ATRINITARIANTHEOLOGYOFRELIGIONS? ANAUGUSTINIANASSESSMENTOFSEVERALRECENTPROPOSALS by KeithEdwardJohnson DepartmentofReligion DukeUniversity Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ GeoffreyWainwright,Supervisor ___________________________ ReinhardHuetter ___________________________ J.WarrenSmith ___________________________ J.

__ J.KameronCarter Dissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillmentof therequirementsforthedegreeofDoctor ofPhilosophyintheDepartmentof ReligionintheGraduateSchool ofDukeUniversity 2007

ABSTRACT ATRINITARIANTHEOLOGYOFRELIGIONS? ANAUGUSTINIANASSESSMENTOFSEVERALRECENTPROPOSALS by KeithEdwardJohnson DepartmentofReligion DukeUniversity Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ GeoffreyWainwright,Supervisor ___________________________ ReinhardHuetter ___________________________ J.WarrenSmith ___________________________ J.KameronCarter Anabstractofadissertationsubmittedinpartial fulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegree ofDoctorofPhilosophyintheDepartmentof ReligionintheGraduateSchool ofDukeUniversity 2007

Copyrightby KeithEdwardJohnson 2007

Abstract
ContemporarytheologyisdrivenbyaquesttomakethedoctrineoftheTrinity relevanttoawidevarietyofconcerns.BooksandarticlesaboundontheTrinityand personhood,theTrinityandecclesiology,theTrinityandgender,theTrinityand marriage,theTrinityandsocietalrelations,theTrinityandpolitics,theTrinityand ecology,etc.Recentlyanumberoftheologianshavesuggestedthatadoctrineofthe TrinitymayprovidethekeytoaChristiantheologyofreligions.Thepurposeofthis studyistoevaluatecriticallytheclaimthataproperunderstandingoftheTrinity providesthebasisforanewunderstandingofreligiousdiversity. DrawinguponthetrinitariantheologyofAugustine(principallyDeTrinitate),I criticallyexaminethetrinitariandoctrineinMarkHeimstrinitariantheologyof multiplereligiousends,AmosYongspneumatologicaltheologyofreligions,Jacques DupuisChristiantheologyofreligiouspluralismandRaimundoPanikkarstrinitarian accountofreligiousexperience(alongwithEwertCousinseffortstolinkPanikkars proposaltothevestigetradition).MyAugustinianassessmentisstructuredaround threetrinitarianissuesintheChristiantheologyofreligions:(1)therelationshipofthe immanentandtheeconomicTrinity,(2)therelationsamongthedivinepersons (bothadintraandadextra)and(3)thevestigiatrinitatis.

iv

 InconversationwithAugustine,Iargue(1)thatthereisgoodreasontoquestion theclaimthattheTrinityrepresentsthekeytoanewunderstandingofreligious diversity,(2)thatcurrentuseoftrinitariantheologyintheChristiantheologyof religionsappearstobehavingadeleteriouseffectuponthedoctrine,and(3)thatthe trinitarianproblemsIdocumentinthetheologyofreligionsalsoencumberattemptsto relatetrinitariandoctrinetoavarietyofothercontemporaryissuesincluding personhood,ecclesiology,society,politicsandscience.Ifurtherarguethat contemporarytheologyisdrivenbyaproblematicunderstandingofwhatitmeansfora doctrineoftheTrinitytoberelevantandthatAugustinechallengesustorethinkthe relevancyoftrinitariandoctrine.

Table of Contents
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................iv TableofContents .........................................................................................................................vi ListofFigures ................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................xi Preface ........................................................................................................................................ xiii 1.TheTurntotheTrinityintheTheologyofReligions .......................................................... 1 1.1TheContemporaryTrinitarianRevival .............................................................. 3 1.1.1KarlBarth ........................................................................................................ 4 1.1.2KarlRahner ..................................................................................................... 7 1.1.3Implications................................................................................................... 10 1.2TheChristianTheologyofReligions ................................................................ 12 1.2.1Exclusivism,InclusivismandPluralism ................................................... 13 1.2.2TheTurntotheTrinityintheTheologyofReligions.............................. 17 1.3DoesaDoctrineoftheTrinityHoldtheKeytoaTheologyofReligions? .. 38 2.ReclaimingtheAugustinianTrinitarianTradition ............................................................ 47 2.1ContemporaryCriticismsofAugustine ........................................................... 48 2.1.1SubstanceandPerson .................................................................................. 49 2.1.2MaterialityandtheIncarnation.................................................................. 52 vi

 2.1.3TrinitarianAnalogies ................................................................................... 55 2.1.4DoctrineoftheSpirit.................................................................................... 57 2.1.5TheAbysmalLegacyofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology ................... 59 2.2RereadingAugustine .......................................................................................... 63 2.2.1SubstanceandPerson:MisreadingtheCappadocians ........................... 71 2.2.2SubstanceandPerson:MisreadingAugustine ........................................ 80 2.2.3MaterialityandtheIncarnation.................................................................. 87 2.2.4TrinitarianAnalogies ................................................................................... 92 2.2.5DoctrineoftheSpirit.................................................................................... 97 2.3IntroductiontoDeTrinitate .............................................................................. 103 3.TheEconomicandtheImmanentTrinityintheTheologyofReligions ............... 111 3.1ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds ..................................................... 113 3.1.1ThreeDimensionsoftheDivineLife....................................................... 116 3.1.2ThreeRelationsandMultipleReligiousEnds........................................ 119 3.1.3PlenitudeandMultipleReligiousEnds .................................................. 121 3.2TheEconomicandtheImmanentTrinityinDeTrinitate ............................. 122 3.3AnEvaluationofHeimsTrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds............. 134 3.3.1FromtheBiblicaltotheImmanentTrinity ............................................. 140 3.3.2FromtheImmanenttotheEconomicTrinity ......................................... 148 3.2.3ATrinityofDimensionsReplacesaTrinityofPersons ........................ 151 vii

 3.4ImplicationsfortheChristianTheologyofReligions .................................. 154 4.TheDivineRelationsintheTheologyofReligions .......................................................... 158 4.1AmosYongsPneumatologicalTheologyofReligions ................................ 160 4.2JacquesDupuisChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism ...................... 168 4.3TheRelationsoftheDivinePersonsinDeTrinitate ...................................... 175 4.3.1UnityandEqualityoftheDivinePersonsadintra................................. 177 4.3.2DistinctionofDivinePersonsadintra ..................................................... 182 4.3.3UnityofOperationadextra ....................................................................... 189 4.3.4DistinctionofPersonsadextra .................................................................. 194 4.4AnEvaluationofAmosYongsTrinitarianPneumatology ........................ 201 4.4.1InsufficientTrinitarianFramework ......................................................... 202 4.4.2SeveringtheTwoHandsoftheFather................................................ 205 4.5AnEvaluationofDupuisTrinitarianChristology....................................... 214 4.5.1SubordinationismintheFather/SonRelationship................................. 215 4.5.2UnderminingtheUnicityoftheEconomyofSalvation........................ 221 4.5.3SeveringtheUnityoftheEconomicandtheImmanentTrinity.......... 226 4.6ImplicationsfortheChristianTheologyofReligions .................................. 228 5.TheVestigiaTrinitatisintheTheologyofReligions.......................................................... 237 5.1PanikkarsTheandricSpirituality ................................................................... 240 5.1.1ThreeFormsofSpirituality ....................................................................... 240 viii

 5.1.2PanikkarsDoctrineoftheTrinity............................................................ 244 5.1.3TheandricSpirituality................................................................................ 252 5.1.4PanikkarandtheVestigeTradition ......................................................... 254 5.2AugustineontheVestigiaTrinitatis ................................................................. 261 5.3AnEvaluationofPanikkarsTrinitarianGrammar ...................................... 277 5.3.1FlawedAppealtotheVestigeTradition ................................................. 277 5.3.2TheEconomicandtheImmanentTrinity ............................................... 290 5.4ImplicationsfortheChristianTheologyofReligions .................................. 302 6.RethinkingtheRelevancyofTrinitarianDoctrine ....................................................... 304 6.1ImplicationsfortheChristianTheologyofReligions .................................. 308 6.2SimilarProblemsinContemporaryTheology............................................... 311 6.2.1SimilarTrinitarianClaims......................................................................... 311 6.2.2SimilarMethodologicalProblems............................................................ 327 6.3RethinkingtheRelevancyoftheTrinity:AugustinianReflections ........ 344 6.3.1ReconsideringAugustine.......................................................................... 344 6.3.2SixPurposesofTrinitarianDoctrine ....................................................... 346 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 360 Biography................................................................................................................................... 389

ix

List of Figures
Figure1:DistinctionbetweenMissionandGeneration/Procession .................................. 127 Figure2:Trinity:Biblical,ImmanentandEconomic ........................................................... 141 Figure3:TrinityinHeimsProposal ...................................................................................... 142 Figure4:ThreeEconomiesinPanikkar ................................................................................. 299

Acknowledgements
Iwanttobeginbyexpressingdeepappreciationtomyadvisor,Geoffrey Wainwright.Notonlyhavehiscoursesgivenmeavisionforthedoxologicalnatureof theologybuthehasalsohelpedmeseehowthedisciplineoftheologycanandshould servetheChurch.HisseminarontheTrinitykindledmyinterestintrinitariandoctrine andprovidedimpetusforthispresentinvestigation.Iamgratefulforhiswisdom, encouragementandcarefuleyefordetailthroughouttheprocessofdevelopingthis dissertation.IwanttothankReinhardHuetterforsuggestingtheideathatAugustines trinitariantheologymightprovideathematiccenterformyproject.Hisinputalongthe wayhasbeeninvaluable.IamalsogratefultoDr.Huetterforhelpingmeunderstand andappreciatethetrinitariantheologiesofKarlBarthandThomasAquinas.Iwantto thankWarrenSmithforspendinganentiresemesterhelpingmeworkthroughthe trinitariantextsofJustinMartyr,ClementofAlexandria,Irenaeus,Tertullian,Origen, Athanasius,BasilofCaesarea,GregoryofNyssa,GregoryofNazianzus,Hilaryof Poitersand(ofcourse)Augustine.Dr.SmithalsointroducedmetoLewisAyresand MichelBarnesscholarshiponAugustineandhisseminaronAugustinehelpedme relateAugustinestrinitarianthoughttoothermajorthemesinhislifeandthought.I wanttothankJ.KameronCarterforintroducingmetotheintricaciesofmedieval vestigetradition.OveratwomonthperiodwecarefullyworkedthroughBonaventures xi

 ItinerariumMentisDeiinaseminar.Dr.CarterscourseonHansUrsvonBalthasars TheoDramaalsohelpedsharpenmythinkingontherelationshipbetweentheeconomic andtheimmanentTrinity. IalsowanttothankmyparentsBillandMarianJohnsonforbelievinginmeand encouragingmetoexcel.IamalsofilledwithprofoundgratitudetomywifeRhonda forwholeheartedlyembracingmydreamofpursuingdoctoralstudy.Withouther unfailinglove,encouragementandsupport,noneofthiswouldhavebeenpossible. Finally,mychildren,Drew,LaurenandEmily,aretobethankedforhelpingdistract theirdaddyfromhisbooks.

xii

Preface
Iwasfirstintroducedtotrinitarianapproachestothetheologyofreligionsin aseminaronthedoctrineoftheTrinitywithGeoffreyWainwrightatDukeDivinity SchoolwhenwereadGavinDCostasbookTheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity. DCostasbookinitiallystimulatedmyinterestintherelationshipbetweenTrinityand religiousdiversity.IdecidedtoexploretherelationbetweenthedoctrineoftheTrinity andtheChristiantheologyofreligionsinmymastersthesis(whichwasentitled TowardaTheologyofReligionsviatheDoctrineoftheTrinity).Theprimaryfocusof myinvestigationwastheconstitutiveroleoftrinitariandoctrineintheproposalsof JacquesDupuisandMarkHeim.Thatinquiryleftmewithaseriesofunanswered questionsabouttheroleoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligions. WhenIcommenceddoctoralstudythefollowingyear,Ideterminedtopursue thesequestionsfurther.Attheoutsetofmyresearchprocess,IenvisionedthatIwould clarifycertainpitfallsonthewaytoamoreadequatetrinitariangrammarfora Christiantheologyofreligions.Inmyattempttoanswerthequestionsoutlinedabove,I immersedmyselfintheclassicaltrinitariantradition(particularlytheformativepatristic period).Myengagementwiththeseclassicaltheologians(especiallyAugustine)hadan unanticipatedresult.NotonlydidIbecomedeeplysuspiciousofthewaytrinitarian doctrineiscurrentlybeingemployedinthetheologyofreligionsbutIalsobeganto xiii

 realizethattheproblemsIdiscoveredwerenotlimitedtoChristianreflectionon religiousdiversity.Onthecontrary,someofthesamemethodologicalproblemsthat encumbertrinitarianapproachestoreligiousdiversityalsoencumbertrinitarian approachestoahostofotherissues(e.g.,trinitarianaccountsofthepersonhood,church andsociety).Icametotheconclusionthatthesemethodologicalproblemsarerootedin adistortedunderstandingofthepurposeoftrinitariandoctrine.Thisnarrativeofmy developinginterestsfindssystematicembodimentinthethematicquestionsandoverall structureofthepresentwriting. Ultimately,thisinvestigationisnotaboutthetheologyofreligions;itisaboutthe roleofthetrinitariandoctrineincontemporarytheology.ThroughanAugustinian examinationoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligions(specificallythe proposalsofMarkHeim,JacquesDupuis,AmosYongandRaimundoPanikkar),Iwant towanttochallengecontemporarytheologianstorethinktheroleofthiscentral doctrine.IamconvincedthatAugustinehasmuchtocontributetothisend.Itis somewhatironicthatthetheologianwhosetrinitarianteachingissupposedly responsibleforthemarginalizationoftrinitariandoctrinemighthavesomething importanttoteachusaboutwhatitmeansforthisdoctrinetoberelevant.

xiv

1. The Turn to the Trinity in the Theology of Religions

ImmanuelKantdeclaredthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityhasnopractical relevancewhatsoever.1Kantwouldbehardpressedtomakethiscriticismsticktoday. ContemporarytheologyisdrivenbyaquesttomakethedoctrineoftheTrinity relevanttoawidevarietyofconcerns.BooksandarticlesaboundontheTrinityand personhood,theTrinityandecclesiology,theTrinityandgender,theTrinityand marriage,theTrinityandsocietalrelations,theTrinityandpoliticaltheory,theTrinity andscience,theTrinityandecology,etc.Theologiansofeverystripeareattemptingto relatetrinitariandoctrinetoawidevarietyofcontemporaryissues. RecentlyanumberofChristiantheologianshavesuggestedthatthedoctrineof theTrinityholdsthekeytoChristianunderstandingofreligiousdiversity.Accordingto onetheologian,Godhassomethingtodowiththefactthatadiversityofindependent waysofsalvationappearsinthehistoryoftheworld.Thisdiversityreflectsthe diversityorpluralitywithinthedivinelifeitself,ofwhichtheChristiandoctrineofthe

ThedoctrineoftheTrinity,takenliterally,hasnopracticalrelevanceatall,evenifwethinkweunderstand it;anditisevenmoreclearlyirrelevantifwerealizethatittranscendsallourconcepts.Whetherweareto worshipthreeortenpersonsintheDivinitymakesnodifference:thepupilwillimplicitlyacceptoneas readilyastheotherbecausehehasnoconceptatallofanumberofpersonsinoneGod(hypostases),and stillmoresobecausethisdistinctioncanmakenodifferenceinhisrulesofconduct.ImmanuelKant,The ConflictoftheFaculties,trans.MaryJ.Gregor(NewYork:AbarisBooks,1979),6567(italicsoriginal).

1

 Trinityprovidesanaccount.ThemysteryoftheTrinityisforChristianstheultimate foundationforpluralism.2Similarly,
IbelievethattheTrinitariandoctrineofGodfacilitatesanauthenticallyChristian responsetotheworldreligionsbecauseittakestheparticularitiesofhistory seriouslyaswellastheuniversalityofGodsaction.Thisissobecausethe doctrineseekstoaffirmthatGodhasdisclosedhimselfunreservedlyand irreversiblyinthecontingenciesandparticularityofthepersonJesus.Butwithin Trinitarianthinking,wearealsoabletoaffirm,intheactionofthethirdperson, thatGodisconstantlyrevealinghimselfthroughhistorybymeansoftheHoly Spirit....SuchaTrinitarianorientationtherebyfacilitatesanopennesstothe worldreligions,fortheactivityoftheSpiritcannotbeconfinedtoChristianity.3

Finally,ItisimpossibletobelieveintheTrinityinsteadofthedistinctiveclaimsofall otherreligions.IfTrinityisreal,thenmanyofthesespecificreligiousclaimsandends mustberealalso....TheTrinityisamapthatfindsroomfor,indeedrequires,concrete truthinotherreligions.4 Althoughthesestatementsreflectagrowingconsensusthatthedoctrineofthe Trinityprovidesthekeytoaproperunderstandingoftherelationshipbetween Christianityandotherreligions,Iwillarguethatthesetrinitarianclaimsmeritcareful scrutiny.Thus,thepurposeofmyinvestigationistoexaminecriticallycontemporary appealtotrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligions;however,beforeI

2PeterC.Hodgson,TheSpiritandReligiousPluralism,inTheMythofReligiousSuperiority:Multifaith ExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005),136.

GavinDCosta,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,inAUniversalFaith?Peoples,Cultures, ReligionsandtheChrist:EssaysinHonorofProf.Dr.FrankDeGraeve,ed.CatherineCornilleandValeer Neckebrouck(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1992),147.

3

MarkHeim,TheDepthoftheRiches:TrinityandReligiousEnds,ModernTheology17(2001):22(italics original).
4

 outlinethenatureofmyinvestigationingreaterdetail,weneedtoexploretwo developmentsthatprovideacrucialcontextforthisinvestigation:thecontemporary trinitarianrenaissanceandtheriseoftheChristiantheologyofreligions.After exploringthesedevelopments,IwillchronologicallysurveyrecentappealtotheTrinity inthetheologyofreligions.Iwillclosethechapterbydescribingthepurpose,scope andmethodofmyinvestigation.

1.1 The Contemporary Trinitarian Revival

Anumberofexcellentstudieshavebeenwrittenchroniclingtherenaissanceof trinitariantheologyinthetwentiethcenturyandthereisnoneedtorepeatatlength whatothershavesaid.5Forthepurposeofthisstudy,itwillsufficetoexaminethework ofKarlBarthandKarlRahnerwithattentiontothemesintheirworkthathaveshaped thecontemporaryrevival.6

SeeClaudeWelch,InThisName:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinContemporaryTheology(NewYork:Charles ScribnersSons,1952);JohnThompson,ModernTrinitarianPerspectives(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1994);GeoffreyWainwright,TheEcumenicalRediscoveryoftheTrinity,OneinChrist34(1998):95124; andStanleyJ.Grenz,RediscoveringtheTriuneGod:TheTrinityinContemporaryTheology(Minneapolis: FortressPress,2004).

5

Adiscussionoftheextenttowhichtrinitariandoctrinewasmarginalizedinvariousecclesialcontextsin theearlypartofthetwentiethcentury(andthusneededtoberecovered)liesoutsidethescopeofthis investigation.Whatisclearisthatatrinitarianrevivalemergedinthetwentiethcenturyandthatthework ofBarthandRahnerexertedsignificantinfluenceuponthecharacterofthisrevival.

6

 1.1.1 Karl Barth Thetwentiethcenturytrinitarianrevivalwasenergized,ontheProtestantside, bytheworkofKarlBarth.7InhisChurchDogmatics,Barthintroducesthedoctrineofthe Trinityasafoundationalelementofhisprolegomena.Thismoveisdrivenbythe assumptionthatitisimpossibletoreflectonthenatureofChristiandoctrineapartfrom thematerialcontentofChristiandoctrine.8Barthinsiststhatonecannotthinkaboutthe natureofrevelationapartfromtheOnewhoisrevealedinrevelation.9Hesuggests thatthreequestionsnaturallyariseasoneconsidersthenatureofrevelation.First,who isrevealedinrevelation?Second,howdoesrevelationhappen?Third,whatisthe resultofrevelation?AccordingtoBarth,theanswertothefirstquestionisthatGod revealshimself.10TheanswertothesecondisthatHerevealshimselfthroughhimself.
11

TheanswertothethirdquestionisthatHerevealshimself.12ForBarth,Godisthe

ForabriefoverviewofBarthslifeandtheology,seeRobertW.Jenson,KarlBarth,inTheModern Theologians:AnIntroductiontoChristianTheologyintheTwentiethCentury,2ded.,ed.DavidF.Ford (Cambridge,Mass.:Blackwell,1997),2136.

7

Commentingonhisapproach,Barthexplains,Themoststrikinganticipationofthiskindwillconsistin thefactthatweshalltreatthewholedoctrineoftheTrinityandtheessentialsofChristologyinthis connection,namelyasconstituentpartsofouranswertothequestionoftheWordofGod.Wecannotpose thequestionsofformaldogmawithoutimmediatelyenteringatthesecentralpointsuponmaterialdogma. KarlBarth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,TheDoctrineoftheWordofGod,2ded.,trans.G.W.Bromiley(Edinburgh:T &TClark,1975),44.

8 9

Ibid.,295. Ibid.,296(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,296(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,296(italicsoriginal).

10 11 12

 subjectofrevelation,theactofrevelationandobjectofrevelation.Itisfromthisfact, explainsBarth,thatwelearnwemustbeginthedoctrineofrevelationwiththedoctrine ofthetriuneGod.13WhenwerecognizethattothesameGodwhoinunimpaired unityistheRevealer,therevelationandtherevealedness,thereisalsoascribedin unimpaireddifferentiationwithinHimselfthisthreefoldmodeofbeing,14weare broughtdirectlytotheproblemoftheTrinity.15 BarthsdecisiontolocatethedoctrineoftheTrinityinhisprolegomenawasa novelmovethatstoodincontrasttoawellestablishedtendencyinChristiantheologyof discussingGodsexistence,natureandattributespriortoanydiscussionofthetriunity ofGod.BecausethedoctrineoftheTrinityiswhatbasicallydistinguishesChristian doctrineofGodasChristian,16Barthcontendsthatitmustbegivenaplaceofpriority. Barthsconcernisnotchronological(i.e.,thatthedoctrineoftheTrinitymustmerelybe thefirsttopicdiscussedinanytheologicaltext);ratherhisconcernismorefundamental. HeinsiststhatthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldbedecisiveandcontrollingforthe

13 14 15

Ibid.,296. Ibid.,299.

If,then,inunderstandingtheconceptofrevelationitisrighttoaskfirstwhoGodis,andifguidedbythe Biblewehavetoaskthisinawaywehavejustdonebriefly,then,inaccordancewiththequestionthus disclosed,wehavetopursuetheansweralreadydisclosed.Thatistosay,wemustfirstaddressourselves, naturallyfollowingagaintheanswerjustdisclosed,i.e.,HolyScripture,toadevelopmentofthedoctrineof theTriuneGod.Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,300.

16

Ibid.,301.

 wholeofdogmatics.17Inthelattercontext,hepresentsthedoctrineoftheTrinityas bothaninterpretationof,andanecessaryprerequisitefor,revelation. BarthsmethodologicalclaimthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldbedecisive andcontrollingforalltheologicalreflectionmaywellrepresentoneofhismost significantcontributionstothetwentiethcenturytrinitarianrevival.RobertJenson explainsthatwhatisnoteworthyaboutBarthsdoctrineoftheTrinityisnotitscontent, whichturnsouttobeafairlystandardAugustiniandoctrine,18butratherhis theologicalmethod.19ContemporarytheologianshavelearnedfromBarththatthis doctrinehasandmusthaveexplanatoryandregulatoryuseinthewholeoftheology,

Ingivingthisdoctrineaplaceofprominenceourconcerncannotbemerelythatithavethisplace externallybutratherthatitscontentbedecisiveandcontrollingforthewholeofdogmatics.Barth,Church DogmaticsI/1,303.

17

Jenson,KarlBarth,32.Barthoffersthefollowingsummaryofhistrinitariandoctrine:Generallyand provisionallywemeanbythedoctrineoftheTrinitythepropositionthatHewhomtheChristianChurch callsGodandproclaimsasGod,theGodwhohasrevealedHimselfaccordingtothewitnessofScripture,is thesameinunimpairedunityandyetalsothesamethriceindifferentwaysinunimpaireddistinction.Or, inthephraseologyoftheChurchsdogmaoftheTrinity,theFather,theSonandtheHolySpiritinthe biblicalwitnesstorevelationaretheoneGodintheunityoftheiressence,andtheoneGodinthebiblical witnesstorevelationistheFather,theSonandtheHolySpiritinthedistinctionofHispersons.Barth, ChurchDogmaticsI/1,30708.OnecanseetheAugustinianinfluenceuponBarthsthoughtmostlyclearlyin thefinalsentence.

18

Barthsmoveisalwaysthesame:fromtheformalstructure,theplotofhistoricalrevelationtothecontent ofthatrevelation,thatis,toGod.Orrather,hismoveisthatherefusestoseparatetheformandcontentat all.WhatGodrevealsabouthimselfisthatheisLord;butthatheisLordmeansthathecanrevealhimself inthewayScripturedescribes.Whatisrevealedisnomoreorlessthanthatrevelationdoesoccurandcan occur.Jenson,KarlBarth,33(italicsoriginal).

19

 thatitisnotaseparatepuzzletobesolvedbuttheframeworkwithinwhichall theologyspuzzlesaretobesolved.20 1.1.2 Karl Rahner Thetrinitarianrevivalwasinvigorated,ontheCatholicside,throughtheworkof KarlRahner.21In1967Rahnerwrotewhatprovedtobeaninfluentialessayonthe TrinitythatwasfirstpublishedinGermaninamultivolumeworkentitledMysterium SalutisandlatertranslatedintoEnglishandpublishedasaseparatebook.22Inthisessay, RahnerlamentsthemarginalizationoftheTrinityincontemporarytheologyandpiety: Alloftheseconsiderationsshouldnotleadustooverlookthefactthat,despitetheir orthodoxconfessionoftheTrinity,Christiansare,intheirpracticallife,almostmere monotheists.Wemustbewillingtoadmitthat,shouldthedoctrineoftheTrinityhave tobedroppedasfalse,themajorpartofreligiousliteraturecouldwellremainvirtually unchanged.23Rahnerclaimsthatatleastthreefactorscontributedtomarginalizationof
20 21

Jenson,KarlBarth,31.

InasmuchasthedoctrineoftheTrinityconstitutesformaldogmafortheCatholicChurch,itwouldbe inappropriatetospeakinanyformalsenseaboutthedoctrinebeingrecoveredamongCatholics. Certainlythedoctrinewasnotlost.Rahner,aswewillseebelow,speaksintermsofthemarginalizationof thedoctrine.AlongsidetheworkofRahner,VaticanIIplayedanimportantroleinstimulatingthe trinitarianrevivalamongCatholics.Atrinitarianframeworkshapesmanyoftheconciliardocuments. KarlRahner,DerdreifaltigeGottalstranszendenterUrgrundderHeilsgeschichte,inMysteriumSalutis: GrundriheilsgeschichtlicherDogmatik,vol.2,DieHeilsgeschichtevorChristus,ed.JohannesFeinerandMagnus Lhrer(Einsiedeln:BenzigerVerlag,1967),317401;KarlRahner,TheTrinity,trans.JosephDonceel(New York:HerderandHerder,1970;NewYork:Crossroads,1999).

22 23

Rahner,TheTrinity,1011.

 trinitariandoctrine:(1)atrend,beginninginmedievaltheologytexts,ofseparating discussionoftrinitariandoctrinefromdiscussionoftheeconomyofsalvation(e.g.,the incarnation),(2)increasedpreoccupationwiththeimmanentTrinityand(3)atendency totreatthedoctrineofGodundertwoheadings,firstfromthestandpointofthedivine essence(DeDeoUno)andthenonlysecondarilyfromthestandpointofthedivine persons(DeDeoTrino).24 AccordingtheRahner,thefirststepinrecoveringthesignificanceoftheTrinity fortheChristianlifeisrecognizingthatthisdoctrineisamysteryofsalvation:The isolationofthetreatiseoftheTrinityhastobewrong.Theremustbeaconnection betweenTrinityandman.TheTrinityisamysteryofsalvation,otherwiseitwouldnever havebeenrevealed.25RahnerfurtherexplainsthatreconnectingtheTrinityand salvationinvolvesrecognizingtheaxiomaticunityoftheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity:Thebasicthesiswhichestablishesthisconnectionbetweenthe treatisesandpresentstheTrinityasamysteryofsalvation(itsrealityandnotmerelyasa doctrine)mightbeformulatedasfollows:TheeconomicTrinityistheimmanentTrinity andtheimmanentTrinityistheeconomicTrinity.26Thelatterisfrequently characterizedasRahnersruleandhasexertedatremendousinfluenceon
24 25 26

Ibid.,1524. Ibid.,21(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,2122(italicsoriginal).

 contemporarytheology.AccordingtoRahner,theunityoftheeconomicandthe immanentTrinitycanbeseenmostclearlyintheincarnation.27WhatJesusisand does,asahuman,revealstheeternalLogos.Asaresult,wecanassert,inthefull meaningofthewords:heretheLogoswithGodandtheLogoswithus,theimmanent andtheeconomicLogos,arestrictlythesame.28Rahnersuggeststhattheincarnation representsasingleinstanceofabroaderphenomenontheselfcommunicationofthe triuneGod.InGodsselfcommunication,eachofthedivinepersonscommunicates himselftohumanbeingsinawaythatreflectstheparticularityofthatdivineperson.29 Rahnerinsiststhatalltrinitarianreflection(and,forthatmatter,dogmatic presentation)mustbeginwiththeselfrevelationofthetriuneGodintheeconomyof salvationandonlythereaftermovetoadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinity.30Rather
AccordingtoRahner,onemustrejecttheassumptionthatanyoneofthedivinepersonscouldhave becomeincarnate.Ifthisassumptionwereregardedastrue,itwouldmeanthatnoconnectionexists betweenthetemporalmissionsofthedivinepersonsandtheireternalprocessions.Insteadonemustcling tothetruththattheLogosisreallyasheappearsinrevelation,thatheistheonewhorevealstous(not merelyoneofthosewhomighthaverevealedtous)thetriuneGod,onaccountofthepersonalbeingwhich belongsexclusivelytohim,theFathersLogos.Rahner,TheTrinity,30.
27 28 29

Ibid.,33.

[T]hesethreeselfcommunicationsaretheselfcommunicationoftheoneGodinthreerelativewaysin whichGodsubsists.Rahner,TheTrinity,35.GodtheFathergiveshimselfasFather;GodtheSongives himselfasSon;andGodtheHolySpiritgiveshimselfasHolySpirit.

30WemaystartfromtheselfrevelationofGod(theFather)asgiveninsalvationhistory,asmediatedby theWordandtheSpirit.WemayshowthatthesedistinctionsofGodforusarealsothoseofGodin himself.Rahner,TheTrinity,44.ThisapproachwouldallowonetoseetheTrinityinaninchoateformin theOldTestamentasYahwehactsbyhisWordandhisSpirit.Ofcourse,withintheframeworkofthe OldTestamentonehasnowaytoknowwhetherGodsWordandSpiritarecreatedmediationsor whetherthesetwomediationspersist,revealingthemselvesastrulydivine,henceasGodhimself,in unitywith,yetdistinctfromtheGodofrevelation,inaunityanddistinctionwhichbelongthereforetoGod

 thanmerelypresupposingthedivinemissions,thelattershouldconstitutethestarting pointoftheologicalreflection.Followingthismethodology,Rahnerdevelopshis constructivedoctrineoftheTrinitybeginningwithGodseconomicself communication.31Althoughheaffirmstheunityoftheeconomicandtheimmanent Trinity,hedoesnotconflatethem;theyremaindistinct.ItisbecauseofGodsimmanent selfcommunicationthatGodcanfreelycommunicatehimselfintheeconomy. 1.1.3 Implications BarthandRahnershareseveralimportantassumptionsthatcontinuetoshape thecontemporarytrinitarianrevival.32First,bothshareavisionforrecoveringthe centralityofthisdoctrineforthelifeofthechurch.Arguably,thisvisionfuelsthe
himself(ibid.,42).Thestartingpointforrecognizingthatthesetwomediationsrepresentdistinctionsin Godisthedoctrineofmissions. Godsselfcommunicationisoneitpossessesaninnerunity.Atthesametime,Godsself communicationinvolvestwofundamentalmodalitiestruthandlove.Bothmodalitiesconditionone another.TheycomefromtheincomprehensibleGodwhoseselfcommunicationremainsamystery. MovingfromtheeconomictotheimmanentTrinity,Rahnerclaimsthattheseselfdifferentiationsinhistory (truthandlove)mustbelongtoGodinhimself;otherwiseGodscommunicationwouldnotbeagenuine selfcommunication:ForthosemodalitiesandtheirdifferentiationeitherareinGodhimself(althoughwe firstexperiencethemfromourpointofview),ortheyexistonlyinus,theybelongonlytotherealmof creaturesaseffectsofthedivinecreativeactivity.Rahner,TheTrinity,100.Ifthelatterwerethecase,no genuineselfcommunicationwouldexist.Godwouldbepresentonlyasrepresentedbyacreature.Ifthere istobeanauthenticselfcommunication,Godmustnotmerelybethegiver,hemustalsobethegift. GenuineselfcommunicationmeansthatGodrevealshimselfasGodthroughhisselfcommunication.
31

Thisisnottosuggestthatalltheirsharedassumptionshaveprovedinfluential.Forexample,bothBarth andRahnerwerequitehesitanttospeakoftheFather,SonandHolySpiritaspersonsinthemodernsense oftheword.BarthpreferredtospeakofdivinehypostasesasmodesofbeingwhileRahnerpreferredthe termdistinctmannersofsubsisting.Incontrast,manycontemporarytheologiansespeciallysocial trinitariansspeakquitefreelyaboutFather,SonandSpiritaspersonsinthestrongestpossiblesense.

32

10

 contemporaryquestforestablishingtherelevanceoftrinitariandoctrine.Second, bothbelievethedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldplayagoverningroleinChristian theology.Barthexpressesthisconvictionwhenhesaysthattrinitariandoctrineshould bedecisiveandcontrollingforthewholeofdogmatics.33Onecanseetheoutworking ofBarthsassumptionincontemporaryattemptstoidentifytheimplicationsofthe doctrineoftheTrinityforourunderstandingofhumanpersonhood,worship, ecclesiology,missions,marriage,ethics,societalrelations,politicaltheory,nonChristian religions,etc.Third,bothpositacloserelationshipbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity.BartharticulatesarulethatisquitesimilartoRahners:Butwe haveconsistentlyfollowedtherule,whichweregardasbasic,thatstatementsaboutthe divinemodesofbeingantecedentlyinthemselvescannotbedifferentincontentfrom thosethataretobemadeabouttheirrealityinrevelation.34Rahnersrulehas sparkedextensivedebateabouttherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinityamongcontemporarytheologians.35Finally,bothemphasizethe epistemicpriorityoftheeconomicTrinity(Godsselfrevelationintheeconomyof salvation)andpresenttheirtrinitariandoctrineinawaythatunderscoresthisbasic
33 34

Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,303.

Barthcontinues,AllourstatementsconcerningwhatiscalledtheimmanentTrinityhavebeenreached simplyasconfirmationsorunderliningsor,materially,astheindispensablepremisesoftheeconomic Trinity.Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,479. InchapterthreeIwillarguethatassumptionsabouttherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinityplayanimportantroleintheChristiantheologyofreligions.

35

11

 assumption.RahnerspresentationmovesfromGodsselfcommunicationinthe economyofsalvationtotheintratrinitarianselfcommunicationthatgroundsit. Similarly,Barthdiscusseseachdivinemodeofbeingundertwoheadingsfirst,from thestandpointoftheeconomicTrinity(e.g.,GodasReconciler)andthenfromthe standpointoftheimmanentTrinity(e.g.,TheEternalSon).36

1.2 The Christian Theology of Religions

TheChristiantheologyofreligions(whichshouldbedistinguishedfromthe historyofreligionsandthephilosophyofreligion)emergedasadistincttheological disciplinefollowingVaticanII.37Questionsdiscussedundertherubricofthetheologyof religionsincludethefollowing:Underwhatcircumstancesmayindividualsexperience salvationapartfromthewitnessofthechurch?Towhatextent,andonwhatbasis,can onerecognizeelementsoftruthandgoodnessinnonChristianreligions?Towhat
ThecriticallinkforBarthbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinitycanbefoundinthephrase antecedentlyinhimself.TheSoncanbeourReconcileronlybecauseantecedentlyinhimselfapartfrom hissalvificactiononourbehalf,heistheEternalSon.ForBarth,therelationshipoftheeconomictothe immanentTrinityisirreversible:theimmanentconstitutestheontologicalgroundfortheeconomic.
36

SeveralthinkershaverightlynotedthatVaticanIIrepresentedawatershedeventinthehistoryofthe Church.SeeMiikkaRuokanen,TheCatholicDoctrineofNonChristianReligionsAccordingtotheSecondVatican Council(NewYork:E.J.Brill,1992),8.Thisisnottosuggestthattheologicalreflectionontherelationshipof ChristianitytootherreligionsdidnotexistpriortoVaticanII.WhatisuniquefollowingVaticanIIisthe emergenceofthetheologyofreligionsasanewtheologicaldiscipline.Foradiscussionofthe developmentofthisnewdiscipline,seeVeliMattiKrkkinen,AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofReligions: Biblical,Historical,andContemporaryPerspectives(DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,2003);PaulF.Knitter, IntroducingTheologiesofReligions(Maryknoll,OrbisBooks,2002);GavinDCosta,TheologyofReligions,in TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristianTheologyintheTwentiethCentury,2ded.,ed.DavidF. Ford(Cambridge,Mass.:Blackwell,1997),62644.
37

12

 extent,ifany,isthetriuneGodactiveinnonChristianreligions?Whatrole,ifany,do nonChristianreligionsplayinsalvationhistory?Towhatend,andonwhatbasis, shouldChristiansenterintodialoguewithadherentsofotherreligions?Finally,towhat extentcanoneincorporatenonChristianreligiouspracticesintothedevelopmentof indigenouschurchesinmissionarycontexts?Thesequestionscannotbeavoidedinthe increasinglyglobalizedworldinwhichwelive.38 1.2.1 Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism DebateregardingtherelationshipofChristianitytootherreligionshastaken placeundertherubricoftheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypology.Exclusivismis associatedwiththeviewthatsalvationcanbefoundonlythroughthepersonandwork ofJesusChristandthatsavinggraceisnotmediatedthroughtheteachingsandpractices ofotherreligions.39Inclusivismgenerallyreferstotheviewthatsalvation,ina
38Thisisnottosuggestthatanawarenessofreligiousdiversityissomehownovelinthehistoryofthe church.Theearlychurchproclaimeditskerygmainasyncretisticenvironmentinwhichmanygodsand manylordswererecognized.SeeBruceW.Winter,InPublicandinPrivate:EarlyChristiansand ReligiousPluralism,inOneGod,OneLord:ChristianityinaWorldofReligiousPluralism,ed.AndrewD. ClarkeandBruceW.Winter(GrandRapids:Baker,1992),12548.Itisimportanttodistinguishthefactof plurality(empiricalpluralism)fromreligiouspluralismasaphilosophicalinterpretationofreligion. WhenIamspeakingoftheformerIwillgenerallyemploythephrasereligiousdiversity. 39Exclusivismissometimesconfusedwithrestrictivism(i.e.,theviewthatonlythosewhoexpress explicitfaithinChristcanbesaved);however,asthetermisusedinthebroaderdiscussionofthe relationshipbetweenChristianityandotherreligions,exclusivismdoesnotnecessarilyentailaparticular viewregardingthefateoftheunevangelized.Forexample,AlisterMcGrath,whoholdsanexclusivist(or, asheprefers,particularist)view,adoptsanagnosticstanceregardingthefateoftheunevangelized.See AlisterMcGrath,AParticularistView:APostEnlightenmentApproach,inMoreThanOneWay?Four ViewsofSalvationinaPluralisticWord,ed.DennisL.OkholmandTimothyR.Phillips(GrandRapids:

13

 Christiansense,extendsbeyondthevisibleboundariesofthechurchandthatnon ChristianreligionsmayplaysomepositiveroleinGodspurposesforhumanity.40 Althoughtheyagreethatsalvationextendsbeyondthewitnessofthechurch, inclusivistsaredividedonthequestionofwhethernonChristianreligions,quareligions, constitutechannelsthroughwhichGodssavinggraceismediated.Inavarietyof forms,inclusivismhasgainedmomentumamongProtestantsandCatholicssince VaticanII.Asaninterpretationofreligion,pluralismdenotestheviewpointthatall religionsrepresentmoreorlessequallyvalidmeanstosalvation(whichisconstrued inavarietyofways).41 Althoughtheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypologyhasframeddebate regardingtherelationshipofChristianitytootherreligionsforalmosttwodecades,42at leastthreelimitationsbesetit.First,severalproposalscannotbeeasilylocatedunder

Zondervan,1995).151209.PaulGriffithssuggeststhatafailuretodistinguishthemeansofsalvationfrom extentofsalvationleadstoaconfusionofrestrictivismwithexclusivism.SeePaulGriffiths,Problemsof ReligiousDiversity(Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,2001),13869. HaroldA.Netland,EncounteringReligiousPluralism:TheChallengetoChristianFaithandMission(Downers Grove:InterVarsity,2001),52.Whilethepreciseboundarybetweenexclusivismandinclusivismisdifficult todiscernforreasonsIwilloutlinebelow,oneelementthatclearlydistinguishesexclusivistsfrom inclusivistsistheirperspectiveregardingtheroleofnonChristianreligionswithintheeconomyofsalvation.

40

ThispositionisperhapsbestexemplifiedinthewritingsofJohnHick.SeeJohnHick,DisputedQuestions inTheologyandPhilosophyofReligion(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1993),139182.
41

AlanRaceisfrequentlycreditedforbringingthistypologyintoprominence.SeeAlanRace,Christiansand ReligiousPluralism:PatternsintheChristianTheologyofReligion(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1982).
42

14

 anyofthesepositions.43Second,evenamongtheologianswhoexplicitlyalign themselveswithoneofthethreepositionsoutlinedabove,considerablediversityexists inthesubstanceoftheirproposals.Forexample,MarkHeimclaimsthatwhile Christianswillexperiencesalvation(inaChristiansense),adherentsofotherreligions willexperienceotherpositiveendswhicharenotsalvation.44JacquesDupuis claimsthatnonChristianreligionsconstitutechannelsthroughwhichtheiradherents willexperienceChristiansalvation.45Althoughheacknowledgestheuniversalpresence oftheSpiritinnonChristianreligions,GavinDCostainsiststhatsavinggraceisnot mediatedthroughnonChristianreligions.46Allthreeofthesethinkersbroadlyidentify themselvesasinclusivists,47yettheirconstructiveproposalsdiffersignificantly.Heim affirmsmultiplereligiousendswhileDupuisclaimsthatonlyonepositiveendexists (i.e.,communionwiththetriuneGod).DupuisaffirmsthatnonChristianreligions mediatesalvificgracewhileDCostarejectsthisclaim.Differencessuchasthese,among
43Forexample,KarlBarthistypicallyidentifiedasanexclusivist;however,totheextentBarthmay legitimatelybecharacterizedasauniversalist,hispositiondefieseasycategorization. 44 45 46 47

S.MarkHeim,Salvations:AMorePluralisticHypothesis,ModernTheology10(1994):34360. JacquesDupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1997),203390. GavinDCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2000),101116.

InfairnesstoGavinDCosta,itshouldbenotedthatwhilehepreviouslyidentifiedhimselfasan inclusivist,hehasrecentlydistancedhimselffromthislabelbothbecauseherejectsthetypologyupon whichitisbasedandalsobecausehebelievesthatinclusivismhasbecomeincreasinglyassociatedwitha positionherejects,namelythatsalvationismediatedthroughnonChristianreligions.CompareGavin DCosta,Christ,theTrinityandReligiousPlurality,inChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofa PluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.GavinDCosta(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990),26;withDCosta,The MeetingofReligions,99and116.

15

 apparentadherentsofthesameposition,suggestthatexplanatorypowerofthe exclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypologyhasbecomeratherlimited.Althoughsome theologiansbelievethattheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypologyisstilluseful,48 othershaveattemptedtodevelopalternativeparadigms.49Finally,thelabelsemployed intheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypologyobscurethatfactthateachofthese positionsisexclusivistinafundamentalsense.GavinDCostaadvancesthisthesisas thebasisforapenetratingcritiqueofapluralistaccountofreligion.Drawinguponthe workofJohnMilbankandAlasdairMacIntyre,DCosta(rightly)arguesthatthereisno suchthingasanontraditionspecificaccountofreligionandthatpluralism representsatraditionspecificapproachthatbearsallthesamefeaturesas

48InarecentbookPaulGriffithsoffersanumberconceptualdistinctionsandclarificationsthatsignificantly extendtheexplanatorypoweroftheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypology.Forexample,because questionsoftruthandsalvationaredistinct,Griffithssuggeststhattwodifferentexclusivistinclusivist pluralisttypologiesareneeded:onewhichwouldaddressthequestionoftruthinotherreligionsanda secondwhichwouldaddressthemeansofsalvation.Griffithshimselfholdsaninclusivistview regardingtruthoutsidethechurchandanexclusivistview(ashehascarefullydefinedit)withregardto salvation.SeeGriffiths,ProblemsofReligionsDiversity,2265,13869.PerrySchmidtLeukelalsodefendsthe usefulnessoftheexclusivistinclusivistpluralisttypology.SeePerrySchmidtLeukel,Exclusivism, Inclusivism,Pluralism:TheTripolarTypologyClarifiedandReaffirmed,inTheMythofReligious Superiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005),13 27.

Onealternativetypologywhichhasgainedprominenceemploysthecategoriesofecclesiocentrism, Christocentrismandtheocentrism.VeliMattiKrkkinen,followingJacquesDupuis,endorsesthis typology.SeeKrkkinen,AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofReligions,2327,16573.Theecclesiocentric Christocentrictheocentrictypologydoesnot,however,appeartoofferanysubstantiveimprovementupon theexclusivisminclusivismpluralismtypology.InsofarasonecannotbeinChristwithoutalso concomitantlybeingincorporatedintoChristsbody(thechurch),thelabelsecclesiocentricand Christocentricdonotseemtoofferansubstantialimprovementovertheinclusivistandexclusivist labels.

49

16

 exclusivismexceptthatitiswesternliberalmodernitysexclusivism.50Inclusivism faresnobetter,accordingtoDCosta,becauseittooisexclusivistinthatitoffersa traditionspecificaccountofreligiousdiversity.51 1.2.2 The Turn to the Trinity in the Theology of Religions RaimundoPanikkarisfrequentlyidentifiedasthefirstcontemporarytheologian toemployadoctrineoftheTrinityasconstitutivegroundforaChristiantheologyof religions.52In1968PanikkarwroteanessayentitledTowardanEcumenicalTheandric Spirituality,53whichwaslaterdevelopedintoabookunderthetitleTheTrinityandthe ReligiousExperienceofMan.54HesuggeststhattheTrinityprovidesanintegratingmodel forhumanspiritualityinwhichtheFather,SonandHolySpiritareidentifiedwiththree

50

DCosta,TheMeetingofReligions,22.

51AccordingtoDCosta,inclusivismcollapsesintoexclusivisminthreeimportantways.First,inclusivists holdthattheirpositionisontologicallyandepistemologicallycorrect.Second,theclaimsofinclusivistsare inseparablylinkedtoChristandtheChurchinwaysthataresimilartoexclusivism.Finally,both exclusivistsandinclusivistsoffertraditionspecificinterpretationsofreligionanddefendthese interpretationsagainstconflictinginterpretations.DCosta,TheMeetingofReligions,22.

BecausetheproposalsofRaimundoPanikkar,JacquesDupuis,AmosYongandMarkHeimwillbe discussedindetailinsubsequentchapters,myexpositionoftheirproposalsinthissectionwillberelatively briefinordertoavoidunnecessaryoverlap.Ontheotherhand,severalproposalswhichwillnotbe discussedinsubsequentchapterswillbepresentedingreaterdetail.

