Wednesday, March 29, 2006

PCUSA's "Mother, Child, and Womb"

Presbyterians Consider Triune ‘Mother, Child, and Womb’

Presbyterians this June will be asked to ratify a new report on Trinitarian theology that describes the cornerstone doctrine in various metaphorical terms, including a controversial description of the triune God as “Mother, Child and Womb.”

“[The report] aims to assist the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in reclaiming the doctrine of Trinity in theology, worship and life,” the introduction to the 40-page report, “God’s Love Overflowing,” states.

The report, which has been underway since 2000, includes theological and liturgical sessions that are meant for use in study sessions on the doctrine.

“The doctrine is widely neglected or poorly understood in many of our congregations,” the statement reads. “The members of our work group are convinced that the doctrine of trinity is crucial to our faith, worship, and service.”

Describing the Trinity has often proved contentious in mainline denominations, with some adhering to the classical Biblical description of the Triune Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and others adopting more liberal terms such as the Triune “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier.”

From the onset, the report acknowledges such differences over “new ways of speaking of the Trinity,” but goes on to say that no name, no metaphor, no set of words or phrases – however thoughtful, poetic or profound – will ever be able to say everything that could be said about the mystery of God’s love made known to us above all in Jesus Christ and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.”

In what is likely the report’s most controversial segment, the panel explores the “female imagery of the Triune God” – a suggestion that is sure to draw fire from conservative Christians.

“The overflowing love of God finds expression in the biblical depiction of God as compassionate mother (Isa 49:15; 66:13), beloved child (Mt 3:17), and life-giving womb (Isa 46:3),” the report states. “The divine wisdom (hochmah in Hebrew, Sophia in Greek) is portrayed in the Bible as a woman who preaches in the streets, gives instruction, advocates justice, builds houses, and acts as a gracious hostess (Prov 1,8,9).”

Um….yeah….

…uh……

……


.

8 comments:

  1. Um….yeah….

    …uh……

    ……


    .


    Well, that’s the most rigorous critique I have ever performed!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL....can't blame you. What a bizarre notion. The Isaiah 49:15 is pretty weak since it actually contrasts God with a nursing mother ("Even these may forget, but I will not forget you").

    I guess I don't see what is wrong with the Father/Son/Spirit that Christ used. The Trinity is awesome and mysterious, all the more reason to be very careful that the language we use in worship conforms to what God has revealed to us about himself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaffinator,

    What's wrong is that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is far too patriachal/masculine. To insist on this terminology oppresses women/womyn and transgendered/transexual/third-gendered persons and upholds American/Amerikkkan capitalist/fascist hegemony.

    . . . Don't you see it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Besides the fact that these titles remove the masculinity from how God has called himself, they transform the role of the Holy Spirit into some "Cosmic Womb." Forget about the Spirit's role in regeneration, sanctification, aiding Christ in redemption, illuminating the gospel, empowering his church. He's only good for his incarnational role as a "Cosmic Womb."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh...and, by the way, have do any of you know of any women who would like to be referred to as "Womb"? Or do any of you know any men who would like such a title?

    ReplyDelete
  6. We should note that Mother/Child/Womb has one decided advantage over Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer. C/R/S conveys the relationship between God and man (although inexactly) but at least M/C/W, like orthodox nomenclature, puts the focus on God's eternal relationship within Himself.

    Still don't think I'll be using it though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Besides the bad grammar, this statement commits a fallacy or two. Popular opinion and equivocation perhaps? :P

    Jerk.

    ;-P

    ReplyDelete