 |
| Krystyna Kilichowska |
"So, as often as not, we tend to call God 'Father-Mother'," I said. "And we say 'child' instead of 'son'."
"Well, I'm a Trinitarian," came the reply. "I have no problem with Father and Son language."
I have always thought of myself as a Trinitarian too, and intrigued by where the conversation was heading, I continued.
"But, wouldn't a person off the street, who had never heard Christian liturgy before, assume that 'Father-Son' language is masculinist?" I suggested. "Doesn't that language privilege males?"
My conversation partner disagreed. "It's not meant to privilege males. 'Father-Son' language is not about gender.
"Sounds like it to me!" I said, perhaps not very helpfully.
"By calling God 'Father-Mother' and calling the son 'child,' you are bringing gender into the discussion," my conversation partner accused me.
I was a little taken aback, but left it at that.
It has caused me to think about God language again. To speak of the Trinity is rather strange language — quite difficult to get your head around. Of the many things we could say about Trinity, I mention two interesting points of significance.
First, all language about God is, in the end, impossible. If God is the infinitely Real — "in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes" as the hymn says — then all descriptions about God, if taken to have literal rather than metaphorical meaning, become idols. For God is not that which we say God is. That God is One and Three reminds us that language is always inadequate.
Second, the most meaningful understanding of Trinity (for me) is that its speaks of relationality. If God is at the heart of the universe, then at the heart of the universe is a relationship, and by all accounts a relationship of love.
To put the two together: to talk about God is ultimately impossible, but when we do our best attempt at it is to talk about a relationship of love.
In our human terms (though I want also to include non-humans in relationality) any picture language (or artistic depiction) of Trinity would need to be inclusive. If the picture is only of two males (an older one and a younger one) then it is too exclusive.
Is there anything to privilege the father-son relationship over the father-daughter, or mother-son, or mother-daughter relationships? In other words, is there something about fathers and sons that makes them a better picture of God than a picture with a female in it? I can't think of any.
It is why I like those icons of the Holy Trinity that depict the humanity of the Three in gender ambiguous ways. Ae we looking at males or females? Or, rather, are we looking at three persons, gender unknown, who are in loving relationship?
Of course, the advantage of traditional depictions of the Holy Trinity (older male with a grey beard, younger male with a brown beard) is that the third is none human — a dove. The female is excluded, but the non-human is included. Oh for an inclusive vision of loving relationship!