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

[Jen]

Pardon me, I'm a bit confused. I understand that we baptize in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but since when is the name more important than the actual presence of God? I thought baptism was important and significant because of God's action in it. Is what's being argued here (Marc, Guy) that God is not present unless we call God - the Trinity - by these names? Does God not know that we are referring to our one, Triune God when we say "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer"?

Also, Marc, are you saying that we should stop thinking about and asking questions about why we do things and just do them? That it is not important for the church to be inclusive (in terms of language)? I just want to be clear: are you suggesting that we cannot expect "church people" to learn anything new, and so we should never make changes for fear of them not understanding? Or that we will lose our Christian identity if we are stretched and challenged? That's interesting. I understand Christ as an active part of my life, continuing always to stretch challenge me and the Christian communities I'm a part of. These challenges help us to grow. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was the role of clergy (and lay leaders!) to make sure we're continuing to always be challenged and seeking growth in this way. Often this requires that church leaders engage with and teach people. Not let them get comfortable and stop being challenged for fear of confusion.

[Marc]

MMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I sense a little sexism in the (Mar, Guy) thing.

Much of the so-called progressivism today is idle talk, double-talk, and ill-informed. I don't mind at all being stretched and being challenged, as clergy and laity should, but not in sacrificing solid, historical theological beliefs.

Seems like there are some folks who will prevent the work of the Holy Spirit because they are stuck on the inclusive language march (no new revelation here since my seminary days). Oh my, what to do with my time in the ivory tour.... :)

[Marc]

The fear of confusion is very real and something young Recruits, Sailors, share when they ask me about a simple rite called baptism. They come from various Christian traditions and just don't understand. I would tell them to give me 30 minutes of their time and I will explain more about baptism than most Protestant Christian adults learn in a lifetime.

Protestants (including UM folks) are so creative that not even the same language is being spoken leading to unwarranted confusion - and detangling the confusion is time consuming and difficult. Protestants, because of our lack of respect for the authority of Scripture (especially in mainline denominations) and tradition, are open to heretical teachings. If heresy is only evidence of fertile minds, then there are some minds that are over fertilized. I even see elements of Wiccanism, Universalism, Gnosticism, and additional flavors being taught in churches and espoused by clergy in high places. I wish we were more theologicaly competent than we are inquisitive - or as some now declare progressive.

[Marc]

Some of us don't work in seminaries, but find that we have to be professors, to teach and to clarify what they should have been taught in seminary, but were not.

[Jen]

Sexism, huh? Or it could just be that I thought it appropriate to name those to whom I was talking. If you get a chance, I recommend looking at the names of those who have posted above you.

A lot of what you are saying is indeed Biblical. I absolutely think the Pharisees of Jesus' time would have stood a very similar solid ground. They would have agreed that we should never reconsider or question what the Scriptures teach us, even as we feel God leading us to new places. Tradition of how "it has always been done" is far too important for that.
That is definitely one way of reading it. Yet I believe we are also called to see that without Christ, the good, law-abiding Jews (many of whom are now Christians) may still be trading tooth for tooth and eye for eye, or forbidding good works to happen on the Sabbath. There is power in standing firm in the precise words of Scripture we are offered, but as our own history and tradition have shown us, there is also great weakness in that inflexibility.

To suggest that asking question makes folks theologically incompetent or labels someone as a "progressive" is an interesting conclusion. In the Gospels, Jesus is full of questions! He does not take anything at face value, does not offer "black and white" answers, and does not expect anyone else do do the same. Seeking answers with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the contexts in which we live is central to how Christ taught us to live. Did he not answer questions with more questions, more often than not encouraging his followers to walk away with more questions than they came? If following that lead is what you are labeling as "progressive," then I am not sure it has the negative connotation that seems to have been implied.

[Marc]

Jen, thanks for the "Guy" clarification - my bust.