analyzed by the sciences. (And yes, regarding Form and my understanding thereof, as Lewis says in the Narnia books, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato,” though of course in a specifically Christian understanding of these things.)
In the sense I’m thinking of here, biological sex is just one context in which this kind of metaphysical gender plays out, but men and women both have masculine and feminine aspects to them.
I actually don’t mind the comparison to Wicca (or various other types of ancient or modern paganism)—I would disagree with specific aspects of it where it disagrees with Christianity, of course, but I believe we Christians have much more in common with it than either has with atheistic materialism. Some elements of my worldview have much in common with some elements of animism, again specifically in a Christian context (there’s a reason that I describe myself as “an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto” — it’s the easiest shorthand to sum it up… But then things have to be explained in more detail…).
I’m sorry this is so long and I hope it’s not terribly confusing. I should eat now as it’s 3:09 AM (no relation to the amino acid…).
(… every time I see that number I think of the amino acid threonine, because I’m weird…)
I think you're right. Also that the alternate formula sort of implies that the Trinity divvies up his work, instead of all three persons taking part in each function.
Yes—that’s modalism! 😮 *
I want to just add that even if it turned out that my understanding of transcendent masculinity and femininity (which I hope I’ve described in a coherent way, off the top of my head, above) and such was totally off, I still understand the language of God as “He,” of the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” and such, as the language we have been given. That doesn’t mean imagining Him in feminine ways is bad (I love George MacDonald’s Princess stories, with the Grandmother who is very much a God-figure), but I would not change the liturgy to switch out “He/Him,” “Lord,” “Father/Son/Holy Spirit/Ghost,” etc.
* Anyone else mentally add “…Patrick!” when they hear the word “modalism”? It’s from a YouTube video by “Lutheran Satire,” though I think the creator is being unfair to St. Patrick in that one, and I mainly like the videos about Easter and Christmas and the supposed origins of each. I don’t like many of his others, sadly…
* Anyone else mentally add “…Patrick!” when they hear the word “modalism”? It’s from a YouTube video by “Lutheran Satire,” though I think the creator is being unfair to St. Patrick in that one, and I mainly like the videos about Easter and Christmas and the supposed origins of each. I don’t like many of his others, sadly…
"I'm just gonna stab ya in the face now, Patrick" [yes, in answer to your question]
The creator comes from a very conservative Lutheran position combined with a huge dollop of arrogance which sometimes combines with great humour but most of the time comes off as crass and unpleasant.
So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
I was reminded recently that St. Augustine described the Trinity as Lover, Beloved, Love.
Yes, and as you'd expect, whilst embracing him as one of 'ours' the Orthodox feel he's diluting things to some extent with comments like that. Or, more accurately perhaps, he can easily be misunderstood or misrepresented when he does that sort of thing.
We'd consider the 'West' to have taken something of a wrong turn by taking some of St Augustine's comments the 'wrong way' (ie. not our way) and that's how we end up with a wonky 'Western' view of Original Sin and everything that stems from that - such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, double-predestination and so on - not to mention a 'diluted' view of the Holy Spirit and views of the Trinity that slide into modalism.
Not that we accuse the Blessed Augustine himself of such things ... but we are wary how we read him, if I can put it that way.
Now, before I receive a broadside I hasten to add that I'm not accusing fellow Shipmates of being sub-Trinitarian or anything of the kind.
What I am saying, though, is that Augustine needs handling carefully - and he's not the only one of the Fathers to whom that applies.
We'd argue of course that you need special gloves to handle Augustine carefully. Special Orthodox gloves. The gloves of Holy Tradition.
If you aren't wearing those you might get your fingers burned.
These things are there for our protection.
That said, I think there's a lot of clumsy Orthodox polemic that traces a line from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers and Counter-Reformers and misses out on some juicy fruit along the way.
We have to pick the fruit carefully. Some is wholesome and nourishing. Some bitter.
But I don't want to push those analogies too far. There are juicy blackberries among the briars.
