Steve Thorson 1 December 1982
"Father" .
A
~ecessity
for Christians 7
In a practice familiar to most Christians , Lutherans often use the tr initarian for!nula. and Spirit .
Th is fur11lul
In prayers :ind hymns. these three naMes are often re-
pea ted, either all toe;ether or separately.
I
The three names for God
£I re especi ally importC'lnt in the creeds wher e are summarized.
In the opinion of thd
~uth or
0111'
beljefs about God
of t his paper, many
of those so aCCllstomed to hearing Hnd rApe;)' tine these names of God do so without understanding or appr eciation of the full purpose ~nQ
necessity for their use.
The objection has been give n that
especially the nllmes of "Father" and "Son" sOlInd anthropomorph ic and sexist, r't,'l.k; into
ne
the t ,qsks of eWlnee lism
exerc iz es o f unnecessary complexi ty. Trad itionally , Christia nity's attel'l.pt to explain the ne¢'essity
of usine: differ ent !'lames to describl'l the one God has had limited success. ga rd.
Even in t.he early Church there \.;ere problems in this re-
Tertullian (150-2
.'llw.
1'l:~jority
) sa id, " the simple people • • . who are
of the faithful • • . shy at
eli fficu lty has continued to the pr esent day .
tre
economy." This
KRrl H.ahner describes
the co'r:mon underst.'l.ndi..ne 01' God as a " praclical monotheism."
For
example , many people thi nk of God having beco:r:e human and dying for
u
JaroslR.v Pelikan , The Christio'in Tradi ti un , v ol. 1: The ErnerB"lnCe of th<:l C.'i. tholic Tradition (1 00_600 ), ( ChjcClgo: UnIVe'rityof Chic~eo Press , 1971 ) , p .
2
our sins without understanding that it is the Son , the second person of the trinity , that did these things , not the Father nor the Spirit. Priva te pr ayer and devotional literature cou l d remain largely unchanged
i f t he d oct ri ne of the Trini ty were pr oved false becaus e they contain little
\I nderstandin~
at t.he unique aspects of the Persons.
Thoug h
t he craeds a nd oth er trinita rian forms occupy a central p l ace in the liturgy, they do not inform the "i nner thought a dd outward expression"
of most Chris t ian piety.2 It is this " divi ding of t he divine" that is mi sunderstood and
di s trusted .
It is the fact that t hese names re l ain something of a
technical! and ontological function that gives a nd has given people difficulty.
Th ree names are no dif ficulty , for calling God by
various names has been common in J udaism and Christi anity, and has been univers ally acce pted i n both relig i ons from pr e - biblical times. L'l. nguage
used to address Goo in pr aye r Rnd to speak of God has
a lways used a multitill.de of images.
Poetry and metaphor have ex-
pressed the f aith ; psams and hY-IllS have been very li bera l 1n the ways i n which they speak about God .
God has been t alked about
with wor ds otherwise Ilsed to naMe and descr ibe inanimate objects , plnnts , aminRls, and human beings.
Thi s is true of Biblical
materials and l ater liturgical poetry. ) It is not the using of different names that i s problematic, but the insistence on the proper use of these names. 2Kar l Rah ner , The Trinity. t r ans . J. Doncee l (N . Y. :Herder and Herder , 1970 ), p .
u
JGai l R. Schmidt , "Liturgical Pr ayer and God as J.1other , 11 Wor ship 52 (1 978): 219- 20
J
Through a long process in th e first Christian centuries, detailed and expl ic i t understanding ad God became increasingly importa nt.
The cli max of this doct rinal development was the trinitarian
doctrine of the Nic enn Counci l .
Edmund Fortman's discussion of these
centuries speaks of several historic a l leve l s leadi ng to this.
New
Testament terminology ab out Je sus a nd hi s relationship to the di vi ne was the center of its theo l oeica1 language , but the t erminology was descriptive r a t her t hab de f initive , assigning the divine functions of creation ,
salvat i ~n.
add judgment to him.
