The doctrine of the Trinity is a human attempt to
describe a divine mystery. It represents a weaving
together of truths about the nature of the God who is
revealed in scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is
unique to Christianity and provides a particular
challenge and blessing as we seek to come to grips with
its import and significance for every generation.
Seeking to wrap language around the mystery is always a
less than adequate endeavor, but in the light of new
learning, new uses of language and changing contexts it
is a task that the church must undertake. This paper
will examine current language for the Trinity,
distinguishing between surface grammar and depth
grammar, concluding that the latter allows for a
language that embraces the mystery of the Trinity while
preserving and affirming the trinitarian formula. The
doctrine of the Trinity is of critical importance to the
Christian community. Firstly, the Trinity, as a model
of relationality and community, provides a direction
and ideal for all human relationships. Secondly, the
doctrine of the Trinity links contemporary believers
with the generations and millennia of the saints in ages
past. Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is an
essential resource and common force for ecumenical
unity. As
fractured as that unity may be, the devaluing or
deconstruction of the doctrine of the Trinity is a
definite threat.
The Limitation of Language
As highly developed as humanity claims to be, we
continue to struggle with the limitations of language. Advanced
thinkers toil to articulate and communicate their
thoughts into meaning through language. The
difficulty is that language cannot always convey the
intended meaning. Christian
Barrigar writes, “….the lexemes of language
(philosophical, theological, or otherwise) are not
confined to any one particular category of reference,
but can flow from category to category, depending on
use”.[1] Barrigar
acknowledges the role of symbols in language to refer to
a person or thing. A
complete symbol defines the referent by taking the
proper name or form and an incomplete symbol uses
definite descriptions but does not describe referent in
totality.[2] A
third category for reference (within the framework of
incomplete symbol) necessary for trinitarian discussion
suggested by Barringar is that of ‘indefinite
descriptions’. Barrigar notes, “….indefinite
descriptions can refer to that ‘one’ without mentioning
that ‘one’ in the utterance. The
usual term for this sort of reference is ‘metaphor’, of
which the fundamental characteristic is analogy”.[3] Because
words are not limited to only one meaning, but can flow
from “category to category”, trinitarian language can
present interpretive challenges. Both complete symbols
and incomplete symbols can take the form of lexemes. The
problem for the conversation of Christian faith is the
dichotomy between theologians who hold that trinitarian
formulas are referring to proper names (complete symbol)
and those who hold to an indefinite description
(incomplete symbol).
Some trinitarian
language attempts to explain the Trinity while other
trinitarian language attempts to substitute for the
traditional formula. For
example, when the formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
is replaced by Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer a
different meaning is substituted for the meaning of the
traditional formula. One can appreciate how it is that
multiple parties can enter into theological discourse
using the same language while attaching diverse meaning
to the language. Regardless of the theological
disagreement surrounding language, there is theological
consensus that trinitarian language has been and
continues to be a challenge because it introduces a
necessary note of limitation in attempting to articulate
the nature of the One who is limitless.
Surface Grammar and Depth Grammar
Migliore suggests
that it is important to not get “mired in the surface
grammar of the trinitarian faith.”[4] Standard
vocabulary and concepts about the Trinity use language
that is foreign to everyday conversation, language that
can be difficult to understand and respect. This
reveals a limitation in surface grammar. A
misuse of trinitarian language can perpetuate limited
and inadequate names and images for God. Relying
on surface grammar can fuel the belief that God is
oppressive and domineering. Elizabeth
Johnson writes, “Giving rise to the uncritically held
assumption that maleness is of the essence of the triune
God, it has the sociological effect of casting men into
the role of God while women stand as dependent and
sinful humanity”.[5] Migliore
argues, in contrast, that “trinitarian doctrine
describes God in terms of shared life and love rather
than in terms of domineering power”.[6]
In comparison to
the limited and limiting uses of surface grammar, depth
grammar provides a richer, fuller view of the Trinity
that supersedes historically burdened, male dominated
language. Migliore
defines the depth grammar of trinitarian faith as,
the grammar of
wondrous divine love that freely gives of itself to
others and creates community, mutuality, and shared
life. God
creates and relates to the world this way because this
is the way God is eternally God. [7]
The concept of
depth grammar is a useful and essential tool in the
church’s ongoing task of expressing anew the doctrine of
the Trinity. Forward
thinking churches would agree and acknowledge that
doctrine is “the always inadequate attempt to interpret
this witness in the most suitable images and concepts
available to the church in a particular area.”[8] Trinity
language that is, from a surface grammar perspective,
objectionable because it is male dominated, can be
reframed and reclaimed through the use of depth grammar.
Inclusive language is one example of how a church can
reclaim depth grammar, bypassing the historical baggage
of patriarchal expression while remaining consistent
with inclusivity. By
definition inclusivity does not mean that male language
is to be deleted from Christian discourse.