* Anyone else mentally add “…Patrick!” when they hear the word “modalism”? It’s from a YouTube video by “Lutheran Satire,” though I think the creator is being unfair to St. Patrick in that one, and I mainly like the videos about Easter and Christmas and the supposed origins of each. I don’t like many of his others, sadly…
"I'm just gonna stab ya in the face now, Patrick" [yes, in answer to your question]
The creator comes from a very conservative Lutheran position combined with a huge dollop of arrogance which sometimes combines with great humour but most of the time comes off as crass and unpleasant.
Indeed, with some unexpected weird stuff thrown in. A recent video criticized a writer I didn’t know about, who apparently does have some theological issues of concern I think, but… it criticizes him for believing in evolution, which is not something I’ve ever encountered from a contemporary Lutheran until now. 😮
So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
I was reminded recently that St. Augustine described the Trinity as Lover, Beloved, Love.
Yes, and as you'd expect, whilst embracing him as one of 'ours' the Orthodox feel he's diluting things to some extent with comments like that. Or, more accurately perhaps, he can easily be misunderstood or misrepresented when he does that sort of thing.
Actually, one of the articles I read on Augustine’s “Lover, Beloved, Love” understanding was by an Orthodox theologian who was pretty approving of it. In particular, that theologian saw it as reflecting a proper understanding of the relationship of the persons of the Trinity and an Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit rather than a Filioque understanding.
And I should be clear: Augustine doesn’t explicitly “name” the Trinity as “Lover, Beloved, Love,” or suggest that as a liturgical formula. Rather, he writes extensively of the Father as “Lover,” of the Son as “Beloved,” and of the Holy Spirit as “Love.”
Also that the alternate formula sort of implies that the Trinity divvies up his work, instead of all three persons taking part in each function.
Perhaps, but I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before: If the alternate (supplementary?) formula “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” implies that, then so does the Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen. . . .
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, . . .
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven . . . .
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life, . . . .
These lines certainly can be read as implying that the Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer, and the Spirit is Life-giver/Life-sustainer.
And I was reminded while watching the final series/season of Grantchester that other traditional prayers of the church give rise to a similar implication. For example:
Depart, O Christian soul, out of this world,
In the Name of God the Father Almighty who created thee.
In the Name of Jesus Christ who redeemed thee.
In the Name of the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth thee.
May thy rest be this day in peace,
and thy dwelling-place in the Paradise of God.
(Yes, I know some versions of this prayer have “in the mercy/name of Jesus Christ who died for you”; this is the version from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.)
It seems to me we can be a bit selective about what formularies and prayers we think imply it is the Father who creates, the Son who redeems and the Spirit who sustains/strengthens/enlivens. And it seems to me that selectivity is directly related to whether we’re used to the formularies or prayers in question or not. If it’s familiar, we tend not to question it or hear it with modalist implications. But if it’s unfamiliar, we seem more prone to suspect or even assume modalism.
I suspect the problem lies in the briefness of almost all formulas. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at least has this going for it, that it doesn't define the Persons in terms of what they do--which removes the itchy desire to add a footnote for fear of encouraging modalism in the unwary.
Those are all good points @Lamb Chopped and please don't misunderstand my clumsily worded earlier comments about St Augustine of Hippo.
He is regarded as thoroughly Orthodox but there is a tendency - particularly acute among some polemicists - to see some of his statements - out of context perhaps - to be behind certain developments in 'Western theology' that the Orthodox consider unwelcome.
I suspect the problem lies in the briefness of almost all formulas. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at least has this going for it, that it doesn't define the Persons in terms of what they do--which removes the itchy desire to add a footnote for fear of encouraging modalism in the unwary.
I suspect the problem lies in the briefness of almost all formulas. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at least has this going for it, that it doesn't define the Persons in terms of what they do--which removes the itchy desire to add a footnote for fear of encouraging modalism in the unwary.
I think it also familiarity going for it—not just in the sense of being accustomed to it, but in the sense of millennia of use and conversation. We’ve had lots of time to discuss and clarify exactly what we mean and don’t mean by calling God “Father,” or by saying in the Creed that the Father is maker of all that is.
Comments
It is quite something else to claim they are alternative invocations of the Trinity which is a highly constructed theological understanding. My attitude is leave well alone unless you really do have the patience to step into dense 4th century theological debate and culture. Without doing so we might well end up making a right hash of things with the best of intentions.
