It’s a familiar hymn. I’ve sung it dozens of times in my life. More than that, it’s been sung in various settings and languages (starting with Latin) since the 4th century. So the last verse shouldn’t have surprised me but, well, here we are with a whole blog post about it.
Holy Father, Holy Son,
Holy Spirit, Three we name Thee,
Though in essence only one;
Undivided God, we claim you,
And, adoring, bend the knee
While we own the mystery.
The first two lines are a common Trinitarian formula that serves as springboard for the author’s deep dive into early church controversies and councils. A student of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and even the Fourth Lateran spent hours debating how it is that each person of the Trinity is equally eternal God, distinct and yet of one substance or nature. They might be amazed to discover all that theology packed into eight measures. What wouldn’t surprise them is how these strangely true words still lead us to adore the uncanny God we profess.
But then … (cue record scratch)
“While we own the mystery.”
What does it mean to own a mystery?
Can you imagine Zach and Casper putting the finishing touches on the Heidelberg Catechism, high-fiving each other and pounding each other on the back like, “We just OWNED that mystery.”
Did those early church councils so thoroughly explicate the nature of God, the dual natures of Christ, the pluriform efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection, the nature of his present and coming reign that, by their confessional clarity, we never have to revisit, to wonder about, or try to understand in a new way?
Perhaps, if you sign a doctrinal statement attesting that you believe without reservation in these matters, you too could consider yourself the proud owner of a mystery.
Now you might see why I got stuck. I don’t think mysteries should be owned. In fact, by owning a mystery in the way I’ve outlined above, God has somehow become something less than a mystery. Something less than transcendent truth, goodness and beauty. Something less than worthy of worship.
What could it mean to “own the mystery”? I suspect it starts by owning UP TO the mystery. By recognizing that God will always be something greater than, and not contained within, our doctrinal formulations. This is not to say the work of theology is useless but, rather, that it’s never done. That, for those of us in creedal and confessional denominations, our theological tradition always serves as the start of a conversation, not its premature completion.
Every generation brings new questions to the text of Scripture, every season of life has us returning to our Savior with new needs and new insights. This is not a failure to confess or a limitation to lament. It is the way of God among us – with us and always, mysteriously beyond us.
In this frame of mind, we worship.In our adoration of what is ever beyond us, we find ourselves owned by mystery, unexpected tears in our eyes as familiar words still catch us off guard, surprised by what our finite minds will never fully comprehend. Delighted by what our human arms will never fully grasp or wrestle to the ground.
The wonderful Frederick Buechner once wrote: “Theology is the study of God and God’s ways. For all we know, dung beetles may study us and our ways and call it humanology. If so, we would probably be more touched and amused than irritated. One hopes that God feels likewise.”
We will never get to the bottom or the top of this mystery, but God beckons us to live into and learn the mystery, all the while laughing at the absurdity of our efforts. So we will shore up our understanding here. We might choose to frame it slightly differently over there. We may even find ways to say what’s been professed over millennia in a way that no one has ever thought to say it before. But we own up to the mystery by holding our insights and expressions of faith loosely. We cannot even properly be said to own what we believe or our own brilliance in believing without reservation. We are owned in the mysterious grace of a God who is never fully, and yet somehow always sufficiently, known.
And, adoring, bend the knee, while we’re owned by mystery.
It’s unfortunate that Ms. Jenista drafted an entire essay based on a misunderstanding of the meaning and usage of the word “own” in the referenced hymn.
For those of us who have no idea what you’re talking about, do you care to elaborate on where Meg is wrong in her understanding? I think she’s very clear.
Steve Mathonnet-VanderWell requested I elaborate on my comment. Ms. Jenista begins her essay by misconstruing the meaning and usage of the word “own” in the referenced hymn. The word, as used in the hymn, conveys not the modern meaning of mastery or complete possession, but something like acknowledgment or admission, e.g. “To own one’s faults”. As such, the hymn is expressing a humble acknowledgment of the mystery of the Trinity, both what has been revealed that can be grasped by the human mind and what can only be believed by faith. Ms. Jenista proceeds to construct a straw-man upon this erroneous understanding to represent her target: those who affirm the Reformed confessions without reservation. She construes this affirmation of the truth of the Trinity (or, by extension, the incarnation, the atonement, Jesus’ miracles, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc.) summarized in the Reformed confessions as antithetical to a humble acknowledgment of mystery. Yet, the confessions contain this very acknowledgment. As Belgic Confession, Article 9 states regarding the doctrine of the Trinity:
“And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven.”
I suggest Ms. Jenista does not articulate a correct understanding of the hymn she cites nor does she offer a charitable characterization of those who affirm the confessions wholeheartedly.
Thanks for saying more, Steve.
