In the name of God: Spirit, Father, and Son.
You’ll
notice that I changed the standard order of that prayer – Spirit, Father, Son
instead of Father, Son, Spirit. The Trinity is a foundational concept in our
Christian faith, but it’s also one that is so familiar that we tend to not give
it much thought. But today, Trinity Sunday, is a day to focus on the mystery of
the Three-in-One and One-in-Three.
Before
I get to the major point of this sermon, I do want to say something about why
this is an important Feast day of the Church. Often, the word “god” is a fairly
generic word. “God” can refer to the God of Israel, or Shiva, Zeus. Even if the
Christian mindset, God often connotes something beyond our ability to grasp or
relate to. So sometimes you’ll hear people refer to the divine as “energy,”
“life force,” or “the universe.” And, of course, people speak of other “gods”
that we worship, such as money or fame. And so when someone asks us “Do you
believe in God?” a follow-up question is “Which God are you referring to?”
It’s
hard to worship a non-descript concept such as “god.” How do you have a
relationship with something that you can’t even begin to relate to? How does a
vague idea like “god” make any ethical demands on us? Money illustrates this
point – that $100 bill that in your pocket, you know, the one you brought to
put in the offering plate, on the back it says “In God we trust.” What does
that even mean? Does it mean that we are morally obligated to use that money
for purposes that align with the love of God? So does that mean that money
should always be given to help others and that it should never be used to
finance wars? Well, that’s certainly not how money is used.
The
reason why we have no qualms about spending money that literally has God’s name
on it is because the word “God” just doesn’t have any impact on us. The Trinity
though breaks us out of this sense of moral and relational ambiguity. What if
currency had “In Father, Son, and Spirit we trust”? We might view things
different. I’m sure none of you do, but you might have heard that some people
use God’s name in vain, asking God to curse people. But it wouldn’t work if we
replaced Jesus’ name with God. We instinctively know that Jesus isn’t in the
business of damnation. This Trinity reminds us that God isn’t unknowable, that
God isn’t generic, that God isn’t abstract, that God isn’t whatever we want God
to be – no, the Trinity is particular, the Trinity is knowable, the Trinity is
personal, the Triune God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
With
that understanding of why Trinity Sunday is an important feast in the Church,
you might wonder, so why do we have these readings today, after all, none of
them has the word “Trinity” in them. The simple answer is that all of the
readings point to the concept of the Trinity. The focus for the rest of this
sermon will be on Genesis, and in this passage, we see that God creates by a
spoken word which animates a spirit of creation – so you can see how when read
through a Trinitarian lens, the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit are all
present.
In
this opening story of the Bible there are hundreds of directions for a sermon
to go, and it would be a fool’s errand for me to try to preach a sermon on the
entirety of this passage from Genesis. So as we consider the Trinity today as a
window into the nature of God, I want to focus in on one particular part of
this creation poem: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God
he created them; male and female he created them.”
And
even within that one verse, it would be easy to find multiple sermon topics.
The one that I want to draw our attention to is on a topic that we don’t
consider often enough, and that is to our theological and sociological
detriment. And that topic is the gender of God. Now you might think: God is
beyond gender. And you’re right, no human construct will be able to adequately
describe or capture the fullness of God. But what the vast majority of
Christian thought says about God is idolatry because it is rooted in a false
image of God.
Genesis
makes it clear that humanity is created in the image of God, and that image is
male and female. So often though we think of God in masculine terms. We might
even say “Well, I know God isn’t really a male, but I don’t know how else to
describe Him.” Now there is nothing at all wrong with calling God “Father;” if
it was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for us. But our
language about God shouldn’t be restricted to only masculine ways of viewing
God.
One
of the leading thinkers in this field is the Roman Catholic feminist theologian
Elizabeth Johnson, who wrote a foundational book called She Who Is. She notes that when we find ourselves in a
male-dominated church and have a lack of feminine ways of understanding God
that we end up losing the height, depth, length, and breadth of God. Because we
are told that the image of God is both male and female, when women are not
involved then the image of God is absent. And by the same token, when feminine
images of God are not present, then it isn’t really God that we’re talking
about, it is some false image.
Today,
when we speak of the feminine side of God, often such talk is met with the
rolling of eyes from traditionalists and the accusation of having a “liberal
agenda.” And on the other side, feminists sometimes propose solving the problem
by creating another problem, namely neutering God into a genderless being. Both
of these approaches are lacking, and are rooted in the fact that our society
doesn’t really have a healthy sense of sexual ethics and gender identity.
But
our ancestors in faith, who weren’t dealing with the same issues that we are,
were perfectly comfortable with images and language of God as both Mother and
Father. Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril all used that sort of language. Pope
John Paul I, hardly a radical, spoke of God as our Mother. And Clement of
Alexandria said “To those infants who seek the Word, the Father’s loving
breasts supply the milk.” It’s a wonderful image that shows that God’s image is
male and female.
