Some Discussions of the Trinity in Recent Theology
Some Discussions of the Trinity in Recent Theology
The second half of the twentieth century witnessed some remarkable explorations of the doctrine of the Trinity. To give readers an idea of the fertility and creativity of this outburst of reflection, based on a new confidence in the doctrine after the collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and a growing awareness of its implications, we shall report briefly on four recent discussions. We open, however, by considering a classic question: where should the doctrine of the Trinity be located in a systematic theology?
F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768–1834) on the Dogmatic Location of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity has traditionally been placed toward the beginning of works of Christian theology, not least on account of the influence of the creeds of Christendom upon such works. The creeds open with a declaration of faith in God; it therefore seemed natural to most theologians to follow this pattern, placing any discussion about the doctrine of God at the opening of their works. Thus, Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–74), perhaps the finest representative of this classic tradition of doing theology, considered it only natural to begin his Summa theologiae (“The Totality of Theology”) with a discussion of the doctrine of God in general, immediately followed by his account of the doctrine of the Trinity in particular. However, it must be stressed that this pattern is not the only one which could be adopted. To illustrate this point, we shall consider the location of the discussion of the doctrine of God in F. D. E. Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith (1821–2, revised edition 1830–1).
As we noted earlier (pp. 67, 131–4), Schleiermacher's approach to theology is to begin with the common human experience of “a feeling of absolute dependence,” which is then interpreted in a Christian sense as “a feeling of absolute dependence upon God.” As a result of a long process of inference from this feeling of dependence, Schleiermacher finally reaches the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is placed right at the end of the work, as an appendix. For some, such as Karl Barth, this demonstrates that Schleiermacher regarded the Trinity as a mere appendix to his theology; for others, it suggests that it was the last word that the theologian could utter concerning God – in other words, the climax of the entire theological enterprise.
It is clear that Schleiermacher had misgivings about the notion of the Trinity, partly because he believed that the main emphasis of the Christian faith lay elsewhere (especially in the doctrine of the Church and the person of Jesus of Nazareth). Other critics have suggested that Schleiermacher could not see how the Trinity could fit into the immediate self-consciousness of the believer. Kinder critics point out that Schleiermacher clearly regarded it as important to defend the idea of the Trinity in a strongly rationalist context, trying to show that it encapsulated some important insights which would otherwise be lost.
Jürgen Moltmann (Born 1926) on the Social Trinity
In The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (1980), Jürgen Moltmann attempts to liberate the Christian doctrine of God from the confines both of the ancient Greek metaphysics of substance and of the modern metaphysics of transcendental subjectivity. Moltmann's Trinity and the Kingdom of God is of particular importance on account of its fully social doctrine of the Trinity. Moltmann's social doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes the relative independence of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in its community with the Father and the Son. Developing this in a way that might cause anxiety to some, Moltmann emphasizes that there is no fixed order in the Trinity. The unity of God is the unity of persons in relationship, as expressed in the Cappadocian doctrine of perichoresis. On this reading of the concept, Moltmann argues that “the trinitarian persons form their own unity by themselves in the circulation of the divine life.” This conception of God is radically opposed, Moltmann insists, to any “monotheistic” or “monarchical” doctrine of God which would reduce the real subjectivity of the three persons. Of particular interest is Moltmann's use of this notion to develop a fundamentally theological understanding of human society.
“The trinity is our social program.” For Jürgen Moltmann, the doctrine of the Trinity is to be understood to provide a vision of God as a union of three divine persons or distinct but related subjects. This specific understanding of God as a mutually loving, interacting, and sustaining society allows Christian theology to develop a theory of society. “The social doctrine of the Trinity is in a position to overcome both monotheism in the concept of God and individualism in the doctrine of man, and to develop a social personalism and personalist socialism.” For Moltmann, the Christian concept of the Trinity provides “the exemplar of true human community, first in the church and also in society.” Excessively authoritarian and centralized notions of government rest upon a conception of God which stresses God's “monarchy,” whereas a trinitarian doctrine of God stresses the divine unity and community. Moltmann therefore sees the social view of the Trinity as having both a theological and a social function: theologically, it offers a penetrating critique of a false idea of God; socially, it articulates a notion of God as a social being, capable of functioning as a proper paradigm for society as a whole.
The triune God is reflected only in a united and uniting community of Christians without domination and subjection and a united and uniting humanity without class rule and without dictatorial oppression. That is the world in which people are defined by their social relationships and not by their power or their property. That is the world in which human beings have all things in common and share everything with one another except their personal qualities.