52

RaymondPanikkar,TowardanEcumenicalTheandricSpirituality,JournalofEcumenicalStudies5(1968): 50734.
53

RaimundoPanikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan:PersonIconMystery(NewYork.Orbis, 1973).Panikkarsproposalwillbediscussedatgreaterlengthinchapterfive.
54

17

 distinctformsofreligiousexperience(iconolatry,personalismandmysticism).55 In1970,EwertCousinswroteanessayentitledTheTrinityandWorldReligions56in whichhecommendsPanikkarsproposalandattemptstobuilduponitbylinkingitto threeuniversalizingcurrentsinthehistoryofTrinitariantheology:themedieval vestigedoctrine,thetrinitarianaccountofcreationintheGreektheologiansandthe westerndoctrineofappropriation.57CousinsarguesthatwhenPanikkarsproposalis situatedwithinthecontextoftheseuniversalizingcurrents,hisseeminglynovel positioncanbeseentopossessalegitimatebasisinthehistoryofChristiantheology.58 Thefollowingyear(1971),inhisaddresstotheWorldCouncilofChurchesCentral Committee,GeorgesKhodrsuggestedthattrinitarianpneumatologymayprovideaway forwardindealingwiththerelationshipofChristianitytootherreligions.59Becausethe SpiritoperatesandappliesHisenergiesinaccordancewithHisowneconomy,one couldregardthenonChristianreligionsaspointswhereHisinspirationisatwork.60 Althoughitdidnotprovetobeinfluentialatthetime,Khodrsessayexertedan
Panikkarusesthetermtheandrismtocharacterizethesynthesisofthethreespiritualattitudes describedaboveandalsothethreespiritualitiesdevelopingfromthem,calledrespectivelythewaysofthe Father,theSonandtheSpirit.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,71.
55 56 57 58

EwertCousins,TheTrinityandWorldReligions,JournalofEcumenicalStudies7(1970):47698. Ibid.,484. Ibid.,492.

59GeorgesKhodr,ChristianityandthePluralisticWorldTheEconomyoftheHolySpirit,Ecumenical Review23(1971):12526.Atthattime,KhodrwastheMetropolitanoftheMountLebanonDioceseofthe GreekOrthodoxPatriarchateofAntiochinBeirut,Lebanon. 60

Ibid.,126.

18

 importantinfluenceuponthedevelopmentofsubsequentpneumatologicalapproaches tothetheologyofreligions. OverthenexttwentyyearslittlewaswrittenexplicitlyconnectingtheTrinity andthetheologyofreligions.Thewaveofcontemporaryappealtodoctrineofthe Trinityinthetheologyofreligionsbeganin1990withthepublicationofChristian UniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofaPluralisticTheologyofReligions.61Thisbook,which waseditedbyGavinDCosta,containsacollectionofessaysthatwerewrittenin responsetoTheMythofChristianUniqueness:TowardaPluralisticTheologyofReligions.62 ThefirstsectionofChristianUniquenessReconsideredcontainsthreeessaysunderthe headingTheTrinityandReligiousPluralism.Inthefirstessay,Trinityand Pluralism,63RowanWilliamsappreciativelythoughnotuncriticallyexplores PanikkarsattempttoemploytheTrinityasthefoundationforreligiouspluralism. WilliamssuggeststhatPanikkarsbookTheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan representsoneofthebestandleastreadmeditationsontheTrinityin[thetwentieth]
GavinDCosta,ed.,ChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofaPluralisticTheologyofReligions (Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1990).ContributorsincludeRowanWilliams,GavinDCosta,Christoph Schwbel,M.M.Thomas,FrancisClooney,JohnCobb,WolfhartPannenberg,MonikaHellwig,Joseph DiNoia,LesslieNewbigin,JrgenMoltmann,PaulGriffiths,JohnMilbankandKennethSurin.
61

JohnHickandPaulF.Knitter,eds.,TheMythofChristianUniqueness:TowardaPluralisticTheologyof Religions(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1987).ContributorstothelatterincludeGordonKaufman,John Hick,LangdonGilkey,WilfredCantwellSmith,StanleySamartha,RaimundoPanikkar,SeiichiYagi, RosemaryRadfordRuether,MarjorieSuchoki,AloysiusPieris,PaulKnitterandTomDriver.

62

RowanWilliams,TrinityandPluralism,inChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythOfAPluralistic TheologyOfReligions,ed.GavinDCosta(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1990),315.
63

19

 century.64AlthoughPanikkarsmodelpossess[es]arealconsistencyandplausibility, itrequiressomespecificclarificationspreciselyintheareaofitsfundamental Trinitarianorientation.65Oneareawheregreaterclarificationisneededconcernsthe relationshipbetweencontentofPanikkarstrinitariandoctrineandhistorybywhichthis doctrinalcontentcametoberecognized.Williamsarguesthatthetrinitarianformulas uponwhichPanikkarbuildscannoteasilybeseparatedfromthecommunitieswhich gavebirthtothem.AccordingtoWilliams,PanikkarhelpsChristiansseethatthe doctrineoftheTrinityneednotbeastumblingblocktodialoguebutratheraresource.66 InParticularity,Universality,andtheReligions,67ChristophSchwbelarguesthat neitherexclusivismnorpluralismoffertheproperfoundationfordialoguebecausethey bothfailtoprovideanadequateaccountofthecomplexrelationshipofparticularity anduniversalityinreligions.68Schwbelsuggeststhataproperunderstandingofthe relationshipbetweentheuniversalandparticularisprovidedbytheChristian
64 65 66

Ibid.,3. Ibid.,6.

IfPanikkarisrightinseeingTrinitarianChristianityastheproperfoundationforaninterreligious engagementthatisneithervacuousnorimperialist,thedoctrinesofChristiancreedalorthodoxyarenot,as isregularlysupposed,insuperableobstaclestodialogue;theincarnationofthelogosisnottheultimate assertionofprivilegeandexclusivity,butthecenterofthatnetworkofreligions(implicitandexplicit)in whichanewhumanityistobecreated.Williams,TrinityandPluralism,11. ChristophSchwbel,Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions:TowardaChristianTheologyof Religions,inChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofaPluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.Gavin DCosta(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1990),3048.

67

Ibid.,33.Theexclusivistpositionaffirmsparticularitywhiledenyinguniversalitywhilethepluralist positionoffersanaccountofuniversalitythatunderminesparticularity.
68

20

 doctrineoftheTrinity.69TrinitarianfaithrequiresChristiansnotonlytorecognizethe distinctiveparticularityoftheirownfaithbuttoaffirmalsothedistinctiveparticularity ofotherfaiths.70Alongsidethisparticularly,theChristianfaithalsopossessesa universaldimension.ThisuniversalityisgroundedintheclaimthattheGodwhois revealedinJesusChristthroughtheSpirit,isthegroundofallbeing,meaningand salvation.71Thus,thetriuneGodisuniversallypresentandactiveascreative, reconcilingandsavinglove.72Thelatterrealitymustbetakenintoaccountinorderto arriveataproperunderstandingofotherreligions.73Allreligionsrepresenthuman responsestotheuniversalcreativeandredeemingagencyofGod.74Thus,although salvationmaytakeplaceonlythoughChrist,thisdoesnotmeanonemustbeamember ofaChristianchurchoracceptChristiandoctrinetoexperienceit.75Perhapsthemost

[A]ChristiantheologyofreligionsbasedontheparticularityoftheselfdisclosureoftheTrinitarianGod seemstobebetterabletopreservetheindependenceanddistinctiveparticularityofthepartnersin dialogue.Schwbel,Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions,43.

69

Thisrecognitionofthedistinctivenessofreligionsseemstobeanecessarycorrelateoftheinsistenceon thedistinctivenessoftheperspectiveofChristianfaithgroundedintheparticularanddistinctiveself disclosureofthetriuneGod.Schwbel,Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions,37.

70 71 72

Ibid.,37. Ibid.,38.

73Itmust,however,beemphasizedthatthisunderstandingoftheuniversalityofGodspresencetohis creationandoftheuniversalityofGodsreconcilingandsavingloveforhiscreationisforChristian theologyneverindependentofGodsselfdisclosureintheparticularityoftheChristevenastheparticular TrinitarianGodFather,Son,andSpirit.Schwbel,Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions,39. 74 75

Ibid.,43.

AccordingtoSchwbel,whereversalvationoccurs,itrepresentsadivineworkwhichhappens throughChrist.Schwbel,Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions,41.

21

 importantessayinthisbookrelatingtrinitariandoctrinetotheChristiantheologyof religionsisChrist,theTrinityandReligiousPlurality.76InthisessayGavinDCosta arguesthattheunderlyingconcernsthatdrivetheessaysinTheMythofChristian Uniquenessarebetteraddressedwithinatrinitarianframework.Withinatrinitarian context,themultiplicityofreligionstakesonaspecialtheologicalsignificancethat cannotbeignoredbyChristianswhoworshipaTrinitarianGod.77Accordingto DCosta,thedoctrineoftheTrinityprovidesakeytounderstandingotherreligions becauseofthewayitholdstogetherparticularityanduniversality.78Ontheone hand,thisdoctrineaffirmsthatthetriuneGodhasbeendisclosedintheparticularityof JesusofNazareth.Ontheotherhand,italsoaffirmsthatGodiscontinuallyrevealing himselfinhumanhistorythroughthepresenceandworkoftheHolySpirit.79Because theworkoftheSpiritisnotlimitedtoinstitutionalChristianity,trinitarianfaith engendersanopenattitudetowardotherreligions:ThesignificanceofthisTrinitarian ecclesiologyisthatifwehavegoodreasonstobelievethattheSpiritandWordare presentandactiveinthereligionsoftheworld(inwaysthatcannot,apriori,be

76GavinDCosta,Christ,theTrinityandReligiousPlurality,inChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMyth ofaPluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.GavinDCosta(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1990),1629. 77 78

Ibid.,16.

AtrinitarianChristologyguardsagainstexclusivismandpluralismbydialecticallyrelatingtheuniversal andtheparticular.DCosta,Christ,theTrinityandReligiousPlurality,18.
79

Ibid.,17.

22

 specified),thenitisintrinsictothevocationofthechurchtobeattentivetotheworld religions.80 Thefollowingyear(1991),NinianSmartandStephenKonstantinepublisheda bookentitledChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContextinwhichtheyarguethatthe triuneGod,specificallythesocialTrinity,81istheultimatedivinerealitywhich constitutesthegroundofallreligiousexperience.82Differingformsofspiritualityobtain fromanexperienceofoneofthreeaspectsofthedivinelifeofthetriuneGod.The threeaspectsofthedivinelifetheydistinguisharenonrelational,relationaland communal.Inotherwords,diversityinthedivinelifegroundsdiversityinreligious experience.83Buddhists,forexample,apprehendthenonrelationaldimensionofthe divinelifewhileChristiansexperiencetherelationaldimension.Smartand Konstantinecontendthatthesethreeaspectsofthedivinelifearegeneratedbythe complexnatureofGodasTrinity.

80 81 82

Ibid.,23. Socialtrinitariansviewhumancommunityasamodelforrelationsamongthedivinepersons.

NinianSmartandStephenKonstantine,ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContext(Minneapolis: Fortress,1991).SmartandKonstantinesworkdeeplyinfluencedMarkHeim. SmartandKonstantine,ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContext,17374.Theirproposaldiffersfrom Panikkarsinthattheyconnectdifferingspiritualitieswithdifferentdimensionsofdivinelifeofthetriune GodratherthanwiththepersonsoftheGodheadasPanikkardoes.

83

23

 Duringthesameyear,PaulKnitterwroteanessayentitledANewPentecost?A PneumatologicalTheologyofReligions.84Inthisessay,KnitterbuildsuponGeorges KhodrsearlierproposalbysuggestingthatnonChristianreligionsrepresentthe independentdomainoftheSpirit:

IfwecantaketheSpirit,andnottheWordinJesusChrist,asourstartingpoint foratheologyofreligions,wecanaffirmthepossibilitythatthereligionsarean allcomprehensivephenomenonofgracethatis,aneconomyofgracethatis genuinelydifferentfromthatmadeknowntousthroughtheWordincarnatein Jesus(inwhom,ofcourse,theSpiritwasalsoactive).Andinthatsense,the economyofreligionsisindependentthatis,nottobesubmergedorengulfed orincorporatedintotheeconomyoftheWordrepresentedintheChristian churches.85

AlthoughKnitterdidnotfurtherdevelopthistrinitarianpneumatology,hisproposal hasbeenembracedbyothertheologians.86 In1994PanChiuLaipublishedarevisionofhisdoctoraldissertationunderthe titleTowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions.87ThepointofdepartureforLais investigationistheassumptionthatthetwodominantpositionsinthetheologyof religionstheocentrism(pluralism)andChristocentrism(inclusivism)are

84PaulF.Knitter,ANewPentecost?APneumatologicalTheologyofReligions.CurrentDialogue19(1991): 3241. 85 86 87

Ibid.,36. OneexamplewouldbethePentecostaltheologian,AmosYong.

PanChiuLai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions:AStudyinPaulTillichsThought,Studiesin PhilosophicalTheologySeries,vol.8(Kampen,Netherlands:KokPharos,1994).Thisbookrepresentsan abridgedandrevisedversionofLaisdoctoraldissertationcompletedin1991atKingsCollegeunder ChristophSchwbel.

24

 inadequate.88Whereasthetheocentricpositiondownplaysthecentralityofthe incarnation,theChristocentricpositionminimizestheroleoftheHolySpirit.89Lai claimsthatatrinitarianapproachprovidesawaytointegrateandtranscend theocentrismandChristocentrismandthattheresourcesfordevelopingsuchan approachcanbefoundinthetrinitariantheologyofPaulTillich.90AccordingtoLai,an importantshiftinthoughttookplaceinTillichsthinkingbetweenthesecondandthird volumesofhisSystematicTheology.91HisearlyapproachtononChristianreligions mightaptlybedescribedasChristocentricinasmuchasitassumesthesuperiorityof Christianity;however,inthethirdvolumeofhisSystematicTheologyTillichadopteda pneumatologicalapproachtootherreligionsprimarilybecauseherecognizedthat Logosdoctrinedidnotofferanadequatebasisforaffirmingthevalidityofother religions.CentraltohisnewapproachwastheuniversaleconomyoftheSpirit.
88 89

Lai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,3141.

LaiassertsthatthetendencytoviewChristocentricandtheocentricpositionsasopposingisrootedin anunderlyingprobleminWesterntrinitariantheologyaminimizingoftheroleoftheHolySpiritas exemplifiedinaffirmationofthefilioque.Inthistheology,theSpiritbecomesbound(subordinate)tothe Word;thus,nosalvationispossibleapartfromthegospel.If,however,theSpiritwassetfreefromthe Word,thenitwouldbenoproblemtoaffirmthepossibilityofsalvationapartfromthegospel.SeeLai, TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,41. AlthoughTillichhimselfneverexplicitlydevelopedsuchanapproachtononChristianreligions,Lai believesthatmostoftheelementsarepresentinhisthought:ThoughTillichhimselfhasnotformulateda detailedandsatisfactoryTrinitariantheologyofreligions,hisdoctrineoftheTrinityhasimportant significanceforatheologicalbasisforinterreligiousdialogue.TillichstheoryofthedoctrineoftheTrinity canprovideasignpostforfurtherattemptstoconstructatheologicalbasisforinterreligiousdialogue.Lai, TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,43.
90 91

PaulTillich,SystematicTheology,3vols.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,195163).

25

 AccordingtoTillich,salvationoccursanywheremenandwomenencounterthe healingpowerofChrist.92TheSpiritrepresentstheultimatesourceofthishealing power.93AccordingtoLai,TillichstheoryoftheTrinityhasthreeimplicationsfor interreligiousdialogue.First,hisdoctrineoftheTrinitygroundsthepossibilityand autonomyofotherwaysofsalvation94byavoidinganexclusivelychristocentric conceptionoftheTrinity.95Second,byaffirmingthatthethreepersonaeofthedivine Trinityrepresentthreedifferentcharactersofthedivinerevelationtheabysmal,logical andspiritual,96Tillichisabletointegrateawidevarietyofreligiousexperiences.97 Finally,theparticipatoryontologythatundergirdsTillichsunderstandingofthe TrinityenablesChristianstoenterintodialoguebasedontheassumptionthatother traditionsarelivingreligionsjustlikeChristianity.98
Lai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,119.AlthoughChristrepresentsthecriterionforthis healing,savingpowerisnotlimitedtohim.OnlyGodissavior.GodsavesthroughChrist.
92 93InTheEternalNowandSystematicTheologyVol.3,aswewillseeinthenextchapter,TillichtakesGodas SpiritastheactualsaviorandChristasoneoftheinstrumentsofsalvation.Accordingtothispointofview, revelationorsalvationultimatelycomesfromtheSpirit;eventhefinalrevelationisdependentonthe poweroftheSpirit....ThustheChristeventisontologicallydependentontheSpirit.Lai,Towardsa TrinitarianTheologyofReligions,129. 94 95 96 97

Ibid.,160. Ibid.,159. Ibid.160.

ThethreepersonsofthedivineTrinityrepresentdifferentcharactersofChristianrevelation,andthese differentcharactersofChristianrevelationcancontributetoadialogicalattitudetowardotherreligions. Lai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,163.LaisuggeststhatparallelsexistbetweenTillichand Panikkaronthispoint. Theparticipationinthedivinelife,asdescribedinTillichsseconddissertationonSchelling,isalsothe unbrokenbondconstitutedbythecosmicSpirit.ItisnotdependentontheworkofJesusChrist.

98

26

 In1996,JacquesDupuisoutlinedhisChristiantheologyofreligiouspluralism whichhegroundsintrinitariantheology.99AccordingtoDupuis,theChristianvision oftheTriuneGodopensthedoorforapositiveevaluationofotherreligious traditions.100Itdoessobyprovidinganinterpretivekey:[F]romaChristianviewpoint thedoctrineofthedivineTrinityservesasthehermeneuticalkeyforaninterpretationof theexperienceoftheAbsoluteRealitytowhichotherreligioustraditionstestify...101 ThereareatleastfivewaysinwhichDupuisappealstotheTrinityinhisproposal.First, theTrinitystandsatthecenterofDupuisontology.102Second,Dupuisclaimsthatall religiousexperiencepossessesatrinitarianstructure.103Third,theTrinityprovidesthe hermeneuticalkeytorelatingtheuniversalityofGodssavingwilltotheparticularity ofChrist,enablingonetomovebeyondanexclusivistapproachtononChristian
EncounteringtheeventJesusastheChristisnotaprerequisiteforparticipatinginthedivinelife.Tillichs theoryoftheTrinitycanthusprovideanontologicalbasisforanaffirmationofthevalueofotherliving religions.Lai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,16465.
99JacquesDupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1996).Dupuis proposalwillbediscussedatgreaterlengthinchapterfour. 100 101

Ibid.,313.

Ibid.,264.Similarly,IthasbeensuggestedabovethataTrinitarianChristologicalmodelmayserveasa usefulhermeneuticalkeyforanopenChristiantheologyofreligions(ibid.,276). AccordingtoDupuis,mysteryoftheTriuneGodFather,Son,Spiritcorrespondsobjectivelytothe innerrealityofGod,eventhoughonlyanalogically.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligious Pluralism,259.

102

AnefforthasalsobeenmadetouncoveraTrinitarianstructure,nomatterhowinchoateandimperfect, inallhumanexperienceoftheDivine.Followingthiscue,itmaybesaidthatthedivineTrinityis experienced,thoughhiddenlyandanonymously,whereverhumanbeingsallowtheDivineRealitythat impingesuponthemtoenterintotheirlife.IneveryauthenticreligiousexperiencetheTriuneGodof Christianrevelationispresentandoperative.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,276 77.

103

27

 religionswithoutembracingapluralistperspective.Howdoesoneaffirmthe universalityofGodssavingwillwhileretainingtheparticularityoftheChristevent? SimplybyrecognizingthatthetwohandsofGodtheWordandtheSpiritare universallypresentandactiveinotherreligions.104Fourth,Dupuisreinterpretsthe centralityofChristthroughanappealtotheTrinityinsuchawaythatheisableto affirmothersaviorswhosomehowparticipateinthemediationofChrist.105Finally, religiousplurality,asanempiricalphenomenon,findsitsultimatebasisintheplurality ofdivinelifeoftheTrinity:ThediversityandcommunionofpersonsintheGodhead offertheproperkeytobeexploredhereafterforunderstandingthemultiplicityof interrelateddivineselfmanifestationsintheworldandinhistory.106 ThefollowingyearacollectionoftenessaysfromtheFifthEdinburghDogmatics ConferencewaspublishedunderthetitleTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge.107Kevin Vanhoozerexplainsthatthepurposeoftheconferencewastoexploretheimplicationsof trinitarianthoughtforourpresentpluralisticcontext:Ourworkinghypothesisis straightforward,butitsimplicationsareimmense:thedoctrineoftheTrinity,withits dualemphasisononenessandthreenessasequallyultimate,containsunexpectedand
104 105 106 107

Ibid.,300. Ibid.,20506. Ibid.,208. KevinJ.Vanhoozer,ed.,TheTrinityinaPluralisticAge(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997).

28

 hithertounexploredresourcesfordealingwiththeproblems,andpossibilities,of contemporarypluralism.108Onedistinctivefeatureofthiscollectionofessaysisthe wayseveralcontributorsraiseconcernsregardingthenatureofcontemporaryappealto theTrinityinthetheologyofreligions.109Threeexampleswillsuffice.Althoughhe praisesthetrinitarianrevivalthathastakenplacewithinwesterntheology,Lesslie Newbiginexpressesconcernregardingapossibledangerassociatedwiththis revival.110InTheTrinityasPublicTruth,hecriticizesattemptsonthepartofkey leadersintheecumenicalmovementtopresentatrinitarianapproachtomissionasan alternativetoandreplacementforaChristocentricmodelthatemphasizesthe universallordshipofChrist.111Suchamoverepresentsagravemistakeaccordingto Newbigin.112InanessayentitledTheTrinityandOtherReligions,113Stephen
Ibid.,x.Thefollowingquestionsprovidedthebackdropfortheconference:WhatroledoestheTrinity playinapluralisticcontext?DoesthetriuneGodhaveothernames?Cantrinitarianvestigesbefoundin otherreligions?DoestheTrinityfitintoaglobaltheology?IftheonetrueGodisalsotriune,doesthis provideanonrepressivewayofpreservingdifferenceswithinoverallunity?
108 109Thisisnottosuggestthatthiscollectionofessayshasapolemicalfocus.Manyofthemofferconstructive proposals.Forexample,alongsidetheconcernsheexpresses,VanhoozerarguesthattheTrinityrepresents thetranscendentalconditionforinterreligiousdialogue,theontologicalconditionthatpermitsustotake theotherinallseriousness,withoutfear,andwithoutviolence.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,DoestheTrinity BelonginaTheologyofReligions?OnAnglingintheRubiconandtheIdentityofGod,inTheTrinityina PluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997),71. 110LesslieNewbigin,TheTrinityasPublicTruth,inTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997),6. 111 112 113

Newbigin,TheTrinityasPublicTruth,7. Ibid.,8.

StephenWilliams,TheTrinityandOtherReligions,inTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ. Vanhoozer(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997),2640.

29

 WilliamsraisesanimportantmethodologicalconcernregardingtheappealtotheTrinity intheworksofRaimundoPanikkar(TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan)as wellasNinianSmartandStephenKonstantine(ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorld Context):Onestrikingfeatureofbothofthesecontributionsistheabsenceofany discussionofthequestionofcriteria.Thecriteriologicalquestionthatmustbeanswered isthis:whatenablessomethingtocountasaformulationofthedoctrineofthe Trinity?114AlthoughbothPanikkarandSmart/Konstantineemploytrinitarianterms andidentifytriadicpatterns,neitherofthemanswers,orevenattemptstoanswer,this questionaccordingtoWilliams.115Finally,inanessayentitledDoestheTrinityBelong inaTheologyofReligions?116KevinVanhoozerexploresseveralkeytrinitarianissues intheChristiantheologyofreligions.OnesuchissueconcernstherelationoftheSon andtheSpiritintheeconomyofsalvation.Vanhoozerexpressesconcernovertheway manycontemporarytheologiestreattheSpiritasauniversalizer.117IftheSpirits activitytrulyisuniversal,onewouldnotbeabletodistinguishthedivinefromthe demonicnorwouldtherebeanygoodreasonexisttolimittheSpiritsworktothe

114 115 116 117

Ibid.,28. Ibid.,29. Vanhoozer,DoestheTrinityBelonginaTheologyofReligions?,4171. Ibid.,62.

30

 realmofreligion.118VanhoozersuggeststhatproblematicaccountsoftheSpirits universalworkarise,atleastinpart,fromafailuretoconsiderhowtheSpiritrelates toChrist:DoesnotthenarrativeidentificationofthetriuneGodpresenttheSpiritas theSpiritofChristnotsimplytheLogos,butthecrucifiedandrisenChrist?119 ContemporarytheologianswouldbenefitfromreconsideringReformedteaching regardingtheinseparabilityofWordandSpirit,andinparticularitsdoctrineofthe testimonyoftheSpirit,foratheologyofreligions.120 In2000,twoimportantbookswerepublishedrelatingtheTrinitytothetheology ofreligions:GavinDCostasTheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity121andAmosYongs DiscerningtheSpirit(s):APentecostalCharismaticContributiontoaChristianTheologyof Religions.122InTheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinityDCostaarguesthatpluralistslike JohnHickarereallycovertexclusivists123andthattheconcernswhichdrivepluralist interpretationsofreligion(e.g.,openness,toleranceandequality)arebetteraddressed withintheframeworkofaCatholictrinitariantheologyofreligions.Centralto DCostastrinitariantheologyofreligionsistheuniversalpresenceoftheHolySpirit.
118 119 120 121 122

Ibid.,63. Ibid.,70. Ibid.,69. GavinDCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2000).

AmosYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s):APentecostalCharismaticContributiontoaChristianTheologyof Religions(Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2000).
123

DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,22.

31

 AlthoughhebelievesthattheSpiritisuniversallypresentandactivewithinnon Christianreligions,DCostarejectstheviewthatnonChristianreligions,quareligions, constitutevehiclesofsalvationonthegroundsthatsupportforthisviewcannotbe foundinconciliarteaching.124DCostacontendsthatthatpresenceoftheSpiritinnon Christianreligionsisintrinsicallytrinitarianandecclesiological.125Asaresult,the workoftheSpiritoutsidethechurchmustanalogoustotheSpiritsworkinsidethe church.Furthermore,hearguesthatthepresenceoftheSpiritcannotbeseveredfrom thepresenceofChrist,theChurchandthekingdom.126Christiantheologians,therefore, shouldavoidabstracttalkofthetheSpiritinotherreligions.127Althoughhe acknowledgesthattheuniversalpresenceoftheSpirithasimplicationsfornon Christianreligions,128DCostasdiscussionfocusesupontheimplicationsoftheSpirits

124DCostaarguesthataproperreadingofVaticanIIandpostconciliardocumentsleadstotheconclusion thatnonChristianreligions,assuch,shouldnotbeviewedvehiclesofsalvation.DCosta,TheMeetingof ReligionsandtheTrinity,105. 125 126 127

Ibid.,110. Ibid.,111.

DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,128.DCostaclaimsthat,intheprocessofconstructing alternativetheologiesofreligion,anumberofCatholicthinkersincludingPaulKnitter,Raimundo PanikkarandJacquesDupuishaveseveredintrinsicrelationsthatobtainbetweenthepersonsofthe Trinity,theChurchandthepresenceofGodintheworld.SeeDCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandthe Trinity,110. First,thereisthequestionastowhattheclaimthattheSpiritispresentinotherreligionsorcultures meansforthechurchanditstaskoftrinitariantheologizingandpractice.Second,thereisquestionasto whattheclaimthattheSpiritispresentinotherreligionsmightmeanforthatreligion.Thelattercanonly followtheprocessofhistoricalengagementandonlyretrospectively,andthusIcannotpursuethisquestion furtherhere.DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,116.
128

32

 presenceforthechurch.129First,itmeansthatsalvationisavailabletoadherentsofnon Christianreligions.Second,itmeansthattheSpiritproducesthepresenceofthe kingdomandthechurchinaninchoateformamongotherreligions.130Third,it suggeststhatthroughengagementwithadherentsofotherreligions,thechurchmaybe leadmoredeeplyintothelifeofGod.131Fourth,asaresultoftheSpiritsuniversal presence,itispossiblethatChristiansmayobserveChristlikenessinadherentsof otherreligions.132Finally,becausetheSpiritinspireseveryauthenticprayer,Christian participationininterreligiousprayermay,incertaincontexts,beappropriate.133 AswithDCosta,theuniversalpresenceoftheSpiritalsoplaysacentralrolein theworkofAmosYong.AlthoughanumberofChristiantheologianshaveproposed pneumatologicalapproachestononChristianreligions,DiscerningtheSpirit(s) representsthefirstbooklengthattempttoarticulateapneumatologicaltheologyof religions.InDiscerningtheSpirit(s)Yongarguesonpneumatologicalgroundsthatthe

TheSpiritspresenceinotherreligionsisalsothesourceofpromiseandgreatjoytothechurch,forin beingopenandattentivetotheHolySpirit,itgrowsinitsownrelationshiptoGodandthosefromother religions.DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,130.

129 130

Ibid.,116.

131Thechurch,therefore,mustbeattentivetothepossibilityofGodsgiftofhimselfthroughtheprayersand practicesofotherreligions.,DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,11516.

Itmustbeclearfromthisthatotherreligions,inkeepingwiththeirownselfunderstanding,may generateprofoundlyChristlikebehavior.DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,129.Although heishesitanttorefertononChristiansassaints,DCostaclaimsthatrecognitionofholylivesoutsidethe churchisextremelysignificantforthechurchandcanchallengethechurch(ibid.,130).

132 133

DCosta,TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,152.

33

 HolySpiritispresentandactiveamongadherentsofnonChristianreligionsandthat ChristiansmustlearntodiscerntheSpiritspresence.134Thetrinitarianpneumatology heoutlinesinDiscerningtheSpirit(s)buildsuponadistinctionbetweenaneconomyof theWordandtheeconomyoftheSpirit.BecausetheSpiritactsinaneconomy distinctfromthatoftheSon,ChristiansshouldbeabletoidentifyaspectsoftheSpirits workthatarenotconstrainedbytheworkoftheSon.Tothisend,Yongoutlinesa processfordiscerningthereligiousactivityoftheSpiritamongadherentsofother religionsthatinvolvesthreeelements(experiential,ethicalandtheological). ThemostsophisticatedattempttodatetogroundaChristiantheologyof religionsintrinitariandoctrinecamein2001withthepublicationofS.MarkHeimsThe DepthoftheRiches:ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds.135Heimclaimsthatthequest foraChristiantheologyofreligionshasproceededfromtheunwarrantedsupposition thattherecanbeonlyonereligiousend.Incontrast,Heimarguesformultiplereligious ends.WhileChristianswillexperiencesalvation(i.e.,communionwiththetriune God),adherentsofotherreligionsmayexperienceotherendswhichmustbe distinguishedfromChristiansalvation.136Thesealternateendsarerootedinthe

134 135

Yongsproposalwillbediscussedatlengthinchapterfour.

S.MarkHeim,TheDepthoftheRiches:ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds,SacraDoctrinaSeries(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2001).Heimsproposalwillbediscussedatlengthinchapterthree.
136

Ibid.,3132.

34

 complexnatureofthetriuneGod.ThedivinelifeofthetriuneGodiscomplexin thatitisconstitutedbythreedimensions(impersonal,personal,and communion).WhenarelationwithGodispursuedexclusivelythroughoneofthe threedimensions,theresultisadistinctreligiousendwhichcannotsimplybe subsumedundersalvation(intheChristiansense).137Fourkindsofhumandestiny mayresultfromarelationwithoneofthetrinitariandimensions:Christiansalvation, otherreligiousends,nonreligiousdestinies,andthenegationofthecreatedself. In2003MichaelIpgravewroteabookentitledTrinityandInterFaithDialoguein whichhepresentsthedoctrineoftheTrinityasakeyresourceforinterfaith dialogue.138ThisdoctrinecanbeseenasaresourcewhenonerecognizesthattheTrinity representsauniversalpatterntraceableinallreligions.139CentraltoIpgraves proposalisadistinctionbetweenTrinityandtrinity.Theformerrepresentsthe Father,SonandSpiritofChristianrevelationwhilethelatterservesasagenericname foranytriadicaccountofdivinitysharingtosomerecognizableextentinthepatternsof ChristianunderstandingoftheTrinity.140Inshort,Ipgraveproposesthatoneseparate thestructuralorconstitutiveelementsoftheTrinityfromconfessionthatthis
137

Ibid.,16768.

138MichaelIpgrave,TrinityandInterFaithDialogue:PlenitudeandPlurality,ReligionsandDiscourseSeries, Vol.14(NewYork:PeterLang,2003),21. 139 140

Ibid.,21. Ibid.,12.Seenote2.

35

 trinitarianGodhasbeenrevealedinJesusChrist.141Tothisend,heidentifiessix foundationaltrinitarianelementsasabasisforinterfaithengagement.142According toIpgrave,thekeyelementsofsuccessfuldialogue(openness,rationalityand affirmingreligiousexperience)aregrounded,respectively,intheFather,Sonand HolySpirit;thus,atrinitarianpatternshapesthedialogicalprocess.143Moreover, throughthesixtrinitarianparameters,thisdoctrineprovidesthekeytodiscussingthe divinerealitytowardwhichdialogueisdirected.144

Now,allthesepointsarelogicallyseparablefromafurtherdistinctivecharacteristicofChristianfaith: theconfessionthattheTrinitarianidentityofGodismadeknowninJesusofNazareth.Soitistheoretically possibletodistinguishbetweenastructuraldistinctivenessoftheTrinitytellingwhatkindofGoditis whomChristiansaffirmandanevidentialdistinctivenesstellingwhereChristiansaffirmthiskindofGod tobefound.Thecoherenceofthisseparationisshownbythepossibilityinprincipleofimagininga religiousfaithwhichtaughtthatGodwasaneternalandcoequaltrinity,differentiatedasthreepersons andundividedinonesubstance,yetwhichmadenoreferencetotheeventofJesusChrist.Ipgrave,Trinity andInterFaithDialogue,25(italicsoriginal).

141

Theseinclude:plurality(divinerealityinvolvesdifferentiation),personality(realitiesconstitutedby thisdifferentiationare,insomesense,persons),threeness(thereareexactlythreedifferentiatedpersons), equality(patternsofequalitymarktheserelationships),necessity(anydifferentiationmustbenecessary ratherthancontingent)andimmanence(differentiationmustobtainateveryontologicallevel).Ipgrave, TrinityandInterFaithDialogue,2731.

142 143

Ibid.,325.

144Thesetrinitarianparameterscanbediscernedandidentifiedinotherreligioustraditions:Mymodelof Trinitariananalogyinthereferenceoflanguageaboutdivineplenitudecanthereforebesummedupinthe followingway.Trinitariandoctrinemakesaclaimaboutthestructureofthedivinelife:thattheultimate referentofreligiouslanguageisinrealitycharacterizedbythepatternsofTrinitariandiversitywhichmark theChristianunderstandingofGodpatternswhichIhaveidentifiedintermsofsixparameters.Asthisis soinreality,itisnotunreasonabletoexpectsometracesofthisdiversitytobefoundinthewaysinwhich otherreligioustraditionsinturnspeakofthedivineplenitude.Suchtracesaregroundedbothinthegiven natureofGodandconcomitantlyinhumanendeavourstoexpressthedynamicofthatnature;inthose endeavours,peopleofdifferentreligiousbackgroundsarenaturallymouldedbythecontoursoftheirown developingtraditions.WhereaspectsofaTrinitarianpatterningarenotpresentinthewayinwhicha religioustraditionspeaksofdivineplenitude,thisabsencetooisgroundedinthesamenatureofGod,but

36

 Onefinalworkmeritsnotice.In2004VeliMattiKrkkinenwroteTrinityand ReligiousPluralism:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinChristianTheologyofReligions.145 Krkkinenbrieflyexploresninerecentattemptstorelatetrinitariandoctrinetoa Christiantheologyofreligions.146FourareRomanCatholic(KarlRahner,Jacques Dupuis,GavinDCostaandRaimundoPanikkar)whilefiveofthemareProtestant(Karl Barth,WolfhartPannenberg,ClarkPinnock,S.MarkHeimandJohnHick).147Following hisanalysisoftheseninetheologians,Krkkinenexaminesrecentdialoguebetween RomanCatholicsandMuslimsinFranceasatestcaseforatrinitariantheologyof religions.Heconcludesbyidentifyinganumberofissueswhichneedtobeaddressed onthewaytoamorecoherent,satisfactorytrinitariantheologyofreligions.148 KrkkinenarguesthatChristiantrinitarianfaithisincompatiblewithanyformof normativepluralism(e.g.,thepluralismofJohnHick)andthattheissueoftruth mustbetakenseriouslybecauseChristiantruthclaimspossessauniversalintent.149In addition,hearguesthatgreaterattentionmustbepaidtothequestionofwhat
mediatedbydifferinghumanendeavourstoexpressthatnature.Ipgrave,TrinityandInterFaithDialogue, 33637. VeliMattiKrkkinen,TrinityandReligiousPluralism:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinChristianTheologyof Religions(Burlington,Vt.:Ashgate,2004).
145 146ItshouldbenotedthatnotallthetheologiansKrkkinenanalyzesexplicitlyemployadoctrineofthe TrinityasconstitutivegroundforaChristiantheologyofreligions. 147Krkkinengroupstheseproposalsunderthreeheadingswhichbroadlyparalleltheexclusivist, inclusivistandpluralistpositions. 148 149

Krkkinen,TrinityandReligiousPluralism,164. Ibid.,16566.

37

 constitutesalegitimatedoctrineoftheTrinityinthetheologyofreligions.150Recent formulationsneedtobeassessedinlightofsalvationhistoryandtheclassiccreeds.151 Alongtheway,Krkkinensurfacesseveralproblemsthatariseinrecentproposals includingseveredlinksbetweenTrinityandChristology,Trinityandsalvationhistory, Trinityandchurchandevenamongthedivinepersons.Heconcludeshisinvestigation byidentifyingseveralquestionsthatmustbeansweredonthewaytoanadequate trinitariantheologyofreligions.Theseincludethefollowing:Whatrelationshipexists betweentheSonandtheSpiritadextra?Shouldpneumatologicalapproachestothe theologyofreligionsreplaceChristologicalapproaches?Amongcurrentapproaches, whichareadequatefromabiblicalandtheologicalstandpoint?Finally,whatcriteria mightbeemployedtoevaluatetheadequacyofvariousproposals?152

1.3 Does a Doctrine of the Trinity Hold the Key to a Theology of Religions?
Althoughimportantdifferencesexistamongtheproposalsoutlinedabove,they shareonefeatureincommon:anassumptionthatthedoctrineoftheTrinity(or,more

150 151

Ibid.,16971.

ForclassicalChristiantheology,biblicalsalvationhistoryandcreedaltraditionhasservedasafence betweenwhatwasconsideredalegitimatecontextualizationandwhatisnot.Krkkinen,Trinityand ReligiousPluralism,170. Ibid.,182.Manyoftheserequirementsandquestionswillbeaddressedonthebasisofindependent researchandreflectioninthepresentwriting.

152

38

 precisely,aparticularconstrualofthisdoctrine)153constitutesthebasisforapositive interpretationofreligiousdiversityfromthestandpointofChristiantheology.154Itismy contentionthatthisassumptionmeritscarefulscrutiny.Increasingappealtotrinitarian doctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligionsraisesahostofquestions:Doesthe doctrineoftheTrinityprovidearoadmapforinterreligiousdialogue?Canvestiges ofthetriuneGodbefoundinnonChristianreligiousexperience?Isitlegitimateto

ByreferringtothedoctrineoftheTrinityIamnotimplyingthatthereisoneparticularsystematic understandingofthetriuneGoduponwhichallChristiansagree.Inthissense,itwouldbemoreaccurate tospeakaboutadoctrineoftheTrinity.ByspeakingofthedoctrineoftheTrinityIhaveinmind trinitariandoctrineincontrasttoothercategoriesofChristiandoctrine(e.g.,soteriology,anthropology,etc.). Ofcourse,theclassictrinitarianfaithoftheChurchisconfessedintheancientecumenicalcreeds.
153

Inadditiontotheworksdiscussedabove,anumberofothertheologiansalsocommend(oftenquite briefly)thedoctrineoftheTrinityasanimportantresourceforunderstandingreligiousdiversity.See DanielP.Sheridan,GroundedintheTrinity:SuggestionsforaTheologyofRelationshiptoOther Religions,Thomist50(1986):26078;AnthonyKelly,TheTrinityofLove:ATheologyoftheChristianGod,New TheologySeries(Wilmington,Del.:MichaelGlazier,1989),22848;MichaelBarnes,ChristianIdentity& ReligiousPluralism:ReligionsinConversation(Nashville:AbingdonPress,1989),143;M.DarrolBryant, InterfaithEncounterandDialogueinaTrinitarianPerspective,inChristianityandtheWiderEcumenism,ed. PeterC.Phan(NewYork:ParagonHouse,1990),320;LucoJ.vandenBrom,God,GdelandTrinity:A ContributiontotheTheologyofReligions,inChristianFaithandPhilosophicalTheology:EssaysinHonourof VincentBrmmerPresentedontheOccasionoftheTwentyFifthAnniversaryofhisProfessorshipinthePhilosophyof ReligionintheUniversityofUtrecht,ed.GijsbertvandenBrink,LucoJ.vandenBromandMarcelSarot (Kampen,Netherlands:KokPharos,1992),5675;ReinholdBernhardt,TrinittstheologiealsMatrixeiner TheologiederReligionen,kumenischeRundschau49(2000):287301;HansMartinBarth,Dogmatik: evangelischerGlaubeimKontextderWeltreligionen:einLehrbuch(Gtersloh:Chr.Kaiser,2001);Christoph Schwbel,ChristlicherGlaubeimPluralismus:StudienzueinerTheologiederKultur(Tubingen:MohrSiebeck, 2003);AnneHunt,Trinity:NexusoftheMysteriesofChristianFaith,TheologyinGlobalPerspectiveSeries (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005),13964;ReinholdBernhardt,TheRealandtheTrinitarianGod,inTheMyth ofReligiousSuperiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,2005),194210;PeterC.Hodgson,TheSpiritandReligiousPluralism,inTheMythofReligious Superiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005), 13550;HarveyG.Cox,Jr.,MakeWayfortheSpirit,inGodsLifeinTrinity,ed.MiroslavVolfandMichael Welker(Minneapolis:Fortress,2006),93100;DanielL.Migliore,TheTrinityandtheTheologyof Religions,inGodsLifeinTrinity,ed.MiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker(Minneapolis:Fortress,2006),101 117;andNorbertScholl,DasGeheimnisderDrei:KleineKulturgeschichtederTrinitt(Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,2006),19094.
154

39

 appealtocomplexityintheTrinityasabasisformultiplereligiousends?Towhat extentcanoneaffirmthepresenceofconflictingeconomicmanifestationsofthetriune GodinotherreligionswithoutunderminingtheunityoftheeconomicTrinitywiththe immanentTrinity?Inlightofthefactthatthedivinepersonsactwithonewillinthe economyofsalvation,towhatextentifanyisitappropriatetospeakofan independenteconomyoftheSpirit? Notonlyaretheprecedingquestionsimportantontheirownmerit,buttheyare alsorelatedtoabroaderquestionofhowthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldfunctionin contemporarytheology.InareviewarticleentitledTheTrinity:ANewWave?Karen Kilbypointsoutthatasinterestintrinitariandoctrinehasgrown,theologianshavenot paidadequateattentiontothequestionofhowthisdoctrineshouldfunctionin contemporarytheology.155ShoulditregulatethewayChristianstalkaboutGod,the waytheyreadScriptureandthewaytheyworship,orshoulditserveasalaunching padforusefulideassuchasrelatedness(or,inthecaseofthisinvestigation,religious diversity)?156Kilbysquestioniscrucial.Atthebroadestlevel,myinvestigationis drivenbythequestionofhowthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldfunctionin

155 156

KarenKilby,TheTrinity:ANewWave?ReviewsinReligionandTheology7(2000):37881. Ibid.,381.

40

 contemporarytheology.IhopetoofferapartialanswertoKilbysquestionby examiningtheroleoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligions. TheprimarysubjectofthisinvestigationistheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinity. Thus,purposeofthisstudyisnottodevelopanewChristiantheologyofreligionsbutto evaluaterecentappropriationoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyof religions.Tothisend,Iwillcriticallyassessthetrinitariandoctrineinseveralofthe mostsignificantproposalsmentionedinprecedingnarrative.Thesewillinclude:Mark Heimstrinitariantheologyofreligiousends;AmosYongspneumatologicaltheologyof religions;JacquesDupuisChristiantheologyofreligiouspluralism;andRaimundo Panikkarstrinitarianaccountofspirituality(alongwithEwertCousinseffortstolink Panikkarsproposaltothevestigetradition).Variousfactorsshapedmyselectionof theseproposals.First,Ichosetolimitmyinvestigationtoproposalsinwhichadoctrine oftheTrinityplaysanexplicitconstitutiverole.157Second,Iwantedtofocusupon proposalsthatattempttooperatebroadlywithinthecontextofhistorictrinitarian orthodoxy.Finally,Iwantedtoselectproposalswhichwouldprovidearepresentative crosssectionofthekindofappealtotrinitariandoctrineoneencountersintheChristian theologyofreligions.Theproposalsoutlinedaboveofferjustsuchacrosssection.Mark
ObviouslytrinitarianassumptionsplayanimplicitroleineveryproposalintheChristiantheologyof religions.Theselectedproposalsaredistinctivebecauseoftheexplicitrolethattrinitariandoctrineplaysin eachofthem.
157

41

 Heimstrinitariantheologyofreligiousendsmeritsinvestigationbecauseitrepresents oneofthemostsophisticatedattempts(todate)toemployadoctrineoftheTrinityas constitutivegroundforaChristiantheologyofreligions.Amongpneumatologically orientatedproposals(e.g.,Khodr,DCosta,Knitter,LaiandYong),AmosYongs pneumatologicaltheologyofreligionsrepresentsthemostdevelopedversion.Whereas manycontemporaryproposalsemphasizepneumatology(overandagainst Christology),trinitarianChristologyplaysacrucialroleinJacquesDupuisChristian theologyofreligiouspluralism.Dupuisproposalmeritsinvestigationbothbecauseit representsoneofthemostsophisticatedattemptstoarguethatnonChristianreligions playasalvificroleintheeconomyofsalvationandbecauseoftheuniquerolethat trinitarianChristologyplaysinhisproject.AmongproposalsthattreatnonChristian religions(orreligiousexperience)asreflectingthetriunityofGod(e.g.,Panikkar, Cousins,Smart/KonstantineandHeim),RaimundoPanikkarstrinitarianaccountof spiritualityrepresentstheclearestexemplarofaproposalthatappealsimplicitlytothe logicofthevestigetradition. Severaltheologianshaverightlyassertedthatoneofthepressingissuesinthe theologyofreligionsconcernscriteriabywhichbywhichonemightassesstheadequacy

42

 ofrecenttrinitarianproposals.158Iwillarguethatwithregardtothetrinitarian theologytheyemploy,criteriaforevaluationareimplicitlyprovidedbythemost influentialtrinitariantraditionintheWestnamely,theAugustiniantrinitarian tradition.Inanumberofpopularnarrativesofthetrinitarianrevival,Augustineis blamednotonlyforthemarginalizationofTrinitariandoctrinebutalsoformanyofthe contemporaryproblemsinwesternsociety(e.g.,individualism).159Criticisms notwithstanding,therearegoodreasonstoemployAugustinestrinitariantheologyasa basisforevaluatinguseoftheTrinityinthetheologyofreligions.First,astrongcase canbemadethatpopularcriticismsofAugustinedependonlyuponafundamental misunderstandingofhistrinitariantheology.160Second,Augustinestrinitariantheology representsthemostinfluentialtrinitariantraditionintheWest.Thus,inturningto Augustine,onedrawsuponatraditionwhich,synchronicallyanddiachronically, constitutesthemostrepresentativeversionoftrinitariandoctrineinthehistoryofthe churchamongCatholicsandProtestants.Finally,despitepopularportrayalstothe
SeeKrkkinen,TrinityandReligiousPluralism,182;andWilliams,TheTrinityandOtherReligions,28 30.
158

Accordingtocritics,Augustinestheologybeginswithaunityofdivinesubstancewhichheallegedly prioritizesoverthedivinepersons,histrinitarianreflectionisoverdeterminedbyNeoplatonic philosophy,hispsychologicalanalogyoftheTrinitytendstowardmodalism,andheseversthelifeofthe triuneGodfromtheeconomyofsalvation(byfocusingontheimmanentTrinity).Thesecriticismscanbe foundinColinE.Gunton,Augustine,theTrinityandtheTheologicalCrisisoftheWest,ScottishJournalof Theology43(1990):3358;andCatherineM.LaCugna,GodForUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife(San Francisco:HarperCollins,1991).

