Trinity in liturgy: Not Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer

I have been hearing some people blessing a congregation using the phrase "And the blessing of God; Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer be  with you....". I honour their desire to avoid reinforcing a gendered impression of God because I understand that the priming power of language can further set back our efforts to enable women to be genuinely empowered and I think that the use of feminine imagery for God (which is in scripture) and of terms that do not connote a particular gender (including avoiding gendered pronouns as far as possible) is part of helping along a just and inclusive church and society. God is not gendered in God's own being -both genders reflect God's image, so we allow a falsehood in as far as we allow God to be thought of in exclusively masculine terms.

That said, I have been uneasy for some years about the popular formula "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" which popularly seems to be the go-to replacement for the usual "Father, Son, Holy Spirit". The reasons for my unease are well set out in the post linked here and the bit quoted here gets to the heart of the problem.

"Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer don’t work. They are about what God does not who God is. They are about operations not ontology"

And to extend the point a bit further than in the linked blog post, in most cases, the things that God does are operations of God rather than a single Person of the Trinity: God creates, meaning the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit creates. God saves: the Father in the Son by the Holy Spirit works salvation. And so on. Which means that the Creator is not just the Father, the Redeemer is not just the Son -and so on. So the formula does not properly delineate the Persons in any case.



For this reason when I have been writing liturgy, I have experimented with triad of terms which attempt to capture the interPersonal relationships of God. First off, I have written some prayers which use "Begetter, Begotten and Begetting" -though I struggled then with how learned this sounded. So I have been wondering about, and tried for one context, "Lover, Beloved and Loving". I'm still wondering about that, but I think it could work, certainly in terms of the referred-to blog post.



'Father, Son, Spirit: Not Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer: via Blog this'

Why fake news on social media -mindful response?

It's a shame the article doesn't say more about the results that give rise to this assertion:

"responses to false news include surprise, fear and disgust. True news tends to be met with sadness, joy, anticipation and trust"

If that is what it straightforwardly appears to be then it may give some of us at least a way to personally combat false news. Beyond, that is, trying to fact-check. So, if our responses to 'blind receipt' of items via Twitter etc are as that sentence implies, then becoming mindful of our responses might be a big clue. In short, if we are fearful or disgusted, for example, then we should not pass it on unless we've fact checked. If we find our response is sadness, joy etc then perhaps we might.



But surely it can't be as simple as that, can it?



Why fake news on social media travels faster than the truth | Paul Chadwick | Opinion | The Guardian: 'via Blog this'

A need for religious literacy? SciFi and theology

Now I'm not taking a pop at this guy because I'm simply seeing this as an illustration of a bigger matter which calls us to attend to the intersection of popular culture, theology and mission. Wolfgang Tillmans calls attention to it in his remark reported in the Guardian:

 "if it really is possible to prove the existence of a huge number of Earth-like planets, and so demonstrate the strong possibility of extraterrestrial life, then religious leaders on Earth would no longer be able to hold on to their anthropocentric view of God. We would then need to come to terms with a new humility, just as in Copernicus’s day, when he showed that the Sun, rather than the Earth, was at the centre of the known universe – correcting the pre-eminent worldview and ushering in the modern age."

Now there is a long history of Christians, at least, speculating about life on other planets. And there are various takes on the matter. CS Lewis in Voyage to Venus, suggested that once having taken form as a human, then any creation after that would be anthropoid -unlike the elder races in Out of the Silent Planet which were varied in form. Now I'm not sure that this idea would stand much scrutiny, but it does demonstrate a longer Christian heritage with the matter at hand than some might think.

The phrase I'm reacting to, I think, is "religious leaders on Earth would no longer be able to hold on to their anthropocentric view of God". Now, of course, this is a bigger set than Christian leaders, but I think I can only really comment on the Christian world (and of course even then ...). However, the point I'm concerned to put out in response is that an anthropocentric view of God is not particularly a part of Christian let alone religious view of God. To be sure there are some anthropocentric views of God but that's not the whole story by a long chalk.

There are many theists who will tell you that God is more than the human descriptions given. God is greater than our conceptions (in fact one famous, medieval, offered-proof for God's existence relies on this idea of God being always greater than our ideas). Our labels, similes, metaphors and analogies are all only capable of indincating a little something about God, and they will all fail at some point and mislead us or outrightly lie to us. So, from this point of view an anthropocentric view of God is already recognised as being inadequate and even misleading.

Of course, there are some who in their desire to promote the truth of Bible or tradition, have lost sight on this and insist on some fairly anthropocentric ideas about God: that God is male, for example. But generally, a little bit of further thought about contradictions and logical consistency etc tends to move them on somewhat.

But that, perhaps, is not the main issue that Tillmans has with human ideas about God. Perhaps he is trying to disturb what appears to be a preoccupation with human beings as the centre of the universe -or at least at the heart of God's concern. But again, there are plenty of Christian thinkers who have noted that there may be many other beings for whom God is just as concerned. Indeed, the recognition of angels has often served to do this. But then there are those like CS Lewis (again) who in Voyage to Venus (again) shares a vision of everyone (including the non-human) in creation being simultaneously the centre of God's concern and centred on the others of God's concern: both central and peripheral simultaneously. You see 'centrism' doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; either one is or one isn't.

And if that is so, then the real task is not to de-centre ourselves but to learn to value all and not to value ourselves 'more highly than we ought' (Apostle Paul's phrase). In fact, the example of Jesus is (surprise, surprise) one to take seriously. "Who though in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be held onto ... emptying himself ..." in other words 'though the centre of God's design, nevertheless de-centred himself -becomeing the servant of others.

So, I reckon that the Christian traditions are not necessarily anthropocentric: they can be but often enough they do exhibit the kind of humility that Tillmans is enjoining. In fact, at their best they note that we are all called to de-centre, but that this is not a one-time conceptual shift but rather an ongoing spiritual and moral struggle empowered by the de-centring Spirit after the example of the kenotic Christ.

'Wolfgang Tillmans: my two-year investigation into the post-truth era | Art and design | The Guardian: via Blog this'