"Son of God ," " Lord ," and " Word ." wit h the Father, to be There i s no
form~ l
~
Je sus is also called
He i s said to be God , to be one
t he Father, and to be
doctrine here.
thou~h
the
i!!
ele~ents
the Fat her. of Jesus as
the Word of God Uich is co-equal with the Father wer e all a.vai l able for l a t er org ... niza t ion. divinity and distinct
The Apostolic fo'athers a l so affirmed the
person~lity
of Jesus wnile maintaining that
ther e was only one God, but they did not try to reso l ve the paradox in a systematic way.4 It is clear that the foundations of Ch ristianity were laid with_ out the aid of a strict differentiation between the first two persons within the Godhead.
Since a l l Christians " shared the convi ction that
salvation was the workrl of no beine less than the Lord of hea ven and earthU5 and were equally convinced that Jesus had wr oug l-J.t this s8.1 va t ion. they knew that Jesus had to be God .
Th i s they confes sed a s
they continued with their belief that ther e was only one God .
u
4&iPlund J. Fortman, The Tr iune God ('Ph ilitde lphia: minster Press, 1972) p. 59~1 5Pelikan , Emergence, p . 173
This
West-
4
monumental paradox can be se en especially in Paul ' 5 letters. 6 Only
when heretics ar ose to contp-st the divinity of the Son dfd the ontological clarifications of the Nicene Creed become necessary. 7 The earliest believers were concerned for wha t Jesus and hi s divinity meant existentially. in regard to salvation.
They could live within
the context of so great And i mportant a mys tery because they had become convi nced of the necessary r elation between Jesus and the God
he ca l led Fa ther . The primary heresy which led to the solidification of the definit i ons of IIFathe r" and "Son" was Arianism .
a solution to the paradox p resented nbove .
Arius had suggested
The Son, he said , though
having created everything else with the Fa ther , was himself a little lowe r than t he Father .
I n fact , the Son was real ly a sort of divine
creature who ;td t he will of t.he Father . wa s s ubordinate to the Father ,
hu vin ~
J\rius held t hat the Son
a nature partly divine and
part ly hUJll~ln. 13 Now Arius
"'IUS 1\
presbytor in the church of Alexandria and was
under the bishop Alexander.
Th is bish mp held to what would become
the orthodox position, that the Son and Father were
co-e~ual.
When
Alexa nder '1ea r d of Ari us ' position, he at t acked. it and soon Arius
WAS exc o.n:-r.unicuted. .
3ut Ar ius did not
~ive
up, but only moved to
another area , under a nother bishop sy.npath etic to his position .
In
this way a territorial schism. thr ea tened , and this caugh t the a t6Fortman , Triune God , p.2)
7Ibid. p. 69-71 ST im Dawley , org . ed ., Eerdman' Handbook to the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdma ns' Publishing Co . ,1977), p. 134
5
tantian of the emperor.9 Constantine was the ruler who first legitimized the Church , and was very much concerned with the unity of the church.
of this
dlsp~ lte
together.
to
\fuen he heard
eoing on in Egypt, he wanted to bring the two fac t ions
He wanted this particularly because he thought that this
new religion could be "the cement of the empire . II 11 Constantine was not particularly concerned, at least at first, about the issue which
divided the antagonists and their
t ~eologies .
It was the unity of
the Church , "( nd of the empire, wh ich was impo:etant in his eyes.
So
after see ing that a simple comproMise was not possible , he called a counci l to discuss and decide the matter .
The council met 1n Nicea .
in 325, and )00 bishops wero present. 12
o
This council , called by an eMperor , p roduced the "first draft" of the Creed. which is most normati'Ve fllr Christia ns even today.
It
was the emperor who presented the t e rm which technically described the unity between Son and Father (honoousious).
So how is this
Creed, and its ontological distinctions within the Godhead, binding on Christ ians still?
Are we simpl¥ repeating phrases used to settle
political disputes?