Social approaches to the Trinity – such as that here developed by Moltmann – are open to criticism on several grounds. The most important of these is that social models of the Trinity tend to project contemporary ideals and society or human relationships onto God, and then regard the doctrine of the Trinity as somehow validating these ideals. There is, critics such as Karen Kilby argue, a risk of projection – that is to say, reading existing human social values or norms into the Trinity and then reading them out of the Trinity, so that “what is projected onto God is immediately reflected back onto the world.” To put this concern simply, “social” approaches to the Trinity run the risk of echoing prevailing social norms and assumptions. Their supporters (such as Leonardo Boff), however, argue that they provide a robust theological basis for an understanding of both church and society.
Eberhard Jüngel (Born 1934) on the Trinity and Metaphysics
In his difficult book God as the Mystery of the World (1977), Eberhard Jüngel set out to explore how it is possible to speak of God in a responsible manner in a world in which people live etsi Deus non daretur (“as if God were not given”). For Jüngel, the problem is clear, as is its solution. The problem is that much western theology has allowed its thinking about God to be shaped, not by the specifics of the Christian revelation, but by ideas of God which derive from secular metaphysics.
Jüngel's concern is that a specific type of metaphysics – which he traces back to Descartes (1596–1650) – makes certain imperialistic claims which, if conceded, lead to the erosion of an authentically Christian conception of God. Thus, Jüngel notes how critics of Christianity such as J. G. Fichte (1762–1814), Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) derive their understanding of God from the metaphysical tradition, not from the Christian tradition. Jüngel then correctly points out that the major forms of atheism which arose in western culture during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are not rejections of the Christian god but are rather reactions against inadequate metaphysical notions of God. Making much the same point, Alasdair MacIntyre (born 1929) remarks that “the God in whom the nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to disbelieve had been invented only in the seventeenth century.”
Jüngel's solution is to urge Christianity to rediscover its own distinctive vision of God which is fundamentally trinitarian in nature. He stresses that God identifies himself with the crucified Christ, so that faith recognizes the crucified human being Jesus of Nazareth as identical to God. Like Moltmann, Jüngel makes the cross the center of the trinitarian history of God. A proper interpretation of the crucifixion of Christ leads decisively away from the philosophical monotheism of classical theism toward the distinctively and authentically Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Jüngel moves on from here to develop a trinitarian “theology of the cross.” The cross reveals a differentiation between Father and Son. (A similar point had been made earlier by Jürgen Moltmann, who disentangled the different manners in which Father and Son experience suffering and drew out their trinitarian implications.) The resurrection, however, affirms the unity of Father and Son, God and Jesus. How is this to be interpreted? Jüngel maps out a road which leads to the doctrine of the Trinity with his declaration that “the knowledge of the identification of God with Jesus necessitates the distinction of God from God.” The New Testament itself makes such a distinction, when it distinguishes God the Son (the crucified Jesus) from God the Father (who raised him from the dead). The Father and Son are held together by the bond of unity, the Holy Spirit.
This “self-differentiation” within God, recognized on the basis of the relationship between the resurrection and crucifixion of Christ, constitutes the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. It also forms the basis of the Christian critique of both monotheism and metaphysical theism, as well as the types of atheism that correspond to these forms of theism. From this, it is clear that Jüngel sees the church's task of engaging with the world as depending on a recovery of its own distinctive understanding of God and breaking free from its recent imprisonment to secular metaphysics. The doctrine of the Trinity, he argues, is central to this development.
Catherine Mowry LaCugna (1952–97) on the Trinity and Salvation
One of the most impressive studies of the theological foundations and application of the doctrine of the Trinity to appear in recent decades is Catherine Mowry LaCugna's God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (1991). This richly textured work examines why the doctrine of the Trinity has been so problematic for the western church, and proposes some solutions. In this work, LaCugna, formerly Nancy Reeves Dreux Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, develops the central insight that western trinitarianism has tended to ignore God's revelation in the economy of salvation, preferring to engage in speculative reflection on the divine nature itself.
LaCugna traces this development back to the tension – which was highly significant at the time of the Council of Nicea (325) – between theologia and oikonomia, between the so-called immanent or essential Trinity and the economic Trinity. The term oikonomia, which we identify with the economic Trinity, refers to the self-communication of God in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit's activity in the history of salvation. All that we know about God is a result of this activity. Theologia, or our knowledge of the eternal being of God, should in principle be coextensive with what we have learned from revelation in the divine economy of salvation. We have no access to the immanent life of God that goes beyond what has been revealed. Yet a refusal to accept this, LaCugna argues, has led to the Christian tradition adopting concepts of God which are shaped by Greek philosophy, rather than by the biblical revelation, to define our understanding of the Trinity. As noted above, a similar line of criticism was developed earlier in Eberhard Jüngel's God as the Mystery of the World (1977). LaCugna seeks to correct this problem by returning to the economy of salvation as definitive for our understanding of the nature of God.