159 160

Iwillarguethispointinchaptertwo.

43

 contrary,AugustinestrinitariandoctrinesharesmuchincommonwiththeGreek speakingtheologiansoftheEast(e.g.,theCappadocians).161 MyinvestigationisstructuredaroundanAugustinianassessmentofthree centralissuesthatarisefromattemptstoemployadoctrineoftheTrinityasconstitutive groundforaChristiantheologyofreligions:(1)therelationshipoftheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity,(2)therelationsamongthedivinepersons(bothadintraandadextra) and(3)thevestigiatrinitatis.162ThattheseindeedarecrucialissuesintheChristian theologyofreligionswillbearguedinthechaptersthatfollow.BeforeIcancommence myAugustinianevaluation,however,criticismsofAugustineneedtobeaddressed. Thesecriticismswillbeexaminedinchaptertwo.Fewcontemporarytheologianshave beenmorecriticalofAugustinestrinitariandoctrinethanColinGunton.Thus, Guntonscriticismswillconstitutetheprimaryfocusofthischapter.Buildinguponthe workofLewisAyresandMichaelBarnes,IwilldemonstratethatGuntonsmanifold criticismsarerootedinuntenablereadingsofAugustinestrinitariantheology.After

ThisisnottodenytheexistenceofsubstantivedifferencesbetweenthetrinitariantheologyofAugustine andthatoftheCappadocians.Theproblemhaswithhowthesedifferencesareconstruedincontemporary theologysuchthatAugustineandtheCappadociansarepresentedasrepresentingtwofundamentally differentformsoftheologythatoperateoncontrarylogics.Seechaptertwo.

161

MypurposeistoofferanAugustiniancritiqueofthetrinitariantheologyemployedintheChristian theologyofreligionsandnotanAugustiniancritiqueofcontemporaryinterpretationsofreligiousdiversity (i.e.,exclusivism,inclusivismandpluralism).Thisrepresentsacrucialpoint.Iamnotasking,Whatwould AugustinethinkofJacquesDupuisChristiantheologyofpluralism?butrather,Howadequateisthe trinitariantheologywhichsupportsDupuisChristiantheologyofpluralism?

162

44

 addressingcriticismsofAugustine,IwillintroducemyprimarysourceforAugustines trinitariantheologyDeTrinitate.163 Arguably,therelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity representsakeypointofdebateincontemporarytrinitariantheology.InchapterthreeI willexploretheimplicationsofthisdebatefortheChristiantheologyofreligions.Here myprimaryinterlocutorwillbeMarkHeim.OnthebasisofanAugustinianaccountof therelationshipoftheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity,IwillarguethatHeims trinitariantheologyofreligiousendsultimatelyseverstheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity. Aspectsofthedivinerelationsalsoplayanimportantroleinanumberofrecent proposalsintheChristiantheologyofreligions.InchapterfourIwillexplorethe relationsamongthedivinepersonsinJacquesDupuisChristiantheologyofreligious pluralismandAmosYongspneumatologicaltheologyofreligions.Onthebasisofan Augustiniangrammarofrelations,IwillcriticallyevaluatetheproposalsofYongand Dupuisarguingthattheyofferinadequateaccountsofthedivinerelations. AnumberofChristiantheologianshavesuggestedthattrinitarianstructurescan bediscernedinnonChristianreligiousexperienceandthatthisrealitybearswitnessto
AllEnglishcitationsofDeTrinitatewillbetakenfromEdmundHillstranslation:SaintAugustine,The Trinity,trans.EdmundHill(Brooklyn:NewCityPress,1991).Referenceswillbeputinthefollowingformat Augustine,DeTrin.I.7,69whereI.7namesthebookandparagraphwhile69namesthepagenumber inHillstranslation.ReferencestoHillsnoteswillbeputinthefollowingformat:Hill,TheTrinity,25.
163

45

 thevalidityofnonChristianreligions.InchapterfiveIwillexaminethisassumptionin theworkofRaimundoPanikkarandEwertCousins.OnthebasisofanAugustinian grammarofthevestigiatrinitatis,Iwillcriticallyevaluatethetrinitariangrammarthat groundsPanikkarstheologyofreligiousexperiencearguingthatCousinsunwittingly exposestheproblemswithPanikkarsproposalbyexplicitlylinkingittothevestige tradition. InchaptersixIwillconsidertheimplicationsofthisentireinvestigationbothfor theChristiantheologyofreligionsaswellastheuseoftrinitariandoctrinein contemporarytheology.InconversationwithAugustine,Iwillarguethatthereisgood reasontoquestiontheassertionthattheTrinityrepresentsthekeytoanew understandingofreligiousdiversity,andthatcurrentuseoftrinitariantheologyinthe Christiantheologyofreligionsappearstobehavingadeleteriouseffectuponthe doctrine.Moreover,Iwilldemonstratethatthetrinitarianproblemsthatariseinthe theologyofreligionscanalsobeseeninattemptstorelatethedoctrineoftheTrinitytoa varietyofotherissues(e.g.,personhood,ecclesiology,society,politics,science,etc.). Theseproblemsarisefromaproblematicunderstandingofwhatitmeansforadoctrine oftheTrinitytoberelevant.IwillclosebyconsideringhowAugustinechallengesus torethinktherelevancyoftheTrinity.

46

2. Reclaiming the Augustinian Trinitarian Tradition

AlthoughvirtuallyeveryonewouldagreethattheAugustiniantrinitarian traditionhasexertedadominantinfluenceformanycenturiesintheWest,noteveryone viewsAugustinesinfluenceaspositive.Inmanynarrativesofthetwentiethcentury trinitarianrevival,Augustineisscapegoatedasresponsibleforseveringthelifeofthe triuneGodfromtheeconomyofsalvation,marginalizingthedoctrineoftheTrinityand contributingtoanumberoftheproblemsthatplaguemodernculture.Viewedinthis light,appropriatingAugustinestrinitariandoctrinemayseemaboutasprudentas boardingasinkingoceanlineraftermostofthepassengershavewiselyabandonedship. Indeed,anyappealtoAugustinemay,inthemindsofsomereaders,servetosolidifythe impressionthatthisentireprojectshouldbeviewedwithsuspicion.Thepurposeofthis chapter,therefore,istoreclaimthefountainheadofthistraditionbydemonstratingthat contemporarycriticismsofAugustinedependuponproblematicreadingsofhis trinitariantheology.Thebulkofthischapterwillbedevotedtoidentifyingand respondingtothesecriticisms.Attheendofthechapter,Iwillofferabriefintroduction toDeTrinitatewhichwillprovidethebasisforthereadingofAugustinetobedeveloped subsequently.

47

2.1 Contemporary Criticisms of Augustine

FewcontemporarytheologianshavebeenmorecriticalofAugustinestrinitarian doctrinethanColinGunton.InThePromiseofTrinitarianTheologyGuntonoffersawide rangingcritiqueofAugustinestrinitariantheology.1Becausethevastmajorityofthe contemporarycriticismsofAugustinecanbefoundinGuntonswork,ThePromiseof TrinitarianTheologywillrepresentthefocalpointformyanalysis.AccordingtoGunton, thesinglegreatestinfluenceuponAugustinesdoctrineoftheTrinitywasnotthe teachingofScriptureandthechurchteachingbutratherneoPlatonism.2Thenegative influenceofNeoplatonicthoughtcanbeseeninthewayAugustineprioritizesthedivine substanceoverthepersons,inhisfearofthematerialworld,inhissearchfortrinitarian analogiesandinhisdoctrineoftheSpirit.AfteroutliningGuntonscriticisms,Iwill offerapointbypointresponse.
ColinE.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1991).Similarcriticismscan alsobefoundinidem,TheOne,theThree,andtheMany:God,Creation,andtheCultureofModernity(NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress,1993).
1 2SeeGunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,3839.Amoresubtleversionofthiscriticismcanalsobe foundintheworkofCorneliusPlantinga.PlantingasuggeststhattwosourcesfeedAugustinesdoctrineof theTrinityandthatthisrealityleadstoaparadoxicalandultimatelyincoherentunderstandingofthetriune God.WhileScripturemovesAugustinetowardasocialunderstandingofFather,SonandSpirit, Neoplatonismpusheshiminadifferentdirection:Insum,Augustinehasbiblicalmaterialsthatleadhimto talkasifFather,SonandSpiritaredistinctpersons.HealsohasNeoplatonicconvictionsthatleadhimto assertclaimsfromwhichitseemstofollowthatFather,SonandSpiritare,ineffect,threenamesforthe divineessenceconceivedofasselfrelatedaccordingtopaternity,filiation,andprocession.Howthesetwo tendenciesinAugustinecohereisremarkablyhardtosee.CorneliusPlantinga,Jr.,SocialTrinityand Tritheism,inTrinity,Incarnation,andAtonement:PhilosophicalandTheologicalEssays,ed.RonaldJ.Feenstra andCorneliusPlantinga,Jr.,(NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1989),33(italicsoriginal). SimilarcriticismscanalsobefoundinCorneliusPlantinga,Jr.,TheThreeness/OnenessProblemofthe Trinity,CalvinTheologicalJournal23(1988):3753.

48

 2.1.1 Substance and Person AccordingtoGunton,Augustinefailedtounderstandtheconceptual revolutionbroughtaboutbytheCappadocians.3Morespecifically,hefailedto comprehendtheontologicalimplicationsofthedistinctiontheCappadociansdrew betweenhypostasisandousia.Bydistinguishinghypostasisandousia,theCappadocians notonlyprovidedagrammarfordistinguishingtheonenessandthreenessofGodbut alsodevelopedaradicallynewontologyinwhichthebeingofGod(ousia)was understoodtobeconstitutedbyacommunionofpersons.Inthiscontext,thereisno substancewhichthepersonsshareapartfromthedynamicofpersonsinrelation.4 GuntonbelievesthattheCappadocianswerefullyawareoftheconceptualrevolution theyusheredinarevolutionwhichstoodinoppositiontoallGreekontology.5 [B]ecausehefailedtoappropriatetheontologicalachievementofhisEastern colleagues,AugustineallowedtheinsidiousreturnofHellenisminwhichbeingisnot communion,butsomethingunderlyingit.6Asproofofthelatter,Guntoncitesatextin whichAugustineacknowledgesthathedoesnotunderstandthenatureofthe

3GuntonsreadingoftheCappadociansdrawsheavilyupontheworkofJohnZizioulas.SeeJohnD. Zizioulas,BeingasCommunion:StudiesinPersonhoodandtheChurch(Crestwood,N.Y.:St.Vladimirs SeminaryPress,1985),2765. 4 5 6

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,10. Ibid.,9. Ibid.,10.

49

 distinctionthattheGreeksdrawbetweenhypostasisandousia.7AlthoughAugustine realizesthatdifferentconceptsarerequiredtoexpresstherealitythatGodisbothone andthree,hisadoptionofthecorrectLatinequivalentsdoesnotenablehimtogetthe point,saysGunton,becauselaterinthesamesectionofBookVAugustine acknowledgesthatheusesthetermtrespersonaeonlysothatheisnotreducedto silence.8FurtherevidencethatAugustinedidnotunderstandtheCappadocian revolutioncanbeseeninthewayheexplainsthedivinerelations.Augustines discussionisdrivenbyadifferentquestionthantheCappadocians.Accordingto Gunton,heisnotaskingWhatkindofbeingisthis,thatGodistobefoundinthe relationsofFather,SonandSpirit?but,Whatkindofsensecanbemadeoftheapparent logicaloddityofthethreenessoftheoneGodintermsofAristoteliansubjectpredicate logic?9Beginning,ashedoes,withtheoneGodassubstance,Augustinehasa difficulttimefittinginthethreepersons.Relation(whichmustbedistinguishedboth fromsubstanceandaccident)merelyprovidesAugustinewithatheoreticalbasisfor

TheGreeksalsohaveanotherword,hypostasis,buttheymakeadistinctionthatisratherobscuretome betweenousiaandhypostasis,sothatmostofourpeoplewhotreatofthesemattersinGreekareaccustomed tosaymiaousia,treishypostaseis,whichisliterallyonebeing,threesubstances.Augustine,DeTrin.V.10, 196.

7

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,40.ThetextfromDeTrinitatetowhichGuntonrefersisthe following:YetwhenyouaskThreewhat?humanspeechlaborsunderagreatdearthofwords.Sowesay threepersons,notinordertosaythatprecisely,butinordernottobereducedtosilence.Augustine,De Trin.V.10,196.

8 9

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,40.

50

 pluralityinGod.10Augustineissimplyunabletobreakoutofthestrangleholdofthe dualisticontologywhichunderliesthelogic.11Asaresult,therelationsdonotqualify thepersonsontologically.12Thisrepresentsaclearstepbackfromtheteachingofthe Cappadocians:

Forthem,thethreepersonsarewhattheyareintheirrelations,andthereforethe relationsqualifythemontologically,intermsofwhattheyare.Because Augustinecontinuestouserelationasalogicalratherthananontological predicate,heisprecludedfrombeingabletomakeclaimsaboutthebeingofthe particularpersons,who,becausetheylackdistinguishableidentity,tendto disappearintotheallembracingonenessofGod.13

Itisforthisreason,assertsGunton,thatAugustinestrinitariantheology(aswellasthe westerntheologythatfollowshim)tendstobemodalist.14UnliketheCappadocians

10Thismovethenpavesthewayforthelater,andfateful,definitionofthepersonasarelation.Gunton,The PromiseofTrinitarianTheology,40(italicsoriginal). 11 12

Ibid.,41.

AccordingtoGunton,evidencethatthisisthecasecanbeseeninAugustinesinsistencethattherelations donotmodifythesubstance.BegottenforAugustinedoesnotmodifytheessencebutsimplynamesa relation. Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,4142(italicsoriginal).Guntonechoesthissamecriticismlater whenhesaysthatAugustinesownattemptstocometotermswiththematter[conceptofperson]are markedbyanextremewoodennessintheuseoflogicalcategories,sothatrelationremainsaconceptowing moretoAristotelianlogicthantoattentiontoconcreteandpersonalrealities(ibid.,9697).

13

LetmeintroducethetopicbynotingacontrastbetweentheCappadocianandAugustinianconceptions oftheTrinity.Thelatterismodalistindirection,ifnotactuallymodalist,inthesensethatthethreepersons oftheTrinitytendtobeconceivedasposteriortoanunderlyingdeitasorbeingofwhichtheyare,soto speak,outcrops.Bycontrast,theCappadociandevelopment,whichAugustinesosignallyfailedto appreciate,isthatthereisnobeinganteriortothatofthepersons.ThebeingofGodisthepersonsin relationtoeachother.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,74.

14

51

 whoviewthebeingofGodastheunfoldingofthethreepersons,Augustineviewsthe truebeingofGodassomehowunderlyingthethreenessofthepersons.15 2.1.2 Materiality and the Incarnation AsecondexampleofthenegativeinfluenceofNeoplatonismcanbeseenin Augustinesattitudetowardthematerialworld:ItiswellknownthatAugustinewas suspiciousofthematerialworld.16AlongwithotherPlatonists,hefounditdifficult tobelievethatthematerialrealmcouldbearealvehicleofgenuineknowledge. Althoughtheincarnationplaysanimportantroleinhistheology,itisclearthatthe doctrineofthedivinityofChristismoreimportanttoAugustinethanthatofthe humanity.17Asaresult,hisChristologypossessesadoceticcharacter.18Although antiArianzealmaybepartiallyresponsibleforthislacuna,thisproblemisso pervasivethatotherfactorsmustalsobeinvolvedparticularlyneoplatonic assumptionsofthematerialordersincapacitytobereallyandtrulythebearerof divinity.19Guntonclaimsthatantiincarnationalplatonismcanbeseenin

15 16 17 18 19

Ibid.,42. Ibid.,33. Ibid.,34. Ibid.,34. Ibid.,35.

52

 AugustinesdiscussionoftheOldTestamenttheophanies.20Augustineappearstobe embarrassedbytoocloseaninvolvementofGodinmatter.21InAugustinestheology, angelsreplacetheSonasmediatorsofGodsrelationwiththeworld.Notonlydoesthis reflecthistendencytospiritualize,but,bylosingthemediatorshipoftheWord, AugustinealsodistancesGodfromthecreationandflattensoutthedistinctions betweenthepersonsoftheTrinity.22Bymakingthesemoves,Augustinebreakswitha traditionthatcanbetracedtoIrenaeusinwhichtheFatherrelatesdirectlytotheworld throughtheSonandSpirit.AugustinereplacesthistraditionwithanunknownGod workingthroughangels.23 AsecondexampleofantiincarnationalplatonismcanbefoundinAugustines discussionofthebaptismofJesusinwhichhedoesnotgivedueweighttoJesus humanity.24Asevidenceofthelatter,GuntoncitesapassageinBookXVinwhich AugustineexplainsthattheSpiritwasalreadyuponJesuspriortohisbaptism.25Had AugustinegivendueweighttothehumanityofJesus,heshouldhaverecognizedthat
20 21 22 23 24 25

Ibid.,35. Ibid.,35. Ibid.,36. Ibid.,37. Ibid.,37.

ItwouldbetheheightofabsurditytobelievethatheonlyreceivedtheHolySpiritwhenhewasalready thirtyyearsoldthatwastheageatwhichhewasbaptizedbyJohn;no,wemustbelievethatjustashe cametothatbaptismwithoutanysin,sohecametoitnotwithouttheHolySpirit.Augustine,DeTrin. XV.46,431.

53

 JesusenteredanewformofrelationshipwiththeSpiritathisbaptism.26Augustine, however,appearstotreattheSpirit,inanticipationofalongtraditionofWestern thought,substantiallyratherthanpersonallyandrelationally:asiftheSpiritwasa substantialpresence,giveninthewomband,sotospeak,preprogrammingJesuslife, ratherthanthemeansbywhichhishumanitywasrealizedinrelationshiptothe Father.27Althoughthesemayseemlikerelativelyminorpoints,Guntonassureshis readerstheyarepartofalargernegativepatterninAugustinestheology. OnefinalexampleofAugustinesfearofthematerialworldcanbeseeninhis unwillingnesstosearchforanalogiesoftheTrinityinthematerialrealm.Guntoninsists thatthedoctrineoftheincarnationshouldleadustoviewthematerialworldas possessingtheologicalmeaning.28IfGodispresentinthehumanforminJesusChrist, thentheworldmustalsopossessspecialtheologicalmeaning;however,Augustinedoes notreallybelievethatGodisfullypresentinthehumanityofChrist.Ifhedidbelieve this,hewouldnotviewthematerialworldastheleastadequatesourceforanalogies oftheTrinity.29

26 27 28 29

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,37. Ibid.,37. Ibid.,38. Ibid.,38.

54

 2.1.3 Trinitarian Analogies GuntonrejectstheclaimthatAugustinesanalogiesaremerelyillustrativeofthe churchsdogma,apenetrationintoitsinnerlogic.30Onthecontrary,hisanalogies imposeuponthedoctrineoftheTrinityaconceptionofthedivinethreenesswhich owesmoretoNeoplatonicphilosophythantothetriuneeconomy,andthattheoutcome is,again,aviewofanunknownsubstancesupportingthethreepersonsratherthanbeing constitutedbytheirrelatedness.31ThefoundationforAugustinestrinitariandoctrineis nottheeconomyofsalvationbutaparticularconceptionofathreefoldmind.32Oneof theoddfeaturesaboutDeTrinitateisthefactthatAugustinespendsverylittletime explainingwhatthedoctrineoftheTrinityactuallyis.Insteadheonlyoffersafewbrief summaries.ThisreinforcestheperceptionthatAugustinedoesnotwanttoexplain theteachingofthechurchbutrathertoillustrateitwithreferencetosomething external. TwofeaturescharacterizeAugustinessearchfortrinitariananalogiesaccording toGunton:individualismandintellectualism.Evidenceoftheformercanbeseeninthe factthat,unlikeRichardofSt.Victor,Augustinedoesnotsearchforanalogiesofthe Trinityinhumancommunitybutratherintheindividualperson.Evidenceofthelatter
30 31 32

Ibid.,42. Ibid.,4243(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,43.

55

 canbeseeninAugustinesdecisiontotreatthehumanmindasthebestanalogyfor theTrinity.HisindividualismservestoreinforcetheonenessofGodwhilehis intellectualismtreatsGodasakindofsupermind.33 GuntonalsocontestsAugustinesassertionthathismostimportanttriadisnot memory,understandingandwillinitselfbutthemindasitremembers,understandsand lovesGod:Ibelieve,againstallthis,thatthetriadofmemory,understandingandwill isdeterminativeforAugustinesconceptionoftheTrinity.34Adefinitivepieceof evidenceincludesthefollowing:whenAugustineattemptstodistinguishtheSonand theSpiritinBookXV,heultimatelyappealstomemory,understandingandwill(in itself).Thus,ThecrucialanalogyforAugustineisbetweentheinnerstructureofthehuman mindandtheinnerbeingofGod,becauseitisintheformerthanthelatterismadeknown,this sideofeternityatanyrate,morereallythanintheoutereconomyofgrace.35Thatthisisthis casesimplyreflectsAugustinesdependenceuponaplatonizingdoctrineofknowledge asrecollection.36TheFather(likenedtomemory)becomesthestorehouseofknowledge whiletheWord(likenedtounderstanding)becomespartofthecontentofthedivine mind.TheSpirit,inthiscontext,issimplylikenedtowill.Nojustificationexistsforthe
33 34 35 36

Ibid.,44. Ibid.,45. Ibid.,45(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,45.

56

 latterintheeconomyofsalvation.Thus,AugustineschoicetoassociatetheSpiritwith thewillcanonlybeexplainedintermsofthenegativeinfluenceofNeoplatonicthought. AugustinesstressuponthemindasimageoftheTrinityledtofatefulconsequences inwesterntheologybydirectingattentionawayfromtheeconomyofsalvationtoward themindasthesourceofdivineknowledge. 2.1.4 Doctrine of the Spirit GuntonclaimsthatAugustinesconceptionoftheHolySpiritrepresentsthe Achillesheelofhistrinitariantheology.Althoughheattemptstomarshalbiblical supportforhisconceptionoftheSpirit,hisdoctrineoftheSpiritisdeeplyshapedby hisneedtohaveathirdpersoncorrespondingtothewillinthethreefoldmind.37 AlthoughheacknowledgesthatsomebiblicalwarrantexistsforspeakingofSpiritas gift,Guntoninsists,nonetheless,thatgiftdoesnotprovideanadequatebasisfor distinguishingtheSpiritfromtheSon(particularlyinlightofthefactthatScripturealso usesgiftlanguagetodescribethesacrificeoftheSon).Similarproblemsalsoarisein AugustinesattempttopositloveasadistinguishingcharacteristicoftheSpirit.No scripturalwarrantexistsforattributingloveexclusivelytotheSpirit.Theseproblems

37

Ibid.,48.

57

 simplyreflectAugustinessinglemindeddesiretofittheSpiritintoapredetermined conceptualframeworkthatbypassestheeconomyofsalvation. ByoperatinginadualisticframeworkwhichlimitstheworkoftheSpiritto connectingindividualstoGod,Augustinemissesthebiblicalemphasisuponthe eschatologicaldimensionoftheSpiritsworkaswellastheroleoftheSpiritin creatingcommunity.38Thisleadshimtoconceptualizethechurchasaninstitution mediatinggracetotheindividualratherthan[as]thecommunityformedontheanalogy oftheTrinitysinterpersonalrelationships.39BecausehisdoctrineoftheSpiritlargely bracketstheeconomyofsalvation,Augustineisunabletogivepersonaldistinctiveness tothebeingoftheSpiritintheinnerTrinity.40 InhisdiscussionofAugustinesteachingontheprocessionoftheSpiritfromthe FatherandtheSon,Guntondismissestheclaimthatimportantcontinuitiesexist betweenAugustinesnotionofdoubleprocessionandtheEasternviewthattheSpirit proceedsfromtheFatherthroughtheSon.Inlightofthefactthatmajordifferences existbetweenAugustineandtheCappadociansonotherpoints,significantdifferences mustexistonthispointaswell.41AlthoughthedualprocessionoftheSpiritcertainly
38 39 40 41

Ibid.,50. Ibid.,51(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,51. Ibid.,52.

58

 providesaconceptualapparatusfordistinguishingtheSonandSpirit,readersmustask whetherAugustineisabletohandletheontologicalrevolutionthatisrequiredbya theologyoftheTrinity.42Guntoninsiststhattheanswertothisquestionisno.By failingtocomprehendtheCappadocianrevolution(i.e.,thatGodsbeingconsistsin communion),Augustinelocatestheultimateprincipleofbeingsomewhereelse.Whatis ultimatelyrealabouttheTrinityforAugustine,therefore,isnotacommunity constitutedbyFather,SonandHolySpiritbutthedivinesubstance.43 2.1.5 The Abysmal Legacy of Augustines Trinitarian Theology InadditiontotheproblemsthatplaguethecontentofAugustinestrinitarian theology,GuntonidentifiesseveralnegativeeffectsofAugustineslegacy:Augustines workissobrilliantthatitblindedgenerationsoftheologianstoitsdamaging weaknesses.44First,byseveringthelifeofthetriuneGodfromtheeconomyof salvation,45Augustinepavedthewayforthemarginalizationofthedoctrineofthe

42 43

Ibid.,53.

Inthiscontext,GuntonapprovinglycitesWolfsonsclaimthatwhileTertullian,NicaeaandBasilidentify theFatherasthesubstratumofGod,AugustineteachesthattheSonandSpiritderiveonlytheirexistence, nottheirdivinity,fromtheFather.SeeH.A.Wolfson,ThePhilosophyoftheChurchFathers(Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress,1956),397.Thisleadstotheconclusionthatthedivinesubstancedisplacesthe FatherasthebasisofthebeingofGod.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,54.

44 45

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,39.

[B]yseekingforpatternofthreenessapartfromtheeconomyofsalvationwhatactuallyhappensin ChristandwiththeSpiritAugustineintroducesatendencytodrawapartthebeingofGodwhatheis eternallyandhisactwhathedoesintime.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,3.

59

 Trinity.46UndertheinfluenceofAugustineslegacy,theTrinitybecamedogmatobe believedratherthanasthelivingfocusoflifeandthought,47aswellasaproblemtobe solvedratherthanasummaryofthegospel.48 Second,Augustinestrinitariantheologyisresponsiblefortheindividualismthat plaguescontemporarywesternculture.AdirectlinkcanbeseenbetweenAugustine andDescartes.Descartestreatsthehumanpersonasathinkingthing,theintellectual realitytowhichallotherhumanexperiencesultimatelyreduce.49Byidentifyingthe humanpersonwiththemind(andonlytoamorelimiteddegreewiththebody), Descartesreinforcesastronglyindividualistanddualistviewofwhatweare.50By flatteningoutthedistinctivenessofthedivinepersons,failingtounderstandthe CappadocianaccountofhypostasisandseekinganaloguesoftheTrinityinanindividual

CatherineLaCugnaoffersasimilarcriticism:[T]hesharpeneddistinctionbetweenthetriuneGodof salvationhistoryandtheTrinityofpersonswithinGoddrasticallytransformed,undertheinfluenceof Augustine,thedirectionandsubstanceoffutureChristiantheologyintheWest.ThedoctrineoftheTrinity graduallywouldbeunderstoodtobetheexpositionoftherelationsofGodinse,withscarcereferenceto Godsactsinsalvationhistory.CatherineM.LaCugna,GodForUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife(San Francisco:HarperCollins,1991),81.

46 47 48 49 50

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,3. Ibid.,31. Ibid.,87. Ibid.,87.

60

 humanmind,Augustinepavedthewayformodernindividualism.51Thus,adirect linkcanbeseenbetweenAugustineandDescartes:
AgainandagainintheDeTrinitatethegodlikenessofthehumanpersonis locatedinthemind,andthereisinthisrespectadirectlinkbetweenAugustine andmoderntraditionstemmingfromDescartes.ChristopherKaisersjudgment mustthereforebedeemedfundamentallycorrectthatinAugustinethecomplete dissociationof(the)eternalintratrinitarianrelationsfromordinaryhuman relationsforcedhimintoaratherstaticconceptofdeity,ontheonehand,andan individualisticconceptofhumanity,ontheother.52

Bywayofcontrast,arelationalunderstandingofthehumanpersoncanbetracedtothe Cappadocians(especiallyBasilofCaesarea):Bygivingprioritytotheconceptofperson intheirdoctrineofGod,theytransformatoncethemeaningofbothconcepts.Thebeing ofGodisnotnowunderstoodinthewaycharacteristicofGreekmetaphysics,butin termsofcommunion.53GuntoncitesBasilasdescribingthetriuneGodasakindof indivisiblecommunity.54Godsbeingisthereforeconstitutedbythecommunityof hypostaseiswhogiveandreceivetheirrealitytoandfromoneanother.55

Guntonclaimsthatthesemovesalsorepresentanimportantdeparturefromtheearlierwesterntrinitarian theologiesofTertullianandHilary.BystressingthemonarchyoftheFatheranddistinctivenessofthe persons,thesetheologiansavoidtheindividualismintowhichAugustinefalls:Thegeneralpointtobe madeisthatthereisinthesethinkersamovementtowardsarelationalconceptofthepersonsinGodwhich maintainstheirdistinctivenessinawaythatisabsentfromAugustine.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarian Theology,95.

51 52 53 54 55

Ibid.,95. Ibid.,96. Ibid.,96. Ibid.,96.

61

 Finally,Augustinestrinitariantheologyleadsineluctablytoadeficient ecclesiology.AlthoughonecannotdrawastraightlinefromtheimmanentTrinityto ecclesialpractice,56Guntonbelievesthatthereisanimportantsenseinwhichthebeing ofthechurchindirectlyechoestherelationsofthedivinepersons.57Insuchacontext, thetrinitariantheologiesofAugustineandtheCappadocians(whichmightbe respectivelycharacterizedasmodalistandrelational)leadtocorrespondinglydifferent ecclesiologies.58Readintermsofecclesiology,Augustinestrinitariantheology conceivesofthebeingofthechurchasinsomesenseanteriortotheconcretehistorical relationshipsofthevisiblecommunity.59ThisecclesiologyinvolvesaPlatonized viewofthechurchinwhichtheinvisiblechurch(and,hence,therealchurch)exists ontologicallypriortoandapartfromthehistoricalcommunity.60Incontrast, Cappadociantrinitarianthoughtleadstoaverydifferent(andclearlypreferable)

56 57

Ibid.,7374.

Ifthereis[ananalogybetweentheTrinityandthechurch],itshouldbeanindirectkind,inwhichthe churchisseenascalledtobea,sotospeak,finiteechoorbodyingforthofthedivinepersonaldynamics. Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,74.Guntonalsoclaimsthatthechurchiswhatitisbyvirtueof beingcalledtobeatemporalechooftheeternalcommunitythatGodis(ibid.,79).

58 59 60

Ibid.,74. Ibid.,7475. Ibid.,75.

62

 understandingofthechurchasavisiblecommunitywhichechoestheperichoretic interrelationofthethreedivinepersons.61

2.2 Rereading Augustine

InthediscussionthatfollowsIwillarguethatGuntonscriticismsrestupon multiplemisunderstandingsofAugustinestrinitariantheology;however,beforewe examineGuntonscriticisms,itisimportantfirsttoconsiderwhyAugustineisfrequently misread.62AtleastfourfactorsdrivecontemporarymisreadingsofAugustines theology.63First,mostcontemporaryreadingsofAugustinestrinitariantheologyare heldcaptivetothedeRgnonparadigm.AsMichelBarnesnotes,[N]othingismore commonincontemporarysystematicsthantheinabilitytoreadAugustineoutsideofde Rgnonsparadigm.64ThodoredeRgnon(18311893)wasaFrenchJesuitwhowrote amultivolumehistoryoftrinitariandoctrineentitledtudesdethologiepositivesurla
61Ibid.,83.GuntonclaimsthattheseventeenthcenturyPuritan,JohnOwen,wasthefirsttodevelopan ontologyofthechurchasacommunity(ibid.,75).Owensdescriptionofthechurch(especiallyhisuseof person,causeandrelation)echoesthetrinitariantheologyoftheCappadocians:Thebeingofthe churchconsistsintherelationsofthepersonstoeachother(ibid.,76).Guntonfurtherarguesthatthefree relationswhichOwensclaimsshouldmarkthechurchechotheCappadocianteachingthatGodiswhat heisinvirtueofwhattheFather,SonandSpiritgivetoandreceivefromeachother(ibid.,76).Thus, Owensdescriptionofthechurchasacommunityoffreelyrelatingpersonsmustbeacceptedforwhatitis: anecclesiologywhichechoesGodseternalbeinginrelation(ibid.,77). 62ItwillbecomeclearasthisdiscussionproceedsthatIamdeeplyindebtedtotheworkofMichelBarnes andLewisAyres.

AlthoughIknowofnosingleessayinwhichMichelBarnesexplicitlygroupsthesefourpoints,they representasyntheticsummaryoftheproblemsheidentifiesinvariouscontexts.
63 64

MichelR.Barnes,AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,TheologicalStudies56(1995):239.

63

 SainteTrinit.65Ironically,deRgnonisboththemostinfluentialandyetleastknown ofCatholichistoriansofdoctrine.66TheextentofdeRgnonsinfluencecanbeseenin thewidespreadendorsementofhischaracterizationofthetheologiesofAugustineand theCappadocianswhilehisobscurityisrootedinthefactthathisparadigmis frequentlycitedintheEnglishspeakingworldwithoutanyexplicitreferencetoits progenitor.DeRgnonbelievedthatdoctrinalhistorycouldbedividedintospecifics eraswhicharemarkedbyparticulardoctrinalparadigms(Barnesterm).67DeRgnon drewadistinctionbetweenpatristicandscholasticparadigms.Inthepatristic paradigm(exemplifiedbytheCappadocians),thedivineisalwaysencounteredinoras personwhileinthescholasticparadigm(exemplifiedbyAugustine),divinityis alwaysunderstoodinorasanature.68ItisdeRgnonsparadigm,therefore,that standsbehindtheclaimthatAugustineprioritizedthedivinenatureoverthepersons (whiletheCappadociansprioritizedthepersonsoverthedivinenature).69Interestingly,

65 66 67 68

ThodoredeRgnon,tudesdethologiepositivesurlaSainteTrinit(Paris:VictorRetaux etfils,1892,1898). MichelR.Barnes,DeRgnonReconsidered,AugustinianStudies26(1995):51. Ibid.,53.

Ibid.,54.Unlikecontemporarytheologians,deRgnondoesnotlimitthepatristicparadigmtothe Cappadocians:DeRgnondoesmaintainthatthepatristicdoctrinalparadigmoftheTrinityfindsitsmost developedexpressioninCappadociantheology,butheneverlimitstheemphasisuponpersonovernature toGreektheology.AlthoughlaterscholarsoftenidentifythisdoctrinalparadigmwithCappadocianor Greektheology,deRgnonhimselfnevermadethisidentification,andindeedthiskindofidentification contradictshisoverallpoint.DeRgnonneverreadspreAugustinianLatinsoutofthispatristicemphasis ontheindividualpersons(ibid.,54).

69

Ibid.,51.

64

 beliefinaGreekversusLatinparadigmrepresentsamodernphenomenon:only theologiansofthelastonehundredyearshaveeverthoughtitwastrue,accordingto Barnes.70Althoughnumerousworksarrangetheirhistoryoftrinitariantheologyaround thisparadigm,[n]oneofthemshowsanyawarenessthattheparadigmneedstobe demonstrated,orthatithasahistory.71Contemporarytheologiansareattractedtode Rgnonsparadigmbecauseoftheirpreferenceforarchitectonicnarrativeswhich understanddoctrinaldevelopmentintermsoftheinternallogicofanidea.72 Anotherfactorthatdrivescontemporarymisreadingsisatendencytoread Augustinestrinitariantheologyinisolatedpiecescombinedwithafailureto contextualizehisthought.73Theformerpracticebeganinthemedievalperiodwhen portionsofDeTrinitate(e.g.,BooksVVII)circulatedindependentofthewhole.Inmore

70 71

Barnes,AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,238.

Ibid.,238.WhilemuchEnglishlanguagescholarshipuncriticallyassimilateddeRgnonsparadigm,the reactionofFrenchscholarshiphasbeendifferent:Frenchscholarship,ontheotherhand,hashadalively runningargumentoverwhetherdeRgnonwasrightabouthisparadigm...Barnes,DeRgnon Reconsidered,55.AlthoughthereareproblemswiththeFrenchcritiqueofdeRgnon,atleastFrench Augustiniansunderstandthat,fromthehermeneuticalpointofview,deRgnonsparadigmrepresentsa momentinCatholicscholastictrinitariantheology,anunderstandingthatislargelylostamongEnglish languagescholars...(ibid.,56). Barnescontinues,Whatseemstometobedistinctiveaboutthesystematiciansquestfor comprehensivenessisthatwayinwhichitistiedtounderstandingchangeinaculturalform,thatistosay inadoctrine,intermsofthelogicofanidea.Barnes,AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology, 24243.Insuchacontext,thereisadangerthattherelationshipbetweensystematicandhistoricaltheology parallelsaconversationbetweenaventriloquistandherorhisprop(ibid.,244).
72

MichelR.Barnes,RereadingAugustinesTheologyoftheTrinity,inTheTrinity:AnInterdisciplinary SymposiumontheTrinity,ed.StephenT.Davis,DanielKendall,GeraldOCollins,(NewYork:Oxford,1999), 147.

73

65

 subtlewaysthispracticecontinuesincontemporarytheology.Augustinestrinitarian theologyisfrequentlymediatedthroughahandfulofdismemberedcitations.Moreover, evenwhenallhistrinitarianwritingsarereadasawhole,theyarefrequentlyreadoutof context.BarnessuggeststhatfourcontextsarecrucialforunderstandingAugustine:(1) thecontextofAugustinescompletetrinitarianwritings,(2)thecontextofother contemporaryLatintrinitarianwritingsinthelatefourthandearlyfifthcenturies,(3)the contextofcontemporaryLatinpolemicalwritingsduringthesameperiodand,finally, (4)thecontextofpriorauthoritativetrinitarianteachingfromthesecondandthird centuries.74Althoughonemightimaginethatnumerousstudieshavebeendonethat attempttolocateAugustinestrinitariantheologyintheabovecontexts,inrealitythere isnovarietyofsuchstudies;indeed,studiesofthissortcanhardlybefoundatall.75 Oneishardpressed,forexample,tofinddetailedstudieschroniclingAugustinesdebt toLatinChristianpredecessorssuchasTertullian.76Onthecontrary,mosteffortsat contextualizingAugustinestrinitariantheologyhavefocusedalmostexclusively uponhisdebttoNeoplatonism(inthecontextofthedeRgnonparadigm).This
74 75 76

Ibid.,147. Ibid.,151.

SuchdiscussionsastherearereduceAugustinetoTertullian,orpositionthisdebtintermsofde Rgnonsparadigm:e.g.,howdoesAugustinestheoryofrelationsdifferfromthatofGregoryof Nazianzus?Wearebroughttotheoddpositionthat,accordingtomanysystematictheologians,the influenceofphilosophyinreligiousdoctrineisfundamental,whiletheinfluenceofpriorexpositionsof religiousdoctrinesisnot.Barnes,AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,244.

66

 contextualizationleadstotheconclusionthatAugustinesemphasisupondivineunity istheresultofNeoplatonicinfluence.77AlthoughexplorationoftheNeoplatonic characterofAugustinestheologymayoncehaveservedtocontextualizehistheologyin termsofitsdoctrinaldevelopment,itnolongerfunctionsthatway.Ratherthanopening possibilitiesforunderstandingAugustine,thinkingofhimasaNeoplatonisthasshut downpossibilitiesforreadinghim.78 AthirdfactorthatinfluencesmisreadingsofAugustinestrinitariantheologyisa failuretodistinguishbetweentheteachingofAugustineandlaterAugustinian developments.Theselaterdevelopmentsoftenconstitutethebasisfor(unjustified) criticismsofAugustine.Augustine,forexample,isfrequentlycriticizedforhis

77ThelatterclaimisdependentupontheworkofOliverduRoy:Formanytheologianswritingabout Augustinestrinitariantheology,thelargerexternalnarrativeissimplydeRgnonsgrandschemeof westerntrinitariantheologybeginswith(inthesenseofpresumesandisultimatelyconcernedwith) divineunity(i.e.,theessence)whileeasterntrinitariantheologybeginswithdivinediversity(i.e.,the persons).ThenarrativeprovidedbydeRgnonsparadigmisfilledin,asitwere,with[Oliver]duRoys worktoprovidethefollowinghistoricalcontext:theemphasisinAugustinestrinitariantheologyon divineunityisindebtedtotheinfluenceofneoplatonism.Barnes,RereadingAugustinesTheologyofthe Trinity,152(italicsoriginal).Seealsoidem,AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,244.

MichelR.Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,Unpublishedpaperpresentedatthe AquinastheAugustinianConference(February4,2005),2.AccordingtoBarnes,therearethreeproblems withreadingAugustinestheologyasanexpressionofLatinNeoplatonism.First,theviewofNeoplatonism presumedinthisnarrativeisnolongertenable.Second,thesecondaryworkthatsupposedlysupportsthis reading(particularlyduRoyswork)doesnotinfactsupportthisreading.Finally,thisapproachisunable toaccountforthedoctrinalcontentitallegedlypurportstoexplain.Barnes,RereadingAugustines TheologyoftheTrinity,153.RatherthanunderstandingNeoplatonismasthedefiningcontextfor Augustinestrinitariantheology,BarnesarguesthatamorecrediblehistoricalcontextrepresentsLatin catholictheologyofthelatefourthandearlyfifthcenturies(catholicmeaningLatintheologywhich lookedtothereceptionofNicaeaasnormative).Barnes,RereadingAugustinesTheologyoftheTrinity, 174.
78

67

 psychologicalanalogyoftheTrinity.ThiscriticismwronglyassumesthatAugustines psychologicalanalogyplaysadominantroleinhistheology.Inanessayexploring thecoreelementsofAugustinestrinitariantheology,MichelBarnesarguesthattriadof memory,understandingandwillshouldnotbenumberedamongthecoreelementsof histhought.79AlthoughthismentaltriadplaysanimportantroleindeTrinitate,there aremanysignificantdiscussionsbyAugustineoftheTrinityinwhichthetriadmakes noappearancewhatsoever.80Augustinesuseofthistriadismerelyopportunistic,not fundamentalandnecessary.81Thisrealitystandsincontrastwithlatermedieval trinitarianthoughtinwhichthementaltriadclearlyplaysadominantrole.Toread Augustinespsychologicalanalogyasacoreelementofhistrinitarianthoughtisto

SeeBarnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,711.Barnesidentifiesthreecoreelementsin Augustinestrinitariantheology:(1)thedoctrineofGodsimmaterialnature,(2)doctrineofcommon operationsofthedivinepersonsand(3)doctrinethattheologicallanguageismeanttopurifyourthoughts aboutGod.

79 80 81

Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,11.

Ibid.,9.Inshort,wemaycontrasttherecurringexpressionsofThomascoredoctrinesontheTrinitywith theoccasionalemploymentbyAugustineofanoetictriadascomparedtootheraspectsofAugustines discussionsoftheTrinitythatdoappearwithgreatregularity.Itisnotonlypossiblebutcommonfor AugustinetotreatTrinitariantheologywithoutinvokingthenoetictriadofmemory,intelligenceandwill, oranysortofpsychologicalanalogy.Theappearanceofthetriadinagivenworkisdeterminednotbythe requirementsofarticulatinganorthodoxTrinitariantheology,butforsomeotherreasonorreasons.Inmost casestheotherreasonorreasonsareannouncedbyAugustineasbeingsomecombinationofthethree conceptsIhavejudgedtobefoundationalforAugustinesTrinitariantheology,namely,therealityofGods immaterialnatureshapingourdiscourseaboutHim,therealityofperfectinseparableoperationsinthe Trinity,andthenecessitythattheologicallanguageelevateourmindandheartfromphysicalnotionsofGod tospiritualrealities.Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,11.

68

 transformAugustineintoamedievalfigure.82ThetendencytoreadAugustinethrough thelensofThomasAquinasandothermedievaltheologiansisquiteprevalent.83 AnotherinstanceofreadinglaterdevelopmentsintoAugustinesthoughtcanbeseenin KarlRahnersfamousessayontheTrinity.Rahnerclaimsthatthemarginalizationofthe Trinityincontemporarytheologyisattributable,atleastinpart,tothepracticeof treatingthedoctrineofGodundertwoheadingsintheologymanuals:(1)DeDeoUno and(2)DeDeoTrino.AlthoughRahneracknowledgesthatthispracticedidnotexplicitly ariseuntilthemedievalperiod,heappearstotraceitsoriginbacktoAugustine.84Inso doing,hereadsdeRgnonsparadigmbackintoAugustine.85Augustine,however, makesnodistinctionbetweenGodandtheTrinity.86

ThisispreciselywhatdeRgnonstypologydoeswhenitlocatesAugustineasanexemplarofa scholasticeraoverandagainsttheCappadocianswhorepresentthepatristicera.
82

BarnescriticizesEdmundHillforpresentingAugustinesaccountofsubsistentrelationsfromthe standpointoftheimprovementsofThomasAquinas.SeeBarnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarian Theology,4.

83

Thisseparationofthetwotreatisesandthesequenceinwhichtheyareexplainedprobablyderivesfrom theAugustinianWesternconceptionoftheTrinity,ascontrastedwiththeGreekconception,eventhough theAugustinianconceptionhadnot,intheHighMiddleAges,developedthekindofmonopolyitwould laterenjoy.ItbeginswiththeoneGod,theonedivineessenceasawhole,andonlyafterwardsdoesitsee Godasthreeinpersons....Ontheotherhand,ifonestartsfromthebasicAugustinianWestern conception,anatrinitariantreatiseontheoneGodcomesasamatterofcoursebeforethetreatiseonthe Trinity.Rahner,TheTrinity,17(italicsoriginal).

84

SeeEdmundHill,KarlRahnersRemarksontheDogmaticTreatiseDeTrinitateandSt.Augustine, AugustinianStudies2(1971):6869.
85

SeparatingdiscussionofGodinAugustinesworkfromdiscussionofTheTrinityishighly problematic.Augustinesimplydidnotseparatethetwodiscussions.Eveninthosepassageswherehe describesthepartthatreadingneoplatonictextsplayedinhisreturntoChristianfaith,Augustineclaimsto havefoundthere,inallbutname,discussionnotsimplyofGod,butoftheFatherandoftheWord(conf.

86

69

 AfinalfactorthatinfluencesmisreadingsofAugustinestrinitariantheologyisa failuretoengagecontemporaryAugustinianscholarship.Ironically,atthesametime manycontemporarytheologianshavebeenvilifyingAugustine,manyAugustine scholarshavebeencriticizingandrevisingthestandarddepictionsofhisthought. Unfortunately,asLewisAyresnotes,thecritiquesofAugustinestrinitarianism foundinmuchmoderntheologicalwritingdonotoccuractivelyagainstthistrendin Augustinianscholarshipengagingdirectlyandindetailwithoriginaltextsand attemptingtorefutethesenewscholarlyargumentsbutlargelyinignoranceofit.87 Thus,thedescriptionofAugustinestrinitariantheologyinmanypopulartheological worksrepeatsoldaccountsthataresimplynolongertenable.Progresswillbemade onlywhenmodernwritersengageinaclosereadingofAugustineswritingsintheir properhistoricalcontextbracketingthelargernarrative.88 GuntonsreadingofAugustineexhibitsallfouroftheproblemsoutlinedabove. AlthoughhenowherecitesTheodoredeRgnon,itisclearthatheemploysdeRgnons paradigmasacookiecutteronthedoughofAugustineswritings(aswellasthe
7.9.137.9.15).AllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.,AugustinethroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1999),s.v.God,byMichelR.BarnesandLewisAyres. LewisAyres,TheFundamentalGrammarofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,inAugustineandhis Critics:EssaysinHonourofGeraldBonner,ed.RobertDodaroandGeorgeLawless(London;NewYork: Routledge,2000),51.
87

Onlythroughsuchcarefulreadingcanwehopetodiscussthesetextsfruitfully,andbegintoassessthe widerstorythathasremaineduntestedforthelastfewdecades.Ayres,TheFundamentalGrammarof AugustinesTrinitarianTheology,52.

