When the famed German physicist Wolfgang Pauli would criticize the theories of his colleagues, he would often declare them to be ganz falsch, utterly false. But on one occasion Pauli was shown the paper of a young physicist and remarked, “It is not even wrong.” By this he meant that the work contained such erroneous thinking that it could not even be considered ganz falsch.
When I heard that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) had developed an “educational resource” that recommended referring to the Trinity as "Mother, Child, and Womb", I had a similiar reaction: I thought the idea was not only wrong, but utterly wrong. However, after reading the document, “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing” (PDF), I've changed my opinion. The concept is, as Pauli might say, “not even wrong.” But not necessarily for the reasons I first thought.
Based solely on media reports, it would appear that this document had been produced by church leaders who adhered more to the writings of Dan Brown than to Holy Scripture. But that impression is unfair. In many ways the document is not only orthodox but evangelical in reaffirming the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity. The members of the task force treat the doctrine with due reverence and seriousness: “The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary of the gospel of Jesus Christ--it cannot be understood apart from the gospel, and the gospel cannot be fully understood apart from the doctrine of the Trinity.”
They lose their theological footing, however, when they attempt to “speak of God in historically faithful yet freshly imaginative ways.” True, almost all the analogies that they use come directly from scripture. But when linked in groups of three they form conceptual metaphors that can be misleading and muddle our understanding of an already mysterious doctrine.
The document presents eleven triads, eight of which use analogies taken directly from scripture. Some of them are better than others. For the sake of brevity, though, I’ll focus solely on the most controversial one: “…the triune God is Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, and Life-Giving Womb (Isa 49:15, Mt. 3:17; Isa 46:3).”
This triad is a conceptual metaphor which consists of a source domain and a target domain. For example, in the metaphor “Life is a highway” the target domain (the part we are trying to understand) is “life” while the source domain (the part which we draw upon from our own experience) is “highway.” Because we understand not only what a highway is (a manmade path) but also what occurs on it (travel, adventure, discovery, etc.) we are able to create a conceptual “map” of the source-target pairing in a way that increases our understanding of the target.
Taken by themselves, each of the source domains (mother, child, womb) increases our understanding of the target domain (God). The problem arises when we try to combine the three source domains into one metaphor. One of the guidelines the panel set was that “in each case the terms must have an inner relationship.” Severe difficulties arise when trying to resolve the incongruity between these “inner relationships” and the relationship of the Godhead.
In using these metaphors we not only create a map between the target and domain (God is like a mother) but we create a map between the target and target (the relationship of a mother to her womb). Because the triad form mimics the names of Father/Son/Holy Spirit, we create yet another conceptual map (God/Mother; Son/Child; Womb/Holy Spirit).
The “mother, child, womb” metaphor then becomes a jumble where we draw illegitimate concepts about the Trinity. For example, the metaphor causes us to draw the analogy “Jesus is to the Holy Spirit as a child is to a womb.” Adding to the confusion is the fact that the Bible already contains a more fitting relationship of mother/child/womb: the virgin Mary, who sheltered the Christ-child, in her womb (“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Luke 1:42 KJV).
We must also keep in mind that when we say “Jesus is the Son” it appears as if we are using a metaphor that helps us understand God by reference to a human relationship. While in some respects this is true, we must keep in mind that the human father-son pattern is merely a metaphor for the eternally existing father-son relationship in the Godhead.
When we try to find a triad that matches Father/Son/Holy Spirit we risk turning these terms into metaphors, rather than names for members of the Godhead. Although well-intentioned, attempting to develop “freshly imaginative ways” of speaking of the triune God is fraught with peril. Instead of creating clever ways in which we might speak of the Trinity we might consider spending our time reflecting on this magnificent doctrine in holy silence.
(HT: BHT and Alex Arnold, who helped me see that there was more to the PC (USA) document than I would have imagined.)
1
This is exactly why education in the church needs to way beyond just the basic quarterly and encompass the serious doctrines of the church. Ron Brown has done a lot of damage, some of which was preventable.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
posted on 06.23.2006 8:56 AM3
Joe,
I take it that the heart of your complaint is this: '{T]he metaphor of [Mother/Child/Womb] causes us to draw the analogy “Jesus is to the Holy Spirit as a child is to a womb.”' All else is lead-up to this.
