more thinking on the Trinity

Thoughts come to me as I'm falling asleep. These are thoughts from earlier this week, when the conversation of my mid course review was still milling around in my mind. Perhaps they are a beginning in the process of reconstructing the ideas I've been merrily deconstructing ... 

If God is to be understood as a Trinity, that trinity must be of equality and mutuality, which I don't see in a Father/Son relationship, in which one begets and the other is begotten, albeit eternally - it seems to be a one-way relationship, not mutual. 
Possibly that non-mutuality is present in Wisdom language too, but for me it is less so. Mutuality and equality are for me better represented / expressed in the language of Creator / Wisdom / Spirit than of Father / Son / Spirit. 
Also, with the latter, the Spirit relationship is quite different to that in a trinity of Creator / Wisdom / Spirit. I think the mutuality should be represented as equal / same sort of mutual relationships between all three persons, and I prefer to think that the first person is not God alone, or the primary mover of the three. 'Father' implies this. 
I was encouraged to remember that the language we use for God is metaphor, but Father/Son eliminates the feminine from the metaphorical language, which is I think dangerous, unfair and untrue. It is a less complete metaphor or image when the feminine is thus excluded. We'll never have language to express fully who God is, but for me, Father / Son / Spirit is less whole than our imagery for God could be - we can do better. We can better express the mutuality, the masculine and feminine present in the Divine than we have to date with the very masculine, non-mutual language of Father / Son / Spirit. And we should continue to strive to do better with our language, our metaphors, our images for the Holy One. 


Popular posts from this blog

a message to my friends

Story Eucharist