88

70

 writingsoftheCappadocians).89Inaddition,Guntonmakesnoefforttocontextualize AugustinewithreferencetoLatintrinitarianwritingseitherpriortoorcontemporary withAugustine.Onthecontrary,heassertsthateverythingthatissignificantabout AugustinestrinitariantheologycanbeunderstoodwithreferencetoNeoplatonism. Furthermore,GuntonfailstodistinguishAugustinestrinitarianteachingfromlater Augustiniandevelopments.Thiscanbeseeninthewayhedrawsastraightlinefrom AugustinetomodernindividualismthroughDescartes.Finally,Guntonsreadingof AugustinefailstoengagecontemporaryAugustinianscholarshipwhichwould challengemostofhisconclusionsaboutthecharacterofAugustinesthought.Withthis contextinmind,wewillexamineGuntonscriticismsindetail. 2.2.1 Substance and Person: Misreading the Cappadocians AttherootofGuntonscriticismofAugustineistheassumptionthatsignificant differencesexistbetweenAugustinestrinitarianontology(inwhichthedivinenature somehowunderliesthepersons)andtheontologyoftheCappadocians(inwhichthe beingofGodisconstitutedbyacommunityofdivinepersons).Inadditiontoits problematicdependenceupondeRgnonsparadigm,thelatterclaiminvolvesa misreadingbothofAugustineandoftheCappadocians.SincemostofGuntons
ToparaphraseBarnes,wemightsaythatGuntonoffersanarchitectonicnarrativewhichreduces individualtrinitariantexts(AugustinianorCappadocian)toinstancesofthedeRgnonparadigm.
89

71

 criticismsofAugustineregardingtherelationshipofsubstanceandpersonare dependentuponaproblematicreadingoftheCappadocians,wewillfirstconsider GuntonsreadingoftheCappadocians. NowheredoesGuntonofferanyexpositionofindividualtrinitariantextsofBasil, GregoryofNyssaorGregoryofNazianzusinThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology.He simplyrecyclesareadingoftheCappadociansthatcanbefoundinJohnZizioulas BeinginCommunion.90Adetailedanalysisofthetrinitariantheologyofthe Cappadociansisoutsidethescopeofourpresentinvestigation;however,abrief examinationofrecentscholarshiponGregoryofNyssawillsufficetoillustratesomeof theproblemsthatplaguetheGunton/Zizioulasreading.91 In2002anentireissueofthejournalModernTheologywasdevotedtoadiscussion ofthetrinitariantheologyofGregoryofNyssa.ContributorsincludedSarahCoakley, DavidHart,LewisAyresandMichelBarnes.92Severalimportantthemesemergein
JohnD.Zizioulas,BeingasCommunion:StudiesinPersonhoodandtheChurch(Crestwood,N.Y.:St. VladimirsSeminaryPress,1985).
90

AmongtheCappadocians,itisGregoryofNyssawhoisregularlyheraldedastheprototypicalsocial trinitarian.
91

SarahCoakley,RethinkingGregoryofNyssa:IntroductionGender,TrinitarianAnalogies,andthe PedagogyofTheSong,ModernTheology18(2002):431443;DavidB.Hart,TheMirroroftheInfinite: GregoryofNyssaontheVestigiaTrinitatis,ModernTheology18(2002):54161;LewisAyres,OnNotThree People:TheFundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheologyasseeninToAblabius:On NotThreeGods,ModernTheology18(2002):445474;MichelR.Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf: GregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheologyinitsPsychologicalContext,ModernTheology18(2002):475496; LucianTurcescu,PersonversusIndividual,andOtherModernMisreadingsofGregoryofNyssa, ModernTheology18(2002):527539.BrianDaleyandMartinLairdalsocontributedessaystothisvolume.

92

72

 theseessays.First,thesescholarsareinunanimousagreementthatthedeRgnon paradigmmustberejectedandthatpopularmisreadingsofGregorystheologyowe muchtothenegativeinfluenceofthisparadigm.93AccordingtoDavidHart,theidea that,fromtheearlycenturies,thetrinitariantheologiesoftheEastandWestoperateon contrarylogicsisaparticularlytedious,persistentandperniciousfalsehood.94 Althoughitwilleventuallyfadeawayfromwantofdocumentaryevidence,atthe presenttimeitservestoomanyinterestsfortheologicalscholarshiptodispensewithit toocasually.95 Second,thesescholarscollectivelyarguethatGregorysapproachtotheTrinity shouldnotbecharacterizedassocialeitherinthesensethatGregorybeginswith thethreepersonsorinthesensethatheprioritizesthepersonsoverthedivine essence.96Althoughsocialreadingsfrequentlyappealtoathreemenanalogywhich appearsinAdAblabiumasproofofGregoryssocialorientation,LewisAyrespoints outthatthesereadingsfailtotakeintoaccountthepolemicalcontextofAdAblabium: Gregorysopponentsareallegingthattherelationshipbetweensubstanceandperson
93SeeCoakley,RethinkingGregoryofNyssa,43134;Hart,TheMirroroftheInfinite,54142;Ayres, FundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,44546;Turcescu,Personversus Individual,527. 94 95 96

Hart,TheMirroroftheInfinite,541. Ibid.,541.

SeeCoakley,RethinkingGregoryofNyssa,434;Hart,TheMirroroftheInfinite,542;Ayres, FundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,44647;Turcescu,Personversus Individual,52737;Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,47576.

73

 deployedbytheCappadociansissusceptibletothelogicthatappliestothecaseofthree people.97Inthiscontext,Gregorywantstoleadthereaderawayfromasocialanalogy andtowardananswertothiscriticismthroughacomplexanalysisofdivinepower.98 Third,althoughitistruethattheCappadociansdrawanimportantdistinction betweenhypostasisandousia,thisdistinctiondoesnotrepresentoneofthefundamental themesinGregorystheology.AyresarguesthatthecoreofGregorystrinitarian theologycanbefoundinhisnotionofdivinepower.99Itisthroughthelatterthat GregoryapproachestheproblemofrelatingunityanddiversityofGod:Gregorys theologyoftheinfiniteandsimpledivinepoweristhecontextwithinwhichhecan articulatethepossibilityofeternallydistincthypostaseswithinonedivinepower.100Itis
Ayrescontinues,Ifso,theirchargeruns,justasthedegreeofindividuationinvolvedpermitsustospeak ofthreemen,thesamelogicshowsusthattheCappadociansareteachingthattherearethreeGods.It doesnotseemthatAblabiusishimselfsympathetictowardstheaccusation,ratherheseemstohavebeen unabletoanswertheirchargetohisownsatisfactionandhasrequestedhelp.Ayres,Fundamental ThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,447.
97 98 99

Ibid.,446.

IwillarguethatweshouldnotattempttounderstandGregorybyreferenceprimarilytothe developmentofparticularterminologicalformulations(suchasoneousia,threehypostases).Norshouldwe attempttounderstandGregorybyreadinghisthoughtagainstthebackgroundofadivisionofproNicene theologiansintogeneraleasternandwesterngroupsaccordingtotheirsupposedpreferencefor beginningfromunityordiversityintheGodhead.IwillsuggestthatGregorysTrinitariantheologyisbest approachedbyfocusingonthewaysinwhichhemakesaparticularcontributiontotheemergenceofapro Nicenegrammarofdivinitythoughdevelopinghiscomplexaccountofdivinepower.Ayres, FundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,44546.Foradetailedanalysisof powerinGregorystheology,seeMichelR.Barnes,ThePowerofGod:inGregoryofNyssas TrinitarianTheology(WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2001). Ayres,FundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,467.Ayresarguesthatthe disputebetweenproNiceneandantiNicenetheologianscenteredonthenature(orgrammar)ofdivinity. AntiNicenetheologiansacknowledgedvariousdegreesofdivinitywhiletheproNicenesinsistedthat
100

74

 throughananalysisofdivinepowerthatGregoryoffersaresponsetocriticswhoassert thatthewayproNicenetheologiansdistinguishthedivinepersonsissusceptibletothe logicofdifferentiationinvolvedinthecaseofthreepeople.InAdAblabiumGregory arguesthataffirmingthreehypostasesdoesnotimplythreeGodsbecausethenatureof divinityissuchthatitcannotbedivided.Thatdivinitycannotbedividedisestablished throughacomplexanalysisofdivineaction.Gregorysargumentbuildsonthe assumptionthatnaturesandtheirinherentpowersareknownthroughtheoperationof thesepowers.101Sincedivineoperationsarealwaysseentobeone,thedivinepower (andnature)whichgivesrisetotheseoperationsmustalsobeone.102Gregory anticipatesaproblemthatarisesfromhislineofargumentation.Whataboutthecaseof threeseparateorators(i.e.,threenatures)whospeakatthesametime(i.e.,oneaction)? ToaddressthisproblemGregorymustestablishastrongerlinkbetweendivinecausality
divinitybydefinitionisuniqueandindivisible(ibid.,450,italicsoriginal).Furthermore,theproNicenes insistedtheCreator/creaturedistinctionwasabsolute.Ontheonehand,thecommonalityofexistence betweentheFatherandSoncouldbeunderstoodtoindicatethesharingofunique,simpleandindivisible divinity(ibid.,450).Ontheotherhand,thehypostasesweredistinguishedthroughcausalrelationsof origin.AyresexplainsthattheCappadociansadvancedthecauseofproNicenetheologynotonlyby maintainingthatthepersonshaverealexistenceasindividualhypostases,butalsobyaffirmingthatthe grammarofsimpleandindivisibledivinityisthecontextforalltalkofdifferentiation(ibid.,450). Gregorymaintainsthatwecannotspeakdirectlyofthedivinenature.Wecanonlyspeakindirectlyof thedivinenaturethroughitseffects(operations).Thisrepresentsoneofthekeypointsofdifference betweenEunomiusandtheGregory.Theologicallanguagecanonlydescribethatwhichisaroundthe divinenature,thatis,thedivinenaturespowerwhichgivesrisetodivineactivityintheworld.Thus,we maygrowinknowledgeofthedivinepowerthroughitsoperationsevenwhilethedivinenatureremains unknown.Ayres,FundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology,458.
101 102

Ibid.,452.

75

 andoperationadextra.103Tothisend,hedistinguishestheinseparableunionofthe divinepersonsintheiractivityfromtheaccidentalorcoincidentalactivityofhuman personsundertakingsomecommonprojectorbusiness.104Thedivinepersonsdonot merelyworktogetherlikethreehumansperformingthesametask;rather,they functioninseparablytoconstituteanyandeverydivineactivitytowardthecreation.105 EveryactionissuesfromtheFatherpassesthroughtheSonandisbroughttoperfectionby theSpirit.AyrespointsoutthatmanyhavemisunderstoodGregoryonthispoint, interpretinghisdescriptionofdivineactionasanexampleofthepersonalcharacterof Gregorystheology(asifthedivinepersonssimplycooperated,undertheFathers direction,inbringingaboutvariousactions).AlthoughGregoryinnowaydeniesthe hypostaticdistinctionthatexistsbetweenthepersons,hedoesnotpresentthethreeas possessingdistinctactionstowardacommongoal,butastogetherconstitutingjustone distinctaction(becausetheyareonepower).106WhenweexamineGodsworkinthe world(asnarratedbyScripture),weseethatasinglepoweractingbyaunitarycausal sequencedactivityofthethreepersons.107Wecannot,therefore,speakofthreeGods

103 104 105 106 107

Ibid.,461. Ibid.,461. Ibid.,461. Ibid.,461(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,462.

76

 becausewedonotseethreedistinctoperations.Thedivinepowerisoneyetthepersons aredistinct. Finally,theseauthorsarguethatGregorystrinitariantheologydoesnotpossess thekindofpersonalorsocialcharacterthatisascribedtoitbyGunton,Zizioulas andothers.InanessayexploringtherelationshipbetweenGregoryspsychologyand histrinitarianthought,Barnespointsoutthatmanycontemporaryscholarsread Gregorystrinitarianwritingsthroughthelensofcertainpsychologicalconcernsand concludethatGregoryunderstandstheTrinityintermsofpersonalrelationshipor thathelocatesconsciousness(es)withintheTrinitywithouteverconsulting Gregoryspsychologytoseehowpsychologicalconcernsmay(ormaynot)have influencedhistrinitariantheology.108AnexaminationofGregoryspsychologyclearly revealsthatpersonalrelationshiporconsciousnessarenottheimportant,substantial psychologicalconceptsforGregory.109Moreover,BarnesalsoinsiststhatGregorysuse ofhypostasisdoesnotmeanpersoninthemodernsenseofaconscioussubject.110His understandingofhypostasismustbederivedfromthebroadercontextofhistrinitarian theology.WhereasAthanasiususesadoctrineofdivinegenerationtogroundthe
108 109 110

Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,476. Ibid.,476(italicsoriginal).

Gregoryuseshypostasistomeananexistentwithrealandseparateexistence,andhedoesnotusethe termtorefertoortonameasubjectofcognitionorvolition.Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf, 482.Barnespointsoutthathypostasisdenotesanindividualspecificallywhenitissetincontrastwithousia.

77

 commonnatureoftheFatherandSon(ontheassumptionthatlikebegetslike),Gregory usesadoctrineofgenerationtogroundthedistinctionbetweentheFatherandSon.111 BarnesexplainsthatthedifferenceinexistencebetweentheFatherandtheSonis expressedbyGregoryinlanguageofcausality(i.e.,theFatherisCause[]andthe SonisoftheCause[ ])andtherealityofthisdifferenceisexpressedusingthe termhypostasis.112 ReturningtoGregoryspsychology,oneofthemostimportantlinksbetweenhis psychologyandhistrinitariantheologycanbeseeinhisaccountofthewill.The dividednatureofthehumanwillrepresentsoneofhiskeypsychologicalconcerns.For Gregory,thewillisineffectiveinitsattachmenttothegood;thislackofeffectivenessis

111InGregorysTrinitarianTheology,thegenerationoftheSonbytheFatheristhebasisofhisdoctrineof therealityofthedistinctexistencesofthoseTwo.TheFatherSonrelationshipisnotthebasisforhis arguingforacommonnatureoressencebetweentheTwo.AttimesGregoryseemstoparethatrelationship downtoitssimplesttermsnamely,CauseandCausedandhehastakensomecriticismfrommodernsfor thismove.Ithinkthatsuchacriticismcomesoutoftheexpectationthatpsychologicalentities(persons) reallyarefundamentallytoGregorysexpositionoftheTrinity,whentheyarenot,andinthiswaymodern problemswithGregoryscasuallanguagearerelatedtotheequallymodernideathathypostasismeans person.Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,48384.

Ibid.,484.WhatdistinguishesGregoryscausallanguagefromthatofEunomiusisthatGregory appliesthelanguageofcauseexclusivelytotherelationsofthepersonsandnevertothedivinenature: Whenwespeakofacause()andthatwhichdependsonit( ),wedonot,bythesewords, refertonature().Fornoonewouldholdthatcause()andnature()areidentical.Rather weindicateadifferentmannerofexistence( ).Forinsayingtheoneiscause andotheruncaused,wedonotdividethenaturebytheprincipleofcausality( ),butonlyexplainthattheSondoesnotexistwithoutgeneration,northeFatherby generation.GregoryofNyssa,AnAnswertoAblabius:ThatWeShouldNotThinkofSayingThereAre ThreeGods,inChristologyoftheLaterFathers,LibraryofChristianClassics,ed.EdwardR.Hardy (Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1954),266.GreekfromFridericusMueller,GregoriiNysseniOpera, vol.3.1,Operadogmaticaminora(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1958),paragraph56.
112

78

 duetowhatisexperiencedasaconflictinthewill;andthisconflictsuggestsdivisionsin thewill,i.e.,thewillisnotmeaningfullyasamoralagentonewithitself.113Not surprisingly,theefficacyofdivinewillplaysanimportantroleinhistrinitarianthought: TheintegrityandeffectivenessofthewillsoftheSonandSpiritstandsindirect contrasttothestateofourhumanwills.Ourwillisnotone,orrather,wedonothave onlyonewill:wehavemany,andtheconflictamongthemsabotagesourown decisions.114Perfectunityofwill(bothamongwillsandwithinawill)ispossibleonly forwillwithadivinenature.115AlthoughGregorybelievesthatFather,SonandSpirit eachpossessawill(andthefacultythatenactsit),wemustbecarefulnottoimposethe implicationsofalaterconceptofperson(e.g.,BoethianorCartesian)uponGregory anddrawfalseconclusions.116ForGregory,thewillsoftheFather,SonandSpiritare notthreeseparatewills.117ItwouldbebettertounderstandthemasThreeIndividuals, butOneWillthroughouttheThree,or,asGregoryputsit,themotionofthedivinewill

113 114

Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,480. Ibid.,488.

115Perfectunityamongwills,likeunitywithinawill(freedom),istrueonlyofwillswithadivine natureifthiswereotherwisethenGregorysargumentthatunityofoperationsrevealsunityofnaturewould havenostanding.Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,489(italicsoriginal). 116 117

Ibid.,489.

Inotherwords,thelimitsofcognitivevolitionarenotcoextensivewiththelimitsofreal individuality.Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,489.

79

 fromtheFather,throughtheSon,totheSpirit.118Inlightoftheprecedinganalysis,it appearsthatGuntonultimatelycriticizesAugustineforfailingtocomprehend somethingwhichtheCappadocians(atleastasrepresentedbyGregoryofNyssa)simply donotaffirm. 2.2.2 Substance and Person: Misreading Augustine TheproblemswithGuntonsreadingofAugustineregardingtherelationshipof substanceandpersonwillbecomeclearinchapterfourwhenweexplore Augustinesteachingonthedivinerelations.Forthepurposesofourpresent discussion,thefollowingshouldbenoted.First,Augustinedoesnotbeginwiththe divinesubstance(asopposedtobeginningwiththepersons).Hisstartingpointif onemustevenspeakinsuchunhelpfultermsisneitherthedivinesubstancenorthe persons;itistheScripturalteachingoftheCatholicChurchonthetriuneGod.119This

Barnes,DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf,489.Barnespointsoutthatthisrealitycanbeseenclearlyin GregoryofNazianzusexplanationofChristsclaimthathecamenottodohisownwillbutthewillofthe onewhosenthim(John6:38):Butsince,asthisisthelanguageofhimwhoassumedournature(forheit waswhocamedown),andnotofthenaturewhichheassumed,wemustmeettheobjectioninthisway,that thepassagedoesnotmeanthattheSonhasaspecialwillofhisown,besidesthatoftheFather,butthathe hasnot;sothatthemeaningwouldbe,nottodomineownwill,forthereisnoneofmineapartfrom,but thatwhichiscommonto,meandthee;foraswehaveonegodhead,sowehaveonewill.Gregoryof Nazianzus,TheFourthTheologicalOration,para.12inChristologyoftheLaterFathers,LibraryofChristian Classics,ed.EdwardR.Hardy(Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1954),185.

118

SeeNeilOrmerod,TheTrinity:RetrievingtheWesternTradition(Milwaukee:MarquetteUniversityPress, 2005),3536.
119

80

 canbeseeninBookIofDeTrinitatewhenAugustinebeginshisdiscussionofthe TrinitywithabriefsummaryofCatholicteachingontheTrinity.120 Next,GuntonmisinterpretsAugustinesdiscussionoftheGreektermshypostasis andousia.GuntonreadsAugustinesacknowledgeddifficultyinunderstandingthe distinctionbetweenhypostasisandousiaasevidencethathefailedtounderstandthe conceptualrevolutionusheredinbytheCappadocians.Itisimportanttorecognize, however,thatAugustinesdifficultywasnotconceptualbutlinguistic.TheformalLatin equivalentstotheGreektermshypostasisandousiaaresubstantia(substance)and essentia(being).Butbecausesubstantiaandessentiapossessvirtuallysynonymous meaninginLatin,theyarenotsuitableforexpressing,amongLatinspeakers,the distinctionsthatexistamongtheFather,SonandHolySpirit.121Latinspeakingpro NiceneChristianspreferredtoexpressthisconceptualdistinctionintermsofonebeing (essentia)orsubstance(substantia)andthreepersons(persona).Augustineslinguistic confusion,therefore,iscompletelyunderstandable.Nowarrantexistsforinferring

120 121

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.7,6970.Thispassagewillbediscussedinchapterfour.

Butbecausewehavegrownaccustomedinourusagetomeaningthesamethingbybeing(essentiam)as bysubstance(substantiam),wedonotdaresayonebeing,threesubstances(unamessentiam,tressubstantias). Rather,onebeingorsubstance(unamessentiam,velsubstantiam),threepersons(tresautempersonas)iswhat manyLatinauthors,whoseauthoritycarriesweight,havesaidwhentreatingofthesematters,beingableto findnomoresuitablewayofexpressinginwordswhattheyunderstoodwithoutwords.Augustine,De Trin.V.10,196.AugustineseeshimselfasaffirmingconceptuallythesamethingastheGreeksthrougha distinctionbetweensubstantia(oressentia)andpersona.ThelanguageAugustineemploystospeakabout unityanddistinctionintriuneGod(i.e.,unasubstantia,trespersona)canbetracedbacktoTertullian.

81

 conceptualconfusionfromAugustinesjustifiablelinguisticconfusionregardingtheuse ofhypostasisandousia. Furthermore,GuntonmisunderstandsAugustinesambivalenceregardingthe termperson(persona).FromAugustinesreserve,oneshouldnotinferthathe somehowfailedtoaffirmrealdistinctionsbetweentheFather,SonandSpirit.Atleast twofactorsplayanimportantroleinAugustinesambivalenceregardingpersona:his distinctionbetweenfaithandunderstandingandthecreator/creaturedistinction. NoticehowthesetwofactorsareintertwinedinAugustinesdiscussionofpersonain BookVII:

Thattherearethreeisdeclaredbythetruefaith,whenitsaysthattheFatheris nottheSon,andtheHolySpiritwhichisthegiftofGodisneithertheFathernor theSon.SowhenthequestionisaskedThreewhat?weapplyourselvesto findingsomenameofspeciesorgenuswhichwillcomprisethesethree,andno suchnameoccurstoourminds,becausethetotaltranscendenceofthegodhead quitesurpassesthecapacityofordinaryspeech.Godcanbethoughtaboutmore trulythanhecanbetalkedabout,andheismoretrulythanhecanbethought about.122

122Augustine,DeTrin.V.7,224.Thesamethemescanbeseeninthefollowingstatement:Whatareweleft withthen?Perhapswejusthavetoadmitthatthesevarioususagesweredevelopedbythesheernecessity ofsayingsomething,whenthefullestpossibleargumentwascalledforagainstthetrapsortheerrorsofthe heretics.HumaninadequacywastryingbyspeechtobringtothenoticeofmenwhatitheldabouttheLord Goditscreator,accordingtoitscapacity,intheinnersanctumofthemind,whetherthiswasheldbydevout faithorbytheleastamountofunderstanding.Itwasafraidofsayingthreebeings(tresessentias),incaseit shouldbetakenasmeaninganydiversityinthatsupremeandultimateequality.Ontheotherhanditcould notsaythattherearenotthreesomethings,becauseSabelliusfellintoheresybysayingpreciselythat.Forit isknownwithcompletecertaintyfromthescripturesandisthustobedevoutlybelieved,andtheminds eyecanalsoachieveafaintbutundoubtedglimpseofthetruth,thattheFatherisandtheSonisandthe HolySpiritis,andthattheSonisnotthesameastheFatheris,noristheHolySpiritthesameastheFather ortheSon.Sohumaninadequacysearchedforawordtoexpressthreewhat,anditsaidsubstancesor

82

 Faith(i.e.,theScripturesreadbytheChurch)requiresonetoaffirmthattheFatheris nottheSonandtheSonisnottheFather.123Aproblem,however,arisesinhowto expresstoonesunderstandingwhatfaithrequiresonetoaffirm(i.e.,thattheFather isnottheSonandtheSonisnottheFather).Thelatterproblemisfurthercompounded bycreator/creaturedistinction.AsAugustinenotes,thetotaltranscendenceofthe godheadquitesurpassesthecapacityofordinaryspeech.Asaresult,anyhumanterm onechoosestoexpresstherealitythattheFatherisnottheSonandthattheSonisnot theFatherwillalwaysfallshort.124Thus,oneshouldnotinterpretAugustines ambivalenceregardingpersonaasunderminingtherealdistinctionsthatexistbetween theFather,SonandHolySpirit.Augustinegroundsrealdistinctionsbetweenthedivine personsinrelationsoforigin:theSonisdistinctfromtheFatherbyvirtueofhis generationwhiletheSpiritisdistinctfromtheFather(andtheSon)byvirtueofhis processionfromtheFatherandtheSon(asfromoneprinciple).125
persons(substantiassivepersonas).Bythesenamesitdidnotwishtogiveanyideaofdiversity,butitwished toavoidanyideaofsingleness;sothataswellasunderstandingunityinGod,wherebythereissaidtobe onebeing(unaessentia),wemightalsounderstandtrinity,wherebytherearealsosaidtobethreesubstances orpersons(tressubstantiaevelpersonae).Augustine,DeTrin.VII.9,227.HeretheLatinsubstantiaisbeing usedinthesamesenseastheGreektermhypostasis. ItisimportanttonotethatAugustinessummaryofCatholicteachingontheTrinitydoesnotusethe termpersonabutsimplyaffirmsthattheFatherisnottheSonbecausetheFatherbegottheSonandtheSonis nottheFatherbecausetheSonisbegottenbytheFather.SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.7,6970.
123

PersoncanneverbeusedunivocallyofhumansandGod.Oneofthequestionstoberaisedregarding Guntonsnotionofdivinepersoniswhetheritadequatelyaddressesthecreator/creaturedistinction.
124

AlthoughdifferencesexistbetweenAugustineandtheCappadocians,itisimportanttorecognizethatthe Cappadociansalsorootdistinctionsbetweenthepersonsincasualrelationsthatobtainintheimmanentlife
125

83

 GuntonalsofailstorecognizethepolemicalcontextofAugustinesdiscussionof personainBooksVVII.UnliketheCappadocianswhosupposedlydevelopeda relationalontologybycarefullyreflectingonthebeingofGod,Guntoninsiststhat Augustinesdiscussionofpersonisdrivenbytheapparentlogicaloddityofthe threenessoftheoneGodwhichAugustineexpressesintermsofAristoteliansubject predicatelogic.126ContraGunton,Augustineisnot(inaspeculativemoment) wrestlingwithanapparentlogicaloddityofimputingthreenesstotheoneGod.On thecontrary,AugustineisansweringthecriticismsofLatinHomoiantheologians (whomAugustinecallsArians).127TheseHomoiansarguedthatsincetherecanbeno accidents(accedentia)inGod,alldivinepredicatesmustbesubstantial.Since,as predicates,unbegotten(ingenitum)andbegotten(genitum)ostensiblynamedifferent substances,theseHomoiansassertedthatsubstanceoftheFathermustbedifferent
ofGod.AccordingtoGregoryofNazianzus,Fatherdoesnotdenoteanousiabutarelationship;theFather isthecauseoftheSon;thus,theFatherissuperiortotheSononlyintermsofcausenotintermsof essence.GregoryofNyssasayssomethingquitesimilar:InregardtoessenceHeisone,whereforethe LordordainedthatweshouldlooktooneName:butinregardtotheattributesindicativeofthePersons, ourbeliefinHimisdistinguished()intobeliefintheFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;Heis dividedwithoutseparation( );unitedwithoutconfusion( ). ForwhenwehearthetitleFatherweapprehendthemeaningofthis,thatthenameisnotunderstoodwith referencetoitselfalone,butalsobutitsspecialsignificationindicatesarelationtotheSon.Fortheterm Fatherwouldhavenomeaningapartbyitself,ifSonwerenotconnotedbytheutteranceoftheworld Father.GregoryofNyssa,AgainstEunomiusII.2inNiceneandPostNiceneFathersoftheChristianChurch, SecondSeries,vol.V,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenryWace(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979),102.Greekfrom Migne,PatrologiaGraeca45:469B.
126 127

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,40.

SeeMichelR.Barnes,TheAriansofBookV,andtheGenreofdeTrinitate,JournalofTheologicalStudies 44(1993):18595.

84

 (diversa)fromthesubstanceoftheSon.128Augustineanswersthiscriticismbypointing outthatwhileGodcanhavenoaccidents,itdoesnotfollowthateverystatement aboutGodmustbeasubstancestatement.Somepredications(e.g.,begottenand unbegotten)indicatearelation(relatiuum).129Soalthoughbegotten(genitus)differs fromunbegotten(ingenitus),itdoesnotindicateadifferentsubstance,becausejustas sonreferstofather,andnotsontonotfather,sobegottenmustrefertobegetter,andnot begottentonotbegetter.130Inshort,Augustineisofferingaphilosophicalsolutiontoa philosophicalproblem.TheCappadociansfacedacomparablechallenge(mostnotably fromEunomius)andofferedasimilarconceptualsolution(namely,thatFatherand SonnamesrelationsthatdonotmodifytheessenceofGod).131
NowamongthemanyobjectionswhichtheAriansareinthehabitoflevelingagainsttheCatholicfaith, themostcunningandingeniousdevicetheythinktheycanbringtobearisthefollowingargument: WhateverissaidorunderstoodaboutGodissaidsubstancewise,notmodificationwise.Thereforethe Fatherisunbegottensubstancewise,andtheSonisbegottensubstancewise.Butbeingunbegottenis differentfrombeingbegotten;thereforetheFatherssubstanceisdifferentfromtheSons.Augustine,De Trin.V.4,191.NoticehowAugustineusesthelabelArianstodescribetheseHomoiantheologians.
128

WithGod,though,nothingissaidmodificationwise,becausethereisnothingchangeablewithhim. Andyetnoteverythingthatissaidofhimissaidsubstancewise.Somethingsaresaidwithreferenceto somethingelse,likeFatherwithreferencetoSonandSonwithreferencetoFather;andthisisnotsaid modificationwise,becausetheoneisalwaysFatherandtheotheralwaysSonnotalwaysinthesense thatheisSonfromthemomentheisbornorthattheFatherdoesnotceasetobeFatherfromthemoment theSondoesnotceasetobeSon,butinthesensethattheSonisalwaysbornandneverbegantobeSon. Augustine,DeTrin.V.5,192.

129 130 131

Augustine,DeTrin.V.8,194.

Eunomiusinsistedthatingenerateness(agennesia)constitutedtheessenceofGod.Inresponse,the CappadociansinsistedthattheessenceofGodis,inprinciple,unknowable.InhisSecondTheological Oration,GregoryofNazianzuswrites,WhatGodisinnatureandessence,nomaneveryethas discoveredorcandiscover.GregoryofNazianzus,TheSecondTheologicalOration,inChristologyofthe LaterFathers,LibraryofChristianClassics,ed.EdwardR.Hardy(Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,

85

 Finally,GuntonmisunderstandstheroleoftheFatherinAugustinestrinitarian theology.HeclaimsthatforAugustinethetruebeingofGodsomehowunderlies thepersons.Onthisreading,thedivinesubstanceratherthantheFatherconstitutes thesubstratumofGod.This,inturn,constitutesthebasisforhisclaimthat Augustinestrinitariantheologyismodalist.Inresponse,itmustberecognizedthat, forAugustine,thedivinesubstancedoesnotrepresentafourththingalongsidethe Father,SonandHolySpirit;theTrinityisnoneotherthanthethreepersons.132Although hespeaksunequivocallyaboutFather,SonandSpiritasaunityofsubstance,Augustine alsoaffirmsclearlythattheFatheristhesource(principium)ofdeity.133

1954),147.InresponsetoEunomius,theCappadociansarguedthatingenerateness(agennesia)signifies theFatherinrelationtotheSon.TheSonisdistinctfromtheFatherbyvirtueofhisgenerationbythe Father.TheSpiritisdistinctfromtheFatherbyvirtueofhisprocessionfromtheFather.Gregoryof Nazianzusidentifiedthreedistinctpropertiesthatdistinguishthepersons:FortheFatherisnottheSon, andyetthisisnotduetoeitherdeficiencyorsubjectionofessence( );butthevery factofbeingunbegotten( ),orbegotten( ),orproceeding( ),has giventhenameofFathertothefirst,oftheSontothesecond,andtothethird,himofwhomweare speaking,oftheHolyGhost,thatthedistinction( )ofthethreepersonsmaybepreservedinthe onenature( )anddignityoftheGodhead( ).ForneitheristheSonFather,forthe Fatherisone,butheiswhattheFatheris;noristheSpiritSonbecauseheisfromGod,fortheonlybegotten isone,butheiswhattheSonis.ThethreeareoneinGodhead( ),andtheonethreein properties( );sothatneitheristheunityaSabellianone,nordoestheTrinity countenancethepresentevildistinction( ).GregoryofNazianzus,TheFifth TheologicalOrationOntheSpirit,inChristologyoftheLaterFathers,LibraryofChristianClassics,ed. EdwardR.Hardy(Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1954),199.GreekfromJosephBarbel,Gregor vonNazianz.DiefnftheologischenReden:TextundbersetzungmitEinleitungundKommentar(Dsseldorf: PatmosVerlag,1963),232. Moreover,NeilOrmerodpointsthatthenotionofsubstratumisnotAugustinian;sointhatregardthe questionofwhatconstitutesthesubstratumwouldnotmakemuchsensetoAugustine.Ormerod,The Trinity,42.
132

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.AugustinesaccountoftheFatherasprincipiumwillbediscussedin greaterdetaillaterinthischapter.
133

86

 2.2.3 Materiality and the Incarnation GuntonclaimsthatAugustineisafraidofthematerialworldandthatthisfear (reflectingthenegativeinfluenceofNeoplatonism)leadshimtowardananti incarnationalanddoceticChristologywhichfailstogivefullweighttothehumanity ofChrist.ContraGunton,thisclaimcannotbeestablishedsimplybyanappealtoguilt byassociation(i.e.,sinceallNeoplatonistswereafraidofthematerialworldand AugustinewasaNeoplatonist,hemusthavebeenfearfulofthematerialworld). GuntonsclaimcanonlybeestablishedthroughaclosereadingofAugustineswritings intheirhistoricalcontext.Readinpropercontext,theexamplesGuntoncitessimplydo notsupporthisclaim. InordertounderstandwhyGuntonsassessmentofAugustineiswrong,we mustfirstunderstandtherolethatdivineimmaterialityplaysinAugustines trinitariantheology.NotonlydoesthedoctrineofGodsimmaterialnaturerepresent oneofthefoundationalfeaturesofAugustinestrinitariantheology,buttherolethat thisdoctrineplaysinhisthoughtisalso,asBarnespointsout,withoutantecedentsin LatinorGreekChristianityderivingfromAugustinesuniqueintellectual development.134Augustinesdoctrineofdivineimmaterialityservesasawayof articulatingacentralconcernofproNicenetheologiansnamely,protectingthe
134

Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,6.

87

 Creator/creaturedistinction.135ProNicenetheologianswantedtoestablishaclear distinctionbetweendivinenatureandallothernatures(i.e.,creatednatures).They, therefore,ruledoutthepossibilityofanykindofmiddlenature(s).136Whatis distinctiveaboutAugustine,therefore,isthewayheemploysdivineimmaterialityto emphasizethedistinctionbetweenuncreatedandcreatednatures.137Augustines emphasisupondivineimmateriality,therefore,shouldnotbeseenasreflectingafearof thematerialworldbutratherasgroundingthedistinctionbetweenGodandthe world.138Withthisinmind,wewillconsiderGuntonsevidence. First,GuntonsassertionthatAugustinesdiscussionoftheOldTestament theophaniesrepresentsaninstanceofantiincarnationalplatonismisunsustainable.
Ibid.,6.BarnespointsoutthatdivineimmaterialityforAugustineisroughlysynonymouswiththe notionofdivinesimplicity.
135

Thegoalofclearlydelineatingthedifferencebetweenthedivinenatureandallothernaturesis somethingthatAugustineshareswithallotherproNiceneTrinitariantheologians.Indeed,one accomplishmentofNicenetheologieswastoestablishthatthedistinctionbetweendivinenatureandall othernatureswasnothingelsethanthedistinctionbetweendivinenatureandcreatednaturethatthere wasnointermediateormiddle,thirdkindofnature.WhatisdistinctivetoAugustinestheology, comparedtothetheologiesofotherproNicenes,isthestrengthoftheusehemakesofdivineimmateriality toemphasizethedistinctionbetweenuncreatedandcreatednatures.Barnes,TheLogicofAugustines TrinitarianTheology,6.

136

Ibid.,6.EarlyinBookIAugustinepointsoutthatmanyproblemsarisefromthetendencyoffallen humanstothinkaboutGodinmaterialterms:ThereaderofthesereflectionsofmineontheTrinity shouldbearinmindthatmypenisonthewatchagainstthesophistriesofthosewhoscornthestarting pointoffaith,andallowthemselvestobedeceivedthroughanunseasonableandmisguidedloveofreason. Someofthemtrytotransferwhattheyhaveobservedaboutbodilythingstoincorporealandspiritual things,whichtheywouldmeasurebythestandardofwhattheyexperiencethroughthesensesofthebody orlearnbynaturalhumanintelligence,livelyapplication,andtechnicalskill.Augustine,DeTrin.,I.1,65.

137

DivineimmaterialityalsoprovidesAugustinewithagrammarbywhichtoarticulatetheProNicene emphasisuponthecommonoperationofthedivinepersons.SeeBarnes,TheLogicofAugustines TrinitarianTheology,6.

138

88

 GuntonreasonsthatifAugustinereallybelievedintheincarnation,onewouldbeable toseeantecedentsofthisinhisexplanationofOldTestamenttheophanies.Instead, Augustineallegedlylimitsalldivineappearancestotheworkofangelsinordertoavoid associatingGodwithmatter.AlthoughitistruethatAugustinebelievesthatthedivine appearancesintheOldTestamentaremediatedbyangels,itiswrongtoconcludethat thisreflectsnegativelyonhisunderstandingoftheincarnation.Preciselytheoppositeis thecase:inBooksIItoIVofDeTrinitate,AugustinewantstoestablishthattheSonwas notsentuntiltheNewTestament.Forthisreason,heclearlydistinguishesthe appearanceoftheincarnateSonfromearlierdivinemanifestations.Inmakingthis move,AugustinebreakswithanearliertheologicaltraditionwhichinterpretedallOld Testamenttheophaniesaschristophaniesbothbecausehedoesnotbelieveclear exegeticalwarrantexistsforthispositionandbecausehebelievesthatidentifyingthe SonastheuniquelyvisiblepersonoftheTrinityimpliesasubordinationist understandingoftheSonthatisincompatiblewithNewTestamentteachingregarding theequalityoftheSonwiththeFather.139 Second,theclaimthatAugustinesaccountofthebaptismofJesusrepresentsa secondinstanceofantiincarnationalplatonismisalsountenable.Accordingto
OnarelatednoteAugustinedoesnot,contraGunton,losethemediatorshipoftheWordinhisaccountof thetheophanies.Onthecontrary,mediationplaysacentralroleinAugustinesdiscussionofthemission oftheSoninBookIV.
139

89

 Gunton,AugustinecannotaccepttheobviousimplicationofthisnarrativethatJesus enteredintoanewrelationshipwiththeSpiritfollowinghisbaptism.Gunton,however, appearstohavemisunderstoodAugustinespoint.Augustinesexplanationofthisstory (specificallyhisclaimthatItwouldbetheheightofabsurditytobelievethatheonly receivedtheHolySpiritwhenhewasalreadythirtyyearsold)140doesnotreflectanti incarnationalplatonism.Rather,thesuppositionthatAugustinerejects[here]asthe heightofabsurditywasinfactmadebytheAdoptionistheresy,whichdeclaredthat Jesus(amerehumanbeing)wasadoptedasSonofGodathisbaptism,whentheHoly Spiritcameuponhim.141 Third,GuntonismistakeninhisclaimthatAugustineunderminesthevalueof thematerialrealmasabeareroftheologicalmeaningbylocatingthedivineimageinthe mind(mens).142Guntonappearstohavefailedtounderstandthepurposeofthesecond halfofDeTrinitate.AugustinebelievesthattracesoftheTrinity(vestigiatrinitatis)canbe foundthroughoutcreation.Inthissense,AugustineaffirmspreciselywhatGunton wisheshewouldaffirmnamely,thatthecreatedworldpossessestheologicalmeaning; however,inthesecondhalfofDeTrinitateAugustineisneitherlookingforvestigiaofthe

140 141 142

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.46,431. Hill,TheTrinity,442,note125.

AccordingtoGunton,aproperunderstandingoftheincarnationshouldleadtoviewingtheworldasa bearerofdivinemeaning.

90

 triuneGodnorishesearchingforanalogiesoftheTrinity.Hisinterestlieswiththe divineimagewhichhebelieveshasbeencreatedintheimageoftheTrinity.More specifically,hewantstocontemplatethetriuneGodthroughthedivineimageinthe mens.HebelieveshehasScripturalwarrant(especiallyinPaul)forlocatingtheimagein themens.ToinsistthatbylocatingthedivineimageinthemensAugustineundermines thevalueofthematerialrealmis,therefore,withoutwarrant.143 Finally,itisonethingtosaythatAugustine,throughhispolemicalengagement withLatinHomoiantheologians,paysgreaterattentiontoChristsdeitythantohis humanity.ItisquiteanothertoinsistasGuntondoesthatAugustinesomehowdenies, ordoesnotfullyaffirm,thehumanityofJesusChrist.Althoughhedoesnotarticulate therelationbetweenthetwonaturesofChristintheprecisetechnicallanguageoflater creedaldevelopments(e.g.,Chalcedon),AugustineclearlyteachesthatChristpossesses

143Moreover,Guntonsclaimthatthematerialworlddoesnotbeartheologicalmeaningcannotbereconciled withAugustinesrichaccountofsacramentum.ForAugustine,sacramentaarematerialrealitieswhich constitutesacredsignspointingtodeeperrealities.Augustinedoesnotlimitsacramentatobaptismand EucharistbutalsoincludesnumerousOldTestamentevents,placesandobjects(e.g.,Sabbath,circumcision, altars,etc.)aswellaskeyelementsofNewTestamentfaith(e.g.,Easter,Pentecost,signofthecross,feasts, garments,etc.).ItisimportanttonotethattheseelementsarenotmerelysignsforAugustinebut sacramentawhichcorrespondtoadeeperspiritualrealities.Althoughthesematerialrealitieshaveno intrinsicpower,theymediatethepoweroftheWordofGod.FromtheseresponsesofAugustinea sacramentalprinciplecomestoclarification:sacramentsarethevisiblewordofGodtobereceivedinfaith. ThesacramentiscomposedofboththematerialelementandthewordofGod.Thepowerofthesacrament comesfromthewordofGodarticulatedinandthroughthechurch.AllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.,Augustine ThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v.,Sacraments,byEmmanuelJ. Cutrone.

91

 twonatures(divineandhuman)andthatthesetwonaturesareunitedinonesubject.144 Ontheonehand,AugustinedrawsacarefuldistinctionbetweentheSonintheformof aservant(formaservi)andtheSonintheformofGod(formadei)insistingthatneither ofthesenatureswasturnedorchanged.145Ontheotherhand,heinsiststhatthesetwo formsexistinonepersonandthattheirunityisofsuchanaturethatitisappropriate eventospeakofGodbeingcrucified.146 2.2.4 Trinitarian Analogies Guntonclaimsthatinhissearchfortrinitariananalogies,Augustineimposesa NeoplatonicconceptionofdivineunityontheTrinitywiththeresultthatanunknown substanceunderliesthepersons.Insodoing,Augustinepurportedlyabandonsthe economyofsalvationandturnsGodintoakindofsupermind.Moreover,by searchingfortrinitariananalogiesinthemind,Augustinesupposedlypavestheway forindividualismandintellectualism.Atthecoreofthesecriticismsisarecycled
AugustineinsiststhroughouthiscareerthatthehumanityofJesus,eventhoughunitedtoandpossessed bytheWordofGod,remainscompleteinbothitscorporealanditspsychologicaldimensions.AllanD. Fitzgerald,ed.,AugustinethroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v. Christology,byBrianE.Daley.DaleysuggeststhatfouremphasescanbediscernedinAugustines writingsaboutChrist:(1)emphasisontheintegrityofthehumanityofChrist,(2)emphasisonthedivine personoftheWordasthesourceofunitybetweenthenatures,(3)emphasisuponChristasmediatorand(4) ChristsmediationasanexpressionofGodsunmeritedgrace.
144

Inconclusionthen,becausetheformofGodtookontheformofaservant,eachisGodandeachisman, buteachisGodbecauseofGodtakingon,andeachismanbecauseofmantakenon.Neitherofthemwas turnedorchangedintotheotherbythattakeover;neithergodheadchangedintocreatureandceasingto begodhead,norcreaturechangedintogodheadandceasingtobecreature.Augustine,DeTrin.I.14,75.

145 146

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.28,86.Thispassagewillbediscussedinchapterfour.

92

 versionofGuntonsclaimthatAugustinepossessesanontologythatdiffersradically fromtheCappadocians.Ihavealreadydemonstratedthatthisclaim(whichisparasitic upondeRgnonsparadigm)isunsustainable.Inaddition,wemustrecognizethat analogy(analogia)isthewrongtermtodescribewhatAugustineisdoinginthesecond halfofDeTrinitate.LewisAyrespointsoutthatsomescholarshavesomewhat impreciselyusedthetermanalogytodescribethelikenessesforwhichAugustine searchesinBooksVIIItoXVofDeTrinitate.147AlthoughAugustinesometimessearches foranalogies(analogia)oftheinseparableoperationofthepersons,Augustinenever directlyusesanalogiaorproportiotodescribetherelationshipbetweenGodandany aspectofthecreation(andinterestinglyneithertermevenappearsintrin).148Instead Augustineemploysthetermsimilitudo(likeness)todescribetherelationshipthat obtainsbetweenGodandcreation.Withthiscontextinmind,wewillcriticallyexamine theevidenceGuntonadducesinsupportofhisinterpretationofAugustinesTrinitarian analogies. First,inhissearchforthedivineimageinthemens,Augustinedoesnotimposea foreignconceptofdivinethreenessupontheTrinity.Notonlydoeshisreadingof

LewisAyres,RememberThatYouAreCatholic(Serm52.2):AugustineontheUnityoftheTriune God,JournalofEarlyChristianStudies8(2000):59.
147

Ibid.,61.InSermon52(c.410)thetriadofmemoria,intellegentiaandvoluntasserveasalikenesstothe inseparableeconomicactivityoftheFather,SonandHolySpiritandnottheireternalrelations.
148

93

 ScriptureprompthimtoseetheimageofGodinthehumansoulasareflectionofthe Trinity,butitisalsoscripturalteachingabouttheTrinity(asoutlinedinthefirsthalfof DeTrinitate)thatprovidestheblueprintforthetrinitarianimageinthemensandthe basisforevaluatingtheviabilityoftrinitiesheidentifies.Moreover,Augustineisnot uniqueinlocatingthedivineimageinthemens.DavidHartpointsoutthatimportant similaritiesexistbetweenGregoryofNyssaandAugustineinseeingtheindividual humansoulasthelocusofthedivineimage:Oneshouldalsonote,attheoutset,that forGregory,nolessthanforAugustine,thedivineimageisfirstandforemostthe possessionofeachindividualsoul,inthemysteryofhersimultaneousunityofessence anddiversityofacts.149 Second,Augustinedoesnotabandontheeconomyofsalvationinhissearchfor reflectionsoftheTrinityinthedivineimageinthemens.150Onthecontrary,Augustine isengagedinavitalsearchtoknowandunderstandtheGodinwhomhebelieves.The redemptiveworkofChristplaysacrucialroleinthissearch.Augustinefocusesupon theimageinthemensnotoutofadesiretolikenGodtoasupermindbutbecausethe divineimagerepresentsthelocusofGodsredemptivework.Thecentralityofthe economyofsalvationcanbeseeninBooksXIIXIVinwhichAugustinechroniclesthe
149 150

Hart,TheMirroroftheInfinite:GregoryofNyssaontheVestigiaTrinitatis,543. Thispointwillbearguedinchapterthree.

