Trinity Sunday offers those who follow the liturgical calendar an opportunity to consider one of the most widely held Christian beliefs. In a recent article, David Lose, Marbury E. Anderson Chair in Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary, suggests that the place of the Trinity in the local church is changing:
” . . . when it comes to the local congregation, I suspect the Trinity is on the ropes. This isn’t because the average Christian isn’t smart enough to understand the Trinity. (Truth be told, no one really understands the Trinity.) Rather, it is true because the doctrine of the Trinity no longer touches us; it no longer holds meaning for us in any tangible way.”
Narrowing Lose’s concern even further, I would like to consider Trinitarian language in the local church. For centuries, Father, Son and Holy Spirit was the standard language used to speak of the Trinity. In some parishes the traditional language remains as the only or as the primary formulation. In other congregations, the traditional formulation has been placed alongside others and become one of many. In yet other local churches, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is never spoken, but has been replaced with one or more newer formulations.
So What?
While I find most people have a preferred Trinitarian formulation or at least one they use most often (mine is Creator, Christ and Comforter), I am increasingly inclined to favor the use of multiple formulations as a way to embrace the mystery of the Trinity. Which option do you prefer (traditional only, multiple formulations, non-traditional only)? Why? Does your answer both embrace the mystery of Trinity and consider the new ways in which people may be culturally conditioned to understand traditional language for God?