This involves her in a creative yet critical engagement with Karl Rahner. LaCugna reworks Rahner's statements concerning the economic and essential Trinity as follows: “theology is inseparable from soteriology, and vice versa.” By arguing for a recovery of the identification of theologia with oikonomia, LaCugna believes that theology is liberated from the pointless and potentially misleading distinction between God's inner and outer aspects. This “return to the biblical and pre-Nicene pattern of thought” reaffirms that there is only one trinitarian life of God, which embraces and enfolds the entire scope of salvation history. Far from being a speculative doctrine, it stands revealed as the expression of the heart of the Christian faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity, properly understood, is the affirmation of God's intimate communion with us through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. As such, it is an eminently practical doctrine with far-reaching consequences for Christian life. By presenting the doctrine of the Trinity in a way that is more at home with the concrete language and images of the Bible, creeds, and the liturgy, the Christian doctrine of God can be reconnected with other areas of theology, as well as to ethics, spirituality, and the life of the church.
Sarah Coakley (Born 1951) on Feminism and the Trinity
The traditional language of trinitarian faith speaks of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” At least on the face of it, this seems to give priority to male imagery concerning God. One of the agendas of feminist theology is to identify and rectify power imbalances arising from gender issues. In 1973, the noted feminist writer Mary Daly (1928–2010) pointed out that “when God becomes male, the male becomes God.” Daly's own work was severely critical of the use of male language and imagery in every area of theology, particularly the traditional representation of the Trinity, which she famously depicted as a “boys' club” or “men's association.”
So what are the alternatives? How can feminism develop this issue positively? A number of approaches have emerged. Some feminist writers have argued that the traditional language should be replaced with non-gendered alternatives: “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” might thus become “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.” A second group has noted how, at certain points in the Christian tradition, the Holy Spirit has been spoken of in feminine terms – for example, noting the use of the feminine pronoun for the Holy Spirit in Syriac sources (see pp. 293–4). Others have emphasized that the Trinity concerns relationality, rather than hierarchy, and have interpreted the doctrine in terms of fostering Christian intimacy with God rather than in terms of the power structures it might be held to legitimate.
Some of the most interesting and constructive reflections on this question stem from the Anglican writer Sarah Coakley. Coakley's reflections on the Trinity are informed by a deep knowledge of the development of Christian doctrine, particularly during the patristic age. Noting the tendency of male theological discourse to be rationalist and passionless, lacking any erotic element, Coakley offers a strategy for recovering a fuller appreciation of a trinitarian theology, partly through a critical reading of its sources.
Coakley's approach is developed in a number of works, most notably her Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender (2002). However, the roots of her approach are most conveniently studied from an essay entitled “Batter My Heart” – the opening words of a famous poem by John Donne (1572–1631), exploring the trinitarian dynamic. There are three basic elements (or “axioms”) in Coakley's approach. She begins by noting that any conception of the Trinity is heavily freighted with notions of power.
Visions of God as the Trinity see the inner trinitarian relationships (that is, the relations between Father, Son and Spirit) as a prototype or charter for right relationships tout court. Thus [...] if “the personal is the political” (to use the familiar feminist slogan), then no doctrine of the Trinity, however construed, can be wholly devoid of political, spiritual and sexual implications. [...] The task of a Christian feminist, then, will be to ferret out those connections and implications, and, if necessary, criticize and redirect them.
Having established this idea, Coakley then points to the practice and experience of Christian prayer as creating a framework for understanding this doctrine. “An analysis of Christian prayer, especially relatively wordless contemplative or charismatic prayer, provides an acutely revealing matrix for explaining the origins of trinitarian reflection.” In particular, Coakley notes the role of the Holy Spirit in fostering the intimate prayerful relationship between the believer and God. Where some feminists affirmed the femininity of the Spirit as a means of subverting a masculine Trinity, Coakley points instead to the role of the Spirit in relation to prophecy and ecstasy, seeing this as undermining rationalist construals of the Christian faith, and God in particular.
Finally, Coakley notes how “the Church had politico-ecclesiastical reasons for preventing this vision of God, with its prioritization and highlighting of the Spirit, from getting too close to center stage.” Coakley's reading of historical theology leads her to note that some patristic writers, such as Origen (c.185–c.254) and Gregory of Nyssa, developed approaches to the reading of Scripture which were, at points, far removed from the cool, safe rationalism that became characteristic of the later church.
So how does this have any bearing on feminism? Coakley's approach is subtle and does not take the form of a direct confrontation with the traditional trinitarian language and imagery. Rather, she offers a framework for redirecting and reconceiving it. The practice of prayer, she argues, shifts the emphasis away from rationalist approaches to God toward those which emphasize embodied experience. Prayer is a trinitarian and empowering activity, in which the believer is caught up in a relationship with the living reality of a trinitarian God, not an abstract and undifferentiated divine entity. Although Coakley avoids crude gender generalizations, it is clear that she associates male theologizing with “rationalism” or logos and female theologizing with “relationality” or eros. Her approach offers a framework for both a critical reading of historical theology and reconceiving the trinitarian vision in more holistic ways.