94

 effacementofthedivineimagebysin,itsrestorationandfutureperfectionthroughthe workofChrist.151 Third,GuntonscritiquefalselyassumesthatAugustinesmentaltriadrepresents anindependentsourceofknowledgeaboutGodstriunity.Thisseemstobeimplied whenGuntonassertsthattheinnerstructureofthehumanmindisforAugustinea moreimportantsourcefortheknowledgeofthetriuneGodthantheeconomyof grace.152Scripturalteaching,however,constitutesthesolesourceforhuman knowledgeofthetriunityofGodinAugustinesthought.153Furthermore,Guntons criticismfailstotakeintoaccountAugustinesdistinctionbetweenknowledgeand understanding.154 Fourth,Guntonscritiquefailstorecognizethecontinuitythatexistsbetween AugustineandtheCappadociansintheirsearchforpsychologicallikenessestothe
Onarelatednote,GuntonissimplywrongwhenheassertsthatthecrucialanalogyforAugustineis notthesoulremembering,understandingandlovingGodbutsimplymemory,understandingandwillas such.ThisclaimreflectsafundamentalmisunderstandingAugustinespurposetodrawthereaderintothe lifeofthetriuneGod.
151 152 153

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,45.

Augustinewouldneverdreamofsuggestingthatthepsychologicalanalogieshedevelopsprovidea distinctsourceofknowledgeoftheTrinity,orthattheinnerbeingofGodismadeknownthroughthe structuresofthemind.AsAugustinerepeatedlystresses,ourknowledgeoftheTrinityderivessolelyfrom Scripture,mediatedthroughthetraditionoftheChurch(e.g.DT1.7,2.2).Ormerod,TheTrinity,44. AsOrmerodexplains,Whatheoffersbywayofanalogyisnotknowledgebutunderstanding.For AugustineknowledgeisderivedfromtheassentofthemindtothecontentsoftheChurchsfaith.Thisisa trueknowledgebutthemind,whileitmayunderstandthewordsthatgiveexpressiontoourfaith,doesnot understandtherealitiestowhichtheyrefer.Suchanunderstandingisdifficulttoattain,atbestanalogous, andisonlytheproductofalongandpioussearch.Itcannotclaimthestatusofknowledgebutremains hypothetical.Ormerod,TheTrinity,44.
154

95

 Trinity.155GregoryofNyssasometimesappliespsychologicalcategoriestotheTrinity andwhenhedoesso,weoftenfindhimhappilydoingsowithreferencetothe Godheadasanalogoustooneperson,theFathersconstitutionoftheTriuneGodhead beingtreatedasanalogoustoonewhospeaksanintelligiblewordonhisbreathorspirit (CatecheticalOration12isparadigmatichere).156InthetexttowhichAyresrefers, Gregoryisattemptingtoexplicatethedistinctionofdivinepersonsintheirunity. Notice,inthistext,howGregoryexplicatestheunityanddistinctionoftheFatherand SonbylikeningthegenerationoftheSontotheproductionofamentalword:

Inourowncasewesaythataspokenwordcomesfromthemind,andisneither entirelyidenticalwithitnoraltogetherdifferent.Forbybeingderivedfrom somethingelse,itisdifferentandnotidenticalwithit.Yet,sinceitreflectsthe mind,itcannolongerbethoughttobedifferentfromit,butisonewithitin nature,thoughdistinctasasubject.SotheWordofGod,byhavingitsown subsistence( ),isdistinctfromhimfromwhomit derivesitssubsistence( ).Onthe otherhand,bymanifestinginitselftheattributestobeseeninGod,itisidentical innaturewithHimwhoisrecognizedbythesamecharacteristics.157

Remarkablesimilarities,therefore,existbetweenAugustineandGregoryintheir applicationofpsychologicalcategoriestotheTrinity.Hence,ifthepresenceof
155 156

Ibid.,44.

Ayres,OnNotThreePeople:TheFundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology, 447. GregoryofNyssa,AddressonReligiousInstruction,inChristologyoftheLaterFathers,Libraryof ChristianClassics,ed.EdwardR.Hardy(Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1954),272.TheGreekis fromMigne,PatrologiaGraeca45:16C.Inthefollowingsection,Gregoryalsoexplainshismethodology:Our knowledgeoftheWordcomesfromapplying,inaraiseddegree,ourownattributestothetranscendent nature.GregoryofNyssa,AddressonReligiousInstruction,272.

157

96

 trinitarianlikenessestothemindconstitutesareasontorejectAugustinestrinitarian theology,thenitwouldalsoseemtorepresentareasontorejectthatofthe Cappadociansaswell. 2.2.5 Doctrine of the Spirit ThereareatleastfourproblemswithGuntonsanalysisoftheHolySpiritin Augustinestrinitariantheology.First,Guntoniswrongwhenheclaimsthat AugustinehasgivenuslittlereasontobelievethatGodistobeknownasheisfromhis manifestationintheeconomy.158InchapterthreeIwillarguethatanimportant continuityexistsforAugustinebetweenwhat,inmoderntheologicalterms,iscalledthe economicandtheimmanentTrinity.Theeconomyofsalvationdoes,contra Gunton,playacrucialroleinthedevelopmentofAugustinesdoctrineoftheSpirit. OneofAugustinesmostimportantcontributionstothewesterntraditionishisnotion thattheSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon(asfromoneprinciple).Itisfromthe bestowaloftheSpiritbytheSonintheeconomyofsalvationthatAugustineisledtoinfer thattheSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSonattheintratrinitarianlevel.The logicofthisisquiteclear:ifsendingrevealsprocessionandiftheSonsenttheSpirit, thentheSpiritmustproceedfromtheSon(aswellasfromtheFather).Moreover,

158

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,53.

97

 AugustineseesbiblicalwarrantfortheprocessionoftheSpiritfromtheSonintheway thatScripturespeaksoftheHolySpiritastheSpiritoftheFatherandtheSon.159Thus, GuntonsclaimthatAugustinesdoctrineoftheSpiritisstronglyaffectedbyhisneed tohaveathirdpersoncorrespondingtothewillinthethreefoldmindisuntenable.160 Second,GuntonisalsomistakenwhenheclaimsthatAugustinedoesnotgive fullhypostaticweighttotheSpirit.161Asevidenceofinadequatehypostaticweight, GuntoncitesAugustinesdescriptionoftheSpiritasgiftandlove.Accordingto Gunton,thesetwoconceptssimplylackbiblicalsupport.Moreover,fromatrinitarian perspective,theydonotprovideanadequatebasisfordistinguishingtheSonfromthe Spirit.Inresponse,itmustbenotedthatthehypostaticdistinctionbetweentheSonand SpiritinAugustinestrinitariantheologydoesnotultimatelydependuponhisanalysis ofgiftandlove.Augustinegroundstherealdistinctionsbetweenthedivine personsincausalrelationsthatobtainbetweenthepersonsintheimmanentTrinity. TheSonisdistinctfromtheFatherbyvirtueofhisgenerationwhiletheSpiritisdistinct
ThisisnottodenythatotherfactorsplayanimportantroleinshapingAugustinesunderstandingofthe processionoftheSpirit.AlthoughitwouldbeincorrecttosaythathisunderstandingoftheSpiritisdriven byaneedtofittheSpiritwithinthetriadofmemory,understandingandwill,itwouldbecorrecttosaythe processionoftheSpiritfromtheFatherandtheSonis,inacertainsense,necessitatedbyhisunderstanding ofcasualrelations.WithoutthedualprocessionoftheSpirit,thereisnosubstantivewaytodifferentiatethe processionoftheSpiritfromthegenerationoftheSon.
159 160 161

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,48.

TheoverallresultisthatbecausethedoctrineoftheSpirithasinadequateeconomichypostaticweightin Augustine,thefatherofWesterntheologyalsolacksthemeanstogivepersonaldistinctivenesstothebeing oftheSpiritintheinnerTrinity.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,51.

98

 fromtheFatherandtheSonbyvirtueofprocessionfromtheFatherandtheSonasfrom oneprinciple.Giftandloverepresentaspeculativeattempt,onAugustinespart,to describethecasualrelationshipsthatobtainatanintratrinitarianlevelbydrawing inferencesfromtheactivityoftheSpiritintheeconomy.Thus,evenifonewereto acknowledgewithGuntonthattheseconcepts,asemployedbyAugustine,lack adequatebiblicalsupport,162itdoesnotfollowAugustinefailstogiveadequate hypostaticweighttotheSpirit. Third,wemustrecognizethatGuntonscritiqueofAugustinespneumatologyis dependentuponhismisreadingoftheCappadocians.ThismisreadingleadsGuntonto dismisstheclaimmadebytheeditorsoftheLibraryofChristianClassicseditionofDe TrinitatethatmuchcontinuityexistsbetweenAugustinesunderstandingofprocession andthedoctrineoftheEasternchurchthattheSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherthrough theSon.163AccordingtoGunton,Wehavealreadyseen,however,thattherearemajor differencesallalongthelinebetweenAugustineandtheCappadociansFathers.There

Fromaneconomicperspective,theredoesseemtobeauniquesenseinwhichtheNewTestamentspeaks oftheHolySpiritasgift()especiallyinthepreachingofthegospelinActs(Acts2:38;8:20;10:45; 11:17).Moreover,althoughPaulappliesthelanguageofgift()tosalvationinChrist(Rom5:15;2Cor. 9:15),heexpressestheconceptofthegiftoftheSpiritintermsthelanguageofpromise().See Galatians3:14andEphesians1:13.Interestingly,Lukealsousespromise()inrelationtotheSpirit inActsaswell(Acts1:4;2:33;2:39).

162 163

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,52.

99

 areboundtobedifferencesherealso.164Asidefromremindinghisreadersofthe ontologicalrevolutionusheredinbytheCappadocians,Guntonoffersnoexposition oftheCappadociandoctrineoftheSpirit;nordoesheexplainhowthisdoctrine differsfromAugustine.AgainstGunton,itshouldbenotedthatsignificantcontinuity existsbetweenAugustineandtheCappadociansinthesensethatbothusegeneration andprocessionasthebasisfordistinguishingtheSonandtheSpiritfromtheFather.165 Furthermore,bothacknowledgetheFatherastheultimatesourceoftheSonandthe Spirit.TheCappadociansexpressthisrealitythroughthelanguageofmonarchiawhile Augustineexpressesitthroughthelanguageofprincipium.Althoughhebelievesthat theSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon,Augustineisequallyinsistentthatthe HolySpiritproceedsprincipallyfromtheFatherbecausetheFatheristhesourceof deity(principiumdeitatis).166Havingacknowledgedthesepointsofcontinuity,wemust

164 165

Ibid.,52.

UnlikelaterWesterntrinitariantheology(e.g.,ThomasAquinas),Augustineneverspeaksintermsof twoprocessions.Procession(processio)isusedexclusivelyinDeTrinitateinreferencetotheSpirit.
166Bysayingthen,WhomIwillsendyoufromtheFather(Jn15:26),theLordshowedthattheSpiritisboththe FathersandtheSons.Elsewheretoo,whenhesaid,whomtheFatherwillsend,headded,inmyname(Jn 14:26).Hedidnothoweversay,whomtheFatherwillsendfrommeashehadsaidwhomIwillsendfromthe Father(Jn15:26),andtherebyheindicatedthatthesource(principium)ofallgodhead(divinitas),orifyou preferit,ofalldeity(deitas),istheFather.SotheSpiritwhoproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSonistraced back,onbothcounts,tohimofwhomtheSonisborn.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.AlthoughGunton seemstobeawareofthisfeatureinAugustinesdoctrineoftheSpirit,herespondsnotbycriticizing Augustinesspecificformulationbutbyappealingtolaterdevelopmentsasthebasisforhiscriticism:We cannotescapethehistoryofthematter,andthatisthatalthoughAugustinewasawareoftheneedtoquality theFilioquewithaprincipaliter,thetraditionwhichbuiltuponhisworkeventuallydevelopedadoctrineof GodwhichwasmateriallydifferentfromthatofitsEasterncolleagues.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarian

100

 recognizeanimportantpointofdiscontinuitybetweenAugustineandtheCappadocians. AlthoughtheCappadociansrecognizedthattheprocessionoftheSpiritclearlydiffered fromthegenerationoftheSon(suchthatitwouldbeinappropriatetospeakoftheSpirit asasecondSon),theywerelargelyatalosstoofferarationaleforthisdistinction.167 Forexample,althoughGregoryofNazianzusclearlywantstodistinguishprocession

Theology,53.Itisdifficulttoseehowlatertrinitariandevelopments(whichGuntondoesnotspellout) constituteareasonforrejectingAugustinesdoctrineoftheSpirit. NeilOrmerodsuggeststhataprecursortothedualprocessionoftheSpiritcanbeseenGregoryofNyssa. SeeOrmerod,TheTrinity,46.OrmerodcitestheatextfromAdAblabiuminwhichGregoryseemsto describetheSonas,insomeway,mediatingtheprocessionoftheSpirit:Thereisthatwhichdepends uponthefirstcause[Son]andthatwhichisderivedfromwhatimmediatelydependsuponthefirstcause [Spirit].ThustheattributeofbeingonlybegottenwithoutdoubtremainswiththeSon,andwedonot questionthattheSpiritisderivedfromtheFather.ForthemediationoftheSon,whileitguardshis prerogativeofbeingonlybegotten,doesnotexcludetherelationwhichtheSpirithasbynaturetothe Father.GregoryofNyssa,AnAnswertoAblabius,266.Ormerodsjudgment,however,maybe somewhathasty.AlthoughGregorymayemploylanguageinthistextwhichsuggestsamediatorialrolefor theSonintheprocessionoftheSpirit,onecanonlyestablishsuchajudgmentonthebasisofacareful examinationofallGregorystrinitarianwritings.NoticeinanothertexthowGregoryexpressesthe distinctivenessoftheSpiritsimplyintermsofneitherbeingungenerateoronlybegotten:[T]heFather,for instance,isuncreate()andungenerate()aswell:Hewasnevergenerated()any morethanhewascreated().Whilethisuncreatedness()iscommontoHimandtheSon, andtheSpirit,Heisungenerate()aswellasFather.Thisisparticular()anduncommunicable (),notbeingseenintheotherPersons.TheSoninHisuncreatedness()touchesthe FatherandtheSpirit,butastheSonandtheOnlyBegotten()Hehasacharacterwhichisnotthat oftheAlmightyortheHolySpirit.TheHolySpiritbytheuncreatednessofhisnaturehascontactwiththe SonandFather,butisdistinguishedfromthembyHisowntokens.HismostpeculiarcharacteristicisthatHe isneitherofthosethingswhichwecontemplateintheFatherandSonrespectively.Hisissimply,neitheras ungenerate(),norasonlybegotten():thisitisthatconstitutesHischiefparticularity.Joined totheFatherbyuncreatedness,HeisdisjoinedfromHimagainbynotbeingFather.UnitedtotheSonby thebondofuncreatedness,andofderivingHisexistencefromtheSupreme,HeispartedagainfromHimby thecharacteristicofbeingnotthebeingtheOnlybegottenoftheFather,andhavingbeenmanifestedby meansoftheSonHimself.GregoryofNyssa,AgainstEunomiusI.22,61(italicsmine).GreekfromWerner W.Jaeger,GregoriiNysseniopera,vol.1.1,ContraEunomiumlibrosIIIcontinens(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1960), paragraph278.
167

101

 andgeneration,heisunabletoofferanyexplanationofhowtheydifferorwhythe HolySpiritisnotasecondson:
What,then,isprocession()?Doyoutellmewhatisthe unbegottennessoftheFather( ),andIwillexplainto youthephysiologyofthegenerationoftheSon( )andthe processionoftheSpirit( ),andweshallbothofusbe frenzystrickenforpryingintothemysteryofGod.Andwhoarewetodothese things,wewhocannotevenseewhatliesatourfeet,ornumberthesandofthe sea,orthedropsofrain,orthedaysofeternity,muchlessenterintothedepths ofGod,andsupplyanaccountofthatnaturewhichissounspeakableand transcendingallwords?168

AugustineprovidedananswerbysuggestingthattheHolySpiritproceedsjointlyfrom theFatherandtheSonasfromoneprinciple. WhatremainsofGuntonsclaimthatAugustinestrinitariantheologyis responsibleforthemanyofthecontemporaryproblemsthatplaguebothwestern culture(e.g.,individualism)andthechurch(e.g.,deficientecclesiology)?Guntons analysisofthelegacyofAugustinesthoughtismarkedbyleastthreeweaknesses.First, aswehavealreadyseen,itrestsonadeficientunderstandingofAugustinestrinitarian theology.Second,hisanalysisemploysareductionist(genealogical)viewofhistory.All phenomenaofinterest(e.g.,ecclesiologyandanthropology)aresaidtodepend geneticallytwodifferingconceptsoftheTrinity.Finally,Iwillargueinchaptersixthat GuntonsappealtoanduseoftrinitariandoctrineinThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology
GregoryofNazianzus,TheFifthTheologicalOration8,19899.GreekfromBarbel,Diefnftheologischen Reden,232.
168

102

 exemplifiesmanyofthemethodologicalproblemsthatmarkcontemporarytrinitarian theology.Insum,wehaveseenthatGuntonscriticismsofAugustinestrinitarian theologyarewithoutmerit.Havingaddressedthesemisunderstandings,wearenowin apositiontointroduceAugustinestrinitarianthoughtespeciallyasoutlinedinDe Trinitate.

2.3 Introduction to De Trinitate

AlthoughtheprecisecontoursofmyreadingofDeTrinitatewillemergethrough expositionofkeypassagesinchaptersthreetofive,Iwillofferabriefintroductionto thisworkdrawingtogetherseveralthemesthatareimplicitinmycritiqueofGunton. DeTrinitatewascomposedoveraperiodoftwentyyears(roughly400420).169Itcanbe dividedtwosections:BooksIVIIandBooksVIIIXV.170InthefirsthalfofDeTrinitate, AugustinedefendsaLatinproNiceneunderstandingoftrinitariandoctrinefromthe standpointsofScripture(BooksIIV)andlogic(BooksVVII).InthesecondhalfofDe
Thelengthyperiodofcompositionwastheresultoftheworkbeingpiratedpriortoitscompletion.Inhis prefatorylettertoAurelius,BishopofCarthage,Augustineoffersthefollowingexplanation:Iwasayoung manwhenIbeganthesebooksontheTrinitywhichtheonetrueGodis,andIamnowanoldmanasI publishthem.IstoppedworkingontheprojectwhenIdiscoveredtheyhadbeenliftedfrommypossession, andprematurelyatthatsinceIhadnotcompletedthem,norrevisedandpolishedthemasIhadplannedto do.Ithadbeenmyintentiontopublishthemalltogetherandnotonebyone,becausetheinquiryproceeds inacloselyknitdevelopmentfromthefirstofthemtothelast.Augustine,DeTrin.Prologue,63. AugustinewasintheprocessofwritingBookXIwhenitwaspirated.Workstoppedforanumberofyears. Asaresultofthepromptingofothers,AugustineeventuallycompletedDeTrinitatearound420.
169

ForahelpfuloverviewofthecontentsofDeTrinitateseeAllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.Augustinethroughthe Ages:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v.DeTrinitate,byRowanWilliams.
170

103

 Trinitate(BooksVIIIXV)Augustinesearchesforreflectionsofthetrinitarianprocessions inthehighestfunctionsofthehumansoul.BooksVIIIXVpossessahighly experimentalcharacter.171Althoughanumberofproposalshavebeenofferedregarding theoverarchingstructureofDeTrinitate,172itisperhapsbesttoseetheunityofDe Trinitatenotintermsofsomekeystructuralfeaturewhichunitesallthebooks(e.g.,a chiasmus,asEdmundHillproposes)butratherintermsofrecurringanddeveloping themes.173AlthoughDeTrinitatelatertendedtocirculateindiscretesections(e.g.,Books VVIIorBooksVIIIXV),itisclearthatAugustineintendedthisworktoberead understoodasawhole.174

Byexperimental,IdonotmeanspeculativeinthesensethatGuntonandothershaveusedto characterizeDeTrinitate(i.e.,dependentonneoPlatonicthought).RatherbyexperimentalImeanthe realitythatAugustinesthoughtdevelopsashewrites.

171

ForproposalsregardingthestructureofDeTrinitateseeOrmerod,TheTrinity,5577;Hill,TheTrinity,21 26;JohannesBrachtendorf,priusessecogitarequamcredereANaturalUnderstandingofTrinityinSt. Augustine?AugustinianStudies29(1998):4046;JohnC.Cavadini,TheStructureandIntentionof AugustinesDeTrinitate,AugustinianStudies23(1992):10323;idem,TheQuestforTruthinAugustines DeTrinitate,TheologicalStudies58(1997):429440;D.JuvenalMerriell,TotheImageoftheTrinity:AStudyin theDevelopmentofAquinasTeaching(Toronto:PontificalInstituteofMediaevalStudies,1990),1335.These scholarsagreethatDeTrinitateisnotstructuredaroundadistinctionbetweenfaith(BooksIVII)and reason(BooksVIIIXV).

172 173 174

IamindebtedtoLewisAyresforthisobservation.

Commentingonthepiratingofhisworkbeforeitwascomplete,Augustineexplains,Ithadbeenmy intentiontopublishthemalltogetherandnotonebyone,becausetheinquiryproceedsinacloselyknit developmentfromthefirstofthemtothelast.Augustine,DeTrin.,Prologue,63.

104

 DeTrinitateisshapedbyaspiritualquesttoknowandunderstandtheGodin whomAugustinebelieves.175Psalm105:34,withitsexhortationtoseekGodsface, providesthemotivationforAugustinessearch.176Heinviteshisreaderstojoinhimin hisquesttoseekthefaceofGod.Thisquestmightfurtherbecharacterizedasfaith seekingunderstanding.ScripturalteachingaboutthetriuneGodconstitutesthe startingpointforthisquest.Moreover,theredemptiveworkofChristplaysacrucial roleinthisquest.Althoughitwouldbeanoverstatementtodescribetheprimary purposeofDeTrinitateasofferingapolemicagainstthepossibilityofaNeoplatonic ascenttoGod,177Augustineisclearthatonecanexperiencepurificationinorderto contemplateGodonlythroughthemediatorialworkofChrist.178TheworkofChristnot onlyplaysakeyroleinAugustinesdiscussionofmission(BooksIIIV)butalsointhe

JohnCooperarguesthatoneofthemostbasicnotionsinAugustinesthoughtisthatofaspiritual quest:Afteraclosestudyoftheeightworksinquestionhere,thefollowingthesisisnowoffered concerningthemostbasicnotionsofAugustinesentirethoughtworld:ThatAugustinesbasicphilosophical theologicalnotionisauniversalizationoftheparticularspiritualjourneywhichhehimselfexperienced.Statedinhis ownwordsthiselephantineideais:ThouhastmadeusforThyself,andourheartsarerestlesstiltheyrest inthee.(Confs.I,1,5.)Thus,Augustinesbasicnotionistheconceptofthespiritualquest,ofthefiniteseekingthe infinite,oftheloverseekingthebeloved(onlyitisthelovedonebeingsoughtbytheDivineloverfor Augustine),ofthephilosopherseekingwisdom,theeverlastingmotionofthesoulupwardformehrLicht. JohnCooper,TheBasicPhilosophicalandTheologicalNotionsofSaintAugustine,AugustinianStudies15 (1984):94(italicsoriginal).
175 176EdmundHillrightlydescribesthisbiblicaltextasathemesettingtextforthewholebook.Hill,The Trinity,91,note11.Augustinesuseofthistextwillbediscussedinchapterfive. 177 178

ContraCavadini,TheStructureandIntentionofAugustinesDeTrinitate,10323. SeeAugustine,DeTrin.IV.20,167.

105

 secondhalfofDeTrinitatewherehedescribestheeffacementandrestorationofthe image(BooksXIIXIV). DeTrinitateisdrivenbyexegeticalandpolemicalconcerns.179Thisjudgment runscountertoatendencyinmodernscholarshiptoreadDeTrinitateasdrivenby speculativeandmetaphysicalconcerns.AlthoughAugustinerefersatvariouspointsto Arianopponents,somescholarshaveconcludedthatthesereferencessimply constitutealiterarydevicebasedontheassumptionthatAugustinesknowledgeof Homoiantheologywasunsubstantial,formal,orsecondhandincharacter...andthat hisfirstgenuineencounterwithLatinHomoiantheologydidnotemergeuntil419 (whenhehadvirtuallyfinishedwritingDeTrinitate).180Againstthistrend,Barnes demonstratesthatAugustineisengagedinpolemicagainstLatinHomoiantheologians intheearlieststrataofDeTrinitate.181Forexample,whenAugustinerefersinBookIto ThosewhohaveaffirmedthatourLordJesusChristisnotGod,orisnottrueGod,oris notwiththeFathertheoneandonlyGod,orisnottrulyimmortalbecauseheissubject tochange,182BarnesarguesthatAugustineisreferringtotheviewsofHomoian

179

ThisrepresentsoneofthekeyelementsofBarnesnewcanonreadingofAugustine.

180SeeMichelR.Barnes,ExegesisandPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI,AugustinianStudies30(1999): 43.Onarelatednote,somescholarshavewronglyconcludedthatAugustineisrespondingtothetheology ofEunomiusinBookV.SeeBarnes,TheAriansofBookV,andtheGenreofdeTrinitate,18595. 181 182

SeeBarnes,ExegesisandPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI,4352. Augustine,DeTrin.I.9,7071.

106

 theologianssuchasPalladius.183Moreover,histheologydevelopsthroughhis engagementwiththesetheologians.184Atthecenterofthisdebatewashowrightlyto readandinterpretScripture.185Indeed,ScripturalconcernsplayacentralroleinDe Trinitate.186

ThethreedoctrinesthatAugustinecitesatdeTrinitateI.9asrepresentativeofhisopponentsareeach attestedtoinLatinHomoianliterature,andfitwithintheoverallLatinHomoianemphasisontheFatheras trueGodduetohisuniqueorexclusivestatusasingenerateatheologywhichhastoooftenbeen misrecognizedasEunomian.ThissummaryatdeTrinitateI.9byAugustineofhisopponentsbeliefs resemblesalargebodyofpolemicalliteraturewhichcontainssimilarsummariesofbothArianand Homoiandoctrines.Theoldestsuchsummary,andthemostwidelydistributedoneamongLatinNicenes, isAriussLettertoAlexander,whichfromthelate350sonwaswellknownintheWest.Barnes,Exegesis andPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI,4546.LaterinthesameessayBarnesalsoexplains,The HomoiantheologyAugustinedescribesinthefirstbooksofdeTrinitatecannotbereducedsimplytothe theologyopposedbyHilary,muchlesstothetheologyofArius.Augustinesopponentsrepresentachange, indeedperhapsadevelopment,inantiNicenetheologyfromthetheologyofHilarysopponents,anda majordevelopmentfromthetheologyofArius.InBookIofAugustinesdeTrinitatewearedealingwitha thirdgenerationofantiNicenetheology,andasecondgenerationofLatinHomoiantheology(ibid.,48). ThefirstgenerationwouldrepresenttheteachingsofArius.ThesecondgenerationofantiNicenetheology differsfromthefirstinthattheformertreatsthevisibilityandmaterialityoftheSon(incontrasttothe invisibilityandimmaterialityoftheFather)asthebasisfordistinguishingtherealdivinityoftheFather (whoistrueGod)fromtheSon.HillaryrespondstothesesecondgenerationantiNicenesinhiswritings. AugustinesopponentsrepresentathirdgenerationofLatinspeakingantiNiceneswhogroundedthe visibilityandmaterialityoftheSonnotintheincarnationbutintheOldTestamenttheophanies. RepresentativesofthirdgenerationantiNicenetheologyincludePalladiusandBishopMaximinus.For furtherdiscussionofAugustinesHomoianopponents,seeAllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.,Augustinethroughthe Ages:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v.AntiArianWorks,byMichelR.Barnes.
183 184Inotherwords,AugustinesengagementwithHomoiantheologycanbeseentobeamomentinwhich theheartofAugustinesowntrinitariantheologyisatstake.Augustinestrinitariantheologyisatitsmost distinctiveandfundamentallevelaresponsetothespecificchallengeposedbydevelopingHomoian theology.Barnes,ExegesisandPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI52. 185 186

HomoianexegesisoftextslikeJohn14:28providedpartofthechallengetowhichAugustineresponds. Thispointwillbearguedatlengthinchapterthree.

107

 TheprimarypointofreferenceforthedevelopmentofAugustinestrinitarian theologyinDeTrinitateistheLatinproNicenetradition.187Augustinesindebtednessto thistraditioncanbeseenearlyinBookIwherehesummarizesCatholicteachingon thetriuneGod.188AugustinebuildsupontheworksofHilaryofPoitiers,Marius VictorinusandAmbroseofMilan.TheproNicenefaithonwhichAugustineis dependentcentersoncommonnature,commonpower,commonoperations.189Oneof themostbasicaxiomsoftheLatinproNicenetraditionistheinseparableoperationof thedivinepersonsanaxiomwhichplaysacentralroleinDeTrinitate.190 Finally,DeTrinitateisneitherAugustinesonlywordabouttheTrinitynorhis finalwordabouttheTrinity.Awarenessofhisothertrinitarianwritingsisimportantfor determiningtherelativesignificanceofthemesoneencountersinDeTrinitate.By attendingexclusivelytoDeTrinitate,somescholarshavemisinterpretedthesignificance
BarnesarguesthatwhenAugustinestrinitariantheologyisreadasawholeinitspropercontext,onewill recognize(asonemightexpectofaLatintheologianswritingontheTrinityatthistime)thatAugustines basicframeofreferenceforunderstandingtheTrinityistheappropriationofNicaea.Thatappropriation takesplacewithapolemicalcontext,and,moreover,involvesrearticulatingthecreedofNicaeainterms whichwerenotoriginallypartofthattext.Barnes,RereadingAugustineontheTrinity,154.Fora discussionoftheinfluenceofPlatonismonthedevelopmentofAugustinestrinitariantheologyseeLewis Ayres,NicaeaanditsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourthCenturyTrinitarianTheology(NewYork:Oxford,2004), 36483.
187 188 189 190

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.7,69.Thistextwillbediscussedinchapterfour. Barnes,AugustineOldCanonandNewCanonReading,2.

Augustineinheritedfromhisimmediatepredecessorsthedoctrineoftheinseparableoperationofthe threeirreduciblepersons.Further,hetookthisprincipleashispointofdepartureforconsideringthedivine unitythroughouthiscareer.Ayres,AugustineontheUnityoftheTriuneGod,80.Inasmuchas inseparableoperationsconstitutesacoreaxiomofproNicenetheologyingeneralandofAugustinein particular,thefundamentalcategoriesofAugustinestrinitariantheologyaredynamicnotstatic.

108

 ofelementsofAugustinestheology.Forexample,despitetheprominentroleplayedby thetriadofmemory,understandingandwillinDeTrinitate,LewisAyresargueson thebasisofanexaminationofAugustinesothertrinitarianwritingsthatthistriadisnot acentralfeatureofAugustinestrinitarianthought.191Similarly,Barnesarguesthatthe mostimportantthemesinAugustinestrinitariantheologyinclude(1)thedoctrineof Godsimmaterialnature,(2)commonoperationsand(3)thenotionthattheological languageisdesignedtopurifyourideasaboutGod.192Itisalsoimportanttorecognize thatDeTrinitatedoesnotrepresentAugustinesfinalwordontheTrinity.Histrinitarian theologydevelopsovertime.193Forexample,AugustinesTwentiethTractateonJohn presentsamoredevelopedaccountofunityofoperationthanoneencountersinDe

IncludingsomevariationsonthethirdtermfoundinBookXVoftheDetrinitateAugustineusesthe triadsmemoria,intellegentia,voluntasandmemoria,intellectus,voluntasaround35timesinhiscorpus.This rathervaguefigurestemsfromthedifficultyofassessingpassageswherethetriadanditsconstituentterms arediscussedoveranumberofcomplexsentences.Evenwithsuchimprecisefiguresitisstrikingthatover 20oftheseusesoccurintheDetrinitate.Indeed,thetriadisusedindirectlyTrinitariancontextsoutsidethis workinjustthreetexts.Andso,fromallthehomiliesonJohnand1JohnwhereTrinitariantopics frequentlyoccur,fromtheConfessions,fromhisextensiveexpositionsofthePsalms,aswellasfromthevast majorityofhissermonsandlettersthistriaditissimplyabsentasabasictoolforillustratingTrinitarian doctrine.ThetriadisnotthenastandardfeatureofAugustinesTrinitariantheology.Equallyimportantly, thetriadisnotastandardfeatureofAugustinesdescriptionofthehumansoul.Itsabsencefrom Augustinesdiscussionsofthesoulinhisearlyworksbeingonlyoneimportantindicator.Reflectiononthe willandonmemoryisofcourseacentralthreadinAugustinescorpus,butthisparticulartriadisnot. LewisAyres,AugustinesTrinitarianTheology(forthcoming),chaptersix.
191

Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,5.BarnesconcurswiththejudgmentofAyres thatthetriadofmemory,understandingandwillisnotacentralfeatureofAugustinestrinitariantheology.
192 193

DevelopmentcanevenbeseenwithinDeTrinitate(beingcomposedasitwasoveraperiodof20years).

109

 Trinitate.194RowanWilliamsrightlynotesthatThegeniusofDeTrinitateisitsfusionof speculationandprayer,itspresentationoftrinitariantheologyas,ultimately,nothing otherthanateasingoutofwhatitistobeconvertedandtocometoliveinChrist.195 IftheprecedingdefenseofAugustinestrinitariantheologyagainsthis contemporarycriticsobtains,asIholditdoes,thenhistheologyoftheTrinityindeed standsastheunchallengedwesterntradition,196atraditionwhosefountainheaddoesnot standinasharpoppositiontothetrinitariantheologyoftheCappadociansFathers.Itis onthebasisofthedepthandvitalityofAugustinestheologythatIwillofferan AugustinianassessmentoftheroleoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyof religionsinthechaptersthatfollow.Intheprocessofevaluatingtheseproposalsand discerningproperuse(s)forthedoctrineoftheTrinityIwillexploreseveralkeythemes inAugustinestheologyincludingtherelationshipbetweenGodinseandGodpronobis, therelationsamongtheFather,SonandHolySpirit(bothintratrinitarianandeconomic) aswellasAugustinessearchforreflectionsofthetriuneGodinthehumanmind.
Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,5.Forotherexamplesofdevelopmentin Augustinestrinitariantheology,seeAyres,AugustineontheUnityoftheTriuneGod,3982.
194 195AllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.AugustinethroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v. DeTrinitate,byRowanWilliams. 196ThisisnottosuggestthatcriticaldevelopmentsdonottakeplacewithintheAugustiniantradition.Such developmentsdoindeedtakeplace.SomeonelikeThomasAquinasnotonlyreceivesAugustines trinitariantheologybutalsocruciallybuildsuponit.However,inpointingoutearlierinthischapterthat misreadingsofAugustinesometimesarisefromafailuretodistinguishAugustinestrinitariantheology fromlaterdevelopments,Ididnotintendtocommunicatethatlaterdevelopments(e.g.,ThomasAquinas) somehowcontradictAugustinesbasictrinitariangrammar.

110

3. The Economic and the Immanent Trinity in the Theology of Religions

Sincethepatristicperiod,Christiantheologianshavedrawnanimportant distinctionbetweenGodinseandGodpronobis.Forpatristictheologiansthis distinctionwasframedintermsoftheologiaandoikonomia.1Incontemporarytheologya distinctionbetweenGodinseandGodpronobishasbeenframedintermsofthe immanentandtheeconomicTrinity.2ThelatterdenotesGodsselfrevelation throughtheeconomyofsalvationwhiletheformerreferstotheintratrinitarianlifeof thethreedivinepersons.3KarlRahnersfamousaxiom,TheeconomicTrinityisthe immanentTrinityandtheimmanentTrinityistheeconomicTrinity,4constitutesthe

TheologiawasusedtodenotetothemysteryofGodwhileoikonomia(economy)wasusedtodescribe Godssalvificplan.AlthoughthetermoikonomiaplaysarelativelyminorroleintheNewTestament(cf. Eph.1:10;3:2;Col.1:25),itbecameakeyterminpatristicthought.OikonomiaanditsLatinequivalentsare usedinacomplexvarietyofwaysinpatristictheology.

1

WolfhartPannenbergclaimsthatadistinctionbetweenaneconomicandanessentialTrinitycanbe tracedtoaneighteenthcenturytheologiannamedJohannAugustUrlsperger.WolfhartPannenberg, SystematicTheology,vol1,trans.GeoffreyBromiley(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1991),note111,291.

2

OneofthedisadvantagesofspeakingoftheeconomicTrinityandtheimmanentTrinityisthatsuch languagemayofferthemistakenimpressionthattherearetwotrinities;however,onemustbearinmind thateconomicandimmanentsimplyrepresenttwodifferentwaysofconceptualizingthetriuneGod; thislanguageisnotmeanttosuggesttwotrinities.Althoughitmightbemoreaccuratetospeakofthethe TriuneGodfromthestandpointoftheeconomyortheTriuneGodfromanimmanentperspective,such languageisawkwardandcumbersome.Despiteitslimitations,Iwillretainthelanguageoftheimmanent andtheeconomicTrinity.

3 4

Rahner,TheTrinity,22.

111

 pointofdepartureformuchcontemporarytrinitariandiscussion.5Broadlyspeaking Rahnersaxiomhasevokedtworesponses.OnegroupofChristiantheologians (includingCatherineLaCugna,JrgenMoltmann,RobertJenson,EberhardJngeland WolfhartPannenberg)followsRahnerinemphasizingtheidentityoftheeconomic andtheimmanentTrinity(insomecasespushingthisidentitytothepointthatlatter iscollapsedintotheformer).Asecondgroup(includingPaulMolnar,WalterKasper, ThomasWeinandy,DavidCoffeyandHansUrsvonBalthasar)claimsthatRahners axiomdoesnotmaintainanadequatedistinctionbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity.Thesetheologiansarewillingtoaffirm,atleastinaqualifiedway, thefirsthalfofRahnersaxiom(theeconomicTrinityistheimmanentTrinity)but oftenreject,orsignificantlyqualify,thesecondhalf(theimmanentTrinityisthe economicTrinity)inordertoprotectthefreedomandtranscendenceofGod.Although muchofthecurrentdebateovertheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinitycentersonthe

ForadetaileddiscussionoftheRahnersaxiomanditsimplicationsforcontemporarytheology,seeFred Sanders,TheImageoftheImmanentTrinity:RahnersRuleandtheTheologicalInterpretationofScripture,Issuesin SystematicTheologySeries,vol.12(NewYork:PeterLang,2005);DennisW.Jowers,KarlRahners TrinitarianAxiom:TheEconomicTrinityistheImmanentTrinityandViceVersa(Lewiston,N.Y.:Edwin MellenPress,2006).

5

112

 God/worldrelationship,6assumptionsabouttherelationshipoftheeconomicandthe immanentTrinityalsoplayanimportantroleinaChristiantheologyofreligions. ThepurposeofthischapteristoofferanAugustinianevaluationofthe relationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinityinMarkHeimstrinitarian theologyofreligiousends.First,IwillbrieflyoutlineHeimsproposal.Then,drawing principallyuponBooksIIVofDeTrinitate,IwilldevelopanAugustiniangrammar forunderstandingtherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity. Finally,IwillevaluateHeimsproposalonthebasisofthisgrammararguingthathis trinitariantheologyofreligiousendsgainstractiononlybyradicallyseveringthe economicandtheimmanentTrinity.

3.1 A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends

InhisbookTheDepthoftheRiches:ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds,S.Mark Heim,aBaptisttheologian,suggeststhatthedebateoverthetheologyofreligions proceedsonalargelyundefendedassumptionthatthereisandcanonlybeone religiousend,oneactualreligiousfulfillment.7Heimsuggeststhatamorefruitful approachtoreligiousdiversityinvolvesrecognizingthepossibilityofmultiplereligious
SeeFredSanders,EntangledintheTrinity:EconomicandImmanentTrinityinRecentTheology,Dialog 40(2001):175182;andPaulD.Molnar,DivineFreedomandtheDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:InDialogue withKarlBarthandContemporaryTheology(Edinburgh:T&TClark,2002).
6

S.MarkHeim,TheDepthoftheRiches:ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds,SacraDoctrinaSeries(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2001),17.
7

113

 ends.AccordingtoHeim,religiousendsaredefinedbyasetofconcepts,stories,and practicesthatprovidematerialforathoroughpatternoflife.8Anintrinsic relationshipexistsbetweenthepatternoflifeandthereligiousgoalsoughtbya particularcommunity.TheonlywaytoHindureligiousfulfillmentisthroughthe Hindupath.TheonlywaytoJewishfulfillmentisthroughtheJewishpath.Thislogic wouldseemtofavortheexclusivistposition;however,itneednotifonerecognizesthe possibilityofmultipleends:Thereisnocogentreasontoassumethatallofusthevast majorityagainsttheirpriorconditionanddesireswillexperienceonlyoneamong thesereligiousendsorsomeundefinedconditionbeyondanyofthem.9Christian salvationinvolvingarelationofcommunionwithGodconstitutesonlyonepossible religiousend.Otherendsexistand,whiletheyarenotsalvation,theyare, nevertheless,quitereal:AsaChristian,itappearstometomakeperfectlygoodsense tosaytwokindsofthings.First,wemaysaythatanotherreligionisatrueandvalid pathtothereligiousfulfillmentitseeks....Second,wemaysaywhatthebookofActs saysofJesusChrist,thatthereissalvationinnooneelse,forthereisnoothername underheavengivenamongmortalsbywhichwemustbesaved(Acts4:12).10

8 9

Ibid.,21. Ibid.,26. Ibid.,3132.

10

114

 Onemightask,Ifthenotionofmultipleendsissoplausible,whyhasitnotbeen widelyembraced?Thepossibilityofmultiplereligiousendsisfrequentlydismissed becauseofitsperceivedassociationwithpolytheism.Althoughanaffirmationof multiplereligiousreferentsmayhaveseemedplausibleinpastcontexts(e.g.,thefirst centuryGraecoRomanworld),itisnolongerplausibletoday.Ourcontemporaryworld isshapedbyamonotheisticconsciousnesswhichinclinesustobelievethattherecan beonlyonereligiousultimate.11Oneultimateseemstoimplyonlyoneend.This monotheisticconsciousness,however,neednotruleoutthepossibilityofmultiple ends:Thereisnologicalreasonwhyauniversewithasinglereligiousultimatemight notalsoencompassavarietyofreligiousends.Thevarietycouldfollowbecausesome peopleestablishaprimaryreligiousrelationshiptosomethingotherthanthereligious ultimate,orbecausetherearedistinctlydifferentwaystorelatetothatultimateorfor bothreasons.12 Althoughheoffersseveralargumentsinsupportofhisproposal,Heimsnotion ofmultiplereligiousendsisultimatelyrootedinaparticularunderstandingofthe Trinity.HeclaimsthatthecomplexnatureofthetriuneGodmakespossibleavarietyof
Ibid.,33.Presumably,whenHeimreferstocontemporaryculturalassumptions,heisreferringto Westernculturalassumptions;therearemanypartsoftheworldthathavenotbeenshapedbya monotheisticconsciousnessand,consequently,havenoproblembelievinginamultiplicityofdivine realities.
11 12

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,34.

115

 relationswithGodleadingtomultiplereligiousends.Threetermsplayacriticalrolein Heimsproposal:dimensions,relationsandends.Thekeytounderstandinghis proposalisapprehendingtheinterrelationshipsthatexistbetweentheseterms.Notice thewaythesethreetermsarelinkedinthefollowingsummary:Thedistinctive religiousendsofvarioustraditionscorrespondtorelationswithGodconstitutedby limitationorintensificationwithinaparticulardimensionofthetrinitarianlife.This providesthebasisbothtoaffirmtherealityofthesereligiousendsandtodistinguish themfromsalvation.13Withthisoverviewinmind,IwilloutlineHeimsproposalin greaterdetail. 3.1.1 Three Dimensions of the Divine Life DrawingupontheworkoftheOrthodoxtheologianJohnZizioulas,Heimclaims thatGodexistsinacommunionofpersons.Together,thesepersonsconstituteGods nature:Godssubstancedoesnotprecedethethreedivinepersons,asiftheyaremade upofthedivineessenceoraredivisionsofit.Beingisnotpriortopersonhoodin God.14Inotherwords,Godisnotagenericbeingwithpersonhoodmerelytackedon;a communionofpersonsconstitutesGodsbeing.15Wehavepressedthisexplorationof
13 14 15

Ibid.,16768(italicsmine). Ibid.,171.

Thereisnomorebasicsourceofthedivinebeingthanpersonandcommunion.Onsuchaview,the unityoftheTrinityisnottobeunderstoodintermsofthepersonsallbeingcomposedofthesamestuff.It

116

 trinitarianthought,andparticularlythemeaningofperson,foraspecificpurpose.The complexnatureofGodholdsoutthepossibilityofavarietyofdistinctrelationswithGod. Thatvarietyisthebasisfortrulydifferentreligiousends.16Onemaywonderwhat HeimhasinmindwhenhereferstothecomplexnatureofGod.Thisbringsustothe heartofhisattempttorelatetheTrinityandreligiousends.Buildingupontheworkof NinianSmartandStevenKonstantine,17Heimclaimsthatthedivinelifeofthetriune Godischaracterizedbythreedimensions:impersonal,personal,andcommunion. Theimpersonaldimensionrepresentstheinfinitedivinelifeasitcirculatesamongthe persons.18Divineimpersonalitycanbeperceivedintwoways.First,theexchange amongpersonscanbeexperiencedasakindofflux.Thiswouldgiverisetothe perceptionthatallischangingandimpermanent:allisarising....Theonlythingthat couldbemorefundamentalwouldbethecessationofsucharising:somethinglikewhat Buddhismcallsnirvana.19Heimreferstothisastheexperienceofnoself.Second, divineimpersonalitycanbeperceivedasselfwithoutrelation.20Iftherewerebut
becamecommonintheWesttolocatetheprincipleofallunityinasingledivinesubstanceoressence.But inEasternChristianitytheprincipleofunitywasassociatedwiththefirstperson,theFather.Heim,Depth oftheRiches,172.
16 17

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,179(italicsmine).

NinianSmartandStephenKonstantine,ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContext(Minneapolis: Fortress,1991).
18 19 20

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,185. Ibid.,187. Ibid.,189.

117

 oneabsoluteself,thenthefluxandimpermanencehumansperceiveasadimensionof thedivinepresencecouldbetakenasthenaturalinnerrealityofthatself.21Thiswould correspondmostcloselytoAdvaitaVedantaHinduthought.Aseconddimension involvesGodspersonalinvolvementintheworld.Throughthisdimensionhumans seekGodspresence,hearGodsword,seeGodsacts,obeyordisobeyGods commandments,andofferpraiseorpetition.22Thispersonaldimensionis characteristicnotonlyofChristianitybutalsoofJudaismandIslam.Athirddimension involvescommunion.Heimclaimsthatencounteringotherpersonsisnotthesame asexperiencingcommunionwiththem.Communioninvolvesamutualindwelling, inwhichthedistinctpersonsarenotconfusedoridentifiedbutareenrichedbytheir participationineachothersinnerlife.23Thesethreedimensionsofdivinelife constituteaseamlessunityinthecommunionofthethreepersonsandrelations arisingfromthemareirreducible.24Furthermore,throughanyofthemoneencounters allthreepersonsoftheTrinitynotmerelyoneofthedivinepersons.

21 22 23 24

Ibid.,189. Ibid.,19293. Ibid.,196. Ibid.,197.

