Holy Trinity?

If liberal Quakers sometimes stumble over the God word, what will we do with the Holy Trinity?

In God without God: Western Spirituality without the wrathful king, Michael Hampson writes (I make no apology for quoting from this excellent book again…):

To invest too much in the theology of the Trinity is to confuse the reality with the metaphor. The question is not whether God exists as defined by some version of the doctrine of the Trinity, but whether the Trinity is a useful model by which to increase our understanding of the ultimate mystery which is God, our Yahweh Elohim.

We Quakers are used to the Holy Spirit, that of God in everyone, for whose guidance we listen in our meetings for worship and for business (cf. Quaker Faith & Practice 3.04 and following), and we are familiar with the fruits of the Spirit as they grow in Friends’ lives, year after year bearing witness to the truth of our historic testimonies to equality, justice, peace, simplicity and truth.

God the Father is of course the problem for so many people, especially those whose experience of human fathers has been lacking, or worse, abusive, those for whom the idea of father incorporates arbitrary authority, irresponsible power, unpredictable, unjust wrath and cruel punishment. But Father, Abba, Pater – these were Jesus’ favourite metaphors for God as simple goodness and mercy. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15.11ff) shows “not the wrathful, vengeful, and demanding God of presumptive monotheism: this is the God who nourishes us, holds us close, lets us go, and welcomes us home without condition.” (Hampson, op cit.) Even the words “our father in heaven” properly understood don’t imply some renaissance picture of the robed and bearded ruler sitting on a cumulus cloud. The Greek ouranois, sky, air according to Hampson “shares its origin with words meaning covering and encompassing… [God] all around us… in the air we breathe, inhabiting, encompassing, covering and embracing all creation.” And the Hebrew words Yahweh Elohim are more nuanced than we tend to think: Yahweh, I AM, is neither masculine nor feminine; and while Elohim is a masculine plural, its singular, Eloah, has the form of a feminine singular.

And Jesus? The Christ? Hampson again:

This imagined being – both fully human and fully divine – is our definition of the Christ of faith… draw[ing] into our concept of Yahweh not only the essence of all being but the essence specifically of what it is to be human; and it draws into our concept of Elohim all the richness of the full diversity of humankind. It completes a Trinity of images or metaphors for God in which Yahweh Elohim is ruach and pneuma (the breath and the wind), Abba pater en ouranois (the universal nourisher, protector and upholder), and finally the Christ of faith, the perfect union of the human and the divine…

With a specific human [Jesus] identified as the Christ of faith, our entire ordinary humanity – including our mammalian fleshiness – is drawn into the realm of the divine… It is the concept of the incarnation, the enfleshment, of God: God truly present in ordinary matter, in the practical physical material of daily life.

I really would encourage anyone who finds these ideas as exciting and involving as I do to get hold of a copy of Michael Hampson’s book. I can’t do justice to his arguments, or to the passion and clarity with which he writes, in snippets on a blog.

2 thoughts on “Holy Trinity?

  1. treegestalt

    “Father” — for people accustomed to thinking of only males as fully human — is simply the best metaphor available to Jesus for addressing the people of his time. Most people do experience interpersonal dissonance with one parent or the other, so there are intrinsic problems with how many people will see that relation — but the essential element is probably summed up in a certain poster I saw: a bratty little boy standing there happily plotting some wickedness, with the caption, “I love him, not because he is good, but because he is my little son!”

    I tend to think of the ‘Incarnation’ metaphor — and its development into the idea of ‘three basic roles that God works within’ — as an ancient settlement of the long political conflict between people who could only imagine Jesus as pure spirit — and people who thought of him as ‘merely’ a human being — and the people who wanted to be able to thump both parties as ‘heretics’.

    The victory of either side would have left us with a theology in which Jesus, as a ‘physical’ being, was less than God — or one in which Jesus, as a ‘spiritual’ being, was not truly one of us. Instead, we ended up with this extremely illogical ‘both and neither’ that unified us, God, spirit and matter as one ‘Thing’ in which no part of the mix could be considered intrinsically unworthy…

    Taking any of this stuff as if it were a concrete description of the nature of reality… is basically nuts. As a poetic statement of ways to think of God at work in the world, not really so bad.

    Reply
  2. navasolanature

    As a lover of words, literature, metaphor and having had to teach biblical references and allusions to youngsters who had no grounding in the Bible but who had to grapple with Shakespeare et al of English Literature these thoughts do resonate with me. I and my children were also baptised in Holy Trinity Church Barnes but it was only when we had a very intellectual priest that the trinity made sense metaphorically, symbolically and emotionally! However I really appreciate Quaker ideas now but it is the stillness that I feel is the key closeness to the sacred.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s