Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quarterly Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 

The Trinity One More Time:
A Critique of Daniel L. Migliore’s Overview of
“The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing"
 by
Viola Larson

 Daniel L. Migliore of Princeton Theological Seminary has written an overview of “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing: A Study Paper Received by the 217^th General Assembly of the PCUSA.” His  introduction  is in several ways more troubling than the original paper itself. Perhaps it is that in attempting to answer critics of “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” he has simply clarified and amplified the problems contained in the original paper. Migliore states that the paper “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing “stands in the tradition of classical trinitarian theology.” Yet in paragraph eleven he unties any connection with classical trinitarian theology, stating that, “biblical scholars and theologians differ on the question whether Father, Son, and Spirit is rightly understood as the ‘proper name’ of God,” and going on to suggest that the authors of the Trinity paper did not include these arguments because they were “complex,” and unsuitable for the purpose of the paper. Migliore’s review lifts up the unorthodox drift of the Trinity paper and runs unfailingly in that direction. He does this in his explanation of the name of the Trinity versus the metaphors which emphasize various aspects of the Trinity and in his Christology. I will explain.

In Migliore’s explanation of why there was no clarity on the difference between the proper name of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he gives the excuse that theologians differ. (See above) He also suggests that in a paper that is meant to reclaim, “the evangelical and practical meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity in the confession, worship, and service of the church,” theological differences about the naming of the Trinity are unhelpful. But he has used these theological differences as well as his view of the hidden- ness of God to insist that we cannot know the proper name for God nor should we absolutize “any designations of God, whether classified as names or metaphors.” First, both Migliore and the other authors of the original paper were simply sloppy in their theological work if they left out the varying theologian’s differences on God’s self revelation of himself as Father Son and Holy Spirit. They should have worked through the differences and then lifted up the classical and biblical view of scripture, confession and tradition which is that God has revealed his self as trinitarian: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Secondly, Migliore can hardly appeal to the hidden-ness of God in his dismissal of the proper name of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when he has already stated in paragraph four that, “the purpose of the triune God from the foundation of the earth, far from being inscrutable or capricious, has as it (sic) aim the communication of God’s life and love to us, the gathering of humanity and all of creation into the triune life in communion.” (Emphasis added.) However, in his appeal to the hidden-ness of God he enlightens the reader of his poor Christological view.  In suggesting that we may not know the absolute proper name for the Trinity because of the hidden-ness of God Migliore simply ignores the revelation of the Father given by Jesus Christ the Son.

In John chapter 14 Jesus explains, “‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know him and have seen him’(John 14:6, 7).” Furthermore Jesus emphasizes that he will disclose himself to his disciples but not to the world. That is, in his love he makes himself known. “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.” The hidden-ness of God is overcome in Jesus Christ and trinitarian language is the home of those who love Jesus Christ because they rest secure in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Migliore’s flawed Christology can be seen earlier on in his overview when he states that, “In the proclamation of the Word of God, … we meet God … as the Word incarnate in Jesus Christ …” It is not that the Word is in Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate. And the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Son, reveals the Father. If we do not know God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ we only know God in his opposition to sinners. If we want to know and understand God as a redeeming God we must know him as the Father of Jesus Christ. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Eph 1:3-6).” In his mercy he sent his Son. Dare we reject that relationship between the Father and the Son as that which gives us the proper name of the Trinity?

Additionally, Migliore suggests that we may imperfectly participate in the reconciling and healing work of the triune God “whose creative, reconciling, and redeeming love knows no bounds.” He writes of God’s love overflowing “through Christ and the Holy Spirit,” once again, as in the original paper, setting overflowing love along side Jesus Christ and letting go of the proper boundaries that belong to the Christian faith. Note that in that simple statement of the gospel, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)” the writer does not have God’s love flowing through Christ to the world but rather Jesus Christ is the gift because of God’s love and there is a boundary set. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)” It is not that believers have faith in God’s love but faith in Jesus Christ the gift of God the Father. Likewise when Migliore attempts an apology for the use of overflowing love he notes that it does not refer to “an impersonal force in or behind the universe.” Still he writes, “The metaphor of love overflowing has its sole value in giving expression to the superabundance and inexhaustibility of the love of the triune God.” And this is where the metaphor begins to eat up both the work of Jesus Christ and the person of Jesus Christ.

Yes, within the Trinity there is a “superabundance and inexhaustibility” of love. God is love. But there is not an overflow of love to the world; God does not slop over into the world with his love rather he sends his Son to redeem the world with his life and death on the cross. In that redemption the believer is united with Jesus Christ and so experiences the love of God. The superabundance and inexhaustibility of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’s love is known only by the believer who is in Jesus Christ. The world without Jesus Christ, in rejection of Jesus Christ does not know that love, cannot know that love.

Jesus’ prayer for his disciples connects Father and Son to the love that God reveals to us and in us: “O righteous Father, although the world has not known you, yet I have known you; and these have known that you sent me; and I have made your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:25,26)” If one begins a step away from the foundations the steps will diverge further and further from the faith. Hold on to the One who names himself, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.