118

 3.1.2 Three Relations and Multiple Religious Ends Correspondingtothesethreedimensionsofdivinelifearethreetypesof relationswithGod:(1)impersonalidentity,(2)iconographicencounterand(3) personalcommunion.Impersonalidentityinvolvesarelationwiththeimpersonal dimensionofGodsnatureandexistsintwoforms.Thefirstvariation,beingapophatic, isgroundedintheemptinessbywhicheachofthedivinepersonsmakesspaceforthe others.25Thesecondvariation,whichisunitive,isgroundedinthecoinherenceor completeimmanenceofeachofthedivinepersonsintheothers.26IntermsofGods economicinteractionwithcreation,thefirstvariationinvolvesGodswithdrawalor transcendencefromcreation.Thiswithdrawalenablescreationtopossessitsown reality.Ineconomicterms,thesecondvariationinvolvesGodsimmanenceintheform ofhissustainingpresence:Thisconstantdivineactivityrevealsauniversalimmanence ofGodineverycreature.Itreflectstheimpersonalmutualindwellingofthethreetriune persons.27Theiconographicencounterisgroundedintheinterpersonalencounter amongthethreepersonsoftheTrinity.Eachencounterstheotherasauniquecharacter. Inaparallelway,humansencounterGodasadistinctother.Asinthefirstrelation, twovariationsexist.Inthefirstvariation,oneencountersthedivinelifeasalaw,an
25 26 27

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,210. Ibid.,210. Ibid.,210.

119

 orderorstructure.28AnexampleofthiswouldbetheBuddhistdharma.Asecond variationcentersuponGodasapersonalbeing.HereoneexperiencesanIthou relationwithGod.ThisischaracteristicofChristianity.Thethirdrelation,personal communion,derivesfromtheperichoresisormutualcommunionofthethreedivine persons.29Eachofthesedimensions,andtheircorrespondingrelations,possessesits ownintegrityandmightbedescribedascoequalintrinitarianterms.30 WhenarelationwithGodispursuedconsistentlyandexclusivelythroughone ofthethreedimensions,theresultisadistinctivereligiousend.Fourtypesofhuman destinyarepossible:(1)salvation(communionwiththetriuneGod),(2)alternative religiousends(whichariseinresponsetoaneconomicmanifestationofanimmanent dimensionofthetriunelife),(3)nonreligioushumandestinies(whichresultfrom fixationonsomecreatedgood)and(4)negationofthecreatedself.Alternativereligious endsarerootedinauthenticrevelationofthetriuneGod,butnotrevelationofGodas triune.31Furthermore,theydependuponGodsgrace:ThetriuneGodispartytothe realizationofalternatereligiousends.Theyarenotsimplytheactualizationofinnate

28 29 30 31

Ibid.,211. Ibid.,211. Ibid.,167. Ibid.,275(italicsoriginal).

120

 humancapacities;theyaredistinctrelationswithaspectsofthetriunelife.Aparticular graceofGodisoperativewithinthem.32 3.1.3 Plenitude and Multiple Religious Ends Inresponsetohisproposal,onemightask,WhywouldGodwantmultiple ends?Anticipatingthisquestion,Heimoffersafinalargumentformultiplereligious endsthatdrawsuponthenotionofdivineplenitude.Plenitude,accordingtoHeim, isaqualitativedescriptionofthedivinelifeastriune.33Economically,thisfullnessis expressedineverythingGodhascreated:Thediversityandcommunionofthetriune lifehavegivenrisetotheplenitudeofrelationsamongcreaturesandtotheplenitudeof relationsbetweencreaturesandcreator.34Multiplereligiousendscanbeviewedasan expressionofdivineplenitudewithincreation:Aplenitudeofreligiousendsisa reflectionofthegoodnessandthesavingwillofGod,appliedinrelationtofreepersons whoseeksomethingotherthancommunionwiththetriuneGod.Everyrelationwith Godthatissoughtisfulfilled.Everythingisoffered.Nothingisdenied.35

32 33 34 35

Ibid.,275. Ibid.,253. Ibid.,253(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,25556.

121

3.2 The Economic and the Immanent Trinity in De Trinitate

HavingsurveyedHeimsproposal,wewillnowturntoDeTrinitateinorderto considerhowAugustinerelatestheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity.36Wewillbegin byexaminingAugustinesdiscussionoftheepistemicfoundationforhumanknowledge ofthetriuneGod.37AugustinemakesitclearthatScriptureconstitutestheauthoritative basisforhumanknowledgeofthetriuneGod.Whateverelsemayhavebeeninvolved, onethingisclear:thefifthcenturybattleoverthedoctrineofGodwasabattleabout howrightlytointerpretScripture.Inthiscontext,Augustinewantstocontendforthe rightnessofsaying,believing,understandingthattheFatherandtheSonandtheHoly Spiritareofoneandthesamesubstanceoressence(uniuseiusdemquesubstantiaevel essentiae).38Hence,hisfirstpriorityistoestablishbytheauthorityoftheholy scriptureswhetherthefaithisinfactlikethat.39Inhisefforttodemonstratethe essentialunityandequalityoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit,Augustinediscusses numerousbiblicaltexts.40ThescripturalindextoDeTrinitateinvolume50aofCorpus
36AlthoughitmayappearanachronistictoconsiderhowAugustinerelatestheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity,itwillbecomeclearthatadistinctionbetweenGodinseandGodpronobisplaysa significantroleinhistrinitariantheology. 37IwillarguebelowthatthereisgoodreasontoquestiontheidentificationoftheeconomicTrinitywith theteachingofScripturewhiletheimmanentTrinityisidentifiedwithspeculativereflectionaboutGod. 38 39 40

Augustine,DeTrin.I.4,67. Augustine,DeTrin.I.4,67.

AugustineexplainsthatScripturalreferencestotheFather,SonandHolySpiritcanbegroupedintothree categories.Onegroupoftexts(e.g.,John1:1;John10:30;Phil2:6)affirmstheunityandequalityofthe

122

 ChristianorumSeriesLatinacontainsover6800biblicalcitationsandallusions.41In additiontoalmostthirtyOldTestamentbooks,42citationscanbefoundfromeveryNew TestamentbookexceptPhilemon.NotonlydoesScriptureplayacentralroleinhis understandingofthetriunityofGod,butAugustineisalsoclearhumanspossessno knowledgeofthetriunityofGodapartfromScripture.43Withthiscontextinmind,we willexplorethedistinctionAugustinemakesbetweenGodinseandGodpronobis. Augustinedrawsanimportantdistinctionbetweentheeternal generation/processionofthedivinepersons(immanentTrinity)andtheirtemporal

Father,SonandHolySpirit.Asecondgroupoftexts(e.g.,John14:28;ICor.15:28)affirmsthattheSonis somehowlessthantheFather.ThesetextsareoftenmisreadbecauseofafailuretodistinguishChristin hishumanityfromChristinhisdeity.DrawinguponPaulsdistinctioninPhil.2:6betweentheSoninthe formofGodandtheformofaservant,AugustinesuggeststhatintheformofGod,theSonisthe Fathersequalineveryway;however,intheformofaservant(i.e.,inhishumanity),heisinferiortothe Father.Athirdgroupoftexts(e.g.John5:26;16:28)describestheSonneitherasequaltotheFathernor lessthantheFatherbutfromtheFather.SeeAugustine,DeTrin.II.3,9899.Foradiscussionof AugustinestrinitarianhermeneuticsseeJaroslavJ.Pelikan,CanonicaRegula:TheTrinitarianHermeneutics ofAugustine,inCollectaneaAugustiniana:AugustineSecondFounderoftheFaith,ed.JosephC.Schnaubelt andFrederickVanFleteren(NewYork:PeterLang,1990),329343.
41 42

SeeCorpusChristianorumSeriesLatina,vol.50A,(Turnholt:Brepols,1968),601721.

CitationsandallusionscanbefoundinDeTrinitatetotwentysevencanonicalOldTestamentbooks (Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy,Joshua,Ruth,1Samuel,2Samuel,1Kings,2Kings,1 Chronicles,Job,Psalms,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,SongofSolomon,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Ezekiel,Daniel,Hosea, Amos,Micah,Hababbak,ZechariahandMalachi)aswellasmanyofthedeuterocanonicalbooks. ApopularmisreadingofDeTrinitatesuggeststhatAugustineattemptstoofferscripturalproofforthe unityandequalityofFather,SonandHolySpiritinBooksIVIIandthenturnstorationalproofforthe sameinBooksVIIIXV.ThisreadingfailstorecognizethatAugustineneverdepartsfromthehorizonof faithevenwhenheisinvestigatingthedivineimageinthehumanmind.InthesecondhalfofDeTrinitate AugustinedoesnotabandonScriptureinordertoreflectonthetriunityofGod;insteadhewantstoillumine theknowledgeoftheprocessionswhichhehasdiscoveredonthebasisoffaith(Scripture).Moreover,the purposeofhisinquiryisnottoofferanapologeticforthetriunityofGodusingnaturaltheology;rather,it isacontemplativeexercisedesignedtodrawthereaderintothelifeofthetriuneGod.Thesepointswillbe developedfurtherinchapterfive.
43

123

 missions(economicTrinity).44Noticehowhecarefullydistinguishes generation/processionfrommissioninthefollowingstatementneartheendofBookIV:
JustastheFather,then,begot(genuit)andtheSonwasbegotten(genitus),sothe Fathersent(misit)andtheSonwassent(missus)....Andjustasbeingborn (natum)meansfortheSonhisbeingfromtheFather,sohisbeingsent(mitti) meanshisbeingknowntobefromhim.AndjustasfortheHolySpirithisbeing thegiftofGod(donumDei)meanshisproceeding(procedere)fromtheFather,so hisbeingsent(mitti)meanshisbeingknowntoproceed(procedat)fromhim.45

ThetemporalmissionsoftheSonandtheSpiritareexpressedinthephrasebeingsent whiletheireternalgenerationandprocessionareexpressedintherespectivephrases beingbornandbeinggift.Thisstatementsumsupalonginvestigationofthe missionsoftheSonandtheSpiritthatbeganinBookII.Thisinvestigationwas necessitatedbytheclaimthatthesendingoftheSonandSpiritimpliedthattheywere inferiortotheFather.46Augustinelaborstoshowthatbeingsentdoesimplyany inferiorityonthepartoftheonewhoissent.Heaccomplishesthelatterbycarefully distinguishingmissionfromgeneration/procession.Itishelpfultoconsiderthis distinctionbothfromontologicalandepistemologicalperspectives.Fromanontological

AlthoughlaterWesterntheologianslikeThomasAquinasspeakintermsoftwoprocessions,itiscrucial tonotethatAugustinereservesthetermprocession(processio)exclusivelyfortheHolySpiritwhilehe usesthetermgeneration(generatio)exclusivelyinrelationtotheSon.
44 45 46

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.

Refutedhere,theyturntoanotheraxiom:Theonewhosendsisgreaterthantheonesent.SotheFather isgreaterthantheSon,whoisconstantlypresentinghimselfassentbytheFather;heisalsogreaterthanthe HolySpirit,ofwhomJesussaid,whomtheFatherwillsendinmyname(Jn14:26).AndtheHolySpiritisless thaneither,sincebesidestheFathersendinghim,asmentioned,theSonsendshimtoo,sayingashedoes, ButifIgoawayIwillsendhimtoyou(Jn16:7).Augustine,DeTrin.II.7,101.

124

 perspective,generation/processionconstitutestheontologicalfoundationformission. TheSondoesnotbecomeSonbybeingsent;rather,theSonisconstitutedasSonby virtueofhisgenerationbytheFather(birthineternity).Similarly,theHolySpirit doesnotbecomeSpiritbybeingsent;rather,theHolySpiritisconstitutedasSpiritby proceedingfromtheFatherandtheSon(beingtheGiftofGod).47Froman epistemologicalperspective,theorderisreversed:missionconstitutestheepistemic foundationforgeneration/procession.ThemissionoftheSonrevealshiseternal generationbytheFatherwhilemissionoftheSpiritrevealshiseternalprocessionfrom theFather(andtheSon).Sincethemissionsmerelyrevealgenerationandprocession, thereisnoreasontoconcludethatsendingimpliesinferiorityonthepartoftheone sent.48

Inthesentenceimmediatelyfollowingtheabovestatement,Augustineoffersthefollowingclarification: Nor,bytheway,canwesaythattheHolySpiritdoesnotproceedfromtheSonaswell;itisnotwithout pointthatthesameSpiritiscalledtheSpiritoftheFatherandoftheSon.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174. TheprocessionoftheSpiritfromtheFatherandSonwillbediscussedinchapterfour.

47

Forthemoment,however,ithasbeensufficientlydemonstrated,soIthink,thattheSonisnotlessthan theFatherjustbecausehewassentbytheFather,noristheHolySpiritlesssimplybecauseboththeFather andtheSonsenthim.Weshouldunderstandthatthesesendingsarenotmentionedinscripturebecauseof anyinequalityordisparityordissimilarityofsubstance(nonpropterinaequalitatemvelimparilitatemvel dissimilitudinemsubstantiae)betweenthedivinepersons,butbecauseofthecreatedvisiblemanifestationof theSonandtheHolySpirit;orbetterstill,inordertobringhometousthattheFatheristhesourceand originofalldeity.ForeveniftheFatherhadchosentoappearvisiblythroughthecreationhecontrols,it wouldbequiteabsurdtotalkabouthimbeingsentbytheSonhebegotortheHolySpiritwhoproceeds fromhim.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.32,17677.HereAugustineissumminguphisdiscussioninBooksIIIV. HepointsoutthatthesendingsoftheSonandSpiritdonotrevealtheirinferioritytotheFatherbutrather thattheFatherconstitutesthesource(principium)oftheGodhead.
48

125

 AnotherwindowintothedistinctionAugustinedrawsbetweenmissionand generation/processioncanbeseeninhisdiscussionoftheHolySpiritasGift(donum). InasmuchastheHolySpiritonlybecomesGiftwhenheisgivenintime(apoint emphasizedinScripture),employinggiftlanguagerunstheriskofpotentially underminingtheSpiritsequalityandeternalitywiththeFatherandSon.Augustine, however,avertsthisproblembyexplainingthattheHolySpiritdoesnotbecomeGift bybeinggiven:WeshouldnotbedisturbedattheHolySpirit,althoughheiscoeternal withtheFatherandtheSon,beingsaidtobesomethingfromapointoftime,likethis namewehavejustusedofdonation(donatum).TheSpirit,tomakemyselfclear,is everlastinglygift(donum),butdonation(donatum)onlyfromapointoftime.49 Augustinedrawsadistinctionbetweenagiftinitself(donum)andagiftasathinggiven (donatum)withtheformerconstitutingthebasisforthelatter.SpiritcanexistasaGift intime(economicTrinity)becausetheSpiritisGiftfromalleternity(immanent Trinity).50Figure1(below)summarizesthedistinctionAugustinemakesbetween generation/processionandmissioninDeTrinitate.

49 50

Augustine,DeTrin.V.17,200.

ThomasAquinaswillbuilduponthisexplanationsuggestingthattheHolySpiritisrightlycalledGift fromalleternitybecauseofanaptitudeforbeinggiven.SeeThomasAquinas,SummaTheologiaeIa,q.38,a.1, ad.4.

126


Mission Temporal SendingoftheSon GivingoftheSpirit Inseparableaction Representstheepistemicmeansthrough whichtheeternalprocessionsarerevealed EconomicTrinity Generation/Procession Eternal EternalgenerationoftheSonbytheFather EternalprocessionfromtheFatherandthe Son Inseparablesubstance Constitutestheontologicalbasisforthe temporalsendingoftheSonandtheSpirit ImmanentTrinity

Figure1:DistinctionbetweenMissionandGeneration/Procession AsEdmundHillrightlynotes,Augustinesdistinctionbetweenprocessionandmission representedasignificantimprovementoveranearliergenerationofeconomic theologians:whereasTertullianhadbeenconstrainedtosaythattheeconomy constitutesthemysteryofGod,Augustineclaimedthattheeconomy(themissions) revealstheeternalmysteryofGod.51 AlthoughAugustinecarefullydistinguishestheeconomicandtheimmanent Trinity,hedoesnotseverthemassomecontemporarycriticsallege.Onthecontrary, theyremaininextricablylinkedinsuchawaythatthemissionsoftheSonandSpirit representakindoftemporalextensionoftheireternalgeneration/procession.52Oneof AugustinescentralepistemologicalclaimsinDeTrinitateisthatthetemporalmissions revealtheeternalgenerationoftheSonandtheprocessionoftheSpirit.Thisclaim
51 52

Hill,TheTrinity,48(italicsoriginal).

Forthisreason,AugustinewouldhavehadnoproblemaffirmingthefirsthalfofRahnersaxiom,the economicTrinityistheimmanentTrinity.

127

 dependsuponaclosecontinuitybetweenGodinseandGodpronobis;otherwisethe missionscouldnotrevealtheprocessions.Noticehowthefollowingstatement regardingtheequalityoftheFatherandSonassumesaclosecontinuitybetweenthe economicandtheimmanentTrinity:For[theWord]wasnotsentinvirtueofsome disparityofpowerorsubstanceoranythinginhimthatwasnotequaltotheFather,but invirtueoftheSonbeingfromtheFather,nottheFatherbeingfromtheSon.53Itis mostappropriatethattheSonwassentbecausetheSonisfromtheFather.54Another exampleofclosecontinuitybetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinitycanbeseen inAugustinesdiscussionofJohn5:19andJohn5:26.55Afternotingtheinadequacyof hisformofaservantruletoexplainthesetexts,Augustineoffersthefollowing
Itishelpfultoreadthissentenceinabroadercontext:IfhoweverthereasonwhytheSonissaidtohave beensentbytheFatherissimplythattheoneistheFatherandtheothertheSon,thenthereisnothingatall tostopusbelievingthattheSonisequaltotheFatherandconsubstantialandcoeternal,andyetthatthe SonissentbytheFather.Notbecauseoneisgreaterandtheotherless,butbecauseoneistheFatherand theothertheSon;oneisthebegetter(genitor),theotherbegotten(genitus);thefirstistheonefromwhomthe sentoneis;theotheristheonewhoisfromthesender.FortheSonisfromtheFather,nottheFatherfrom theSon.InthelightofthiswecannowperceivethattheSonisnotjustsaidtohavebeensentbecausethe Wordbecameflesh,butthathewassentinorderfortheWordtobecomeflesh,andbyhisbodilypresence todoallthatwaswritten.Thatis,weshouldunderstandthatitwasnotjustthemanwhotheWordbecame thatwassent,butthattheWordwassenttobecomeman.Forhewasnotsentinvirtueofsomedisparityof powerorsubstanceoranythinginhimthatwasnotequaltotheFather,butinvirtueoftheSonbeingfrom theFather,nottheFatherbeingfromtheSon.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.27,172.
53

AlthoughAugustineissometimeschargedwithhavingarticulatedtheviewthatanyofthedivinepersons couldhavebecomeincarnate,thisassumptionisunderminedbylogicoftheabovequotation.Inasmuchas themissionsareanextensionofgenerationandprocessionoftheSonandtheSpirit,itismostfittingthatthe SonandtheSpiritweresent.

54

SoJesussaidtothem,Truly,truly,Isaytoyou,theSoncandonothingofhisownaccord,butonlywhat heseestheFatherdoing.ForwhatevertheFatherdoes,thattheSondoeslikewise(John5:19,ESV).For astheFatherhaslifeinhimself,sohehasgrantedtheSonalsotohavelifeinhimself(John5:26,ESV).

55

128

 explanation:SothereasonforthesestatementscanonlybethatthelifeoftheSonis unchangingliketheFathers,andyetisfromtheFather;andthattheworkofFatherand Sonisindivisible,andyettheSonsworkingisfromtheFatherjustashehimselfisfrom theFather;andthewayinwhichtheSonseestheFatherissimplybybeingtheSon.56 Forourpurposes,itisimportanttonotethatAugustinepositsaclosecontinuityinthis statementbetweenthenatureofthedivinepersons(immanentTrinity)andtheworking ofthedivinepersonsadextra(economicTrinity)throughtwoparallels:(1)justasthelife oftheSonisunchangeablelikethatoftheFather(immanentTrinity),sotheworkingof theSonindivisiblefromtheworkingoftheFather(economicTrinity);and(2)justasthe SonisfromtheFather(immanentTrinity),sotheworkoftheSon(economicTrinity)is fromtheFather.57Onefinalexampleofcontinuitybetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinitycanbeseeninAugustinesdiscussionoftheprocessionoftheHoly Spirit.AugustineclaimsthattheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon.From
ThefirsthalfofthissentenceattemptstoexplainJohn5:26whilethesecondpartofthesentenceaimsat explainingJohn5:19.Augustinecontinues,Forhim,beingfromtheFather,thatisbeingbornoftheFather, isnotsomethingdifferentfromseeingtheFather;norisseeinghimworkingsomethingdifferentfromhis workingequally;andthereasonhedoesnotworkofhimselfisthathedoesnot(sotoputit)beofhimself; andthereasonhedoeswhatheseestheFatherdoingisthatheisfromtheFather.Hedoesnotdoother thingslikewise,likeapaintercopyingpictureshehasseenpaintedbysomeoneelse;nordoeshedothesame thingsdifferently,likethebodyformingletterswhichthemindhasthought;butWhatevertheFatherdoes,he says,thesametheSonalsodoeslikewise(Jn5:19).Thesame,hesaid;andalso,likewise;thusshowingthat theworkingoftheFatherandoftheSonisequalandindivisible,andyettheSonsworkingcomesfromthe Father.ThatiswhytheSoncannotdoanythingofhimselfexceptwhatheseestheFatherdoing. Augustine,DeTrin.II.3,99.
56

Thus,thereasontheSondoesnotworkofhimselfisthesamereasonhedoesnothavelifein himselfnamely,becauseheisfromtheFather.
57

129

 ScripturalreferencestothesendingoftheSpiritbytheSonintheeconomy,Augustine infersthattheSonmustplayaconstitutiveroleintheprocessionoftheHolySpirit.58 Thisclaimdependsuponaclosecontinuitybetweentheeconomicandtheimmanent Trinity. Onabroaderscale,oneofthestrikingfeaturesaboutDeTrinitateisthewayin whichAugustinecarefullyintegrateseconomicandontologicalperspectives.In responsetoLatinHomoianreadingsofScripture,Augustineattemptstoarticulatea coherentdoctrineoftheTrinityintheeconomyofsalvation.Thefollowingdescription inBookIexemplifiesthisreality.AugustineexplainsthatintheformofGod(forma Dei)theSoncreatedallthings(John1:3)whileintheformofaservant(formaservi)he wasmadeofawoman(Gal.4:4).IntheformofGod,theFatherandSonareone(John 10:30)whileintheformofaservanttheSoncametodothewilloftheFather(John6:38). IntheformofGod,heistrueGod(IJohn5:20)whileintheformofaservanthewas obedienttodeath(Phil2:8).IntheformofGod,everythingthatbelongstotheFather belongstotheSon(John16:15)whileintheformofaservanthisdoctrineishisFathers
AndjustasfortheHolySpirithisbeingthegiftofGodmeanshisproceedingfromtheFather,sohis beingsentmeanshisbeingknowntoproceedfromhim.Nor,bytheway,canwesaythattheHolySpirit doesnotproceedfromtheSonaswell;itisnotwithoutpointthatthesameSpiritiscalledtheSpiritofthe FatherandoftheSon.AndIcannotseewhatelseheintendedtosignifywhenhebreathedandsaidReceive theHolySpirit(Jn20:22).Notthatthephysicalbreaththatcamefromhisbodyandwasphysicallyfeltwas thesubstanceoftheHolySpirit;butitwasaconvenientsymbolicdemonstrationthattheHolySpirit proceedsfromtheSonaswellasfromtheFather.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.Theprocessionofthe SpiritfromtheFatherandtheSonwillbediscussedinchapterfour.
58

130

 (John7:16).59AugustineisofferingaccountoftheTrinityintheeconomyofsalvation thatintegratesassumptionsaboutimmanentTrinity.60TherecentworkofDavidCoffey ishelpfulinsheddinglightontherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanent TrinityinAugustinestrinitariantheology.61Coffeyhasproposedthatwedistinguish threestepsinourknowledgeoftriuneGod.62Inthefirststep,weencountertheself revelationofthetriuneGodintheoikonomiarecordedinScripture.Coffeyreferstothis asthebiblicalTrinity.63Inthesecondstep,wereflectuponwhatmustbetrue regardingbeingandnatureofthedivinepersonsinlightofGodsselfrevelationinthe

59 60

Augustine,DeTrin.I.22,82.

BecauseeverytheologicalaccountoftheeconomicTrinitycontainsimplicitmetaphysicalassumptions abouttheimmanentTrinity,onesimplycannotarriveatadoctrineoftheeconomicTrinitywithout reflectingonthebeingandnatureofthedivinepersons.Thus,Augustineisnotoutliningadoctrineofthe immanentTrinityasanenditselfbutratherasthenecessarybasisforadoctrineoftheeconomicTrinity thetriuneGodintheeconomyofsalvation. AccordingtoCoffeyoneoftheweaknessesofRahnersaxiomisthatitdoesnottelluswhichperspective [economicorimmanent]isthemorefundamental,nordoesitthrowlightontheorderofourknowledgeof theTrinity.DavidCoffey,DeusTrinitas:TheDoctrineoftheTriuneGod.(NewYork:Oxford,1999),1415. Coffeyaddressesthislacunabydistinguishingepistemologicalandontologicalorders.Froman epistemologicalperspective,Godsselfrevelationintheeconomyofsalvationconstitutesthefoundationfor ourknowledgeoftheimmanentTrinity.Fromanontologicalperspective,theimmanentTrinityconstitutes thefoundationfortheeconomicTrinity.
61

Coffey,DeusTrinitas,1617.Coffeysuggeststhattheepistemologicalorderhehasoutlinedbiblical Trinity,immanentTrinity,economicTrinitycorrespondstothreeordersofknowing(experiencing, understandingandknowing)intheworkofBernardLonergan.

62

CoffeyclaimsthatNewTestamentpresentswhatwouldbestbedescribedasafunctionaltheology.In thiscontext,hedeniesthattheNewTestamentaffirmsanontologicalincarnation.Coffey,DeusTrinitas,12 14.Coffeysclaimsnotwithstanding,thereisgoodreasontobelievetheNewTestamentaffirmsan ontologicalincarnation.Forexample,regardingtheclaimthattheSonishomoousioswiththeFathersee, DavidS.Yeago,TheNewTestamentandtheNiceneDogma:AContributiontotheRecoveryofTheological Exegesis,ProEcclesia3(1994):152164.

63

131

 oikonomia.Theoutcomeofthisreflectionrepresentsadoctrineoftheimmanent Trinity.Inthethirdandfinalstep,wearticulateasystematicconceptualizationofthe triuneGodintheoikonomiaadoctrineoftheeconomicTrinity.64InDeTrinitate Augustinebringsreaderstothisthirdstepasystematicconceptualizationofthetriune Godintheeconomicofsalvation.ThiscanbeseeninthestructureofAugustines summaryofCatholicteachingontheTrinityinBookI.Thefirstparagraphoffersa concisesummaryofteachingontheimmanentTrinity(steptwo)whilethesecond paragraphoffersasystematicsummaryofthissameTrinityintheeconomyofsalvation (stepthree).65 WearenowinapositiontosummarizeAugustinesunderstandingofthe relationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity: P1. TheoikonomiarevealedinScriptureconstitutestheepistemicfoundationforour knowledgeofthetriunityofGod. P2. InasmuchastheknowledgeoftheTrinitycanbegainedonlythroughthe oikonomiarevealedinScripture,anyconceptualizationoftheTrinity(immanent oreconomic)musthaveclearrootsintheoikonomiarevealedinScripture.
InthisthirdstepCoffeyexplainsthatwemaketwosimultaneousaffirmations:first,theimmanentTrinity, whichbecauseofdivinetranscendencemustexistinitsownright,andsecond,theeconomicTrinity,thatis, thissameTrinityinvolvedinthedivineplanofsalvationthroughthemissionsoftheSonandoftheHoly Spirit.Furthermore,fromalogicalstandpoint,noreasonexiststodistinguishthebiblicalfromthe economicTrinityasthesemerelyrepresentdifferentstagesinourintellectualunderstandingonceGods involvementintheworldhasbeenrecognizedastrinitarian.Coffey,DeusTrinitas,24.Asasystematic conceptualizationofthetriuneGodintheeconomyofsalvation,theeconomicTrinityisnoless speculativethantheimmanentTrinityinasmuchasitincorporates(eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly) assumptionsregardingtheimmanentTrinity.
64 65

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.7,6970.Adetaileddiscussionofthispassagecanbefoundinchapterfour.

132

 P3. Animportantdistinctionmustbedrawnbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity. P4. AsarevelationofthetriuneGodintime,theeconomicTrinityrevealsand closelyreflectstheimmanentTrinity. P5. Fromanontologicalperspective,theimmanentTrinity(Godinse)constitutesthe foundationfortheeconomicTrinity. P6. ThepurposeofadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinityisnottoofferaspeculative accountofGodapartfromtheeconomyofsalvationasanendinitselfbutto providethebasisforaproperunderstandingofGodwithintheeconomyof salvation. AugustineclaimsthatHolyScriptureconstitutestheepistemicfoundationofour knowledgeofthetriunityofGod(P1).Thiscanbeseenmostclearlyinhisclaimthatthe temporalmissionsrevealtheeternalgenerationoftheSonandprocessionoftheSpirit. InasmuchastheknowledgeoftheTrinitycanbegainedonlythroughtheoikonomia revealedinScripture,anyconceptualizationoftheTrinity(immanentoreconomic)must haveclearrootsintheoikonomiarevealedinScripture(P2).OneofAugustinesunique contributionstothedevelopmentoftrinitariantheologywasthedistinctionhemade betweenmissionandgeneration/processioninwhichgenerationoftheSonand processionoftheSpiritconstitutetheontologicalbasisfortheirtemporalmissions.To statetheprinciplemoregenerally,wemaysaythattheeconomicandtheimmanent Trinitymustbedistinguished(P3).Atthesametime,Augustineclaimsthatthe temporalmissionsrevealandcloselyreflecttheeternalprocessions(P4).Justas processionconstitutesthebasisformission,moregenerallywemightsaythatthe immanentTrinityconstitutestheontologicalgroundfortheeconomic(P5).Finally,the 133

 purposeofadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinityisnottoofferaspeculativeaccountof Godapartfromtheeconomyofsalvationasanendinitselfbuttoprovidethebasisfora properunderstandingofGodwithintheeconomyofsalvation(P6).

3.3 An Evaluation of Heims Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends

Inthediscussionthatfollows,IwillarguethatthetrinitarianproblemsinHeims proposalcenterontherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity.66 Morespecifically,IwillshowthatthebreakdowninHeimstrinitariangrammaroccurs instepstwoandthreeoftheepistemicorder(i.e.,biblicalTrinity,immanentTrinity, economicTrinity).Insteptwo,Heimarticulatesaspeculativeunderstandingofthe immanentTrinitythathaslittlebasisinthebiblicalTrinity.Then,instepthree,he outlinesaconceptionoftheeconomicTrinitythatincludeseconomiesofdivine activitythatbypassthetemporalmissionsoftheSonandtheSpiritasrevealedinthe oikonomia. WewillbeginbyoutliningHeimsaccountoftherelationshipbetweenthe economicandtheimmanentTrinity.HeiminsiststhatthetriuneGodofChristian confessionrepresentsthebasisforhisproposal:

ThisisnottosuggestthattheonlyproblemsthatHeimsproposalaretrinitarian.Onecouldalsoraise questionsregardingtheontologicalcoherenceofmultiplereligiousends.Mycritiquecentersexclusively uponthetrinitariancontentofhisproposal.

66

134


ByTrinityIdonotmeantorefertoagenericandsymbolicschemeofabstract threeness.Withsuchaminimalistpattern,onecanrunmerrilythroughthe religionsgatheringtrinities,fromtheBrahmaShivaVishnutriumvirateof HinduismtothetrikayorthreebodiesdoctrineofBuddhism.Iamspeakingof therealityofGodaspresentedinthedoctrineoftheChristianchurch,which presupposestheincarnationoftheWordascrucialrevelationandactofGod.67

HeimdrawsadistinctionbetweentheontologicalandtheeconomicTrinity.68The latterdenotesanunderstandingofthetriunepersonsasvaryingexternalfacesofGods actionintheworldwhiletheformerreferstotheactualtriunepersonswhose communioninGodisthedivinelifeitself.69Althoughheinsiststhatadistinctionmust bedrawnbetweentheontologicalandtheeconomicTrinity,Heimmaintainsthat theeconomicactivityofthetriuneGodcloselycorrespondstoandreflectsGodstriune nature:ChristianbeliefthatGodisontologicallytriuneisbeliefthatGods manifestationtousisshapedbyGodstrue,deepestcharacter.Itisaconvictionthatour relationwithGodconnectsnotwithGodspurposebutGodsperson.70Thiscanbe seenmostclearlyinthecaseofChristiansalvation:Salvationasarelationofdeep communionwithGodmakessensebecauseGodsnatureitselfhasthecharacterof communion.71Underlyingtheprevioustwostatementsisanassumptionthatthe economicactivityofthetriuneGod(economicTrinity)mustcloselycorrespondtoand
67 68 69 70 71

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,130. Ibid.,5961,126133. Ibid.,126. Ibid.,61. Ibid.,59.

135

 reflecttheimmanentTrinity.Fromanontologicalperspective,Heiminsiststhatthe immanent(orontological)TrinityconstitutesthegroundfortheeconomicTrinity: TheaffirmationthattheeconomicTrinity(anunderstandingofthetriunepersonsas varyingexternalfacesofGodsactionintheworld)isgroundedintheontologicalTrinity (theactualtriunepersonswhosecommunioninGodisthedivinelifeitself)impliesthat notallrepresentationsofGodaremereprojections.RelationalimagesofGodexpress somethingtrueofGodstruenature.72Heiminsiststhattheultimatepurposeof trinitarianreflectionisnottoofferadetailed,objectivedescriptionofGodwhenGodis homealonebuttonarratethevariouswaysGodactsintheworld,andthevarious waysweexperienceGodspresence.73 FourassumptionsshapeHeimstrinitariangrammar. A1. GodsselfrevelationthroughthepersonandworkofChristconstitutesthe epistemicbasisforourknowledgeofthetriunityofGod. A2. AnimportantdistinctionmustbedrawnbetweentheeconomicTrinityandthe ontological(immanent)Trinity. A3. TheeconomicTrinitycloselycorrespondstoandreflectstheontological (immanent)Trinity.Trinitydoesnotmerelydescribeanexternal representationofGod;Trinitydescribessomethingthatisontologicallytrue aboutGodsnature. A4. Fromanontologicalperspective,theimmanentTrinityconstitutestheground fortheeconomicTrinity.
72 73

Ibid.,126(italicsmine). Ibid.,180.

136

 SofarHeimsgrammarappearstobeperfectlyconsistentwithourAugustinian grammar:A1correspondstoP1,A2correspondstoP3,A3correspondstoP4andA4 correspondstoP5.InthecaseoftheChristianreligiousend(salvation),Heims trinitariangrammarfunctionsperfectly.Theinherentrelationalityofsalvation mirrorstherelationalityofthedivinelifeofthetriuneGod.Aproblem,however, arisesforHeimstrinitariangrammarinthecaseofotherreligiousends.Accordingto A3,aclosecorrespondencemustexistbetweentheeconomicactivityofthetriuneGod andtheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGod.74InthecaseofChristiansalvation,aclose correspondenceobtains;however,whataboutotherreligiousends?How,forexample, doestheHinduend(moksha),whichinvolvesreleasefromtheendlesscycleofbirth, deathandrebirth,closelycorrespondtoandreflecttheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGod? HereHeimfacesadilemma.Ontheonehand,heinsiststhattheeconomicactivityof thetriuneGodcloselycorrespondstoandreflectsGodstruenature(A3).Ontheother hand,heaffirmstheexistenceofmultiplereligiousendswhichentailsgreateconomic diversity.Howcanthesebereconciled?Onealternativemightbethefollowtheleadof pluralistssuchasJohnHickanddropA3;however,ifA3isdropped,onecanno longerclaimthattheChristianend(salvation)correspondstoandreflectsGods

ThisrepresentstheentirepointofHeimsinsistencethattheChristianend(salvationascommunionwith God)revealssomethingtrueregardingGodsinnernature.
74

137

 triunenature.Furthermore,onemustalsosurrendertheclaimthatTrinitydescribes somethingthatisontologicallytrueaboutGod.Ultimately,adenialofA3wouldlead onetoapositioninwhichallreligionsareconceivedasauthenticeconomicresponses tosomeindeterminateimmanentdivinereality.Heimclearlywantstoavoidthis.Rather thandropA3,headdsanotherpremiseintohistrinitariangrammar: A5. TheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodiscomplex. PositingcomplexityintheinnerlifeofGod(A5)constitutesHeimssolutiontothe dilemmaofhow,ontheonehand,hecanaffirmthatGodseconomicactivityclosely correspondstoandreflectsGodsnatureand,ontheotherhand,hecanaffirmthat economicexpressionsofthetriuneGodarequitediverse.75 WhatconstitutescomplexityinthedivinelifeofthetriuneGod?Thisquestion takesustotheheartofHeimsproposal.AsInotedinA4,theimmanent(orontological) TrinityrepresentstheconstitutivebasisforHeimsalternativereligiousends.Whatis HeimsunderstandingoftheimmanentTrinity?HeclaimsthatGodisacommunionof
NoticehowHeimappealstocomplexityastheconstitutivebasisforeconomicdiversityinthecontextof closecorrespondencebetweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity:Byaffirmingtheclosestpossible unityofChristwithGod,inthespecificcontextofJewishmonotheism,Christianfaithcreatedaproblem absentinmoremonisticorpolytheistictraditions.ForGodtobedistinctivelyconnectedwithhistorical particularityinthisway,whileremainingthesole,transcendentcreator,obviouslyrequireddiversityinthe means,theeconomy,bywhichGodrelatedtotheworld.AndifthiseconomicactivityofGodwastobeat thesametimetruerevelationofGodsveryself,thenthatvarietyofmanifestationhadtoberootedina complexityofrelationintrinsictoGodsself.Inotherwords,themeansandwaysinwhichGodrelatedto creationwerenotaccidentalorartificialbutexpressionsofGodsintrinsiccharacter.Heim,Depthofthe Riches,131(italicsoriginal).
75

138

 threedivinepersons:Godspersonalrealityiscomplex:Godismadeupofpersonal communionindifference.76InthisstatementitmaysoundasifallHeimmeansby complexisthatthedivinelifeismerelyconstitutedbythreepersons;however,ashis proposalunfoldsitbecomesclearthattheprimaryreferentofcomplexityisnotthe threedivinepersonsbutthethreedimensionsofdivinelife.77Heimclaimsthat threedimensionsconstitutethedivinelifeofthetriuneGod:(1)animpersonal dimension,(2)apersonaldimensionand(3)communion.Allthreeofthesedimensions areafeatureofthetriuneGodsintegralreality.78Theimpersonaldimensioninvolves theradicalimmanenceandtheradicalemptiness,bywhichthedivinepersonsindwell eachotherandmakewayfortheotherstoindwellthem.79Economically,the impersonaldimensioncanbeperceivedeitherasakindofflux(correspondingtothe

76 77

Ibid.,62.

Wehavepressedthisexplorationoftrinitarianthought,andparticularlythemeaningofperson,fora specificpurpose.ThecomplexnatureofGodholdsoutthepossibilityofavarietyofdistinctrelationswith God.Thatvarietyisthebasisfortrulydifferentreligiousends.Alternativereligiousendsrepresentan intensifiedrealizationofonedimensionofGodsofferedrelationwithus.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,179. Complexityintheabovequotationisassociatedwiththedimensionsnotthepersons.Thatthismustbe thecasecanbeseenwhenonereadsthefollowingquotationalongsidethisearlierstatement:The distinctivereligiousendsofvarioustraditionscorrespondtorelationswithGodconstitutedbylimitationor intensificationwithinaparticulardimensionofthetrinitarianlife.Thisprovidesthebasisbothtoaffirmthe realityofthesereligiousendsandtodistinguishthemfromsalvation.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,16768 (italicsmine).
78

Ibid.,197. Ibid.,185.

79

139

 Buddhistexperienceofnirvana)orasanexperienceofanabsoluteself(correspondingto AdvaitaVedentaHinduthought).80 Intermsofhistrinitariangrammar,Heimisemphasizingtheimmanent Trinityasgroundfortheeconomic(A4).Intheexamplecitedabove,theimpersonal dimensionofGodsimmanentlifeconstitutesthebasisforaneconomicencounter betweenthetriuneGodandBuddhistsinwhichBuddhistsexperiencetheradical immanenceandtheradicalemptiness,bywhichthedivinepersonsindwelleachother andmakewayfortheotherstoindwellthem.81Arelationwiththeimpersonal dimensionofthetriunelifebyBuddhistsleadstotheBuddhistreligiousendnirvana. Hisgrammarfunctionssimilarlywithotherends:aparticulardimensionofGods immanentlifeconstitutesthefoundationforaneconomicmanifestationofthetriune Godleadingtoaparticularreligiousend. 3.3.1 From the Biblical to the Immanent Trinity HavingexaminedHeimstrinitariangrammar,wewillturnourattentionto thefirstmajortrinitarianproblem.EarlierIsuggestedthatthreephasesofdiscovery maybedistinguished:(1)biblicalTrinity,(2)immanentTrinityand(3)economicTrinity. ThesearesummarizedinFigure2below.
80 81

Ibid.,187. Ibid.,185.

140


Biblical Trinity Revelationofthetriunity ofGodintheoikonomia recordedinScripture. Immanent Trinity Conceptualizationofthebeingand natureofthedivinepersonsonthe basisofGodsselfrevelation. Economic Trinity Conceptualizationofthesalvific actionofthetriuneGodinthe economyofsalvation.

Figure2:Trinity:Biblical,ImmanentandEconomic Thus,thebiblicalTrinityconstitutestheepistemicfoundationforourknowledgeofthe triunityofGod(P1)apointHeimaffirms(A1).Inasmuchastheknowledgeofthe TrinitycanbegainedonlythroughtheoikonomiarevealedinScripture,any conceptualizationoftheTrinity(immanentoreconomic)mustpossessaclearbasisin thebiblicalTrinity(P2).Thus,whatAugustineaffirmedregardinghisownproposal appliesequallytoHeims:Butfirstwemustestablishbytheauthorityoftheholy scriptureswhetherthefaithisinfactlikethat.82InlightofFigure2wemustaskthe followingquestion:WhatconstitutestherevelatorybasisintheoikonomiaforHeims understandingoftheinnerlifeofthetriuneGod(specificallythethreedimensionsand correspondingrelations)?

82

Augustine,DeTrin.I.4,67.

141


Biblical Trinity Immanent Trinity ThreeDimensionsoftheDivinelife: Impersonal Personal Communion Economic Trinity Threetypesofrelations: Impersonalidentity Iconographicencounter Personalcommunion

???

Figure3:TrinityinHeimsProposal Heim,ofcourse,wouldinsistthatthetriuneGodasrevealedinChristianScripture constitutesthebasisforhisproposal.83Hisclaimthatthreepersons(Father,Sonand HolySpirit)constitutethedivinelifeofthetriuneGod,certainlyisrootedinthe oikonomia;however,itisimportanttorecognizethatatthecenterofHeimsdoctrineof theimmanentTrinityistheassumptionthatthedivinelifeofthetriuneGodis constitutedbythreedimensions.Regardingthelatterclaim,onemustaskthe followingquestion:WhataspectofGodsselfrevelationinScripture(thebiblical Trinity)constitutesthefoundationHeimsthreedimensions? Tomakethiscriticismmoreconcrete,itwillbehelpfultoexploreaspecific example.AccordingtoHeim,theimpersonaldimensioninvolvestheradical immanenceandtheradicalemptiness,bywhichthedivinepersonsindwelleachother andmakewayfortheotherstoindwellthem.84Whatconstitutesthefoundationinthe
83 84

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,130. Ibid.,185.

142

 biblicalTrinityforthisclaim?Heimassertsthatanimpersonaldimensioncanbeseen inGodseconomicinteractionsparticularlyintheOldTestament.Itwillbehelpfulto quotehimatlength:

Inthebiblicaltradition,wefindclearindicationsofrelationwithGodtunedinto thiswavelength.ThereisaveryrealnoteinScripturethathighlightsan impersonalsideofthedivine.IntheOldTestamenttheholinessofGodandthe directpresenceofGodfrequentlyhavethischaracter,likeafireinthepresence ofwhicheverythingmortalisconsumed.Theophanies,oreventhecontinuing presenceofGodthatrestsinthearkofthetabernacleasitstravelswiththe peopleofIsrael,havethisquality.Humansexposedtothispresenceareingreat danger,inapurelychemicalandimpersonalsense,quiteapartfromany specificintentiononGodspart.Itisasifacreaturesteppedintoacircuitwhere unimaginablecurrentwasbeingexchanged.Therawdivinelifeisaconsuming fire,andaccountofthosewhoencounterit(MosesorJob,forinstance)trade stronglyonthelanguageofimpersonalforceslikefireorwind.Thisdivine powerorforcemightbeviewedassomethinglikeanelectricalchargeorfield, generatedbytheconstantinterchangeofthethreedivinepersonswitheach other.85

Thereareatleastthreeproblemswiththislineofargument.First,theseapparently impersonaldivinemanifestationsrepresentonefacetofafundamentallypersonal selfrevelation.ItistheGodofAbraham,IsaacandJacobwhospeakstoMosesfrom theburningbush.Toseveranimpersonalaspectfromthepersonalandmakeit standaloneishighlyproblematic.Second,noepistemicwarrantexistsforassumingthat aparticularcreatedform(e.g.,fire)necessarilyrevealssomethingabouttheimmanent natureofthetriuneGod.InhisdiscussionoftheOldTestamenttheophaniesAugustine

85

Ibid.,18586.

143

 notesthatGodappearedtohumansthroughavarietyofcreatedobjects.86Heinsists thattheseOldTestamenttheophaniesdonotmanifestGodsimmanentnature:All thesevisions,however,wereproducedthroughthechangeablecreationsubjecttothe changelessGod,andtheydidnotmanifestGodasheisinhimself(nonpropriesicutiest), butinasymbolicmannerastimesandcircumstancesrequired.87Thus,todraw inferencesabouttheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodbasedonthenatureofaparticular createdrepresentation(e.g.,pillarofcloud,burningbush,fireandsmoke,etc.)is withoutwarrant.88Third,whatisbeing(indirectly)manifestedinthesetheophaniesis notadimensionofthedivinelifebutthedivinepersons.89

86Accordingly,whateveritwasthattheOldTestamentfatherssawwheneverGodshowedhimselfto them,unfoldinghisplanofsalvationinamannersuitedtothetimes,itisclearthatitwasalwaysachieved throughcreatedobjects.Augustine,DeTrin.III.22,140.LaterinthissamebookAugustinearguesthat angelsplayedakeyroleineffectingtheseOldTestamentmanifestations.Thisrepresentsoneofthefactors thatdistinguishesOldTestamenttheophaniesfromtheNewTestamentsendings. 87Augustine,DeTrin.II.32,120(italicsmine).Augustinealsoarguesthatthesetheophaniespossessan epistemicambiguityinrelationtothetriunityofGodsuchthatitisfrequentlyunclearwhichofthedivine personsappearedthroughaparticularvisiblerepresentation.Finally,toconclude:thefirstpointwe undertooktoinvestigateinourthreefolddivisionofthefieldwaswhetheritwastheFatherortheSonor theHolySpiritwhoappearedtothefathersinthosevariouscreatedforms;orwhetheritwassometimesthe Father,sometimestheSon,sometimestheHolySpirit;orwhetheritwassimplytheoneandonlyGod,that isthetrinityitself,withoutanydistinctionofpersons,asitiscalled.Anexaminationofwhatseemsa sufficientnumberofscripturalpassages,andamodestandcarefulconsiderationofthedivinesymbolsor sacramentstheycontain,allservedtoteachus,Ithink,onelesson;thatweshouldnotbedogmaticin decidingwhichpersonofthethreeappearedinanybodilyformorlikenesstothisorthatpatriarchor prophet,unlessthewholecontextofthenarrativeprovidesuswithprobableindications.Augustine,De Trin.II.35,12122.AugustineisrespondingtoHomoiantheologianswhoarguedthattheSonwasthe inherentlyvisiblepersonoftheTrinityandthatthisvisibility(whichcanbeseeninthetheophanies)was incompatiblewithanaffirmationoftheSonsontologicalequalitywiththeFather.

