When I heard about
the "
Sanctity of
Human Life Sunday," I was reminded of the report received by
the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). There was
one sentence in particular from the Trinitarian paper that I distinctly
recalled. It reads:
"The overflowing love of God finds expression in the Biblical
depiction of God as compassionate mother (Isa. 49:15; 66:13), beloved
child (Mt. 3:17), and life-giving womb (Isa. 46:3)" ("
The
Trinity: God's Love Overflowing," 385-87).
This is the Trinity, portrayed in a new and novel way, seemingly
well-suited to the American culture of the 21st century.
It is no secret that we are living in an age of feminism and religious
pluralism. And it is understandable that the General Assembly would
instruct the Office of Theology and Worship to produce materials to
introduce female imagery of the Holy Trinity into the worship of the
Triune God. In fact, it was reported that the attending commissioners
and others offered their prayers in the name of the triad "Mother,
Child, and womb."
However, to symbolize the third person of the Trinity as a womb is
binitarism, not the Trinity. The three
hypostaseis, or "Persons,"
of the Trinity ought to be represented equally and distinctively. The
key here is three "ways of being." In other words, the
Trinitarian formula requires the triad to be equal in every aspect of
existence and yet distinct, not only in the divine inner life but also
in our experience of God. Any symbols of the Trinity must contain this
concept. Otherwise symbolism loses any real meaning.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a convoluted mess of changing
rules, as some would have you believe. Rather, it is based on simple,
coherent logic that was settled during the early Trinitarian
controversies. In fact, it is precisely because of these logical rules
that the doctrine of the Trinity remains the most conservative of all
Christian dogmas. The basic elements of the doctrine have existed mostly
unchanged since its inception.
Accordingly, I do not see any possible way to parallel the triad "Mother,
Child, and womb" with one another. While "Mother and Child"
are personal, interpersonal and personalizing, the term "womb"
not only lacks a sense of divine personality, it lacks any personality.
Therefore, "womb" can only be considered an ill-fitting
metaphor in the doctrine of the Trinity. And without the third, the
report's Mother and Child is only a binary couple (Cf. the logic of J.
Moltmann,
Trinitat und Reich Gottes, p. 185.).
Other arguments strive to support the theistic concept of the womb as
the third Person of the Trinity, using ancient Asian teachings and Greek
ideas of reproduction. However, here the theories are not centered on
monotheism, but rather the sense that the nurturing womb-deity is one of
many gods. Thus, again, the term is not quite accurate for our talks of
the triune God.
Subjectively, I understand the awe and respect that we, as living
creatures, feel for the womb. It is, after all, the cradle where life is
formed and where one touches his or her mother before ever touching
anyone else, including the father. It is our home in every sense of the
term; it is where we for the first time experience love, before all the
precious things we ever encounter at home, home-town and home-country.
However, who among us thanks the womb rather than our mothers? Again,
the "womb" carries far less symbolic power than the "mother"
does. There is no way to balance our experience of the two. Certainly I,
for one, would refuse to parallel the love of my mother with that of her
womb. The vital distinction here is that to the Christian, the womb is
merely an instrument of life; it is not the creator of life.
The important question then is: Who is the originator and source of
life?
I confess, as a follower of the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit is "the
Lord, the giver of life," both physically and spiritually.
Christians have worshiped the life-giving Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed
itself was practiced, but not formulated, until the 4th century. Church
historians do not know the exact date when the Creed was officially
accepted by Christians. For ages, the Nicene Creed has been affirmed
almost universally by the Christian Church, including the Presbyterian
Church (USA).
It is unclear, however, how contemporary Christians all over the world
will react to the revamped, binitarian idea of the womb symbolizing the
life giver, as presented by the Presbyterian Church (USA). And I am not
quite sure if the elevation of an organ to a role currently occupied by
the life-giving Spirit will help Presbyterians enhance the sanctity of
life in the womb.
Here, I recall an interesting discussion among New Testament scholars
long ago. The Apostle Paul, unlike the twelve, had found himself in a
dilemma, required to present his apostolic credentials. He was called,
conversed and commissioned by the glorified Lord. The story of Paul's
experience on the road to Damascus is enough for average Christians to
uphold his apostleship, but usually scholars dig into a deeper level.
Paul is thought to be defending his apostleship by making reference to
his life implanted in the womb of his mother. In support of this idea,
New Testament scholars quote Galatians 1:15-16, where Paul writes, "But
when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was
pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the
Gentiles, I did not consult any man. …"
How have scholars related the passage above to Paul's divinely
commissioned appointment to be a missionary? (The
New English Bible,
a British scholarly work, correctly translates the term apostolos of
Romans 11:13 as "missionary.") Scholars have determined that
Paul equates his apostleship with the divine call of two great prophets
of the old covenant. Isaiah (49:1) declared to the nations: "Before
I was born the Lord called me; from my birth he has made mention of my
name." Jeremiah also recorded (1:5) what he had heard from the
Lord: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were
born I set you apart."
