The Trinity Report came to our committe on Saturday morning. We were led in worship by members of the task force that put the report together, which was not a good idea. The materials they used were off the wall. There was an awful hymn by Jane Parker Huber "I Will Be Who I Will Be" in which the language was so fluid that it really illustrated the failures of the report (that was not the intention of those who chose it!) and most of the prayers were taken from the Iona Community, which is well-known for almost New Age materials. Anyway, we went into a quasi committee of the whole, after hearing a presentation, so that we could discuss stuff without having a motion before us. The discussion was good, and most of it was not complimentary of the report. Sorry, and all that, but just linking together three vaguely biblical images and calling them Trinitarian does not make them worthy substitutes for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". It doesn't make them worthy supplementary resources either. At least the report rejected the use of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, which has become a trendy alternative to Father, Son and H. Spirit, mostly in feminist circles. Their argument is a good one, that you can't name God on the basis of attributes, especially when those attributes are not exclusive to one person of the Trinity. But why, on earth, did they not apply this reasoning to the rest of the report. They suggest a number of triadic motifs to describe God, such as "The One who was, and who is, and who is to come" or ""Rainbow, Ark, and Dove". The first is just Hebrew poetry, and it refers to a temporal succession, not the Trinity. If it was Trinitarian it would give us all sorts of problems. Is the One who was dead? Who is the God who is - the Holy Spirit? So, is Jesus the One who will come? As for the second, that is just a collection of Bible images or metaphors for either God or the activity of God. Of course we also got the mother hen deal from Isaiah. But God is not described as a mother, only as being LIKE a mother hen in caring for her brood. I thought we gave a pretty good account of ourselves, and if the report wasn't exactly demolished, it was at least tottering. If we'd voted before lunch I thinbk we would have disapproved it. But we didn't. We went to lunch, and then voted. Something happened over lunchtime and the report was passed (admittedly with some helpful alteration - for example the report no longer says that it names God, only that it speaks of Him. I don't know whether someone got to the commissioners, or whether they just felt sorry for the authors, but it passed 33-23 with about 6 abstentions. We immediately filed for a minority report, and this will also be presented to the Assembly on Monday, but the majority report usually has a better chance of passing than the minority. We will have to see.
More on the rest of the day when I get the chance. The PUP report has not been finalized yet, and won't be until Sunday afternoon. But it looks like it will pass with only minor amendments. More later
Enjoy your Sabbath!!
Presbuteros
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Craig,
Neat image... for every Alamo there is a San Jacinto.
I suppose the difference is that we already have the victory, that this is God's church, not ours.
The only question really concerns where, on the battlefield, one is called to be faithful. Don't know the answer to that one yet.
BTW, you would be proud of me. I worshipped with Virgil and Betty Coleman's family in Trinity United Methodist Church this morning, and even went to Sunday School. Talking to one or two of the people there, the UMC is having almost exactly the same troubles (except that the social witness leaders in Methodism would really like to impeach the President!)
See you all next week.
Alan
Post a Comment