If it is true that faith (as in the early church)
does not
r~~uire
good reason
"110
a clear u nderstanding of the economy, is there any
continue t.o reach the doct.rine in our confirmation
classes or to continue its fre<..J.uent r e petition in the liturgy?
9Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, vol . 1, (Nashville Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 268-72 1 Ooowley , Ha ndbook , p . 1J4
u
l1Gonza l ez . Hi story, p. 272 12Ibid . p . 273
6
Three modifications to the three co-equal persons doctrine were suggested in early
Chri~tian
history.
In addition to the Arianism
refered to above. trinitarian deviations included (bi-) tritheism and Sabellianism.
It would seem obvious f particularly t o t hose
in the cultures familiar to polytheism. thRt Christianity was proposing a sort of f R!IIily of de ities. in modern ti TIes.
This idea will have little support
Modern minds will only
c O~ l sider
a theology amenab le
to reason and phi losoPUY, and these usually ask if cause or a ground of beine or ! creator God.
ther ~
is
~
first
Trltheism is not even
considered as a serious possi bility , and has bee n less of a threat
to the orthodox posit i on than th ose of ArianisM and Sabellianism. Sabellianism, oth arw i se knolm as modalism, is /nore r easonable than any other solut:ion t o the Trinitarian mystery.
I n this view, God
is QritologicallY . one, but God lIlaifests Gods'e lf in three ways which are known to us as Father , Son and Spi rit.
of many Christians today.
This 1s indeed the belief
Wouldn 't it be better to defer to the
pa rac t ical monotheism of the common believer and to simply say that Jesus Chl'ist is a lso God in
50118
mysterious sense?
After all, the
words "Father" and "Son" carry so many unw&nted anthropomorphic and sexist connota tions.
The idea of refering t o God as "Creator", uSavior".
and "SanctifLer" has often heen prop9sed as a solution.
One God __
but with three mode s • ..
Underlying the above is the idea that it is reason that is most reLtable in leadine to truth about God.
u
This beco as clear when it is
7
noled that most people think that it is ea8ier to accept the first article of the Nicene Creed than the other two.
The idea of God as
Fa t her and creator of all that exists , it is su pposed , is one that can be accepbble a nd evan posited by a purely rational argu.ment.
But this notion forgets the uniquely Christian character of the first artic le .
The first article of lhe creed does not refer to t he
God of the philosophers
b~t
to t he God of the one man who Chris t ians
cosff be God , Jesus Christ.
Christian theology does not begin
wi th a wdting 1m the " one divinity."
or abstract concept of the
di~lne
Theology based on a philosophical
is not Christian Theology.
If one
i th e vision of God. as Almighty. CreaUve Father, the search is to r etan for God must begin with more than na tural theology. The unique character of Christinaity is found in the confe5sion that the salvation hroueht about by the man Jesus in his death and resurrection was an act of God .
If the basis of out f language about
God is in salvation history , the God Oile speaks ogf is recognized as Jesu s ' God , the one he called Father. 1) Christi anity does not begin with one God and then add on two per:Jons . r evealed. by the Son through the Spirit.
It begins with the Father The Christian conce ption a
God as a Iovine parent can be r etained in no ot her way. The often criticiz ed word. " Fatherll identifies God. as the God of Jesus.
Though not a ma n, neither in the sense of anthropos or ma le,
the terrrl IIFather" is of no Httle importance to Christians.
The idea
of God as Father arose before the time of Jesus among the Hebrews , but its uses are rare and usually concern the relation of God to the • > king of Israel. 1)
The re st of the people saw God 's will as unres tricted
Rahner, Triune God , p. 18
8
and thsrefore fe ared God to such a degree that noone dared to say Goo ' s name (Yifw:;)~4 It is only in Jesus that that will o·fG. 'ad has
been reinterpreted God as
Fat~Br
AS
fat~ e rly.
It was Jesus who moved the idea of
to the center of the und erstanding of the divine • .