This. And even talking to Him as our Father is still talking to Someone above us.
As for @angloid saying “none of us has any other superior than God,” I have no idea what you’re talking about, or in what context. I don’t believe we live in such a world at all, myself, nor would I want to. I mean, the US officially says “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, but that might be more on a political level, and not all countries adhere to that notion.
Thinking about it, I don’t really see either of those as being the traditional Christian understanding basically ever, honestly.
Humor, but also truth.
—-
March 13, 2002. 24 years ago!! 🤯
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001087;p=1
Anyway, back to the Trinity…
No worries! ❤️ I was indeed telling the truth about what I believe to be true, but also in a humorous manner.
I don't personally think that referring to God using formal language is contrary to the Bible, but it's not like Quakerism (for eg) is a recent invention.
Next time I post, I need to check it's not me who needs to hear what I am posting.
I assumed as much (which is not a judgement on my part either way!). WRT Nonconformism in England, its roots are in the Peasants' Revolt - although obviously it didn't begin in a formal sense until much later. England has historically always been rather a hotbed of anti-clericalism even when deeply Catholic let alone generally deeply Christian, which I find interesting given the history of strong Marian devotion in Catholic England - it often seems like people preferred to bypass clerical authority by going to Mary. Anglo-Catholicism however, is very much a Victorian impression of how the medieval English church "should" have been but as with so many Victorian things based on an idea of the past, is not particularly historically accurate. Low Church Anglicanism is a much older invention than High Church Anglicanism - and I think that both are wholly human inventions, and no worse for that.
I personally view the clericalism of Ancient Near Eastern Christianity and the anti-clericalism of medieval England onwards to simply be different regional traditions, informed by local historical and cultural influences. I don't personally think that any human interpretation of ecclesiology, liturgical language etc is "pure" and untouched by external influences - I don't see that as a bad thing though, I view it as a normal part of human variation. I have my own preferences but I don't view them as being more correct than other people's preferences. I am a bit snobbish about the things I do and don't like in liturgy, but I view that purely in terms of personal taste.
It's a bit of a stretch though to see it as the antecedent of 17th century Nonconformity, although there are some echoes of course.
Most historians these days note that it was a largely a revolt by yeomen and the better off 'middling sort' as they would come to be known rather than 'peasants' as such.
At any rate, I'd agree there was a long history of anti-Papacy and anti-clericalism here even when the country was deeply Roman Catholic. That wasn't unusual. Look at the struggles between the French kings and the Papacy, although I'd agree it was more of a grass-roots thing here.
There's a strong anti-clerical sentiment in Greece and other majority-Orthodox countries too, so it's not an entirely Western European thing.
Nor do I see there as a completely direct correlation between Western European feudalism and Marian devotion, but yes, it provides some of the context for that.
I do agree that no Christian tradition or expression, Big T or small t is 'neutral' and somehow unaffected by the socio-economic and historical and political conditions in which it emerged. Of course not.
The Incarnation took place at a time of Roman occupation and after centuries of turmoil and the emergence of acute Messianic expectations. None of these things happen in a vacuum.
The same thing applies to the language we use. There's not anything 'neutral' about that either.
As a nonconformist papistically-inclined Anglo-catholic, thank you!
Coming from a small or big c Catholic perspective, I think the words of liturgy are a form of divine revelation just like the words of Scripture are, so I would rather unpack the gendered and patriarchal seeming parts of them in preaching and catchesis rather than try to compose new words that attempt to contain the theological nuance of the Trinity without any gendered terms. I also think that even trying to make a non gendered form of the trinity is not possible in many of the world’s languages (including Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin!) where every word has a gender.
I like the mind-twister of an idea that the Triune God and divine persons like God the Father transcend the concept of Gender, and that the use of terms like Father and capital H He/Him pronouns for it are just names and pronouns and don’t tell us anything about any gender that God does or doesn’t have - just like nonbinary human persons can use he/him or she/her pronouns without identifying as male or female (I’m not saying that God is nonbinary - because I believe God transcends even gender concepts like nonbinary-ness).