It is difficult to
overestimate the importance of arriving at useful and
useable language for the Trinity in the life of the
Christian community. Elizabeth
Johnson reflects helpfully on what she calls “the right
way to speak about God? This
is a crucial theological question. What
is at stake is the truth about God, inseparable from the
situation of human beings, and the identity and mission
of the faith community itself.”[9]
The Mystery of the Trinity
When so much is at
stake, it can be greatly tempting to condense language
for the Trinity into a set, rigid form. But
the Christian community must resist the temptation to
dismiss mystery because otherwise it is an attempt to
overthrow of God’s sovereignty. Since
sovereign God chose to be revealed to humankind within
the mystery of the Trinity, it is essential that the
church embrace this element of mystery.
Acknowledging the
mystery of the Trinity and
admitting the limitations of human language can serve to
remind the church to forge ahead in humility. This
humility can prove to be a safeguard that will protect
Christians from unseemly and dangerous pride and
confidence in defining God. For
how we speak of God forms how we believe in God and
serve God. Elizabeth
Johnson notes:
Hence the way in
which a faith community shapes language about God
implicitly represents what it takes to be the highest
good, the profoundest truth, the most appealing beauty. Such
speaking, in turn, powerfully molds the corporate
identity of the community and directs its praxis.[10]
Mystery is a
blessing, protecting the believer from spiritual pride,
and the community from power struggles in which
knowledge, wisdom and insight can be used as weapons
against one another. Mystery
and the inadequacy of our mere human language, shields
us from the glory of God, upon which no one can gaze and
live.
What distinguishes
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity from other
spiritual formulations is that it is revelation –
something made known. God’s
self revelation, and the mystery inherent in it, is
God’s chosen method of communication, to be acknowledged
and honored. Catherine
Mowry LaCugna:
Theological
statements are possible, not because we have some
independent insight into God, or can speak from the
standpoint of God, but because God has freely revealed
and communicated God’s self, God’s personal existence,
God’s infinite mystery.[11]
Because God is
self-revealed, mystery is not an impediment to knowing
God, but the meaning of knowing God. As
Douglas John Hall argues, “if what God reveals is not a
‘what’ but God’s own person, then unknowing and even
unknowability must be found at the very core of our
knowing such a One.”[12]
A note of caution
must be expressed on the subject of mystery. It
is possible for theological discourse to be ‘hamstrung’
by an over cautious response to articulating the mystery
that is God. When
language for God is narrowed and when discussion is
debilitated by a lack of confidence as to what can
rightly be said about God, then healthy respect for the
mystery at the centre of God’s own nature can
degenerate. This degeneration can lead to an inability
to utilize any meaningful language about God. Even
when knowledge is incomplete, even when descriptions are
imperfect, there has to be some knowledge, some
description in order to be able to talk about God.[13] LaCugna
writes:
The assertion that
God is incomprehensible likewise needs to be revised. It
is one thing to say that God is incomprehensible because
we do not know the essence of God as it is in itself. It
is another thing to say that God is incomprehensible
because God is personal.[14]
The Trinity as a Model of Relationality
Jurgen Moltmann
develops an understanding of the personal God as
relational:
Only when we are
capable of thinking of persons, relations, and changes
in the relations together does the idea of the Trinity
lose its usual static, rigid quality. Then,
not only does the eternal life of the triune God become
conceivable, its eternal vitality become conceivable
too.[15]
Catherine Mowry
LaCugna has argued for a re-conceiving of the doctrine
of the Trinity. Drawing
on the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, she reclaims
person, not substance, as the ultimate ontological
category. Vitality
and movement within the Trinity is described in terms of perichoresis,
“that the three divine persons mutually inhere in one
another, draw life from one another, “are” what they are
by relation to one another. Perichoresis means
being-in-one-another, permeation without confusion.”[16] The
doctrine of the Trinity is reclaimed as a blessing for
human community in that:
Trinitarian
theology could be described as par excellence a theology
of relationship which explores the mysteries of love,
relationship, personhood and communion within the
framework of God’s self revelation in the person of
Christ and the activity of the Spirit.[17]
The doctrine of the
Trinity asserts that God is revealed in Jesus Christ and
we can only know that revelation through the Holy
Spirit. It
is reflection on that experienced reality that has led
to the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Trinity is central to Christian faith and life because
it asserts that God, in God’s essence, is a community of
love. Many
Christians struggle with the implications of
relationship misconstrued as male domination suggesting
subordination within the Godhead. Moltmann
writes,
It is true that the
Trinity is constituted with the Father as the starting
point, in as much as he is understood as being ‘the
origin of the Godhead’ But this ‘monarchy of the Father’
only applies to the constitution of the trinity. It
has no validity within the eternal circulation of the
divine life,….and none in the perichoretic unity of the
Trinity. Here
the three persons are equal; they live and are
manifested in one another and through one another.[18]
Authentic human
relationships flow from our being as creatures of a
triune God. When
one begins to grasp the relationality of a triune God,
one can begin to grasp the intended life and expression
of the church as a witness to the world. The
choreographed unity, and expression of the Trinity as
implied in ‘perichoresis' transcends
incarnationally and invites all to join the dance of
community and relationship with Emmanuel; God with us.
