Is the Trinity by any other name the same?

The Vatican recently ruled that anyone who was baptized "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier" didn't really get baptized.

An interesting editorial in Christianity Today suggests that swapping out the traditional "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is akin to heresy.

After all, in the Gospels, Jesus refers to the Father and to himself as the Son. "Yes, he also employs other metaphors for the Godhead, but never so consistently and starkly," the CT editorial writer points out.

Yet mainstream Protestant denominations, says the writer, try to avoid "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in favor of more gender-neutral language for the Trinity because they "see liberation from patriarchy as a hallmark of the gospel."

I understand the reasoning behind using gender neutral language, but it seems to create some pretty awkward phrasing, such as calling the Holy Spirit an "it" to avoid "he," (even though we refer to three PERSONS, not things, in the Trinity).

Or repeating the word God, as in "God's love for God's own."

What's an enlightened lover of words to do?

Comments

[John of the Dead]

Wow, that seems to point to a very primitive view of religion that reduces personal salvation to nothing more that a magic incantaion. Say the magic words, go the heaven.

Furthermore, who is the Creator, if not God the Father? Who is the Redeemer, if not Jesus Christ? Who is the Sanctifier, if not the Holy Spirit? Heck, it looks more like a switch to job titles from names, to me. :-) A tempest in a teapot.

[guy m williams]

The crux of the matter is in who's name are we baptizing? We don't baptize according to role/job, but according to name. A couple of reasons for this.

First, as Robin points out, the Trinity is first of all personal and relational. Naming the Triune God in baptism as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is faithful to the relational character of the Trinity and that the three persons are defined in terms of being, that is, how they relate with one another, rather than doing, that is, what jobs have been doled out to them.

Second, though Scripture sure seems to give prominance to one person over the others in the actions/work of creating, redeeming, and sanctifying (have also heard it said as "sustainer"), the whole Trinity participates in all of these works. Scripture is clear that the Son is present and involved in creation. Also, the Father was, in Christ (the Son), redeeming the world to himself. The Spirit sanctifies in tandem with the Father and the Son.

So, to answer the questions John of the Dead presses--who is the Creator...Redeemer...Sanctifier, the whole of the Triune God--Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

To reduce the persons of the Trinity to specific "job titles" is to flirt again with modalism and to forget just who this Trinity is in whose "name" these candidates are being baptized.

[John of the Dead]

Hi, Guy. I'm still of the opinion that what is of primary import is the intention of the person being baptized. As far as I can tell, someone can be baptized in the name of "Big Sky Daddy, J.C., and the Blessed Spook," and if the baptizee (is that even a word?) truly repents of his sin, then his baptism is valid*. As I said before, to place too much emphasis on the specific words reduces it to nothing more than a magical incantation.

*Of course, I'm exaggerating somewhat for emphasis, but my overall point still stands.

[Marc]

We need to stick to traditional language and STOP substituting words. I guess, and I am guilty of it, we have a tendency to try to think of something new without a thorough understanding of what we are doing and the unintended consequences. Creativity is fine when leading people to Christ, but there must be a common language we speak and understand. Otherwise, we confuse the heck out of people. We also run the risk of losing our identity as a community of Christians when people continue to stretch, challenge, and change sacramental rites and related acts or issues.

Marc