Main writer of Trinity paper ’embarrassed’ by response
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, July 24, 2006
TULSA – Charles Wiley often grimaced as he listened to criticism by evangelicals at the New Wineskins Convocation over what he had hoped would be one of the most important theological papers produced by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in decades.
Instead, that paper, titled “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” has become an object of ridicule and has given more incentive for evangelicals to declare that the 217th General Assembly abandoned its Biblical roots.
Perhaps notably, the New Wineskins Convocation listed the Trinity paper first on its congregational action plan for responding to actions of the General Assembly. The second and only other item on that list was the authoritative interpretation that allows sessions and presbyteries to ordain practicing homosexuals.
Working with a nine-member group, including six theologians, Wiley was the principal writer of the 33-page document, which got a cool reception at the 217th General Assembly. By a slim vote, it was “received” – but not approved – as a Presbyterian study document on the Trinity.
A member of the staff of the denomination’s Office of Theology and Worship, Wiley says he is both distressed and embarrassed by the response to the paper.
“This document has no constitutional authority, no binding authority on anyone in the church,” Wiley said dejectedly just before the 2006 General Assembly voted to receive the paper.
He admits the paper had its rough edges – particularly, he says, in leaving the impression that the references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit must be used during baptisms (already a Book of Order) requirement, but not necessarily in other teaching.
But he blames evangelicals – including The Presbyterian Lay Committee – for generating some of the disdain because, he says, they really don’t understand what the paper was saying – or what it was trying to say.
He also blames evangelicals for not responding to his request for them to criticize the paper before it was approved by the General Assembly Council and submitted to the 2006 General Assembly. He said he sent late drafts to more than a dozen leaders of evangelical groups and that none responded.
He did receive an unsolicited criticism from Gerrit Dawson, the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Baton Rouge. Dawson pointed out several errors in fact, but aimed his strongest criticism at the paper’s lack of emphasis on the relationship of the three persons of the Trinity: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Wiley said he found much of Dawson’s material helpful. But even though some of Dawson’s suggested changes were incorporated into the paper, the Baton Rouge minister remained unfavorable to the document.
During an interview with The Layman, Wiley, who received his Ph.D. in church doctrine from Princeton, points to what he believes is the key sentence in the paper. “The language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rooted in scripture and creed, remains an indispensable anchor for our efforts to speak faithfully of God.”
But that statement is not what generated the backlash. The storm arose over a section titled “A Plentitude of Images of the Trinity.” It listed what most readers believed to be suggested alternatives to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, including one triad that referred to Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb.
Wiley insists that triad – and the others – were not intended to be used as Trinitarian alternatives to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He accepts blame for some fuzzy writing that made them seem that way.
The section on the alternatives is introduced by a sentence that states, “While classical trinitarian theology speaks of the ‘first, second and third’ persons of the Trinity, Scripture also refers to the three in other patterns, as in the apostolic benediction which invokes ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.'”
In the list of “patterns,” the paper includes “Speaker, Word and Breath;” “Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River;” “Sun, Light and Burning Ray;” “Giver, Gift and Giving;” “Lover, Beloved and the Love that Binds together Lover and Beloved;” “Rock, Cornerstone and Temple;” “Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains; “the One Who Was, the One Who Is and the One Who Is To Come.”
“The biggest failure of the paper in my estimation is that we did not clearly relate the function and purpose of those triads,” Wiley said. “In retrospect, they gave the impression that we were providing” alternative language for the Trinity. “That was not the intent.”
It was never intended, he added, as a list “where you take one from column A, one from column B and one from column C.”
“I am embarrassed that the General Assembly action on this paper has caused the church to be ridiculed,” Wiley said. But he also believes there was another reason for the criticism – the approval of the authoritative interpretation on ordinations.
“I am distressed that most of the criticism came from people who had read the PUP report instead of the Trinity paper,” he said.
Wiley insists there is nothing untraditional in the paper. “I am happy to stand with Nicea,” he said. “This paper stands with Nicea.”
Wiley said he and other members of the staff of the Office of Theology and Worship will try to make the paper more understandable. They plan to prepare study documents to explain its intention, he said.
Could any one thing have prevented the backlash?
Wiley thinks so. He believes that if the paper had not used one of its triads – Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb – it might have sailed through unscathed.
But he also defended some feminist theology that was the source of women’s support for including that triad in the list. Asked if he considered himself an evangelical, Wiley, a former staff member for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, said he wouldn’t use that word to describe himself.
Wiley listed another problem. The reaction against the Trinity paper “does show the difficulty of doing intimate theological work at the General Assembly in a time of distrust.”