Augustinedrawsacleardistinctionbetweenthecreatedmediumofmanifestationandthepersonsinsuch awaythatthenatureoftheformerdoesnotentailanynecessaryassumptionsaboutthenatureofthelatter. ThiscanbeseeninhiscommentsonExodus33:Buthoweverallthismaybe,somesuchinterpretationof

88

144

 What,then,constitutestheepistemicbasisforHeimsclaimthattheimmanent lifeofthetriuneGodischaracterizedbyaradicalimmanenceandradicalemptiness,by whichthedivinepersonsindwelleachotherandmakewayfortheotherstoindwell them?90TheprimarysourceforHeimsclaimthatthedivinelifeischaracterizedby threedimensionsisnotGodsselfrevelationinScripturebutSmartandKonstantines ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContext(towhichHeimacknowledgeshis indebtedness).ThefactthatHeimappropriatesthisconceptfromSmart/Konstantineis notinitselfproblematic.Itsimplypushesthesamequestionbackonelevel.What constitutesthebasisforSmart/Konstantinesclaim?Smart/Konstantineclaimthatthe SocialTrinityconstitutestheultimatereferentofallreligiousexperience.Their proposalstartswithaparticularconstrualoftheimmanentTrinityandattemptsto explaintheeconomicactivityofthetriuneGodamongotherreligionsonthebasisof thisaccount.AlthoughtheyaffirmthattheSocialTrinityconstitutestheultimate divinereality,theyarequiteskepticalregardingtheepistemicfoundationonwhichthe doctrineultimatelyrests.Thethreedimensionsthatcharacterizethedivinelifeare
thestoryaboutMosesisrequired;forwemustnotallowourselvestobesobefoggedbyliteralminded materialismthatweimaginetheLordsfacetobeinvisibleandhisbackvisible.Bothofcoursewerevisible intheformofaservant;intheformofGodawaywiththepossibilityofsuchthoughts!Awaywiththe ideathattheWordofGodandtheWisdomofGodhasafaceononesideandabackontheother,likethe humanbody,orthatitundergoesanylocalmovementorperiodicchangeinappearancewhatever! Augustine,DeTrin.II.31,119.
89 90

Inthissense,HeimissearchingfortheophaniesofthedimensionsinhisreadingoftheOldTestament. Heim,DepthoftheRiches,185.

145

 simplyassertedandthenemployedintheirargument.91Thus,fromanAugustinian perspective,whatmakestheirproposalmostproblematicisnottheirpreferencefora SocialunderstandingofTrinity(overandagainstaPsychologicalapproach)butthe waytheirproposalexplicitlyabandonsScriptureastheepistemicfoundationforhuman knowledgeofthetriunityofGod(P1).AccordingtoSmart/Konstantine:Theliberal academicsolventshavegnawedawaytherustsofBiblicalcertainty.Itthereforeseems nonsensetopretendthattheBiblehasdoctrinalornarrativeauthority.92Byrejecting theauthorityofScripture,theyrejecttheepistemicbasisforaChristiandoctrineofthe Trinity.93InasmuchasHeimsaccountofthethreeimmanentdimensionsis consciouslydependentuponSmart/Konstantine,itrepresentsaspeculativeaccountof theimmanentTrinitythatisinadequatelyrootedintheoikonomiarevealedinScripture. IncontrasttoHeim,Augustineisquitecautiousinspeculatingabouttheimmanent

WecanmakeadistinctiontoobetweenthenonrelationalandtherelationalaspectsoftheTrinity.There is,first,theinfinityofthedivinelifeasitcirculatesthroughtheselflessspirits.Thisisthenonrelational aspect.Then,second,thereisthepluralityofthethreePersons.Third,thereisthecommunallifethe sharedegoofthethree.Theselasttwoaspectsarerelational(thefirsttooneanother,thesecondtoward creatures).SmartandKonstantine,ChristianSystematicTheology,174.

91 92 93

Ibid.,47.

AsanalternativetoScripture,Smart/Konstantineattempttogroundtheirtrinitariandoctrineinthe liturgicallifeandexperienceofthechurch.IntheabsenceofScripture,onecannothelpbutaskwhythe religiousexperienceofoneparticulargroup(earlyChristians)shouldbeepistemicallyprivilegedoverthe religiousexperiencesofothergroups(Hindus,Buddhists,etc.)informulatinganunderstandingofthe religiousultimate.Ironically,althoughtheyarequiteskepticalaboutScripture,theyappeartobequite convincedthataSocialaccountoftheTrinityismanifestlysuperiortoaPsychologicalunderstandingof thisdoctrine.

146

 Trinity.94InhisintroductiontoBookV,Augustineexplainsthatwhenwethinkabout Godthetrinityweareawarethatourthoughtsarequiteinadequatetotheirobject,and incapableofgraspinghimasheis...95AlthoughweshouldalwaysbepraisingGod, yetnowordsofoursarecapableofexpressinghim.96WhateverwesayaboutGods unchangingandinvisiblenaturecannotbemeasuredbymaterialthings.Atonepoint AugustineexplainsthatitiseasiertosaywhatGodisnotratherthanwhatGodis.97 AugustinescautionregardingtheimmanentTrinitycanbeseeninhisdiscussionof Father,SonandHolySpiritaspersonswhichweexaminedinchaptertwo.98Froman Augustinianstandpoint,Heimsimplyclaimstoknowtoomuchabouttheinteriorlifeof God.ByaffirmingaspeculativeaccountoftheimmanentTrinityinadequatelyrootedin Scripture,Heimimplicitlyunderminesanormativetrinitariangrammarwhichstates thattheepistemicbasisforourknowledgeoftheTrinityisGodsselfrevelation.

94AugustineissometimescriticizedforengaginginunrestrainedspeculationaboutGodinse(particularlyin thesecondhalfofDeTrinitate).Forexample,inhisbiographyofAugustine,PeterBrownsuggeststhatDe TrinitateprovidesremarkableevidenceofAugustinescapacityforspeculation.Moreover,IntheDe TrinitatewehaveabookmoreradicallymetaphysicalthanthatofanyGreekauthor:throughoutitwecan seethetensioninvolvedinembracing,inoneperspective,boththeGodofAbrahamandIsaacandtheGod ofthePhilosophers.PeterR.L.Brown,AugustineofHippo:ABiography(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,2000),274.AlthoughDeTrinitatecontainsrigorousargumentationthatsometimesrequiresgreat patiencetofollow,theactualtrinitariandoctrineitdefendsisrelativelybasic. 95 96 97

Augustine,DeTrin.V.1,189. Augustine,DeTrin.V.1,189.

WhoeverthinksofGodlikethatmaynotyetbeabletodiscoveraltogetherwhatheis,butisatleast piouslyonhisguardagainstthinkingabouthimanythingthatheisnot.Augustine,DeTrin.,V.1,190.
98

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.V.7,224.

147

 3.3.2 From the Immanent to the Economic Trinity AsecondtrinitarianprobleminvolvesthewayinwhichHeimsproposalmoves fromtheimmanentTrinity(step2)totheeconomicTrinity(step3).Tobetter understandthenatureofthisproblem,wemustexamineHeimsaccountofthe economicTrinity.AccordingtoHeim,threerelationscharacterizetheeconomic activityofthetriuneGod:(1)impersonalidentity,(2)iconographicencounterand (3)personalcommunion.TheserelationsrepresentthreefacesofthetriuneGod withintheoikonomia.ToencounterGodasanimpersonalrealitytouchesindeptha dimensionofthedivinelife,theceaselessexchangeamongthepersons.99Throughan iconographicencounter,Godrelatestotheworldinamoredirectway.Athirdkind ofrelationinvolvesawarenessofcommunionamongthedivinepersons.Heiminsists thatrelationswithGodthroughallthreedimensionsarerealrelationswiththetriune God:
ItisimportanttomakethepointthatrelationswithGodinallthreedimensions wehavedescribedarerealrelationswithGod.Theyarenotrelationswith somethingelse(idols)orwithfalsegods.Whathumansfindinsuchrelationsis trulythere.TheseareallrelationswiththeGodwhoistriune,thoughsomemay refineandrestricttheirrelationshipwiththetriunityofGod.Theyarenot relationstoonlyonedivinepersonratherthantoothers,sincegivenGods natureandthecommunionofpersonsthatisnotpossible.Anisolatedrelation

99

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,191.

148


withonepersonoftheTrinityissomethingthatexistsonlyinabstraction.In eachcaseitisGodinGodstriunenaturewemeet.100

Theserealrelationsconstitutetheeconomicmeansthroughwhichalternative religiousends(e.g.,moksha,nirvana,etc.)arerealized. TosaythatotherendsarepartofGodseconomyimpliesthattheyarewilledby God.101Thus,HeimsproposalentailstheassumptionthatthetriuneGodactivelywills alternativereligiousends:ThetriuneGodispartytotherealizationofalternate religiousends.Theyarenotsimplytheactualizationofinnatehumancapacities;they aredistinctrelationswithaspectsofthetriunelife.AparticulargraceofGodisoperativein them.102Itiscrucialtorecognizetheimplicationsoftheaboveaffirmation:alongside GodseconomyofsalvationinChrist,othereconomiesofdivineactivityexist. Throughtheseeconomiesofdivineactivity,thetriuneGodisdirectingmenand womentoendsotherthancommunionwiththeFather,SonandHolySpirit.One cannotcalltheseeconomiesofsalvationbecauseChristiansalvationdoesnot representtheirultimategoal.WithinHeimsproposalthereisaneconomyofsalvation (theChristianend),aneconomyofnirvana(theBuddhistend),aneconomyof

100 101

Ibid.,199.

AllofGodsmanifestationintheworldiseconomicinthesenseofbeinganoutwardexpressionof Godspurpose.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,12526.
102

Ibid.,275(italicsmine).

149

 moksha(theHinduend),etc.103Fromatrinitarianstandpoint,onemightsaythat alongsidethemissionoftheSonandtheSpirittorestoremenandwomento communionwiththetriuneGod,othereconomicmissionsexistthroughwhichmen andwomenaredirectedtoendsotherthansalvation. Itmustbeacknowledgedthatnologicalimpossibilityexistswherebythetriune Godcouldnotwillpositivereligiousendsotherthan(Christian)salvation.Mycriticism doesnotconcernthelogicalpossibilityofalternativeendsbuttheepistemicwarrantfor positingeconomiesofdivineactivitythatbypassthemissionoftheSonandtheSpirit torestoremenandwomentocommunionwiththetriuneGodwhenthisrepresentsthe onlydivinemissionrevealedinScripture.Noepistemicwarrantexistsforsuchamove. Rather,thedivineactivityofthetrinitarianpersonsmustbeunderstoodinlightofthe temporalmissionsoftheSonandtheSpirittorestoremenandwomentocommunion withthetriuneGod.ThiscanbeseenclearlyinAugustinesextendeddiscussionofthe

Fromaneconomicstandpoint,asignificantdifferenceexistsbetweentheroleofChristintheChristian end(salvation)andtheroleofChristinotherends.Intheformer,Christrepresentsnotonlytheconstitutive meansofsalvationbuttheconstitutiveendofsalvation;inthecaseofalternativeends,however,Christ representsaconstitutivemeansbutnotaconstitutiveend:TheinfluenceofChristsworkplaysanintegral roleintheprocessbywhichanyreligiousbelieverformsthedesiretoseekrelationwithGodthroughatrue dimensionofthetriunelifeandthencarriesoutthepracticesthatleadtothefulfillmentofthatrelation. Christmayconstitutesomeofthemeansbywhichpeopleareabletomakeprogressonthesepaths.But Christisnotconstitutiveoftheseotherreligiousendsthemselves.Thisisbecauseasseparateanddistinct finalstatestheyexcludeeachother.TheoneendthatChristdoesconstituteisthecommunionofsalvation. Christcannotconstitutetheseotherreligiousendsasseparateandfinal,sincethatwouldbetheantithesisof thatcommunion.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,288(italicsoriginal).
103

150

 workofChristinBookIV.104ApreciseconstitutivelinkexistsforAugustinebetween theTrinitarianpersons(immanentTrinity)andtheonedivineeconomyofsalvation broughtaboutinChrist(economicTrinity).Heimseversthislink.Intheprocessof positingreligiousendsotherthansalvation(ordamnation),heimplicitlypositsother economiesofdivineactivitythateffectivelybypasstheworkofChrist.Itwouldbe inconceivabletoAugustinetopositadditionaleconomiesofdivineactivitythat bypass(orconstituteanalternative)tothisoneeconomyofsalvation.ForAugustine (justasfortheNewTestament),alldivineactivityisfocusedontheonedivineeconomy focusedonChrist.Nobiblicalwarrantexistsforpositingeconomiesofdivineactivity thatbypassthesalvificmissionoftheSonandtheSpirittorestoremenandwomeninto communionwithGod.Onthebasisofaspeculativeunderstandingoftheimmanent Trinity(step2),HeimoutlinesanaccountoftheeconomicTrinity(step3)thatultimately underminesthedivineoikonomiarevealedinScripture. 3.2.3 A Trinity of Dimensions Replaces a Trinity of Persons AttheleveloftheimmanentTrinity,Heimsproposalultimatelyemploystwo trinities.ThefirstTrinity(Father,SonandHolySpirit)istheTrinityofChristian confession;however,thisTrinityisnottheonewhichdoestherealworkinHeims
SeeAugustine,DeTrin.IV.AugustinesdiscussionofthemissionoftheSonisdiscussedindetailin chapterfour.
104

151

 project.Multiplereligiousendsultimatelyrestuponadifferenttrinityatrinityof threedimensions:impersonal,personalandcommunion.Theseimmanent dimensionsleadtothreekindsofirreducibleeconomicrelations(impersonal identity,iconographicencounterandpersonalcommunion),whichprovidethe basisformultiplereligiousends.105Heimsubtlysubstitutesthedimensionsforthe trinitarianpersonseffectivelycreatinganalternatetrinity.Thetermcomplexplays akeyroleinthissubstitution.WhenHeimfirstintroducesthisterm,complexinitially denotesthefactthatGodsbeingisconstitutedbyamultiplicityofpersons;however,as hisargumentunfolds,complexsubtlyshiftstodenotethethreedimensions.106 Hissubstitutionofdimensionsforpersonscanbeseenmostlyclearlyinthe applicationoflanguage,reservedforthetrinitarianpersons,tothesedimensions. Heimclaimsthatonlythreedimensionsexist.Whythree?Whynottwo,fouroreven
Thatdimensionsareimmanentandrelationseconomiccanbeseeninthefollowingquotation:Iam suggestingthattherearefourbroadtypesofhumandestiny.Thereissalvation,thatcommunionthrough ChristwithGodandwithothersthatunitesanunlimiteddiversityofpersonsandopenseachtowider participationinthetriunelife.Second,wehavealternativereligiousends,thedistinctivehuman fulfillmentsofvariousreligioustraditions.Eachofthesegraspssomedimensionofthetriunelifeandits economicmanifestation,andmakesitthegroundforadefinitivehumanend.Heim,DepthoftheRiches, 272.
105

AccordingtoHeim,ThecomplexnatureofGodholdsoutthepossibilityofavarietyofdistinctrelations withGod.Thatvarietyisthebasisfortrulydifferentreligiousends.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,179.One mustaskthefollowingquestion:Towhatdoesthiscomplexityrefer?Itseemsquiteclearthattheprimary referentofcomplexityisthethreedimensions.ThiscanbeseeninHeimsdiscussionofSmartand Konstantinesproposal(fromwhomheappropriateshisconceptofdimensions).Centraltotheirargument istheassumptionthatonlysuchacomplexdivinenature,whichgeneratesthesediversedimensions,can accountinclusivelyforvarietiesofvalidreligiousexperience(ibid.,161,italicsmine).Inthisquotationa clearlinkcanbeseenbetweencomplexanddimensions.AlthoughheisdiscussingSmartand Konstantinesproposalatthispoint,thissamelinkexistsforhim.

106

152

 ten?Isitmerelycoincidentalthattherealsohappentobethreedivinepersons? Claimingtherearepreciselythreedimensionsseemstobeintendedtocreatealink withthepersons.Second,Heimsuggeststhateachofthedimensionsisgrantedco equalitywiththeothers.107HereHeimintentionallyappliesthelanguageofco equalitytothedimensions;yetthislanguageappliesonlytothetrinitarianpersons. Third,hespeaksabouttheirreduciblenatureoftherelationscorrespondingtothese dimensions:IfGodisTrinity,thesedimensionsofthedivinelifeareaseamlessunityin thecommunionofthethreepersons.ThevariousrelationswithGodwehaveoutlined areirreducible.IfGodisTrinity,thennooneoftheseneedbeorcanbeeliminatedin favoroftheothers.108Yetirreducibilityappliesonlytothepersons.TheFatherisnot theSonandtheSonisthenottheSpirit.Finally,heclaimsthatindividualsexperience relationswiththesedimensionsinsuchawaythatthedimensionseffectively replacethetrinitarianpersons.109FromanAugustinianperspective,thissubstitutionof
107 108

Heim,DepthoftheRiches,213.

Ibid.,197.Similarly,Heimclaims,Thosewhoareconvincedtheyhavetouchedorheardthedivinelikely refertooneoftheseoccasions:Godaboveus,Godalongsideusandamongus,Godwithinus.TheTrinity isanaccountofGodthatsaystheseareexperiencesofthesamereality,notdifferentones,andyeteachhas itsownirreducibleintegrity.Heim,DepthoftheRiches,132(italicsmine).

109Heimsequivocationonthispointisquiterevealing.Ononehand,heinsiststhatindividualsrelatetothe triuneGod:ItisimportanttomakethepointthatrelationswithGodinallthreedimensionswehave describedarerealrelationswithGod.Theyarenotrelationswithsomethingelse(idols)orwithfalsegods. Whathumansfindinsuchrelationsistrulythere.TheseareallrelationswiththeGodwhoistriune,though somemayrefineandrestricttheirrelationshipwiththetriunityofGod.Theyarenotrelationstoonlyone divinepersonratherthantoothers,sincegivenGodsnatureandthecommunionofpersonsthatisnot possible.AnisolatedrelationwithonepersonoftheTrinityissomethingthatexistsonlyinabstraction.In

153

 dimensionsforthetrinitarianpersonsisdeeplyproblematic.ForAugustine,all legitimatepredicationsaboutGodareoftwotypes:statementsofsubstance (substantia)andstatementsofrelationship(relatio).Evenifoneweretheoreticallyto grantthatsuchdimensionsexisted(aclaimAugustinewouldlikelycontestonbiblical grounds)hewouldrightlyarguethatitisfundamentallyinappropriatetoapply relationshiplanguagetothesedimensionsbecausetheyconstitutesubstantive predications.110Furthermore,Augustinewouldinsistthatindividualsexperiencea relationshipwiththetrinitarianpersons,notwithanaspectordimensionofGods nature.UltimatelyitappearsthatHeimsimmanenttrinityofdimensions (impersonal,personalandcommunion)hassubtlyreplacedtheTrinityofpersons (Father,SonandHolySpirit).

3.4 Implications for the Christian Theology of Religions

InhercontroversialbookGodForUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife,Catherine LaCugnaarguedthatChristiantheologywentastraywhenitsreflectiononthelifeofthe

eachcaseitisGodinGodstriunenaturewemeet(ibid.,199).Ontheotherhand,healsoclaimsthat individualsexperiencearelationmerelywithanaspectofGodsnature.Multiplereligiousendsresult fromanintensificationofaparticularkindofrelationwithanaspectofdivinelife(ibid.,289,italicsmine). Thus,itisunclearwhethertherelationexistswiththetriuneGodormerelywithanaspectofGod.

110

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.V,189201.

154

 triuneGod(theologia)becameseveredfromtheeconomyofsalvation(oikonomia).111 AccordingtoLaCugna,increasingpreoccupationwithGodinse,atrajectoryestablished bytheCouncilofNicea,ultimatelyledtothedefeatoftrinitariandoctrinerenderingit irrelevanttotheChristianlife.AlthoughLaCugnashistoricalandtheological analysisisflawed,112herunderlyingconcernregardingthedangeroftheologiabecoming severedfromoikonomiais,nonetheless,quitelegitimate.113OuranalysisofHeims proposaldemonstratesthatLaCugnawasrighttobeconcernedaboutthedangerof severingtheologiaandoikonomia.Wemustnote,however,thatitisnotsimplyby articulatingadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinity(Godinse)thatoneseversoikonomiaand theologiaasLaCugnawouldhaveusbelieve.Heimerrsnotbecausetheimmanent Trinityconstitutestheontologicalbasisforhisproposal;rather,heerrsbecauseheoffers aspeculativeaccountoftheimmanentTrinitythatiswithoutsupportinGodsself revelationintheoikonomia(i.e.,Scripture)andthenusesthisspeculativeaccountto developadoctrineoftheeconomicTrinitythatultimatelyunderminestheoikonomia
CatherineMowryLaCugna,GodforUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife(SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
111

Onthispoint,seeThomasWeinandy,TheImmanentandEconomicTrinity,TheThomist57(1993):655 66;andPaulMolnar,DivineFreedomandtheDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:InDialoguewithKarlBarthand ContemporaryTheology(Edinburgh:T&TClark,2002).

112

IunderstandLaCugnasconcernstobethefollowing.First,wemustrecognizethatwecanonlyspeak aboutthetriuneGodonthebasisofGodsselfcommunication.(Inpreciselythissensewemustrecognize thatoikonomiarepresentsthefoundationfortheologia.)Second,wemustrememberthatthegoalof trinitarianreflectionisnotanaccountofthelifeofthetriuneGodapartfromtheeconomyofsalvationbut ratherthelifeofthetriuneGodintheeconomyofsalvation.Finally,trinitarianreflectionmustultimately serveadoxologicalpurposeenablingusrightlytoworshipthetriuneGod.

113

155

 revealedinScripture.FromanAugustinianperspective,histrinitariangrammar ultimatelyfailstomaintainoikonomiaastheepistemologicalfoundationofour knowledgeofthetriunityofGod.WithreferencetoLaCugna,wemightsaythatitisby articulatinganaccountoftheimmanent(andtheeconomic)Trinitythathaslittle epistemicfoundationinGodsselfrevelationintheoikonomiathatoneseverstheologia fromoikonomia. PerhapstheclearestexampleofseveringtheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity canbeseeninthecaseofpluralisttheologiesofreligion.Forexample,JohnHick claimsallreligionsareculturallyconditionedyetauthenticresponsestoan indeterminatedivineultimatereality,whichhecallstheReal.114AccordingtoHick, TheRealinitselfcannotbeknown;itcanonlybeperceivedandexperiencedina varietyofeconomicfacesthroughvariousreligioustraditions.Fromatrinitarian perspective,Hicksproposalentailsacompleteseveringoftheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity.115AnimmanentReal,whichinprinciplecannotbeknown, expressesitselfthroughanunendingnumberofeconomicfaces(someofwhich
JohnHick,AnInterpretationofReligion:HumanResponsestotheTranscendent(NewHaven:YaleUniversity Press,1989).Hickspositioncanbemorefullysummarizedthroughthefollowingfourpropositions:(1) Thereisonedivineultimatereality(theReal)whichistheultimategroundofallreligiousexperience.(2) NoreligioustraditiondirectlyperceivesorexperiencestheReal.(3)Eachreligionrepresentsaculturally conditionedyetauthenticresponsetotheReal.(4)TheRealradicallytranscendsalldescriptionsboth negativeandpositive.
114

ItshouldbenotedthatalthoughHickstilldescribeshimselfasaChristian,hehasabandonedmostof thebasictenetsoforthodoxChristianteachingincludingthedoctrineoftheTrinity.
115

156

 greatlycontradictoneanother).AlthoughHeimsproposaldifferssubstantivelyfrom Hicks,itfacesaproblemsimilartoHicksinasmuchasitseverstheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity. Justasreflectionupontherelationshipbetweeneconomicandtheimmanent Trinityhasbroughtsharplyintothefocusproblemsthatinhereincertainaccountsofthe God/worldrelationshipinapostHegeliancontext,greaterattentiontotherelationship betweentheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinitycouldalsohelpclarifyproblemsinthe trinitariantheologyofreligions.MuchappropriationofthedoctrineoftheTrinity withinthetheologyofreligionsmovesindirectionthatisatoddswiththemodern trinitarianrevival.Onedistinctivefeatureofthemoderntrinitarianmovementisan attempttoreconnectTrinityandhistory,Trinityandsalvation,TrinityandChristian livinginshort,theologiaandoikonomia.116Ironically,intheirattemptstomakethe doctrineoftheTrinityrelevanttootherreligions,theologianssuchasHeimmoveina directionatoddswiththismovementbyimplicitlyseveringtheeconomicandthe immanentTrinity.

116

SeeThompson,ModernTrinitarianPerspectives,155.

157

4. The Divine Relations in the Theology of Religions

Thedivinerelations,whichconstitutetheheartofthetrinitarianmystery,have generatedlivelydebateincontemporarytheology.Divinepersonhoodrepresentsan excellentcaseinpoint.KarlBarthandKarlRahnerbotharguethatamodernconceptof personshouldnotbeappliedtoFather,SonandHolySpirit.1Bywayofcontrast, othertheologians(whotendtobequitecriticaloftheAugustiniantradition)commenda socialconceptionoftheTrinitywhichnotonlyappliesamodernconceptofperson tothedivinehypostasesbutalsopresentstherelationsoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit (particularlytheperichoreticunityamongthethree)asamodelforhuman relationshipsinthechurchandsociety.2Inadditiontodivinepersonhood,the relationoftheSpirittotheSonhasalsoreceivedextensiveattention.Advocatesof SpiritChristologyclaimthattheologianshavenotpaidadequateattentiontothe radicaldependenceofJesusChristupontheSpiritduringJesusearthlylifeand ministry.Onecumenicalgrounds,therehasbeenagrowingconsensusthatthefilioque clauseshouldnothavebeenunilaterallyinsertedintotheNiceneConstantinopolitan Creedbythewesternchurch.Moreover,inresponsetocriticismsbytheOrthodox
BarthpreferstospeakofFather,SonandSpiritasdivinemodesofbeingwhileRahnerpreferstheterm distinctmannersofsubsisting.
1

See,forinstance,JrgenMoltmannTheTrinityandtheKingdom,trans.MargaretKohl(Minneapolis: FortressPress,1993).
2

158

 theologians,somewesterntheologianshaveabandonedtheAugustinianpositionthat theSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon.3 AssumptionsregardingtherelationsamongtheFather,SonandHolySpiritplay animportantroleintworecentproposalsintheChristiantheologyofreligions:Jacques DupuisChristiantheologyofreligiouspluralismandAmosYongspneumatological theologyofreligions.OnthebasisofaparticularunderstandingoftheSon/Spirit relationship,YongarguesthattheSpiritispresentandactiveinnonChristianreligions andjustifiesthesearchfornonchristologicalcriteriaindiscerningtheSpiritspresence amongadherentsofnonChristianreligions.Similarly,onthebasisofaparticular construaloftheFather/Sonrelationship,DupuisarguesthatJesusChristisnotthe absoluteSaviorandthatsaviorsexistinothertraditionswhomediatesalvificgrace. ThepurposeofthischapterisofferanAugustinianevaluationofthetrinitarian grammarthatinformstheproposalsofYongandDupuis.Afterbrieflyoutliningthe proposalsofYongandDupuis,IwillsummarizeAugustinesteachingontherelations amongtheFather,SonandHolySpirit(bothadintraandadextra).Then,onthebasisof Augustinesteaching,IwillcriticallyevaluatetheproposalsofYongandDupuis.

Itisimportanttonotethatthequestionregardingtheformallegitimacyoftheinsertionofthefilioque clauseintotheNiceneConstantinopolitancreedmustbedistinguishedfromthesubstantivetheological questionofwhethertheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon.

3

159

4.1 Amos Yongs Pneumatological Theology of Religions

InamonographentitledDiscerningtheSpirit(s)AmosYong,ayoungPentecostal theologian,attemptstodevelopaPentecostalcharismatictheologyofreligions.4 GiventhedistinctiveemphasisupontheHolySpiritthatcharacterizesthePentecostal movement,itshouldnotbesurprisingthatYongadoptsapneumatologicalapproach. Whileaffirmingthatchristologicalquestionsplayanimportantroleinanyattemptto formulateaviabletheologyofreligions,5Yongsuggeststhatpneumatologymayprovide thekeytomovingbeyondwhathecallsthechristologicalimpasse,thatis,thealmost irreconcilableaxiomsofGodsuniversalsalvificwillandthehistoricalparticularityof JesusofNazarethasSaviorofallpersons.6ThemetaphysicalbasisforYongsproposal istheuniversalpresenceoftheHolySpirit.7YongassertsthattheHolySpiritispresent andactiveamongnonChristianreligionsandthatChristiansmustlearntodiscernthe Spiritspresence.
4AmosYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s):APentecostalCharismaticContributiontoaChristianTheologyofReligions (Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2000).DiscerningtheSpirit(s)isarevisedversionofYongsdissertation whichhecompletedatBostonUniversityunderRobertCummingsNevillein1998. 5Yongisnotsuggestingthatchristologicalissuesareunimportant:Itisclearfromthediscussioninthis chapterthatChristologyiscentralbothtotheconstructionofaChristiantheologyofreligionsandtoits problematic.Thechristologicaldilemmaconfrontsuswiththecrucialhistorical,existentialand soteriologicalquestion,WhodopeoplesaytheSonofManis?(Mt16.13)....Thewholechristological questionis,afterall,whetherornotChrististhesaviororjustasaviorYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),5758 (italicsoriginal). 6 7

Ibid.,94.

YongarguesthatallhumanexperienceofGodismediatedbythepresenceofthedivineSpirit.Yong, DiscerningtheSpirit(s),123,

160

 ThefoundationalpneumatologyYongdevelopsinDiscerningtheSpirit(s)is predicateduponatrinitariandistinctionbetweenaneconomyoftheWordandan economyoftheSpirit:Theentireobjectiveofshiftingtoapneumatological frameworkinordertounderstandnonChristianfaithsispremisedupontherecognition thatthereisadistinctionbetweentheeconomyoftheSonandthatoftheSpiritrelative totheredemptionoftheworld.8Arguably,thisdistinctionconstitutesthetrinitarian keytohisproposal.AccordingtoYong,Recognitionoftheprocessionormissionofthe HolySpiritintotheworldrelativeto,yetdistinctfromthatoftheSonprovidesthe theologicalspacethatisgreatlyneededatthepresenttimeforreflectionontheplaceof thereligionsintheeconomyoftheSpirit.9Onthebasisofthisdistincteconomyof theSpirit,YongaffirmsthepresenceandactivityoftheHolySpiritamongnonChristian religionsandjustifiestheuseofnonchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningthepresenceof theSpirit. InarguingforadistincteconomyoftheSpirit,Yongbuildsupontheworkof GeorgesKhodr.CentraltoKhodrsproposalisatrinitariandistinctionbetweenan
Ibid.,61.InarguingforadistincteconomyoftheSpirit,YongbuildsupontheworkofGeorgesKhodr. AlthoughintheimmediatecontextYongisdescribingtheproposalofGeorgesKhodr,itisclearthathe embracesthisassumptionaswell.
8

Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),70.Similarly,Yongelsewherenotes,Thegaininthisapproachisthatthe recognitionoftheprocessionormissionoftheHolySpiritintotheworldasrelatedtoandyetdistinctfrom thatoftheSonprovidesthetheologicalspacethatisgreatlyneededatthepresenttimebecausewhilethe personofJesusChristisahistoricalsymbolofGodsrealityintheworld,theHolySpiritisparexcellencethe symbolofdivinepresenceandactivityinthecosmicrealm(ibid.,29).

9

161

 economyoftheSonandaneconomyoftheSpirit:TheSpiritispresenteverywhereand fillseverythingbyvirtueofaneconomydistinctfromthatoftheSon.Irenaeuscallsthe WordandtheSpiritthetwohandsoftheFather.Thismeansthatwemustaffirmnot onlytheirhypostaticindependencebutalsothattheadventoftheHolySpiritinthe worldisnotsubordinatedtotheSon,isnotsimplyafunctionoftheWord.10By recognizingthattheSpiritoperatesandapplieshisenergiesinaccordancewithHis owneconomy,KhodrclaimsthatonecanaffirmtheworkoftheSpiritamongnon Christianreligions.11InadditiontoadoptingKhodrsdistinctionbetweentheeconomies oftheWordandSpirit,12YongalsofollowsKhodrinjustifyingthisdistinctionby appealingtoIrenaeusimageofthetwohands13anddenyinganyeconomic subordinationoftheSpirittotheSon.14Thelatterpointismostclearlyexpressedin Yongsdiscussionofthefilioqueclause.YongapprovinglycitesOrthodoxconcernsthat
10 11

Khodr,ChristianityandthePluralisticWorld,12526.

TheSpiritoperatesandapplieshisenergiesinaccordancewithHisowneconomyandwecould,from thisangle,regardthenonChristianreligionsaspointswherehisinspirationisatwork.Khodr, ChristianityandthePluralisticWorld,126.

12 13 14

SeeKhodr,ChristianityandthePluralisticWorld,12526. SeeYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),62.

YongsreadingofKhodrhasbeensignificantlyinfluencedbyPaulKnitter.Knitter(whowaspresentat KhodrspresentationtotheWorldCouncilofChurches)discussesitinthefollowingessay:PaulF.Knitter, ANewPentecost?APneumatologicalTheologyofReligions,CurrentDialogue19(1991):3241.Inthis essay,Knitterclaimsthatpneumatologyoffersawaytomovebeyondthechristologicalimpasse(aclaim explicitlyechoedbyYong).Inaddition,Knittersuggeststhatrecognitionofadifferent(i.e.separateand independent)economyoftheSpiritjustifiestheuseofnonchristologicalcriteria:Atthesametime,by recognizingadifferenteconomyoftheSpiritwithinthereligions,wecanreallyrelatetothemasothers withouthavingtoreducethem,eitheratthebeginningorattheendofourconversations,toourChristian categories(ibid.,37).

162

 filioqueleadstosubordinationoftheSpirittotheSon(asubordinationwhich,inthe judgmentofYong,buttressesecclesiocentrisminthewesternchurch):Inshort, failuretodifferentiatebetweenthetwoeconomiesinevitablyrisksthesubordinationof themissionoftheSpirittothatoftheSonandultimatelytoanecclesiologicaldefinition ofsoteriology.15 Yongoffersthefollowingsummaryofhisunderstandingoftherelationship betweentheeconomyoftheSonandtheeconomyoftheSpirit:

Thereis,ontheonehand,aperichoreticalrelationalitythatisattheheartofthe divinerelationwiththeworld:theeconomiesoftheWordandthatoftheSpirit aremutuallyrelated,andshouldnotbesubordinatedeithertotheother.Onthe otherhand,ratherthanbeingunderstoodasbeinginterdependentonlyupon eachotherandthusimplyingamutualdefinition,thedivinemissionsshould alsobeseenbothasdimensionallyaffiliatedandthusimplyingautonomyin relationalityandviceversa,andassomehowcommonlyoriginatinginthe mysteryoftheFather.16

AlthoughYongacknowledgesthatthesetwoeconomiesarerelatedyetautonomous,the emphasisseemstofallontheirindependenceinasmuchasYongdeniesany subordinationbetweenthemandaffirmstheirautonomy.Theseeconomies convergeonlyeschatologically.17

15Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),64.ByecclesiologicaldefinitionofsoteriologyYongpresumablymeans someformofexclusivism.

Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),69.Elsewherehespeaksoftheeconomiesasoverlappingdimensionally (ibid.,62).FollowingTillich,heprefersdimensionaltospatiallanguagebecausetheformeravoidsany kindofhierarchy.

16

Eschatologically,ofcourse,therewillbeaconvergenceofSpiritandWordinthefullrevelationofthe divinemystery.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),132.
17

163

 Havingestablishedthisframework,Yongturnstotheproblemofcriteriafor discerningthispresenceoftheSpirit:Thegoalofapneumatologicalapproachtothe religionsistofindsufficientanaloguesinothertraditionstotheChristiandoctrineofthe HolySpiritsuchthatweareputinapositiontopursuethecomparativetaskandaffirm ordenytheSpiritspresenceoractivity.18Previouspneumatologicalapproaches flounderedbecausetheywereunabletoidentitynonchristologicalcriteriafor discerningthepresenceoftheSpirit.19Althoughchristologicalcriteriaareclearly usefulincertaincontexts,20Yongcontendsthattheyarenotparticularlyhelpfuloutside thechurch.Other(nonchristological)criteriaareneeded.BecausetheSpiritactsinan economydistinctfromthatoftheSon,oneshouldbeabletoidentifyaspectsofthe SpiritsworkthatarenotconstrainedbytheSon.21Tothisend,Yongoutlinesa threetieredprocessfordiscerningthereligiousactivityoftheSpiritamong adherentsofotherreligions.Atthefirstlevel(phenomenologicalexperiential)one comparesthereligiousexperiencesofadherentsofotherreligionswithPentecostals lookingforphenomenologicalsimilarities.Onthesecondlevel(moralethical)one
18

Ibid.,143.

19YongcriticizesKarlRahnerspneumatologicalapproachtononChristianreligionsforfailingtomove beyondchristologicalcriteria.ForRahner,ChrististhecentralcriterionfordiscerningtheSpiritspresence andwork.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),75.

Yongnotesthatthecriterionoutlinedfortestingspiritsin1John4:13isfundamentallychristological. Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),137.Thisformula,however,appearstobedirectedtowardaspecificformof doceticGnosticism.Inothercontexts,itwouldnotbeparticularlyuseful.

20 21

Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),136.

164

 looksforconcretesignsthatfollowclaimsofexperiencingthetranscendent.22Evidence oftheSpiritsactivityonthislevelwouldincludelivesbeingmadewholeandmending ofcommunalrelationships.23Onthethirdlevel(theologicalsoteriological)onemust considerthedifficultquestionofthereferenceofthereligioussymbolsinnon Christianreligions:[T]owhattranscendentalreality,ifany,doreligioussymbols refer?24Inadditiontodivinepresence(i.e.,theHolySpirit),afoundational pneumatologymustalsoaccountfordivineabsence.IntheChristiantradition,divine absencehasbeentraditionallyunderstoodintermsthedemonic.Thedemoniccan beunderstoodasacontrastsymboltothatoftheHolySpirit.25WhereastheHoly Spiritpointstotheideaoflaworlegality,rationality,relationality,andprocessive continuityculminatingintheeschaton,thedemonicsetsinmotionfieldsorhabitsof chaos,irrationality,isolationoralienation,andstagnation.26Thus,Yongstheologyof religionsisabletoaccountbothforthetransformativenatureofreligiousexperience aswellnegativeelementsofthesame.Pentecostalsshouldlearntodiscernthe presenceoftheSpirit(orspirits)inotherreligionsbycultivatingapneumatological

22 23 24 25 26

Ibid.,251. Ibid.,253. Ibid.,254. Ibid.,131. Ibid.,131.

165

 imaginationinformedbythesethreeelements.WhentheSpiritspresenceisdiscerned, onemayrecognizeanonChristianreligionassalvificintheChristiansense.27 Asatestcaseforhisproposal,Yonginvestigatesthepossibilityofdiscerningthe SpiritspresencewithinUmbanda(anAfroBraziliantradition).Traditionally, PentecostalshavedismissedUmbandaasdemonicallyinspired;however,Yong believesthatevidenceoftheSpiritspresenceamongtheUmbandacanbeseeninthe movementtowardpersonalauthenticityinthelivesofindividualsandtowardsocial solidarity.28Moreover,throughadialoguewiththeUmbanda,Pentecostalscouldgrow inatleastthreeareas:(1)understandingthediversityofreligiousexperiencein responsestothetranscendent,(2)gainingabroadertheologyofcommunityandhealing and(3)recognizingthatthelinesbetweenthedivineandthedemonicarenotassharp asPentecostalsoftenbelieve.29AdherentsofUmbandacouldlearnfromPentecostalsin threeareas:(1)discerningthespiritworld,(2)aproperunderstandingofhealingand(3) greaterunderstandingofthebattleagainstExspirits.30 AlthoughthereisgoodreasontobelievetheSpiritispresentandactiveinother religions,confirmationoftheSpiritspresencecancomeonlythroughconcrete
27 28 29 30

Ibid.,312. Ibid.,279. Ibid.,288. Ibid.,297.

166

 engagementwiththereligiousotheremployingapneumatologicalimagination. ChristiansshouldnotmerelyviewnonChristianreligionsintermsofpraeparatio evangelica.Althoughreligionscanfunctionthisway,tounderstandindigenous traditionssolelyonthesetermsleadstothekindofrestrictivechristologicalqueststhat continuetodenigratetheHolySpiritashavinglessthanequalstatusasatrinitarian member.31IftheHolySpiritisgenuinelyatworkinotherreligions,Christiansmust acknowledgethisandbewillingtolearnfromadherentsofotherreligions:The possiblepresenceandactivityoftheSpiritinothertraditionsmeansthepossible existenceoftheologicalinsightsinothertraditionsthatmayhaveapositiveimpacton Christiantheology.Todenythelatterpossibilityistolapsetoanextremelyanemic pneumatologyevenonbiblicalgrounds.32Furthermore,Christiantheologiansmust alsoacknowledgethepossibilitythatothercanonicaltraditionsmayalsobedivinely inspiredinsomeway.33Noneofthisunderminesthegospelmissionofthechurch.On thecontrary,itinvigoratesit.Dialogueinthesearchoftruth,serviceasanexpressionof

Ibid.,320(italicsoriginal).YonglocatesChristianswithintheChurchandadherentsofotherreligions whoexperiencetheSpiritspresencewithinthecontextoftheKingdomofGod.Whereasnot distinguishingbetweenthedivinemissionsmayleadtodefiningreligionsinecclesiologicalterms,an explicitpneumatologicalframeworkwoulddefineboththeChurchandreligionswithinthecommon groundofthecosmos,or,theologicallyspeaking,theKingdomofGod.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),63.

31

Yongcontinues,Perhapsthepneumatologicalapproachtootherreligionsdevelopedherecanprovide theimpetustowardatheologicalappropriationoftheinsightsofothertraditionsthathasbeensuggested butrarelyaccomplished.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),317.

32 33

Ibid.,31718.

167

 love,andproclamationoftheredemptionoftheworldthroughChristneedtobe combined.34Inthisway,ChristianfaithinChristisputtopublictestwherebythe poweroftheHolySpiritcanbedemonstratedthroughthecourseofhumanhistory.35

4.2 Jacques Dupuis Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism

InhisbookTowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralismJacquesDupuis,a Catholictheologian,arguesontrinitariangroundsthatnonChristianreligionsmediate Godssavinggrace.36Beforeoutlininghisproposal,itwillbehelpfultolocateDupuis workinthebroadercontextofcontemporaryCatholicapproachestoreligious diversity.37AlthoughVaticanIIclearlyaffirmedthatnonChristianreligionsarein somesensetobeviewedpositivelyandthatindividualswhohaveneverheardthe gospelcanexperienceChristiansalvation,38theseconciliardocumentsweresilent

34 35 36

Ibid.,313. Ibid.,313.

ForadiscussionofhismethodologyseeDupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,119. DupuisclaimsthataChristiantheologyofreligionsrequiresanewmethodoftheologizingthatisableto relatethedatumoffaithwiththelivingcontextofpluralism(ibid.,17). AccordingtoDupuis,fourattitudestowardotherreligionscanbefoundinthehistoryofthechurch:A negativeattitudeexemplifiedbytheaxiomoutsidethechurchnosalvation(atleastastraditionally understood);partialopennessreflectedinarecognitionthatindividualadherentsofnonChristianreligions canbesavedthroughtheirresponsetothelightofnaturalrevelation;VaticanII,whichaffirmedpositive valuesinotherreligions;andfinally,asearchforthepositivesignificanceofreligioustraditionswithin Godsplanofsalvationforhumanity.SeeDupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,27.

37

OneofthemostimportantconciliardocumentsregardingtheChurchandotherreligionswasNostra Aetate.NostraAetate(NA)affirmedtheChurchsdesireforpositiverelationswithotherreligionsinthe contextoftheurgentneedforhumanunity(NA1)andinsistedthatTheCatholicChurchrejectsnothingof whatistrueandholyinthesereligions(NA2).Asecondconciliardocument,LumenGentium(LG),

38

168

 regardingthemeansthroughwhichsalvificgraceismediatedapartfromthechurch. Silenceonthisquestionhasledtotwoconflictingpositionsthatmaybesummarizedas follows:(P1)WhilesalvationisavailableoutsidetheChurch,itisnotmediatedthrough nonChristianreligions.39(P2)SalvationisnotonlyavailableoutsidetheChurch,butit isalsomediatedthroughnonChristianreligionssuchthatthelatteraretobeviewedas channelsofsalvation.40DupuisembracesaformofP2. AccordingtoDupuis,thetriuneGodconstitutestheultimatesourceofall genuinereligiousexperience.41Thus,differentreligionsareabletoconveydiffering yetlegitimateinsightsintothisdivineultimatereality:Thereligioustraditionsofthe worldconveydifferentinsightsintothemysteryofUltimateReality.Incompleteas

addressesthepossibilityofsalvationoutsidethechurch.Whileinsistingthatthereexistsonlyoneholy CatholicChurch(LG8)andthatJesusChrististheonemediatorandwayofsalvation(LG14),thecouncil fathersbrokenewgroundbyaffirmingthepossibilityofsalvationoutsidethechurch:Thosewho,through nofaultoftheirown,donotknowtheGospelofChristorhisChurch,butwhoneverthelessseekGodwitha sincereheart,and,movedbygrace,tryintheiractionstodohiswillastheyknowitthroughthedictatesof theirconsciencethosetoomayachieveeternalsalvation(LG16).Theseandotherconciliardocuments canbefoundinAustinFlannery,ed.,VaticanII:TheConciliarandPostConciliarDocuments,vol.I,rev.ed. (Northport,N.Y.:CostelloPublishing,1992).AllquotationsoftheconciliardocumentsofVaticanIIare takenfromFlannerystext.ForahelpfuldiscussionoftheteachingofVaticanIIonotherreligions,see MiikkaRuokanen,TheCatholicDoctrineofNonChristianReligionsAccordingtotheSecondVaticanCouncil (NewYork:E.J.Brill,1992).
39 40

CatholicproponentsofP1wouldincludeGavinDCostaandJosephDiNoia.

CatholicProponentsofP2wouldincludePaulKnitter,HansKng,RaimundoPanikkar,andKarlRahner. RahnermightbestbeviewedastheprogenitorofP2. IneveryauthenticreligiousexperiencetheTriuneGodofChristianrevelationispresentandoperative. Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,277.

41

169

 thesemaybe,theyneverthelesswitnesstoamanifoldselfmanifestationofGodto humanbeingsindiversefaithcommunities. AlthoughJesusChrististheuniversalsaviorofhumankind,heshouldnotbe viewedasabsolutesavior.AbsolutenesscanbeattributedonlytoGodtheFather. JesusChristissavioronlyinthederivativesensethattheworldandhumankindfind salvationinandthroughhim.42Therefore,ratherthanspeakingofJesusChristas absolutesavior,DupuissuggestsitwouldbebettertospeakofJesusChristas constitutivesavior.43ByinsistingthatJesusChristisconstitutivesavior,Dupuis wantstoopenthedoortoothersaviorswhosomehowparticipateintheuniversal mediationofChrist.Ononehand,heinsiststhatonecannotsevertheuniversalityof JesustheChristfromtheparticularityofJesusofNazareth.AChristseparated fromthehistoricalJesuswouldnotbetheChristofChristianrevelation.Ontheother hand,onewemustrecognizethatGodssavingactionisnotlimitedtotheChrist event.44Onthecontrary,thetwohandsofGod,theWordandtheSpirit,are universallypresentandactiveinnonChristianreligions.Thesetwodivinepersons wereoperativeinthepreChristiandispensationwithoutbeingformallyrecognizedas
42 43

Ibid.,293.

Howeverthismaybe,theuniquenessanduniversalityofJesusChrist,asunderstoodhere,areneither relativenorabsolute.Theyareconstitutive,insofarasJesusChristholdssavingsignificanceforthe wholeofhumankindandtheChristeventinparticularthePaschalMysteryofChristsdeathand resurrectioniscauseofsalvation.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,283.

44

Ibid.,298.