In fact, as a personal blog post what I was trying to do was track my own thinking. That when I heard own, I did take it the wrong way (and I suspect I’m not alone in this) and had to think my way back to what you rightly ascribe to be the correct definition of own in the hymn. So yes, my original definition is wrong. I own that gladly. But I wondered if it might be helpful to invite others to think through my changing mind with me..
(ps feel free to call me Meg, or if you need formality, Rev, Jenista, since that is the title I own.)
In my reading, Rev. Jenista does not misconstrue the meaning of “own”; rather, she notes a way in which it CAN BE misconstrued. We don’t “own” the mystery of the Trinity, and neither do our confessions. So, affirming the mystery does not mean insisting that every statement in our confessions perfectly expresses that mystery.
I wanted to play with several definitions of the word “own” so it’s possible I missed one. Can you tell me more?
–from the Oxford English dictionary: ask, meaning 4c:
transitive. To acknowledge as having supremacy, authority, or power over oneself; to recognize or profess obedience to (a greater power, a superior, etc.). In later use only with abstract objects, esp. in to own (a person’s) sway. Now somewhat archaic.
Good point. Thank you Meg. We might “own” mystery itself but not the correct analysis of it. Is not one of the conditions of being human having an inadequate grasp of (the trees of) good and evil…. and infinite/eternal life?
What three things must I know to live and die in this comfort? 1. That I am a dung beatle.
2.
3.
Steve,
You might be right about misunderstanding but the point of the essay remains. I am pretty sure that many folks sing this hymn thinking they do understand the mystery.
My trusty Webster’s New World College Dictionary offers two definitions for the verb “own”: 1. To possess, hold as personal property; have. 2. To admit, recognize, acknowledge. Rev. Jenista clearly opts for the second definition. Does Steve opt for the first? That we “possess” the mystery of the Trinity in the way that we hold personal property?
Both meanings may apply here: our profession holds a mystery, and we acknowledge that we find it “difficult or impossible to explain.” (Oxford dictionary)
In the recent years, I have found that holding my beliefs more loosely is absolutely necessary in my faith journey. In seminary we were taught the Reformed doctrines. We needed to explain them in our papers. We needed to state them in our tests. And we needed to defend them in our oral exams. I walked out of seminary with a firm grasp of Reformed doctrines and beliefs and I took that right into the pulpit. Today, twenty five years later, I still preach the Reformed doctrines, but with a much greater sense of the mystery. I grieve that doctrines have divided Christians over the centuries. It seems there was a “my way or the highway” mentality. I never liked that and I like it even less today. For me, for conscious sake, I say, “This is what I believe, but I am sure there is a lot more, let’s talk!” Thanks Meg for stating so many things that have risen in my heart, more recently!
Thank you Meg! The mystery you so clearly explain is likely the reason I am sensitive to the statement “Scripture is clear…”
You had me at that glorious last verse of “Holy God, We Praise Your Name”. Each time we sing it I marvel at the mysteries of our God that we have not and never will pin down. He is God and we are not. The qoute by Buechner was so wise and timely, although I would like to think that perhaps God is a bit irritated as he sees the damage done by our propensity to cleanse the church periodically, based on man’s interpretations of his holy Word.
Thank you Meg … love how you played with the word “own” … there is within Christianity, likely all religions, even that of the dung beetles, the temptation to “own,” i.e. to manage, control, tame, and use what is said and written to bolster our own puffed up egos … your side-eye note about “signing doctrinal statements” pretty much sums it up. I’m saddened by what’s happening in the CRC right now – with folks who “own” the mystery, who define its parameters and curse those who can’t abide with their decisions. How different it is to “own up to” a mystery, and therein to learn, that we don’t own it at all, but that it owns us, “bought with a price” … and rather than demanding that folks sign a document, or get out … the mystery puts all of us on our knees, and when that happens, it’s much harder to condemn the person kneeling next to us.
“…the mystery puts all of us on our knees….” Yes, Tom, and that gives me a vision of all our CRC Councils and Classis assemblies at their next meeting kneeling on their knees as they humbly and lovingly embrace and express the mystery of their faith.
After reading the blog and the responses, I am reminded of a different song – Let the Mystery Be by Iris DeMent. My dear friend died recently and requested that we listen to it at her memorial service.
https://youtu.be/nlaoR5m4L80?si=G020dfjPB-9I20PY
I remember Eugene Peterson writing somewhere that God is a mystery not because he gave us too little information, but because he gave us too much. We adore the God who is beyond our comprehension!
I love that. It reminds me of what Richard Rohr says about how God is mysterious, not because God is unknowable, but because God is infinitely knowable. Thank you, Meg, for this excellent post.
Thanks Meg. I get it. And I appreciate the comments here, too. A good discussion.
Thanks for this, it is so good and so timely. It pains me greatly that the CRC is willing to silence voices like this.