It’s summer and that means annual rituals that coincide with the increased heat begin. The baseball season enters into full stride and pennant contenders are solidified, publishers release the new beach books, blockbuster films aimed at kids and teens fill the multiplexes, the major tournaments in golf and tennis take place, and the most exciting and fun recurring event of all, denominational meetings and assemblies commence. The Episcopal Church has already made many headlines with regard to issues of women in leadership and the ordination of homosexuals (the debate of these topics themselves could be synonymous with summer given their annual frequency). The Presbyterian Church (USA), my old ecclesial stomping ground, has also made news with the story of receiving a policy paper on incorporating different formulations of the Trinity in its liturgy at their General Assembly. The traditional formulation approved by the Ecumenical Councils of the early church is, Father, Son, and Spirit. There are a variety of new “alternative phrasings” for the Trinity, such as “Rock, Redeemer, and Friend,” “Lover, Beloved, and Love,” “Creator, Savior, and Sanctifier,” “King of Glory, Prince of Peace, and Spirit of Love.” But of course, the one that catches the media’s attention is the gender-inclusive formulation, “Mother, Child and Womb.” I’m curious of peoples’ responses to these new formulations. Do they strike you as helpful and creative new ways of expressing the Godhead, are they unorthodox and teetering on the verge of blasphemy, or is it a mixed bag in which some are good and helpful, whereas some are distracting or dangerous? Do you think, if ain’t broke don’t fix it, or do you think that new phrasings are necessary? I’ll hold my tongue, er…fingers, for now and give my thoughts in the comments, if a discussion begins.