The Trinity and the History of the Church
At least
implicitly, trinitarian faith has always been a part of
Christian faith and doctrine. It
is essential for the contemporary church to affirm
trinitarian faith in order be in continuity with the
history of the church. As
John Thompson writes of this task:
What, therefore,
the theology of the church seeks continually to do is to
articulate conceptually faith in the triune God in a
manner that corresponds as closely as possible to its
truth claims and eliminates erroneous conceptions.[19]
History matters
because we do not rise beyond time to encounter God. God
is encountered in time, in history, in particular in the
historical event of the incarnation. Faith
in Jesus Christ receives from the past, lives in the
present and looks toward the future. In
the oft-quoted words of G.K. Chesterton:
Tradition means
giving votes to the most obscure of all classes – our
ancestors. It
is the democracy of the dead. Tradition
refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of
those who merely happen to be walking around.
The doctrine of the
Trinity links Christian believers across time and offers
access to centuries of accumulated wisdom, liturgy and
devotional treasures. When
a seventeenth century theologian reflects on the
teachings of Augustine, a contemporary reader
participates in a debate that spans not only generations
but centuries. Veli-Matti
Karkkainen notes that:
Trinitarian faith,
anchored in the biblical witness, ancient creeds,
liturgical life and devotion of the people of God is
confessed by all Christians at all times everywhere. Trinitarian
faith is the prime example of the principle of
catholicity cherished by Christian theologians since….
the fifth century up to the present.[20]
The Trinity and Ecumenical Unity:
Clearly, the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to the
church as it maintains links across time to its own past
and heritage. Similarly,
the doctrine of the Trinity is a critical resource for
the catholicity of the church. The
Christian church is not homogenous and there is an
astonishing, at times bewildering, diversity of
practices, traditions and forms. American
mega churches, secret house churches for Philippine
guest workers in Saudi Arabia, liturgically dense
Orthodox worship services conducted in languages no
longer spoken, Society of Religious Friends folk who
gather to worship in silence, rich, poor, powerless,
powerful, doctrinally strict, doctrinally lax- all
these are Christians. For
Christians divided by language, economics, power,
history, culture and geography the great blessing of
unity is bestowed by the shared faith in the triune
God.
There is much to
divide us from one another and the doctrine of the
Trinity in all its richness is an essential expression
which enables ecumenism. The church responds to and is
reflective of its relationship with God. Because
God is not a simple unitary being, but is in essence a
community of love, Christians who differ widely can be
in community with one another in Jesus’ name, by the
power of the Holy Spirit.
As the centre of
what was Christendom continues to shift from the global
North to the global South, it is expected that the
plurality and diversity of Christian traditions, forms
and practices will only expand. Logically,
the doctrine of the Trinity will grow in its importance
as a tie which binds. Veli-Matti
Karkkainen notes, “It
is essential for appreciating the shared unity of our
Christian faith – to which ecumenical work of the
churches relentlessly testifies – amid growing plurality
and diversity”.[21]
Conclusion
The doctrine of the
trinity is essential to the Christian faith and must be
affirmed as the church continues to discover the depth
grammar of the triune God. Recognizing
the limitations of language one approaches the trinity
with a healthy respect knowing that God is sovereign and
humans cannot claim to know or define God. Acknowledging
the mystery of the Trinity the church must embrace what
cannot be understood but be dependent on the revelation
of God through Jesus Christ. The
trinity is God’s self revelation to humankind and is
therefore the central reason why it is essential to
affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. The
relationality of the Trinity serves as a model for
relationship within the body of Christ. The
church grows out of a response to this triune nature of
God. Historically
the church has affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity,
primarily through the lives of witnesses through the
ages. To
affirm the Trinity is to validate and testify to both
the historical relationship and the growing relationship
between God and the church. Ecumenically,
the Trinity is the common ground by which Christians can
stand together regardless of diversity. Historically
the church looks back. Ecumenically the church looks
around. We should look up to the triune God in all of
our relationships and for direction on how to move
forward as a church. Migloire
writes, “the doctrine of the Trinity expresses the
distinctively Christian understanding of God. Whenever
this understanding of God declines, the church is in
danger of losing its identity”.[22] For
the church to maintain its identity it is necessary to
affirm the revelation of God through the trinity.