Brought up on the previous page: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/795249/#Comment_795249
The flip side of that is the “gender” in such languages is grammatical rather than biological or sociological, and it’s understood that grammatical gender can be completely unrelated to biological/sociological gender. I mean, I doubt that French-speaking people view tables as female just because they are grammatically feminine.
Then you have languages like German, with three grammatical genders. And in German the word for girl (Mädchen) is neuter rather than feminine because nouns ending in the diminutive -chen are always neuter.
I’m guessing speakers of languages where nouns carry grammatical gender might be more accustomed to separating images of maleness and femaleness from gendered nouns than are English speakers, since in English any gender of nouns is always related to biological/sociological gender.
Again, I see God (all three Persons, and the Divine Unity) as masculine in relation to us. How the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are masculine and feminine in relation to each other would be a different matter. So to me finding new words for the Trinity would not only almost always verge into modalism (I guess someone could try “Progenitor, Offspring,” etc.?), it would be a mistake in the first place.
I will have to read more of him! I can see that working, though I would not replace the traditional words with it in liturgy, etc.
I think that if God is real, God has aspects of gender outside of the gender binary - both a lack of gender and genders other than masculine and feminine genders. Limiting God to only masculinity and femininity seems weirdly restrictive to me. It also seems strange to suggest that God couldn't be experienced as feminine in relation to us. There doesn't seem to be a reason given for that, apologies if I missed it.
"Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.") And of course Jesus' comparison of himself to a mother hen, and the feminine Wisdom passages which are traditionally considered to be about the second person of the Trinity. I'm sure I'm missing something... Yes, I was. God describes himself as being in labor in Isaiah 42:14, though the image changes soon, so we don't get a full-fledged working out of it. But Jesus does the same thing with his Passion by implication, with all that "My hour has (not yet) come," which he sprinkles all over the place, ending up making the explicit connection in John 16:21. And the disciples go on to follow Jesus' example, as when Paul compares himself to a mother among her nursing children.
'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' appears to be the officially acceptable option in my denomination to the usual formula. In our church we continue to use Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I see some value in the option in the sense that the titles are not only gender neutral, but are descriptive of the functions of those members of the Trinity - God the Father is Creator, God the Son is Redeemer, the Holy Spirit is the Sustainer. That kind of thing.
However, I still tend to think that people might prefer to relate to a 'person' of the Trinity rather than a function.
Perhaps putting it in terms of yin and yang would be helpful—we are, all of Creation is, yin to God’s yang. Within the Trinity, the Son could be seen as yin to the yang of the Father, but not to us, except in terms of His emptying of Himself in the Incarnation and being subject to the laws within Creation and to human society, all the way up to experiencing death on the cross—so in this sense, He did indeed experience this specific kind of “feminine” experience with us. (And in His resurrected body, remaining incarnate, then in some ways He still does.)
In the sense I am thinking of here, “masculinity” and “femininity” do not map out completely onto male and female sex, nor indeed onto anything within Creation. I’m thinking of Form as masculine and Matter as feminine, going all the way down beyond whatever scientific understandings we have of such things—this is a philosophical view, not one derived from nor analyzed by the sciences. (And yes, regarding Form and my understanding thereof, as Lewis says in the Narnia books, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato,” though of course in a specifically Christian understanding of these things.)
In the sense I’m thinking of here, biological sex is just one context in which this kind of metaphysical gender plays out, but men and women both have masculine and feminine aspects to them.
I actually don’t mind the comparison to Wicca (or various other types of ancient or modern paganism)—I would disagree with specific aspects of it where it disagrees with Christianity, of course, but I believe we Christians have much more in common with it than either has with atheistic materialism. Some elements of my worldview have much in common with some elements of animism, again specifically in a Christian context (there’s a reason that I describe myself as “an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto” — it’s the easiest shorthand to sum it up… But then things have to be explained in more detail…).
I’m sorry this is so long and I hope it’s not terribly confusing. I should eat now as it’s 3:09 AM (no relation to the amino acid…).