So the metaphor is not perfect, then. None are. This does not mean that we should not make use of metaphor, of course. Rather all that it means is that we must take care in their use. You seem to grant as much of the usual Trinity metaphor when you say: "the human father-son pattern [evinced in talk of God the Father and His Son] is merely a metaphor . . .".
My point: I really don't think you have much of an objection here. You grant that talk of God the Father and His Son is metaphor, a metaphor that might mislead if we are not careful. Talk of God the Mother, Child and Womb is but a metaphor too, and like the usual one it can mislead the unwary. Why should we reject it instead of simply take care with it? I can't see the reason.
posted on 06.23.2006 10:01 AM4
Thanks for this post, Joe. I had the same reaction when I read the news reports, and blogged on it at the time. But like you, after reading the actual report, I realized the panel wasn't theologically off-base in its understanding of the Trinity, but its use of metaphor (although taken from Scripture) could still be misleading. You explained why such metaphoric language can create confusion much better than I could.
posted on 06.23.2006 10:28 AM5
Brett;
Have used the earthworm analogy myself and didn't realize I was in such good company. I am not aware of any perfect analogies but one thing I like about Wesley's is that it has a big God. Probably not big enough but at least to big for any box of human construction.
6
The Trinity is unique, and every human analogy will break down under scrutiny. I think they are still useful, though, because we need some method to at least begin to understand it. Bottom line is that the Trinity is a mystery.
posted on 06.23.2006 10:42 AM7
Sadly, this sort of thing happens in the Catholic Church too, although not from the leadership or any official synod or conference or anything. More of a grass-roots subversive effort driven by feminists' attempts to remove any gender terms from the liturgy.
Scott Hahn, in the intro to the book "Catholic for a Reason" discussed why using "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier" is deficient. For one, God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are who He eternally was, is, and will be. Before He ever created the universe, redeemed us, or sanctified us, He was Father, Son, and H.S.
Secondly, it's who He is, not what He does. To create, redeem, and sanctify is something you "do". It would be like coming home from school as a kid and saying "Hi Cook", instead of "Hi Mom".
You make a good point about not getting the metaphors reversed. Human fathers are "like" God the Father, not the reverse. God the Father is more than can be defined by the human male gender, but that doesn't change who He originally revealed Himself to be.
"Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, unto the ages of ages, Amen"
posted on 06.23.2006 11:07 AM8
In the Isaiah references (Isa. 49:15 and 46:3) the metaphor is mother=God, child=Israel (or humans or believers). There is no indication that the reference is to a relationship among the Godhead.
The Mat.3:17 reference only indicates a parent/child relationship between God and Jesus. Where is the license to create a metaphor for Holy Spirit=womb?
posted on 06.23.2006 11:21 AM9
In the Isaiah references (Isa. 49:15 and 46:3) the metaphor is mother=God, child=Israel (or humans or believers). There is no indication that the reference is to a relationship among the Godhead.
The Mat.3:17 reference only indicates a parent/child relationship between God and Jesus. Where is the license to create a metaphor for Holy Spirit=womb?
posted on 06.23.2006 11:31 AM10
Sadly, this sort of thing happens in the Catholic Church too, although not from the leadership or any official synod or conference or anything. More of a grass-roots subversive effort driven by feminists' attempts to remove any gender terms from the liturgy.
Scott Hahn, in the intro to the book "Catholic for a Reason" discussed why using "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier" is deficient. For one, God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are who He eternally was, is, and will be. Before He ever created the universe, redeemed us, or sanctified us, He was Father, Son, and H.S.
Secondly, it's who He is, not what He does. To create, redeem, and sanctify is something you "do". It would be like coming home from school as a kid and saying "Hi Cook", instead of "Hi Mom".
You make a good point about not getting the metaphors reversed. Human fathers are "like" God the Father, not the reverse. God the Father is more than can be defined by the human male gender, but that doesn't change who He originally revealed Himself to be.
"Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, unto the ages of ages, Amen"
posted on 06.23.2006 1:22 PM11
Franklin, your argument seems to boil down to "No metaphor is perfect so all are good". I agree that no metaphor is perfect but they come in a wide range of usefulness. I think Joe has succesfully shown why this is one of the ones that's not so good.
12
Isn't Trinity that hot chick from the Matrix movies?
posted on 06.23.2006 4:21 PM13
J.J.,
I never said that all metaphors are good since none are perfect. (I'm certain that much of what I say on these matters is false but I do not often make basic logical errors.) Rather I said that all are imperfect and thus must be interpreted with care. I never said that none are bad. Some surely are. My complaint was that Joe has not shown that the Mother/Child/Womb metaphor is any worse than the Father/Son/Spirit metaphor. (And he agree that the latter is a metaphor and that that it can mislead.)
Franklin
posted on 06.23.2006 4:39 PM14
Maybe there is some theological substance to this thing, but it sure seems to me that some of this amounts to reducing the Persons of the Trinity to "ideas" or "concepts".
It would be prudent to keep in mind that we are talking about the Names of God.
posted on 06.23.2006 5:49 PM15
Joe, a minor quibble: it's not a conceptual metaphor, it's a metaphor. All metaphors have base (source) and target domains, with the source domain used to say something about the target domain. Conceptual metaphors are a theoretical construct in conceptual metaphor theory, which has been empirically falsified, for all intents and purposes.
If you want to learn more about metaphor, check out structure mapping instead.
posted on 06.23.2006 8:14 PM16
Joe, a minor quibble: it's not a conceptual metaphor, it's a metaphor. All metaphors have base (source) and target domains, with the source domain used to say something about the target domain. Conceptual metaphors are a theoretical construct in conceptual metaphor theory, which has been empirically falsified, for all intents and purposes.
If you want to learn more about metaphor, check out structure mapping instead.
posted on 06.23.2006 8:15 PM17
I guess I don't understand the need to affirm the Trinity by trying to expand it past the bounds it ought to stay in. There's something disingenuous about it. Why do we need "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God?"
If we're going to use the doctrine of the Trinity as an anchor, the emphasis should be on limit to what the Trinity can be understood as, not on "freedom of movement" within certain arbitrarily-determined or irrelevant bounds. The Trinity is a particular threesome referring to God's identity; no other threesome can be analogous.
I'll buy the "beloved Son" part of the mother/child/womb threesome, but to say that God's love is equivalent in compassion and superior in reliability to that of the mother of a suckling child's is not to say that His love is a motherly love. And it's not even close to say that God's forming Jacob/Israel in the womb and upholding Israel in the womb and beyond is analogous to His being a womb.
Those understandings help us know the love of the Father part of the Trinity, but they don't do anything for an understanding of the actual Trinity.
Here's a big red flag from the document:
"...we should not insist on the exclusive use of the traditional trinitarian names, lest we quench the spirit and even foster idolatry. Such a view would insufficiently acknowledge the divine mystery, would neglect the freedom of God's children to glorify God imaginatively with all our hearts and minds, and would diminish the joy of knowing God ever more fully."
That sounds like it's straight from Bishop Spong.
posted on 06.23.2006 10:47 PM18
It makes sense that one might use different metaphors to explain or explore ways of looking at the trinity (e.g. Augustine's lover/beloved/love)--Bible camps often employ the much-loved analogy "the undivided trinity is like an egg." But there's an important difference between our asserting that metaphors are useful and our incorporating them into a liturgy. There's a difference between saying that in our baptism the Holy Spirit, like a womb, grants us life, and actually naming/praising/praying to Him as "Womb" or "divine egg yolk." (Besides, given that the womb involved was Mary's, perhaps the Holy Spirit would more aptly be termed "the Impregnator"--which would have sounded rather cool to me as a young-un.)
posted on 06.25.2006 6:06 PM19
Great post, Joe. It reminds of Mark Roberts' post following the recent mixed set of votes in the PC(USA)on the "fidelity and chastity" principle (upholding it overwhelmingly), and the apparent(lack of) obligation on the part of individual congregations to uphold that principle (a more narrow vote).