Some scholars are ready to suggest that Paul was commissioned more
highly than Jeremiah and Isaiah. Others, of course, question Paul's
higher standing. And scholarly discussion goes on. However, what is
unchallenged is the place of the divine calls. The calling took place
within the wombs of their mothers, where God had formed his servants.
The English use of and the NIV translation of "from birth"
sets the stage for misunderstanding. Paul does not mean that God sets
him apart from the point of his birth. What Paul and the others are
saying culturally is "when I was in the womb of my mother" and
thus a better translation in this context is "even before birth."
So, what is so important about these debates among New Testament
scholars? What does this mean for a Christian living in America,
especially during a time when life within the womb is cherished so much
less than life outside of it?
The lesson is this: The Triune God acts upon life in the womb. If the
scholars are right, and we are "set apart" for this time and
this place, then any life within a woman's womb is very dear to God and
the Lord Jesus Christ. The Giver of life has plans for life in the womb
even before its birth (Cf. Genesis 25:23 where the twins in Rebekah's
womb were referred to as two nations; Luke 1:41-44 where the baby in
Elizabeth's womb reacts joyfully to the visit of the baby in Mary's
womb). The Triune God loves with an overflowing love those lives inside
of the womb and cares for them providentially.
Further, God's overflowing love is not limited to the life in the womb.
Life does not have to be formed in the womb to receive God's love. He
sanctifies the life formed even in a plastic tube. God loves equally all
human lives outside of the womb on earth. This is supremely demonstrated
in the life of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. He died on the
cross and was raised from the dead to save those inside and outside of
the womb. Praise God, for Americans, perhaps more than anyone else in
the world, have practiced their love for those outside of the womb. But
I have to say that their love for those inside of the womb is limited.
The actions of some Americans are inconsistent. It is contradictory to
say "I honor life outside of the womb but have less regard for life
inside of the womb." The Giver of life loves equally all human
lives.
God's overflowing love is directed to life rather than to the womb. God
loves man and woman not because they are born of the womb, but because
he himself placed and formed them in their mother's womb. The womb is a
divine instrument for us to be nourished and loved for awhile before we
move on to the earth. Sensing certain similarities, some ancient writers
poetically thought of the earth (land and sea) as a womb. This does not
mean in any sense, however, that the womb is the giver of life. The womb
is only an instrument of the life-giving Holy Sprit, and never a giver
of life. If the source of life is the Triune God and the womb is nothing
but a necessary cradle where God shapes and forms life to receive his
love, then it is not the womb that sanctifies the life, but God who
sanctifies life in the womb. In turn, it is the God-given life that
sanctifies the womb, and not vice versa. The sanctity of life flows from
God to human life and from human life to the womb.
Or, at least, the womb receives its sanctity from God. Human life is
sacred not because it is implanted in the womb, but because it is given
by God who alone is holy. And if there cannot be two "Holinesses,"
then the real source of sanctity is the Triune God alone. Otherwise, the
sacredness of the womb loses any real ground.
This reminds me of a story from Matthew 23:16-22. Here, Jesus is alarmed
by the lifestyle of the Pharisees. In their religious practices, they
regard gold more highly than the temple and the gift than the altar.
Jesus corrects the Pharisees. It is the temple that makes gold sacred
and the altar that makes the gift sacred, not vice versa. Thus, gold and
gift are less important than the temple and the altar. In fact, the
religious value of the former is totally dependent on the latter. The
same logic applies to the relationship between the Life-giver and the
womb. Misguided logic often leads us to lose sight of the more important
elements in the religious practices, including in the act of worshiping
God.
Finally, I must add one more issue here. There is one, basic
hermeneutical problem with symbolizing the womb as life-giver. Of some
60 occasions where the term "womb" is mentioned in Scripture,
not a single occasion refers to it as a deity, let alone the Lord God –
this differs from some Asian classics as alluded to above. Isaiah 46:3,
which is quoted as a supporting passage for the symbolism of "life-giving
womb," in fact speaks of God who has loved and still loves the
people of Israel with an overflowing love. Here, the term "womb"
is used figuratively to emphasize God's unceasing love for the nation of
Israel "even before its birth" (Cf. above for my preferred
translation.). It is possible to interpret this passage to mean that God
loved and cared for Israel even before it was born as a nation, just as
he loves and cares for the life in a mother's womb before it is born.
Thus, again, the womb is not the source of the life and love, but rather
God.
If the Triune God alone is the source of the life that is being loved in
the womb, and if the third person of the Trinity is the life-giving
Spirit in appropriation as taught in the Nicene Creed and affirmed
universally by the Christian Church, including those churches in the
tradition of
ecclesia reformata, the life at any stage of his or
her existence in those two "wombs" is equally precious to the
Triune God. As children of God, we have to follow his footsteps by
loving consistently all lives both inside and outside of the mother's
womb without discrimination.
The Rev. Inkyu Parks is pastor of University Presbyterian Church in
Akron, Ohio. This article originally appeared on the
Web site of Presbyterians
Pro-Life. It is reprinted here with permission.