On the Names of the Persons of the Trinity

Well, not quite... I couldn't possibly give this issue its proper treatment. But I was spurred by this post to do a quick Anglicanocentric look at the issue. Besides, who would jump into this fray? I've already been cyberanathematized once this week. But the commenter who connected this issue to human sexuality issues is quite correct. It's not that sexuality is simply sublimated desire for God or that desire for God is sublimated sexual desire. The same faculties that mediate our part of our relationship with God also mediate our part of our relationship with other people, especially our most intimate ones. The tendency of the liberal moderns is to be sickened by the more ancient sexual responses to theophany. The tendency of the reactionary moderns is to purify the theophanic ecstasy of its sexual aspects.

But this wasn't my point. The Sewanee professor in question is in some sense supported by Athanasius, "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another; none is greater, or less than another." Quicunque Vult founds the Sonship of the Son not on His inferiority to the Father, for they are indeed co-equal and co-eternal. He is Son because he is Begotten of the Father. Begetting implies no power relations nor any loss of equality or co-eternity. Thus, the Sewanee Professor questions whether Father is an appropriate title, since it implies power relations: the paterfamilias , who of old, had power of life and death over his household. Do we imply poor Christology or soteriology in this way?

But I think the commenters who found themselves on the antiquity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not far off, except they imply this is the only Scriptural formula. The problem is not the names themselves but the exclusionary and erroneous conclusions we draw from them. For instance, if we infer something about the role of women from the name, we certainly may err, "For God created a human being in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female He created him." I have to use "him," because we have no common gender pronoun in English. But why don't we change to something gender-neutral in that case? Well, as a hypothetical, why don't we change the name of Jesus? Well, I hope you don't go any further, because this is ridiculous. Changing the name of Jesus would introduce a number of dangerous errors.

But more importantly, Jesus is a name of power, for its referent is powerful. The name itself means "God saves." When we say it, we are naming its referent to the entire cosmos that may be feeling rebellious and enslaved. By saying that name, we say so much. As for the Names of the Persons, we are baptized into Christ's death, but we are baptized in the name of Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now I have thought about the locative aspects of this. Being baptized in the name of God is a usage that could suggest a variety of reified and substantial meanings for the name of God, particularly in its association with a continuation of the Temple worship in the Church. However, I suspect strongest sense of the usage is legal. It is the language of agency. The priest (or indeed layperson) baptizes by delegation from Christ. You also can find similar usage of doing things "in name of" (nomine + gen.) in contemporary Roman legal sources.

Let us also think of Moses, "Whom shall I say sent me?" And then God gives a fairly long title. These "legal names" clearly do not comprehend God. They are mere shorthand like the name of Fangorn in The Two Towers , but surely we have no authority to change them in "legal" contexts.

Thus, I would insist, if I were in charge, that the "legal" name of the Trinity be said at least once in every liturgy, so that we clearly direct our prayers to the rightful party. (We technically even do this at my own liberal Episcopal megachurch...) But I am not so limited as to deny that certain extralegal appositives may have a place in the liturgy. To give you examples, I have compiled a table of appositives used for God in the Litany of the Books of Common Prayer.

Edition	God the Father	God the Son	God the Holy Ghost (Spirit)
1544*	…of heaven	redemer of the world	procedyng from the father and the sonne
1549			proceding from the father and the sonne
1552	"	"	"
1662	,…of heaven	Redeemer of the world	proceeding from the Father and the Son
1689*	Creator of heaven and earth	Redeemer of the world	our Sanctifier and Comforter
1928E*	Father of heaven	Redeemer of the world	proceeding from the Father and the Son
ASB	N/A	N/A	N/A
1789	Father of heaven	Redeemer of the world	proceeding from the Father and the Son
1892	"	"	"
1928	Creator of heaven and earth	Redeemer of the world	Sanctifier of the faithful
1979	"	"	"
2004-Ireland-2	Creator of heaven and earth	Redeemer of the world	Giver of life
1962-Canada	Creator of heaven and earth	Redeemer of the world	Sanctifier of the faithful
Melanesian	…in heaven	the Saviour of the world	coming from the Father and the Son
Portuguese	criador	redentor	defensor e guia
Spanish	y Padre celestial	Redentor del mundo	procedente del Padre y del Hijo
*	Not official Book of Common Prayer

I apologize for the formatting. But from what I can tell, there is some tension in these appositives. All of these have Scriptural or creedal precedent, though. What we should be wary of is not any departure from Father, Son, and Holy Sprit but what precedent these departures have. But there's one more thing we should be wary of. But I need to tell a story to illustrate it.

This winter, some folks in "815" sent a survey around directed at churchgoers under 30. One set of questions asked our opinions on various formulations intended to name God. I can't reproduce them verbatim, but there were several that sent us into fits of laughter. There was ones that revealed a fellow student's leanings toward Mormon theology on the issue. But none of them seemed right. To some extent, I understand concerns that poor language or good language poorly interpreted and comprehended leads us into bad habits and into vice. But "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" has been good language for a very long time and is the strongest candidate for God's "legal" name. We have no power to change it by fiat. By delegation from that God I was baptized and I seek the unity of that same God in the Eucharistic feast. I am very wary of a trend to deny that this ancient formula is not God's proper name or that there is something wrong about using it to refer to God. Again I say that the problem is not the name of God but how we use it and think it. Who told us to use God's name to diminish our neighbor? No one did. So I can understand the push for inclusive language, yet I think it is becoming an increasingly misguided discourse. We should strive to expand our comprehension of God not diminish it.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that the whole world may not merely know the names of the Trinity but know the Verity of their Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. And indeed, O gracious Lord, please spare all of your children from the motions of the earth and the ragings of the waters and keep them in life, health, and safety.