I know that all of you weren't at our event today on inclusive language and the Trinity. So I thought I'd post my brief paper that I presented as a panelist for continued feedback. So here it is:
Two arguments are made for not tinkering with the language of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The first is that a name can not be substituted by a function (“Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer”), and a functional description of any person of the Trinity is heresy. I agree with this critique. The second is that “Father” is the name that Jesus called the first person of the Trinity and ought not to be changed out of obedience to Jesus. This second argument I have some trouble with. First, if “Father” was the name that Jesus called the first person of the Trinity, then why translate rather than transliterate it into English. We have not translated “Jesus” as “God saves.” Using the actual name that Jesus used would be either Abba or Pater. These would be appropriate transliterations rather than translations. Second, naming God as “Father” goes beyond what the text says Jesus is doing. When I call my own dad and say, “Dad, how are you doing?”, I have not used his name. His name is John. Thus, putting this restriction upon the name of God as only “Father” is more than Jesus does himself. Jesus has two names for God: abba, and pater.
My reservations with the second argument for the language of the Trinity might suggest that I am ready to throw it off quickly and get on with finding my own names. But I am not. This language, while flawed, has been the ecumenically agreed upon language for centuries and has special privilege because it comes from ecumenical councils. To throw it off would be to suggest that I have the authority to decide what is and is not appropriate God language. I am not a democratic nor a populist theologian. Over the centuries, this language has been articulated as not connotating masculinity within the Trinity. The church has the authority to create a narratable world with its own grammar and language that means what it says it means and within which it asks its members to live. Thus, “Father” within Trinitarian language does not mean “male” and ought to continue to be used within key liturgical rites such as baptism. Yet, could this be creatively stretched by using “patros and uios and agios pneuma”?
On the other hand, outside of those key liturgical rites where the Trinitarian name is the standard grammar, the names of God are flexible. We often refer to God in liturgical prayers as “Our Rock,” or “Our Creator,” or “Our…[you fill in the blank with numerous names/functions we give to God].” One name/function that is appropriate in this setting is “Our Mother.” But there is tremendous pressure not to use this name/function at all (regardless of whether the Trinitarian language is being invoked or not). This is unfortunate and is an opportunity for teaching within the local congregation.