The nfl.me "Fa ther" is therefore bound up with the merci ful goodness
of God , and is not the regrelab l e symbol of a ~~triarchal or der. 15 The ear ly Christ ian conviction that Jesus had to be God because he was ab l e to defeat death and bring life explains the t itle "Son of God" as the interpretation of Jesus' human nature and the reflec ti on of Jesus use of "Fa ther" as a name for God.
The idea that God has
a son is bound up in the fact that Jesus cal l ed God "Father" (A?ba). not in some sort of mythology.
o
Later , as Ch r'i stian thO 'lght faced the
necess ity of explaining its beliefs in a public way, in a world ruled by Greek philosophy, did the term IISonti begin to take on ontological
significance. 16 From intima te and s ;\ lvific
design~~ tion
of Jesus as the Son of
the Father , the ques tion of Jesus' orig in n rose.
If Jesus accomplished
t he pur poses of the God who he called Father, it follows that he must ha ve been sent by the Fa t her .
Passages in the synoptics which describe
the corning of the Son of Han from the Father , as in Mar k 8.38 , wer e combined with those discussed above to conclude that the relation between the Son aoo Fa t he r must be essential Rnd identity producing. 1 ? This was the orig i n of the
u
1\
Nicene Creeds tl language of homoousious and
14Schmidt , Liturgical Prayer, p . 52.'/ t5:401fhart Pa nnenberg , The J\pos tles', Creep, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press , 1972), p. 31-33. 16.;>0 c h 1'11.°dt , Liturgical Pr.::t,yer, 2 . 527
17 Ibid .
9
the corresponding misunders tand i ne. wh ich tempt us today to f r ee ourselves of the confining trinitarian languag e given us by the
creeds. Jungen Kollmann may offer us a n explanati on.
The
pri nc~e
guiding th e formu lators of t he Nicene Creed was the followi ng , " As God appe:lrs in history, as th "
sendin~;
Fat her and t he sent Son,
so he must previously bave been in hims elf .n l B In the c r eeds we r e cite in ou r churches , we find ths r esult s of this f i.;,ct .
complex and abstract , but it is importAnt to p~ssag e
fro~
nd They may sou.
r e~e mbe r th~t
the
the historical-existentialcategories of the New Tes t -
ament to the ontologi ca l categories of NicaeA was an att empt to expla in the experience of f a ith wh ich sprang fr oll! the inter acting
his~o ries o f the people ~nd Chr Ls t. 19 As Ch risti a ns, we a re bound to t he language of Father and Son and Spi r i t when speak i ng R.bo ut
God.
18J ungen ~:oltm" nn. " The Trinita r ian His tory of Godi! i n The Future Of Crea tion (photocopy) ~ p . 83 - 4
19I bid .
u
• Bi b li ography
Dowley . Tim • • or~aniz i ng ed . 8e rdman~t Handbook to the Hi st ory of Chri s tianity. Grand dapids : Ed rdmans' Publishing Co. , 1977 . Fo r tman , Edmund J . The Tr iu ne God , Th eolog ica l Resources (ser ies ). Ph i lade ~phia:
lvestl'linster Pr ess . 1972.
Gonza l ez . Justo ' L; A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1 . Nashvi lle: Abingdon Press , 1970.
Har dy . Edwar d R. o ed . Chris t ol ogy of the Later Fathe r s. Ph i l adelphia: Westmi nster Pr9ss , 1954. Moltmann , Jungen . "The Trinitari An Histor y og God, " in The Future of
Crea t ion. (saMe author). Photocopy.
Pannenberg . Wolfhart. The Apostles ' Press . 1972.
Cr ~ ed .
Philadelphi a: \ves t minst er
Pe l ikan Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition. Vol . 1: The Emergence of
the Catho li c Tradition (100:600). Chicago: University of Chicag o Press, 1971.
Rahner Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Jose ph Donceel. New York: He rder a nd He r de r , 197 0. Sch -jidt, Gail a.'l.mshaw. "Litureical Prayer and God as Mother." Wo r ship .
52 (1 978), 517-42
u