(… every time I see that number I think of the amino acid threonine, because I’m weird…)
Yes—that’s modalism! 😮 *
I want to just add that even if it turned out that my understanding of transcendent masculinity and femininity (which I hope I’ve described in a coherent way, off the top of my head, above) and such was totally off, I still understand the language of God as “He,” of the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” and such, as the language we have been given. That doesn’t mean imagining Him in feminine ways is bad (I love George MacDonald’s Princess stories, with the Grandmother who is very much a God-figure), but I would not change the liturgy to switch out “He/Him,” “Lord,” “Father/Son/Holy Spirit/Ghost,” etc.
* Anyone else mentally add “…Patrick!” when they hear the word “modalism”? It’s from a YouTube video by “Lutheran Satire,” though I think the creator is being unfair to St. Patrick in that one, and I mainly like the videos about Easter and Christmas and the supposed origins of each. I don’t like many of his others, sadly…
PS: 3:50 am. Food hot now… night all…
"I'm just gonna stab ya in the face now, Patrick" [yes, in answer to your question]
The creator comes from a very conservative Lutheran position combined with a huge dollop of arrogance which sometimes combines with great humour but most of the time comes off as crass and unpleasant.
Yes, and as you'd expect, whilst embracing him as one of 'ours' the Orthodox feel he's diluting things to some extent with comments like that. Or, more accurately perhaps, he can easily be misunderstood or misrepresented when he does that sort of thing.
We'd consider the 'West' to have taken something of a wrong turn by taking some of St Augustine's comments the 'wrong way' (ie. not our way) and that's how we end up with a wonky 'Western' view of Original Sin and everything that stems from that - such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, double-predestination and so on - not to mention a 'diluted' view of the Holy Spirit and views of the Trinity that slide into modalism.
Not that we accuse the Blessed Augustine himself of such things ... but we are wary how we read him, if I can put it that way.
Now, before I receive a broadside I hasten to add that I'm not accusing fellow Shipmates of being sub-Trinitarian or anything of the kind.
What I am saying, though, is that Augustine needs handling carefully - and he's not the only one of the Fathers to whom that applies.
We'd argue of course that you need special gloves to handle Augustine carefully. Special Orthodox gloves. The gloves of Holy Tradition.
If you aren't wearing those you might get your fingers burned.
These things are there for our protection.
That said, I think there's a lot of clumsy Orthodox polemic that traces a line from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers and Counter-Reformers and misses out on some juicy fruit along the way.
We have to pick the fruit carefully. Some is wholesome and nourishing. Some bitter.
But I don't want to push those analogies too far. There are juicy blackberries among the briars.
Indeed, with some unexpected weird stuff thrown in. A recent video criticized a writer I didn’t know about, who apparently does have some theological issues of concern I think, but… it criticizes him for believing in evolution, which is not something I’ve ever encountered from a contemporary Lutheran until now. 😮
And I should be clear: Augustine doesn’t explicitly “name” the Trinity as “Lover, Beloved, Love,” or suggest that as a liturgical formula. Rather, he writes extensively of the Father as “Lover,” of the Son as “Beloved,” and of the Holy Spirit as “Love.”
Perhaps, but I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before: If the alternate (supplementary?) formula “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” implies that, then so does the Creed: These lines certainly can be read as implying that the Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer, and the Spirit is Life-giver/Life-sustainer.
And I was reminded while watching the final series/season of Grantchester that other traditional prayers of the church give rise to a similar implication. For example: (Yes, I know some versions of this prayer have “in the mercy/name of Jesus Christ who died for you”; this is the version from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.)
It seems to me we can be a bit selective about what formularies and prayers we think imply it is the Father who creates, the Son who redeems and the Spirit who sustains/strengthens/enlivens. And it seems to me that selectivity is directly related to whether we’re used to the formularies or prayers in question or not. If it’s familiar, we tend not to question it or hear it with modalist implications. But if it’s unfamiliar, we seem more prone to suspect or even assume modalism.
He is regarded as thoroughly Orthodox but there is a tendency - particularly acute among some polemicists - to see some of his statements - out of context perhaps - to be behind certain developments in 'Western theology' that the Orthodox consider unwelcome.
That view can be taken too far.