The PCUSA and God as Ninja: trinitarian reformulations

The PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) has been experimenting with alternative ways of describing the trinity, finding that the traditional terms of "Father" and "Son" carry way too many y-chromosomes and that they need to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder." I cannot deny that seeing some of the alternative phrases have indeed expanded my vocabulary of wonder and amazement, such as "What the freak?" "did someone say that with a straight face?" etc. To take the most strikingly bad alternative, let's consider, "Mother, Child, Womb." Regardless of where one stands on the "God as mother" front, everyone--even non-Christians--should unite in declaring this trinitarian formula irredeemably stupid. (Later note: for a more sympathetic critique of the document's ideals, see here. For more recreational mockery, see here.)

To beg a rather large question, let's assume for the moment that the traditional trinitarian names oppress women by privileging y chromosomes. It seems understandable that a suggested solution would involve equality in representation, perhaps something like this: 1 Person is female, 1 Person is male, and 1 person is "other." Given that God the Father doesn't have a literal y-chromosome and is abounding in love and mercy (unlike mean paternal disciplinarian types), it makes sense that He'd be the one for the sex change. The Holy Spirit already sounds pretty non-gendered, so logistically, it makes sense for him to be the neutered "it." Finally, given that Jesus has been made the incarnate y-chromosome possessor of the trinity, firstborn among the dead and as far as we can tell still fully man, you'd think he could be the token male thrown into the trinity. No such luck. Christ is the sexless "child," and God is the feminine term "mother." How is this equality? Both femininity and "itness" get privileged over masculinity.

The term "child" is troubling for another reason. Now, I grant that, around 2000 years ago, Jesus was born the divine Christ "child." I'm all for people taking up their oboes and bagpipes to celebrate the fact. But like the saying goes, "The trouble with an incarnate infant divine being is that/eventually, it creates wine from a vat." That is, Jesus grew up and performed miracles. As if that weren't enough, He's omnipotent and omniscient. You put me in a boxing ring with a "child," I can take him. You put me in the ring with a "son," especially if his name is "I can kill you with my pinky," I can run away. Unless he has the power to make the sun and/or me stand still. Jesus is the only begotten Son, not the only begotten kid. Trinitarian reformulations make adult Jesus cry.

And this "womb" thing. Yes, Jesus was born, and yes, there was a womb involved, but it was not the Holy Spirit's womb. It was Mary's. They can publish Heather has two Mommies, but what the heck is up with Jesus has two wombs? It would probably be more accurate to call the Holy Spirit "the Impregnator" than "the Womb," since He was the agent of conception for Mary's womb. Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't give up on "the Impregnator" idea--kids might really go for it. It has a certain dramatic flair--it sounds a little like "the terminator." I can just imagine the religious rivalry and mockery between schoolchildren--"ha ha, you only have Allah, but we Christians have--the IMPREGNATOR!" ("im-preg-nah-tore," pronounced with a short "a" sound.) After all, there's a lot of talk about the need for women to feel included--why not talk more about kids feeling included, and re-naming the Persons accordingly? There's the Old Testament tradition of God as a "divine warrior." Maybe, "God the Commander, God the Destroyer, and God the all-consuming Fire!" Or maybe God as ninja. That would have been cool and very presbyterian.