And there are ways to
understand the female aspect of the image of God throughout Scripture, if we’re
just willing to see them. Job speaks of God as both father and mother, both the
one who begets and the womb that forms us. Throughout Scripture, both the
Spirit and the Wisdom of God are described using feminine words. Often we think
of God as being “compassionate,” as that description is found throughout the
Bible, and the word “compassion” is related to the word for “womb.”
Perhaps though the best
imagery for the feminine nature of God in Scripture has largely become hidden.
In the Old Testament, there are several different names for God that are used.
One is el Shaddai. Often, this name
is translated as “Almighty,” and we use that name for God often in our prayers
– “Almighty God.” But many scholars suggest that this translation obscures the
idea behind the word. It’s a word that can be translated as mountains, so you
can understand where “Almighty” comes from, as mountains certainly are mighty
rock formations.
Linguists though also
point out that this name for God is in the dual form, suggesting a pair of
mountains, correlating to the nurturing bosom of a mother. So some scholars
suggest that this common name for God found throughout the Old Testament really
is best translated as “the God who nurtures.” Even the subtle ways that I’m
referring to female anatomy can be uncomfortable for some, so you can
understand why translators have gone with “Almighty” instead of “Nurturer.” In
the way that some people find it offensive and inappropriate when mothers nurse
their children in public, some can’t stand such images when it comes to God.
But that really is
unfortunate. When we think of God as “mighty,” we fall into the deficiencies of
binary gender views. We think of men as assertive, strong, and violent. And if
that’s how we think of men, and we think of God as a man, well, then God
becomes those things. So we’re able to justify the sins of war and violence in
the name of God. And most men will tell you that it can be difficult to fit
into the box that society has created for masculinity. Some men are emotional,
some aren’t assertive, some are very nurturing. And by the same token, women
deserve better than being seen as passive, weak, and caring. Certainly, many
women are caring, but that is a virtue of the fact that they are made in the
totality of the image of God, not because they are a woman.
Both genders find their
perfection in God. Men don’t have to be a certain way and women don’t have to
be a certain way. We are created in the image of God, an image that is both
male and female. It is a complimentary image, not a competitive one. Because
when God finished with Creation, it is all deemed to be “good.” Gender is not a
flaw, it is not evil, rather it is a divine blessing. The masculine and the
feminine are both divine, and so it’s completely valid and appropriate to
embrace all aspects of gender; you can break out of the constructs of society
and embrace the fullness of who you are.
And just imagine what this
might do for our world. What if we realized that God also had a feminine side –
that God is a nurturer, that God is our womb, that God is compassionate as much
as God is almighty? Well, then maybe wouldn’t be able to get away with
committing violence in God’s name in the same way that we might think twice
about financing war with money that says “In the Prince of Peace we trust.”
The
problem comes down to language. It can get rather stale to never use personal
pronouns, such as “his,” when speaking about God. “It” seems rather impersonal,
and God is very personal. There are some ways that many Episcopalians address
this over-usage of masculine imagery. Many congregations, instead of responding
to “Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” with “And blessed be his
Kingdom,” say “And blessed be God’s Kingdom.” And that works theologically and
linguistically. But it dissolves our sense of common prayer. It means that
we’re no longer saying the same words, which as people of common prayer, means
the very nature of our fellowship is eroded. It’s a complex issue for which I
don’t claim to have all the answer or the perfect solution. But I do know that
the masculine aspect of the image of God has been overemphasized over the
feminine, and that has led to an inadequate understanding of God, and therefore
an inadequate understanding of humanity.
I’m
not proposing that we stop saying “Our Father” or that we abandon the words in
the Prayer Book, but I do think we
can do better in places where our tradition gives us latitude for using other
metaphors, images, and language to reflect the fullness of God. Hymns,
blessings, and sermon imagery are all places where we as Church can do better
in embracing the feminine of God’s image, and therefore go deeper into the
grace that we all have been given in being created in the image of God. So in
your prayers and language, you might also try some new language. In thinking
about yourself, you might not worry about fitting into categories given to you
by society, but rather embrace the fullness, both the male and female, of the
image of God that you are created in.
As
Elizabeth Johnson concludes her book on this topic, she writes “This generation
needs to keep faith with this questioning, creating, testing, reflecting,
discarding, keeping. No language about God will ever be fully adequate to the
burning mystery which it signifies. But a more inclusive way of speaking can
come about that bears the ancient wisdom with a new justice.” This Trinity
Sunday, that is the invitation before us. To go deeper into the mystery of the
Trinity – giving thanks that God is not abstract but relatable and giving
thanks that we are made in God’s image. As you consider that mystery, know that
you can question, that you can use ancient ways of understanding God, but also
know that God is not bound by the deficiencies or oversights of our language.
So embrace God as Mother, embrace God as Father, embrace God as Trinity. Amen.