170

 persons.45Theiruniversalaction,therefore,isnotlimitedbytheChristevent:Yetthe actionoftheWordofGodisnotconstrainedbyitshistoricallybecominghumaninJesus Christ;noristheSpiritsworkinhistorylimitedtoitsoutpouringupontheworldbythe risenandexaltedChrist.46AdistinctactionofthenonincarnateLogoscontinues followingChristsresurrection.47Furthermore,theSpiritisalsouniversallyactive followingtheincarnation.Forexample,astheresultoftheSpiritsinspiration, revelationcanbeencounteredinthesacredwritingsofnonChristianreligions. Moreover,onemayaffirmthatsacredscriptures,suchastheQuran,containtheword ofGod48andthattheProphetMuhammadisanauthenticprophet.49 DupuisexplainsthattheWordandtheSpiritworktogetherinasingleeconomy ofsalvationaneconomythatisbothsingularandcomplex.Regardingtheunicityof thiseconomy,DupuisiscriticaloftheologianssuchasPaulKnitterwhosharply distinguishtheeconomyoftheChristeventfromtheeconomyoftheSpiritwiththe resultthattwoseparateeconomiesofsalvationemerge.Heinsiststhattheactionofthe
45 46 47 48

Ibid.,221. Ibid.,316. Ibid.,299.

RecognizingtheQurancontainsthewordofGoddoesnotentailtheaffirmationthatallofitscontents areinspired:Christiantheologianswhoadmitthis,letusobserve,areawarethattheQuraninitsentirety cannotberegardedastheauthenticwordofGod.Errorisnotabsentfromit.Butthisdoesnotpreventthe divinetruthitcontainsfrombeingthewordofGodutteredthroughtheprophet.Dupuis,Towarda ChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,245.

49

Ibid.,245.

171

 secondandthirdpersonsoftheTrinity,whiledistinct,shouldnotbeseparatedinthis way.Whilesingular,theeconomyofsalvationisalsocomplex,inthatitextendsbeyond theHebrewChristiantradition.50Salvationrevelationexistsinothertraditions. EvidenceforthelattercanbefoundinaproperunderstandingofGodscovenantswith humankindandrecognitionofthefruitoftheSpiritinothertraditions.Earlieruniversal covenantsincludingtheNoahicandMosaiccovenantshavecontinuingandabiding force.51JustastheMosaiccovenanthasnotbeenannulledbytheChristevent,neither wasthecovenantwithNoahannulledbytheChristevent.Furthermore,thefruitofthe SpiritamongfollowersofotherreligioustraditionstestifiestoGodssavingand revealingactionamongthemthroughtheirhistory.52 ThroughtheworkoftheWordandtheSpirit,Godssavinggraceismediated throughotherreligionsinsuchawaythattheymaylegitimatelybecalledchannelsof

FollowingKarlRahner,Dupuisdrawsadistinctionbetweengeneralandspecialsalvationhistory. Generalsalvationhistorydenotesallofhumanhistorywhilespecialsalvationhistoryrefersto[a]n explicitawarenessandrecognitionofhistoricalhappeningsasconstitutingdivineinterventions... Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,218.

50

Dupuisdiscussionofthecovenantsisnuancedandcomplex.Whileaffirmingtheirabidingforce,heis carefultopointoutthatthesecovenantsdonotoperateindependentoftheChristevent.Forexample,after affirmingtheabidingforceoftheMosaiccovenanthewrites,Therefore,tothequestionwhethertheJews aresavedtodaythroughGodscovenantwithIsraelorthroughJesusChristinwhomanewcovenanthas beenrealized,theansweristhatthedichotomydoesnothold:salvationcomestotheJewsthroughthe covenantmadebyGodwithIsraelandbroughttoperfectioninJesusChrist.Thecovenantremainseven todayasawayofsalvation,butnotindependentlyfromtheChristevent.Dupuis,TowardaChristian TheologyofReligiousPluralism,233(italicsoriginal).

51 52

Ibid.,220.

172

 salvation.53AccordingtoDupuis,salvationdoesnotreachhumanbeingsinspiteof theirreligioustraditionsbutpreciselyinandthroughthem.54Forexample,theworship ofimagesmayrepresentameansthroughwhichGodsgracereachesHindus:[T]he worshipofsacredimagescanbethesacramentalsigninandthroughwhichthedevotee respondstotheofferofdivinegrace;itcanmediatesecretlythegraceofferedbyGodin JesusChristandexpressthehumanresponsetoGodsgratuitousgiftinhim.55 Preciselyhowgraceismediatedremainsamystery;thatitoccurs,however,mustbe affirmed.Onemightaskthequestion,Evenifoneweretograntinprinciplethatsaving graceismediatedthroughnonChristianreligions,howcouldoneknowinfactthatthis isthecase?Dupuisexplainsthatcertainsavingvaluesserveasthebasisforjustsuch anevaluation.Oneofthemostimportantsavingvaluesisradicalagape.56Human beings,therefore,aredestinedforasinglereligiousendcommunionwiththetriune God:Inotherwords,salvationasrevealedbyGodinJesusChrististheuniversal

53 54

Ibid.,30529.

Canotherreligionscontainandsignify,insomeway,thepresenceofGodtohumanbeingsinJesus Christ?DoesGodbecomepresenttothemintheverypracticeoftheirreligion?Itisnecessarytoadmitthis. Indeed,theirownreligiouspracticeistherealitythatgivesexpressiontotheirexperienceofGodandofthe mysteryofChrist.Itisthevisibleelement,thesign,thesacramentofthatexperience.Thispractice expresses,bears,supportsandcontains,asitwere,theirencounterwithGodinJesusChrist.Dupuis, TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,319.

55 56

Ibid.,303.

Thatagapeisindeedthesignofoperativepresenceofthemysteryofsalvationineverymanandwomen whoissaved.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,325.

173

 destinydevisedbyGodforhumanbeings,whicheversituationtheymayfind themselvesinandwhicheverreligioustraditiontheymaybelongto.57 Finally,DupuisarguesthatnonChristianreligionsshareinthereignofGod.58 TheuniversalreignofGodmustbecarefullydistinguishedfromtheChurch.Although theyarenotmembersofthechurch,adherentsofotherreligioustraditionsare, nevertheless,membersofthekingdom:Whilethebelieversofotherreligiousfaiths perceiveGodscallthroughtheirowntraditionsandrespondtoitinthesincerepractice ofthesetraditions,theybecomeinalltruthevenwithoutbeingformallyconsciousof itactivemembersoftheKingdom.59Theycontributetoitsgrowthintheworld.60 ThisdoesnotmeanthattheChurchplaysnospecialrole;onthecontrary,itstandsasa uniquesacramentoftheReignofGod.61Moreover,itconstitutesasignthatthe kingdomofGodhasbeenestablishedinChrist.TheChurch,however,doesnotpossess amonopolyontheReignofGod.62Adherentsofotherreligionsarerightfullyco membersofthiskingdomand,intheeschaton,willshareinitfullness.Inlightofthese
57 58 59

Ibid.,312. Ibid.,33057.

Ibid.,345.WhereasRahnermaintainedthatanonymousChristiansareinvisiblemembersofthechurch, DupuisclaimsthatadherentsofotherreligionswhoexperienceGodsgraceandsalvationareinvisible membersofthekingdomofGod.

60Itfollowsthatthereligioustraditionscontribute,inamysteriousway,tothebuildingupoftheReignof Godamongtheirfollowersandintheworld.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,346. 61 62

Ibid.,353. Ibid.,356.

174

 andotherfactors,religiouspluralismshouldnotbeviewedwithsuspicionbyChristians butwelcomedwithopenarmsrecognizingthatGodhasmanifestedhimselfto humankindinmanifoldways...63

4.3 The Relations of the Divine Persons in De Trinitate

HavingexaminedtheproposalsofDupuisandYong,wewillturntoAugustines teachingonthedivinerelations.AugustineoffersaconcisesummaryofproNicene teachingontheTrinityinBookI:
ThepurposeofalltheCatholiccommentatorsIhavebeenabletoreadonthe divinebooksofbothtestaments,whohavewrittenbeforemeonthetrinity whichGodis,hasbeentoteachthataccordingtothescripturesFatherandSon andHolySpiritintheinseparableequalityofonesubstancepresentadivine unity;andthereforetherearenotthreegodsbutoneGod;althoughindeedthe FatherhasbegottentheSon,andthereforehewhoistheFatherisnottheSon; andtheSonisbegottenbytheFather,andthereforehewhoistheSonisnotthe Father;andtheHolySpiritisneithertheFathernortheSon,butonlytheSpiritof theFatherandoftheSon,himselfcoequaltotheFatherandtheSon,and belongingtothethreefoldunity.Itwasnothoweverthissamethree(their teachingcontinues)thatwasbornofthevirginMary,crucifiedandburiedunder PontiusPilate,roseagainonthethirddayandascendedintoheaven,buttheSon alone.NorwasitthissamethreethatcamedownuponJesusintheformofa doveathisbaptism,orcamedownonthedayofPentecostaftertheLords ascension,witharoaringsoundfromheavenasthoughaviolentgustwere rushingdown,andindividedtonguesasoffire,buttheHolySpiritalone.Nor wasitthissamethreethatspokefromheaven,YouaremySon,eitherathis baptismbyJohn(Mk1:11),oronthemountainwhenthethreediscipleswere withhim(Mt17:5),norwhentheresoundingvoicewasheard,Ihavebothglorified it(myname)andwillglorifyitagain(Jn12:28),butitwastheFathersvoicealone addressingtheSon;althoughjustasFatherandSonandHolySpiritare

63

Ibid.,386.

175


inseparable,sodotheyworkinseparably.Thisisalsomyfaithinasmuchasitis theCatholicfaith.64

Thissummarypossessesachiasticstructure: A1Inseparableequalityofthedivinepersonsinonesubstance B1Realdistinctionsbetweenthedivinepersons B1Distinctionofpersonsintheeconomyofsalvation

A1Inseparableactionofthedivinepersonsintheeconomyofsalvation First,Augustinediscussesthedivinerelationsfromanintratrinitarianstandpoint. Father,SonandHolySpiritexistinaninseparableequalityofonesubstance(A1). Thus,wemustspeakofoneGod.Atthesametime,realdistinctionsexistbetweenthe personsthataregroundedincausalrelationsoforigin(B1).BecausetheSonisbegotten bytheFather,theSonisnottheFatherandtheFatherisnottheSon.Next,Augustine discussestherelationsofthedivinepersonsfromaneconomicstandpoint.Itwasnot thethreewhowerebornofthevirginMarybutonlytheSon.Itwasnotthethreewho descendedasadove,butonlytheSpirit.ItwasnotthethreethatspokeatJesus baptismbutonlytheFather(B1).Hissummarydrawstoaclosewithanaffirmationof theinseparableactionofthedivinepersons(A1).ItisimportanttonotehowA1/A1 andB1/B1mirroreachotherinsuchawaythatA1constitutesthegroundforA1and

64

Augustine,DeTrin.I.7,6970.

176

 B1constitutesthegroundforB1.65Havingsetforththissummary,Augustinedefendsit biblicallyandtheologicallyinthefirstsevenbooksofDeTrinitate.Withthisbackground inmind,wewillnowinvestigateAugustinesunderstandingofthedivinerelationsin greaterdetailfollowingthepatternoftheprecedingsummary. 4.3.1 Unity and Equality of the Divine Persons ad intra FollowingatheologicaltraditionwhichcanbetracedtoTertullian,Augustine groundstheequalityofthedivinepersonsinaunityofdivinesubstance:Father,Son andSpiritareofoneandthesamesubstanceoressence(uniuseiusdemquesubstantiaevel essentiae).66Althoughhefrequentlyspeaksofonesubstantia,Augustinesvocabularyis somewhatflexiblesuchthathealsospeaksofoneessentia,onedivinitasoronedeitas.67

Theinseparableequalityofthedivinepersonsadintraconstitutesthegroundfortheinseparableactionof thedivinepersonsadextra.Similarly,therealdistinctionsamongthepersonsadintraconstitutetheground forthedistinctionofthepersonsadextra.

65 66 67

Augustine,DeTrin.I.4,67.

[T]hissamethreeisalsoone,andthereisonesubstance(substantia)andgodhead(deitas)ofFatherand SonandHolySpirit.Augustine,DeTrin.I.19,79.Augustineexplainsthatsubstantiahasthesamemeaning asousiainGreek:AsitisnotonethingforGodtobeandanotherforhimtobegreat,butbeingisforhim thesamethingasbeinggreat,forthatreasonwedonotsaythreegreatnessesanymorethanwesaythree beings,butonebeingandonegreatness.Bybeing(essentia)ImeanherewhatiscalledousiainGreek, whichwemoreusuallycallsubstance(substantia).TheGreeksalsohaveanotherword,hypostasis,butthey makeadistinctionthatisratherobscuretomebetweenousiaandhypostasis,sothatmostofourpeoplewho treatofthesemattersinGreekareaccustomedtosaymiaousia,treishypostaseis,whichisliterallyonebeing, threesubstances(unamessentiam,tressubstantias).Butbecausewehavegrownaccustomedinourusageto meaningthesamethingbybeing(essentia)asbysubstance(substantia),wedonotdaresayonebeing, threesubstances(unamessentiam,tressubstantias)Augustine,DeTrin.V.910,19596.

177

 TheessenceofGodisunchangingandeternal.68Moreover,Godisabsolutelysimple being(summesimplexessentia)lackinganykindofcomposition.69 Inordertoarguethatthedivinepersonsareonesubstance,Augustineattempts toshowthattheSonandtheHolySpiritareconsubstantial(consubstantialis)withthe Father.OneoftheclearestandmostconsistentdivinetestimoniesshowingJesus ChristisGodcanbefoundinJohn1:13.70TheWordofGodinthispassageisnone otherthantheSonofGodwhobecameincarnate(cf.John1:14).John1:13clearly showsthatheisnotonlyGodbutalsoofthesamesubstanceastheFather.71Augustine arrivesatthisconclusionbyobservingthatinJohn1:2theWordofGod(whichmustbe recognizedastheSonofGod)createdallthings.IftheSonofGodcreatedallthings andwasnothimselfamongtheallthingsthatwerecreated,thenheisofoneandthe samesubstanceastheFather72basedontheassumptionthatwhateverisnotcreated mustbeGod.Thus,theSonisnotonlyGodbutalsotrueGod.73Afewparagraphs later,heoffersasimilarargumentbyreading1Corinthians8:6alongsideJohn1:2.1
SothenitisdifficulttocontemplateandhavefullknowledgeofGodssubstance(substantia),which withoutanychangeinitselfmakesthingsthatchange,andwithoutanypassageoftimeinitselfcreates thingsthatexistintime.Augustine,DeTrin.I.3,66.
68 69 70 71 72 73

Augustine,DeTrin.VII.2,220. Augustine,DeTrin.I.9,71. Augustine,DeTrin.I.9,71. Augustine,DeTrin.I.9,71.

Augustine,DeTrin.I.9,71.InarguingthattheSonistrueGod,AugustineisrespondingtoHomoian theologianslikePalladiuswhoclaimthatonlytheFathercanbedescribedastrueGod.SeeBarnes, ExegesisandPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI,4352.

178

 Corinthians8:6affirmsthatGodtheFathercreatedallthingsthroughtheSonwhileJohn 1:2affirmsthattheSoncreatedallthings.Togetherthesepassagesprecludetheidea thattheFathermadesomethingsandtheSonothers;itisclearthattheFathermadeall thingsandtheSonmadeallthings.IftheFathercreatedallthingsandtheSoncreated allthings,thentheymusthavecreatedthesamethings.ThisimpliesthattheSonis equaltotheFather.74Oneofthemostimportanttextsaffirmingtheconsubstantialityof theSonisPhilippians2:6.75NoticehowAugustineemphasizesthewordequal (aequalis):Inanycasetheapostledidnotfailtousetheverywordequal,andsaidas plainlyascouldbe,whobeingintheformofGoddidnotthinkitrobberytobeequaltoGod (Phil2:6),hereusingGodasapropernamefortheFather,ashedoesinanothertext, ButtheheadofChristisGod(1Cor.11:3).76Anotherimportanttextaffirmingthe consubstantialityoftheSontotheFatherisJohn10:30:Therearethensomestatements ofscriptureabouttheFatherandtheSonwhichindicatetheirunityandequalityof substance,likeIandtheFatherareone(Jn.10:30)...77

74

Augustine,DeTrin.I.12,72.

75FromthistextAugustinedrawshisdistinctionbetweentheSonintheformofaservant(humannature) andtheSonintheformofGod(divinenature).Thisprovidesahermeneuticalkeytodealingwith apparentlysubordinationistpassagessuchasJohn14:28. 76 77

Augustine,DeTrin.I.12,73. Augustine,DeTrin.II.3,98.

179

 AugustinesargumentfortheconsubstantialityoftheHolySpiritproceedsina parallelfashion.First,hearguesthattheHolySpiritisnotacreaturebutGod(bothby appealingdirectlytoScriptureaswellastobiblicaltestimoniestothiseffectwhich havebeencollectedbyothers).78Forexample,iftheHolySpiritisacreature,thenhow canPaulsay(1Cor.6:19)thatChristianbodiesarethetempleoftheHolySpirit? Couldanythingbemoreinsanelysacrilegiousthantohavetheeffronterytocallthe membersofChristthetempleofacreaturewhoisinferior,inthesepeoplesopinion,to Christhimself?79Augustinenotesthatfourversesearlier(1Cor.6:15)Paulclaimsthat believersbodiesaremembersofChrist.ButifthingsthatarethemembersofChrist arethetempleoftheHolySpirit,thentheHolySpiritisnotacreature,sincewecannot butowe,toonewhomweofferourbodiestoasatemple,thatservicebywhichonly Godistobeserved,whichinGreekiscalledlatreia.Sohesaysinconclusion,GlorifyGod thereforeinyourbodies(1Cor6:20).80Implicitinhisargumentisanassumptionrooted inAugustinesreadingofRomans1:25thatgenuinelatreiamustonlybeofferedtothe CreatorGodandnottoanycreature.IftheHolySpiritisGod,thenhemustbe

78InthesamewaytestimonieshavebeencollectedontheHolySpiritandcopiouslyemployedbyprevious expositorsofthesubjecttoshowthathetooisGodandnotacreature.Augustine,DeTrin.I.13,73. 79 80

Augustine,DeTrin.I.13,73. Augustine,DeTrin.I.13,73.

180

 absolutelyequaltotheFatherandtheSon,andconsubstantial(consubstantialis)andco eternal(coaeternus)intheonenessofthethree(intrinitatisunitate).81 InadditiontopassagesthataffirmthattheSonandSpiritareconsubstantialwith theFather,Augustinealsodiscussespassagesthatspeakoftheunityofthree.Romans 11:36offersanimportantexample(Sincefromhimandthroughhimandinhimareall things,tohimbegloryforeverandever.).82IfhemeansFatherandSonandHolySpirit, attributingaphraseapiecetoeachpersonfromhim,fromtheFather;throughhim, throughtheSon;inhim,intheHolySpiritthenitisclearthatFatherandSonandHoly SpiritiswhattheoneGodis,sinceheconcludesinthesingular,tohimbegloryforever andever.83ThekeytoAugustinesreadingisanassumptionthatGod,inthistext, referstothetriuneGodnotmerelytheFather.84Afterpresentingpassagesthataffirm theconsubstantialityoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit,Augustinealsoaddresses passagesthatappeartounderminethisclaimincludingtextsthatspeakoftheSonas
81 82 83

Augustine,DeTrin.I.13,73. Augustine,DeTrin.I.12,72.

Augustine,DeTrin.I.12,72.Oneofthecluesforthisreadingcanbefoundin1Corinthians8:6wherePaul saysthattheFatherisonefromwhomareallthingswhiletheSonisonethroughwhomareallthings. Asamatteroffact,hebegantheexpressionofthissentimentbysaying,Ohthedepthsoftherichesof wisdomandknowledge,notoftheFatheroroftheSonoroftheHolySpirit,butofGod!Augustine,DeTrin. I.12,72.Itmaybehelpfultonotethatevenifoneadoptsthereadingthattheos,inRomans11:36,mustrefer totheFather,thisdoesunderminethebroaderpointAugustineisattemptingtoestablishinDeTrin.I.12. HewantstoshowthattheSonandtheFatherareequal.IfRomans11:36merelyteachesthattheFather createdallthings,thenAugustinecansetthisalongsideJohn1:3whichaffirmsthattheSoncreatedall things.IftheFathercreatedallthings(Rom.11:36)andtheSoncreatedallthings(John1:3),thentheSonis equaltotheFather,andtheworkoftheFatherandSonisinseparable.AugustineDeTrin.I.12,72.
84

181

 lessthantheFather(e.g.John14:28)andpassageswhichspeakoftheSonandSpiritas sentbytheFather(e.g.,Gal.4:46). 4.3.2 Distinction of Divine Persons ad intra IfFather,SonandHolySpiritareonesubstance,thentherecanbenoinequality withinthedivinelife.Althoughthisaffirmationeliminatesallsubordination,itleaves animportantquestionunanswered:ifallthreepersonssharethesamenature,inwhat sense,andonwhatbasis,arethedivinepersonsdistinct?Augustinesanswernamely, thatrealdistinctionsexistbetweenthepersonsthataregroundedinsubsistent relationsconstitutesoneofhiskeycontributionstothedevelopmentoftrinitarian theologyintheWest.WhenweaffirmthatFather,SonandHolySpiritareoneGod thisdoesnotimplythattheSonistheFatherorthattheSpiritistheFather;rather,these namessignifyrelationsthatobtainbetweenthepersons.Augustinesgrammarof relationsisfleshedoutthroughpolemicalengagementwithHomoiantheologians.85In responsetotheproNiceneclaimthattheFatherisunbegottenwhiletheSonis begotten,theseHomoiantheologiansarguedthatbegottenandunbegotten respectivelydescribetheessenceoftheFatherandSon.Becausebegottenand unbegottendiffer,thesubstanceoftheFathermustbedifferentfromthesubstanceof

85

SeeBarnes,TheAriansofBookV,18595.

182

 theSon.86Thus,FatherandSoncannotbeequal.Augustinerespondedbypointingout thatwhileGodcanhavenoaccidents,itdoesnotfollowfromthisthateverystatement aboutGodmustbeasubstancestatement:

WithGod,though,nothingissaidmodificationwise,becausethereisnothing changeablewithhim.Andyetnoteverythingthatissaidofhimissaid substancewise.Somethingsaresaidwithreferencetosomethingelse,like FatherwithreferencetoSonandSonwithreferencetoFather;andthisisnotsaid modificationwise,becausetheoneisalwaysFatherandtheotheralwaysSon notalwaysinthesensethatheisSonfromthemomentheisbornorthatthe FatherdoesnotceasetobeFatherfromthemomenttheSondoesnotceasetobe Son,butinthesensethattheSonisalwaysbornandneverbegantobeSon.87

Inshort,Augustineinsiststhatonemustdistinguishlanguageofrelationshipfrom languageofsubstance.88InthecaseoftheSon,begottenmeansthesamethingas Sonsincebeingasonisaconsequenceofbeingbegotten.89Throughanengagement withHomoiantheologiansinBooksVVII,Augustinedefendsthelogicalcoherenceof histrinitariangrammarandclarifiesthelanguageheusestorefertothetriuneGod.The generationoftheSonandprocessionoftheHolySpiritconstitutetheultimateground forthedistinctionofpersonsinAugustinestrinitariantheology.

86 87 88 89

Augustine,DeTrin.V.4,191. Augustine,DeTrin.V.6,192. ThisisoneoftheprimaryclaimsinBookV. Augustine,DeTrin.V.7,192.

183


4.3.2.1 Generation of the Son

InthepreviouschapterweexaminedAugustinesdiscussionofthesending texts.Augustineinsiststhatsendingdoesnotimplyinequality;ratherthesendingofthe Sonsimplyrevealshiseternalgeneration.Nowwemustexaminethegenerationofthe Soningreaterdetail.Generation(generatio)includesseveralelements.First,the generationoftheSonisincorporeal.Augustineexplainsthatanumberofpeoplemake themistakeoftransfer[ing]whattheyhaveobservedaboutbodilythingstoincorporeal andspiritualthings...90AsLewisAyresnotes,Wemightsaythatthe(often unconscious)tendencyoffallenhumanityistoapplytoGodtherulesweuseforthe grammarofmaterialobjects.91Ayressuggeststhatoneoftheprimaryfunctionsof Augustinesgrammarofdivinesimplicityistoopposeagrammarofmateriality.92 Second,theFatherbegottheSontimelesslysuchthattheSoniscoeternalwiththe Father.93Thus,oneshouldnotintroduceanynotionoftemporalityintothegeneration oftheSon.Third,theFatherbegot(gigno)theSoninanequalityofnature.John5:26 (AstheFatherhaslifeinhimself,sohehasgiventheSontohavelifeinhimself)plays akeyroleinAugustinesexplanationofgeneration.AugustineexplainsthattheFather

90 91 92 93

Augustine,DeTrin.I.1,65. Ayres,TheFundamentalGrammarofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,62(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,62. SeeAugustine,DeTrin.XV.47,432.

184

 begot[theSon]timelesslyinsuchawaythatthelifewhichtheFathergavetheSonby begettinghimiscoeternalwiththelifeoftheFatherwhogaveit...94Through generationtheSonreceivesthelifethatis,thenatureorsubstanceoftheFather. Finally,AugustinerejectstheviewthattheFatherbegottheSonbyhiswill;onthe contrary,heinsiststhattheSonisbegottenofthesubstanceoftheFather.95Weshould notthinkofthegenerationoftheSonlikewaterflowingoutfromaholeintheground orintherock,butlikelightflowingfromlight.96TheSonslightisequalinits radiancetolightoftheFather.

4.3.2.2 Procession of the Holy Spirit

AlthoughearliertheologiansrecognizedthattheprocessionoftheSpiritclearly differedfromthegenerationoftheSon(suchthatitwouldbeinappropriatetospeakof theSpiritasasecondSon),manywereatalosstoofferatheologicalrationaleforthis distinction.AugustinemadeanimportantcontributionbysuggestingthattheHoly

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.47,432(italicsmine).Similarly,inBookI,heexplainsthatJohn5:26impliesthat theFatherbegottheSontobeunchangeablelife,thatistosayeternallife.Augustine,DeTrin.I.26,85.
94

AugustineattributestheviewthattheFatherbegottheSonbyhiswilltoEunomius:Hewasunableto understandandunwillingtobelievethattheonlybegottenWordofGodthroughwhomallthingswere madeistheSonofGodbynature,thatis,heisbegottenofthesubstanceoftheFather;andsohesaidthathe isnottheSonofthenatureorsubstanceorbeingofGodbuttheSonofhiswill.Hewishedofcourseto assertthatthewillbywhichGodbegottheSonissomethingaccidentaltohim,onthegroundsapparently thatwesometimeswillsomethingthatwewerenotwillingbeforeasthoughthiswerenotproofofthe changeablenessofournature,athingwecouldnotpossiblybelievetobethecaseinGod.Augustine,De Trin.XV.38,425.

95

DeTrin.IV.27,172.Thisimageisemployedfrequentlyinpatristicwritingsasevidencedbyitsinclusion intheNiceneConstantinopolitanCreed.
96

185

 Spiritproceeds(procedit)jointlyfromtheFatherandtheSonasfromoneprinciple.97 Augustinesuccinctlysummarizeshispositioninthefollowingstatement:Andjustas fortheHolySpirithisbeingthegiftofGodmeanshisproceedingfromtheFather,sohis beingsentmeanshisbeingknowntoproceedfromhim.Nor,bytheway,canwesay thattheHolySpiritdoesnotproceedfromtheSonaswell;itisnotwithoutpointthat thesameSpiritiscalledtheSpiritoftheFatherandoftheSon.98Augustineseesbiblical warrantforaffirmingarolefortheSonintheprocessionoftheSpiritinthewaythat ScripturespeaksoftheHolySpiritastheSpiritoftheFatherandtheSon.99Further evidencecanbeseeninthebestowaloftheSpirituponthedisciplesbyChristfollowing theresurrection(e.g.John20:22).100Twoofthemostimportantbiblicaltextsfor AugustineareJohn14:26and15:26:Bysayingthen,WhomIwillsendyoufromtheFather (Jn15:26),theLordshowedthattheSpiritisboththeFathersandtheSons.Elsewhere too,whenhesaid,whomtheFatherwillsend,headded,inmyname(Jn14:26).101The

Inordertoavoidconfusion,Iwillusethetermfilioque(andtheSon)exclusivelyinreferencetothe controversialinterpolationintheCreedwhileIwillusethephraseprocessionfromtheFatherandSonto refertoAugustinesposition.

97 98

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.

99PerhapsthemostobviousexampleofthisisGalatians4:6whichexplainsthatGodsenttheSpiritofhis Son.

AndIcannotseewhatelseheintendedtosignifywhenhebreathedandsaidReceivetheHolySpirit(Jn 20:22).Notthatthephysicalbreaththatcamefromhisbodyandwasphysicallyfeltwasthesubstanceof theHolySpirit;butitwasaconvenientsymbolicdemonstrationthattheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheSon aswellasfromtheFather.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.

100 101

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.

186

 logicofthisisquiteclear:ifsendingrevealsprocessionandiftheSonsenttheSpirit, thentheSpiritmustproceedfromtheFatherandtheSon.102 AfteraffirmingthattheSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon,Augustine offersanimportantqualification.HenotesthatJohn15:26doesnotsay,whomthe FatherwillsendfrommebutratherwhomIwillsendfromtheFather.Bythishe indicatedthatthesource(principium)ofallgodhead(totiusdivinitatis),orifyoupreferit, ofalldeity(deitatis),istheFather.SotheSpiritwhoproceeds(procedit)fromtheFather andtheSonistracedback,onbothcounts,tohimofwhomtheSonisborn.103 AlthoughAugustinespeaksofFather,SonandSpiritasonesubstance,heisclearthat thesourceofdeity(principiumdeitatis)istheFather.104AugustinealsoaffirmsthatFather

102ThereisoneadditionalreasonitisimportantforAugustinetoaffirmthattheHolySpiritproceedsfrom theFatherandtheSon.Itstemsfromhisunderstandingofrelations:IfwedonotsaythattheHolySpirit proceedsbothfromtheFatherandfromtheSon(asfromoneprinciple,ororigin,ofcourse,aqualification Augustineismostcarefultomake),butonlyfromtheFather,thentherereallyisnowaytodistinguishhis processionfromthatoftheSon,nowaythereforetodistinguishtheHolySpiritfromtheSon.Hill,The Trinity,269. 103

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174.

104Laterinthesamebook,henotesthatthesendingsrevealtousthatthattheFatheristhesourceand originofalldeity.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.32,177.TheEnglishphrasesourceandoriginofdeity representsHillstranslationoftheLatintermprincipium.ElsewhereAugustineclaimsthattheHolySpirit proceedsprincipallyfromtheFather.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.47,433.AsEdmundHillrightlynotes,Itis oneoftheGreekobjectionstotheFilioqueintheLatincreed,thedoctrineoftheHolySpiritsproceeding fromtheSonaswellastheFather,thatitderogatesfromtheFathersmonarchia.ItisclearthatAugustineat leastwasawareoftheneedtosafeguardthisattribute,andthathesoenvisagedthedoubleprocessionof theHolySpiritthatthismonarchiawasnotimpugned.Hill,TheTrinity,185,note112.Similarly,The chargethatAugustinestheologydescribesthedivineessenceaspriortothedivinepersons,orasthesource ofthepersons,isunwarranted.Infact,heconsistentlyandspecificallyrulesoutanysuchaccountofthe divineessence.HealsoclearlymaintainstheFatherasthepersonalsourceofthedivinesimplicityand essence.Usingthegrammarofsimplicity,Augustinearguesthatweshouldbewareofspeakingabouta

187

 andSonarenottwooriginsbutoneorigin(unumprincipium)withrespecttothe HolySpirit.105LikethegenerationoftheSon,theprocession(processio)oftheHolySpirit isimmaterial,timelessandresultsinequalityofnature. OnefinalissuemeritsattentioninrelationtotheprocessionoftheHolySpirit. AccordingtoAugustine,namessignifyrelationsthatobtainbetweenthedivinepersons. AuniqueproblemarisesinthecaseoftheHolySpiritinasmuchmuchasthename HolySpiritdoesnotappeartosuggestarelation.106Augustinefindsasolutioninthe languageofgift:Thisrelationship,tobesure,isnotapparentinthisparticularname [HolySpirit],butitisapparentwhenheiscalledthegiftofGod(Acts8:20;Jn4:10).107 TheHolySpirit,accordingtoAugustine,isthegiftoftheFatherandtheSon.108Gift impliesrelationship:Sowhenwesaythegiftofthegiverandthethegiverofthegift, wesayeachwithreferencetotheother.SotheHolySpiritisakindofinexpressible communionorfellowshipoftheFatherandSon,andperhapsheisgiventhisnamejust becausethesamenamecanbeappliedtotheFatherandtheSon.109Appealingtogift
substanceinwhichthreepersonsarecontained:thereisnothingbutthethreecoeternalandconsubstantial persons.Ayres,FundamentalGrammar,68.
105 106 107 108

Augustine,DeTrin.V.15,199. Augustine,DeTrin.V.12,197. Augustine,DeTrin.V.12,197.

HeisthegiftoftheFatherandoftheSon,becauseontheonehandheproceedsfromtheFather(Jn15:26), astheLordsays;andontheothertheapostleswords,WhoeverdoesnothavetheSpiritofChristisnotoneofhis (Rom.8:9),arespokenoftheHolySpirit.Augustine,DeTrin.V.12,197.

109

Augustine,DeTrin.V.12,197.

188

 languagealsoprovidesawaytodistinguishgenerationandprocession:whiletheSon comesforthasbeingborn,theSpiritcomesforthasbeinggiven.110Thus,wedonot speakofhimasason.111 4.3.3 Unity of Operation ad extra Havingexaminedthedivinerelationsadintra,wewillnowturntotherelations amongtheFather,SonandSpiritadextra.First,wewillbeginbyconsideringthedivine personsintheirunityofaction.AccordingtoAugustine,Father,SonandHolySpirit workinseparably.LewisAyresarguesthattheinseparableactionofthedivine personsconstitutesoneofthefundamentalaxiomsofAugustinestrinitariantheology.112 Augustineacknowledgesthatthisstatementoffaithworriessomepeople.113They wonder,forexample,howitcanbethattheTrinityactsinseparablyandyetthatan utteranceoftheFatherisnotanutteranceoftheSonorhowitcanbethatthepersonsact inseparablywhenonlytheSonbecamehuman,diedandroseagain.Anexplanationof theinseparableactionofthedivinepersonscanbefoundinasermonAugustine preachedonMatthew3:1317around410.Itsuccinctlysummarizestheteachinghesets
110

Augustine,DeTrin.V.15.199.

111Furtherjustificationforhisdistinctionbetweengenerationandprocessioncanbefoundinhis examinationofthedivineimageinthemensinBooksVIIIXV.

Ayres,FundamentalGrammar,56.Itisimportanttorecognizethattheinseparableactionofthedivine personsisnotuniquetoLatintrinitariantheology.TheCappadociansaffirmedthisaxiomaswell.See chaptertwo.

112 113

Augustine,DeTrin.I.8,70.

189

 forthinDeTrinitate.InthebaptismofJesus,Augustineseesaclearrevelationofthe divinepersons:Sowehavethethree,somehoworother,clearlydistinguished:inthe voicetheFather,inthemantheSon,inthedovetheHolySpirit.Thereisnoneedtodo morethanjustremindyouofthis;itseasyenoughtosee.114Augustinepointsoutthat thedivinepersonsappeartobemanifestedinaseparableway.Theirapparently separablemanifestationofthepersonsraisesaproblem:Nowsomeonemaysaytome, Demonstratethatthethreeareinseparable.RememberyourespeakingasaCatholic, speakingtoCatholics.115TheCatholicfaith,rootedinScriptureandApostolictruth holdswiththefirmestandmostorthodoxfaith,thatFather,Son,andHolySpiritare oneinseparabletrinityortriad;oneGod,notthreegods;butoneGodinsuchawaythat theSonisnottheFather,thattheFatherisnottheSon,thattheHolySpiritisneitherthe FathernortheSon,buttheSpiritoftheFatherandoftheSon.116How,then,canthisbe reconciledwiththeSoncomingseparatelyinhumanflesh,theHolySpiritdescending separatelyandthevoiceoftheFathersoundingseparatelyfromheaven? AfterremindinghisaudienceofthetruthofCatholicteachingregardingthe inseparableactionofthepersons,Augustinerestatestheproblem:IftheFatherdoes
114SaintAugustine,Sermon52.1inTheWorksofSaintAugustine:ATranslationforthe21stCentury,vol.III/3, SermonsIII(5194)ontheNewTestament,trans.EdmundHill,ed.JohnE.Rotelle(Brooklyn:NewCityPress, 1991),50. 115 116

Augustine,Sermon52.2,51. Augustine,Sermon52.2,51.

190

 nothingwithouttheSonandtheSonnothingwithouttheFather,wontitfollow, presumably,thatwehavetosaytheFathertoowasbornoftheVirginMary,theFather sufferedunderPontiusPilate,theFatherroseagainandascendedintoheaven?117To answerthisquestionaffirmativelywouldbetofallintothesameerrorasthe Patripassians.Thisraisesadilemma:itappearsthatAugustinemusteitherabandon hisclaimthattheSonactswithouttheFatherorhemustacknowledgethattheFather suffered,diedandroseagain.Afterrejectingboththeseoptions,Augustineoffersthe followingsolution:theSonindeed,andnottheFather,wasbornoftheVirginMary; butthisbirthoftheSon,nottheFather,fromtheVirginMarywastheworkofboth FatherandSon.ItwasnotindeedtheFather,buttheSonwhosuffered;yetthesuffering oftheSonwastheworkofbothFatherandSon.ItwasnttheFatherwhoroseagain,but theSon;yettheresurrectionoftheSonwastheworkofbothFatherandSon.118Having statedhissolution,AugustineturnsbacktoScriptureinordertodemonstratethatthe birth,deathandresurrectionoftheSonweretheworkoftheFatherandtheSon,yetthat onlytheSonwasborn,diedandrose.AfterestablishingthesepointsfromScripture, Augustineaskswhetheranyanalogymightexistfortheinseparableoperationofthree separablethings.Tofindthreethingsthatactinseparablywemustturninwardtothe
117 118

Augustine,Sermon52.6,5253. Augustine,Sermon52.8,5354.

191

 divineimageinthehumanmind(mens)specificallythetriadofmemory, understandingandwill(thesametriadheexplicatesinthesecondhalfofDeTrinitate).119 ReturningtoMatthew3,AugustineexplainsthatwhiletheTrinityactedtogetherinthe formingthebodyofChrist,thisbodybelongsonlytoChrist.WhiletheTrinityacted togetherintheformationofthedove,itbelongstononebuttheSpirit.WhiletheTrinity producedthevoicefromheaven,thevoicebelongedonlytotheFather.120Areciprocal relationshipexistsforAugustinebetweeninseparableactionofthepersonsandtheir inseparablenature.Ontheonehand,inseparableactionimpliesinseparablenature.121 Ontheotherhand,inseparablenatureimpliesinseparableaction.122

SoIthinkIhaveexplainedwhatIproposed.WhatIhaveseparatelypronounced,Ihaveinseparably operated.Allthreeproducedjustoneofthesenames;andyetthisonenamewhichallthreehaveproduced doesntbelongtoallthreebutonlytooneofthem.Allthreeproducedthenamememory,buttheonlyone ofthemitbelongstoisthememory.Allthreeproducedthenameunderstanding,buttheonlyoneofthem itbelongstoistheunderstanding.Allthreeproducedthenamewill,buttheonlyoneofthemitbelongsto isthewill.Sotoo,theTrinityproducedthefleshofChrist,buttheonlyoneofthemitbelongstoisChrist. TheTrinityproducedthedovefromthesky,buttheonlyoneofthemitbelongstoistheHolySpirit.The Trinityproducedthevoicefromheaven,buttheonlyoneofthemthevoicebelongstoistheFather. Augustine,Sermon52.21,61.Augustineiscarefultopointthatthetriadofmemory,understandingandwill isnotanexactanalogfortheTrinity.
119

TheverysameexplanationappearsinDeTrinitate:SotoothetrinitytogetherproducedboththeFathers voiceandtheSonsfleshandtheHolySpiritsdove,thougheachofthesesinglethingshasreferencetoa singleperson.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.30,175.

120

IfsomethingsweremadethroughtheFather,othersthroughtheSon,thenitcannotbeallthings throughtheFathernorallthroughtheSon.ButifitisallthingsthroughtheFatherandallthroughtheSon, thenitisthesamethingsthroughtheFatherasthroughtheSon.SotheSonisequaltotheFather,andthe workofFatherandSonisinseparable.Augustine,DeTrin.I.12,72(italicsmine).Arguingfrominseparable actiontoinseparablenaturewasaverycommonproNicenestrategy.

121

NoticehowthelatterassumptionsupportsAugustinesclaimthatotherpersonsareimpliedevenwhen theyarenotmentioned:Itistomakeusawareofthetrinitythatsomethingsareevensaidaboutthe personssinglybyname;however,theymustnotbeunderstoodinthesenseofexcludingtheotherpersons,

122

192

 Finally,theinseparableactionofthepersonsreflectstheintratrinitariantaxis Father,SonandHolySpirit:AclearexampleofthiscanbeseeninAugustines discussionofJohn5:19.ThereasontheSondoesnotworkofhimselfisthatheisnot sotospeakofhimself.RatherheisfromtheFather.JustastheSonreceiveshis beingfromtheFather,sotheSonsworkingcomesfromtheFather.Thatiswhythe SoncannotdoanythingofhimselfexceptwhatheseestheFatherdoing.123Asecond examplecanbeseeninthecaseoftheHolySpirit.ThereasontheSpiritisnotsaidto speakfromhimselfinJohn16:13isbecauseisnotfromhimself.124Thespeaking oftheHolySpiritarisesfromtheonefromwhomtheSpiritproceeds.125Theproblemof how,ontheonehand,thethreedivinepersonsworkinseparablyandhow,ontheother hand,onlytheFatherspoke,onlytheSonbecameincarnateandonlytheSpirit

becausethissamethreeisalsoone,andthereisonesubstanceandgodheadofFatherandSonandHoly Spirit.Augustine,DeTrin.I.19,79. Augustine,DeTrin.II.3,99.CommentingonthissametextinhisTractatesontheGospelofJohn,Augustine offersafullerexplanationinwhichthetrinitariantaxisplaysakeyrole:Whateveronedoes,thesetheother, also.TheFather[made]theworld,theSon[made]theworld,theHolySpirit[made]theworld.If[there are]threegods,[thereare]threeworlds;if[thereis]oneGod,FatherandSonandHolySpirit,oneworld wasmadebytheFatherthroughtheSonintheHolySpirit(unusmundusfactusestaPatreperFiliuminSpiritu sancto).ThereforetheSondoesthesethingswhichtheFatheralsodoes,andhedoesthemnotinadissimilar manner;hebothdoesthem,anddoestheminlikemanner.SaintAugustine,Tractate20.9inFathersofthe Church,vol.79,TractatesontheGospelofJohn,1127,trans.byJohnW.Rettig(WashingtonD.C.:Catholic UniversityofAmericaPress,1988),172.LatinfromMigne,PatrologiaLatina35:1561.
123 124 125

Augustine,DeTrin.II.5,100.

SoitisasproceedingfromtheFatherthatheissaidnottospeakfromhimself.Augustine,DeTrin.II.5, 100.

193

 descendedasadovemerelyrepresentsaneconomicversionoftheproblemofhowGod cansimultaneouslybebothoneandtriune. 4.3.4 Distinction of Persons ad extra Havingconsideredtheirunityofoperation,wewillnowconsiderthedistinction ofthepersonsbyexaminingthecentraleconomicconceptinDe Trinitatethedivine missions.Inchapterthreeweexaminedtherelationshipbetweenmissionand generation/processionhighlightingAugustinescentralinsightthatthetemporal missionsrevealtheeternalgenerationoftheSonandprocessionoftheSpirit.Ifthe missionsoftheSonandSpiritcloselycorrespondtotheireternalgenerationand procession,thissuggeststhattheintratrinitariantaxisrepresentsoneofthekeysto understandingtheinterrelationshipsofthedivinepersonsintheeconomyofsalvation. Indeedthisispreciselywhatwediscover:theFatherthesourceandoriginofalldeity (principium)istheonewhosendswhiletheSon(whoproceedsfromtheFather)and theSpirit(whoproceedsfromtheFatherandSon)aretheonessent.
4.3.4.1 Sending of the Son

AugustinelinksthesendingoftheSontotheincarnationexplaining,what constitutedthesendingoftheLordwashisbeingbornintheflesh,hisissuing,soto speak,fromthehiddeninvisibilityoftheFathersbosomandappearingtotheeyesof

194

 menintheformofaservant...126AugustinearguesthatthesendingoftheSon representsauniquemomentinsalvationhistorysuchthatonecannotproperlyspeakof theSonbeingsentpriortotheincarnation.TwokeydifferencesexistbetweenOld TestamenttheophaniesthesendingoftheSonintheincarnation.First,thelatter involvesthedirectpresenceoftheSonintheworldwhiletheformerweremediated byangels.127Second,thesendingoftheSonintheNewTestamentdiffersinpurpose fromthedivineappearancesinOldTestament.InBookIV,Augustineengagesina protracteddiscussionoftheworkofChrist,inwhichheappearstodigressfromhis argument.Augustinediscussestherealityofhumansundersinandhow,asmediator,128 JesusChristsolvedthisproblem.Humansweredeadbothinbodyandsoul;however, throughhissingledeath,Christovercameourdoubledeath:Sothen,theonedeath
126 127

Augustine,DeTrin.III.3,129.

Butthediscussion,Ithink,hasnowgoneonsufficientlylongtodemonstratewhatwesetouttoshowin thisbook.IthasbeenestablishedbyallrationalprobabilityasfarasmanorratherasfarasIcanworkit out,andbyfirmauthorityasfarasthedivinewordsofscripturehavedeclaredit,thatwheneverGodwas saidtoappeartoourancestorsbeforeoursaviorsincarnation,thevoicesheardandthephysical manifestationsseenweretheworkofangels.Augustine,DeTrin.III.27,144.

128MediationrepresentsthecentralconceptthroughwhichAugustinenarratestheworkofChrist.Soit isthattheSonofGod,whoisatoncetheWordofGodandthemediatorbetweenGodandmentheSonof man,equaltotheFatherbyonenessofdivinityandourfellowbytakingofhumanity,soitisthathe intercedesforusinsofarasheisman,whilenotconcealingthatasGodheisonewiththeFather...De Trin.IV.12,161.EdmundHillsuggestsAugustinesfocusuponthemediationoftheincarnateWordmay servetoshowupthedifferenceinkindbetweenhismissionandthesortofmissiononwhichangelswere sent,whichhadbeenthesubjectofBookIII.Thispurposehelpstoexplainwhyinchapters3and4 AugustinedescribesChristsmediationbycontrastingitwiththepseudomediationofthedevil,andwhy indeedhemakesmediationhiskeytermatall,ratherthansayredemptionorsalvation.Hill,TheTrinity, 148.AccordingtoHill,AugustineframesthemediationoftheincarnateWordintwoways:(1)the restorationofharmonytoadiscordantworldinthecontextoftheproblemoftheoneandthemanyand(2) theworkofpurification.

195

 ofoursaviorwasoursalvationfromourtwodeaths,andhisoneresurrectionbestowed tworesurrectionsonus,sinceineitherinstance,thatisbothindeathandinresurrection, hisbodyservedasthesacramentofourinnermanandasthemodelofourouterman, byakindofcurativeaccordorsymmetry.129Theroadthatledtodeathcamethrough Adam(Rom.5:12)andthemediatorofthisroadwasthedevil.Incontrasttothe incarnateWord,thedeviloffersakindofcounterfeitpurificationthroughfalse religiouspracticesandmanyaredeceivedbyhissacredrites.Onlysacrificeofaholy andjustpriestcanbringgenuinepurification.ThatpriestwastheSonofGod:What priestthencouldtherebeasjustandholyastheonlySonofGod,whowasnotonewho neededtopurgehisownsinsbysacrifice,whetheroriginalsinoronesaddedinthe courseofhumanlife?130Somepeople,however,mistakenlybelievethattheycan purifythemselvesforcontemplatingGodandcleavingtohimbytheirownpowerand strengthofcharacter,whichmeansinfactthattheyarethoroughlydefiledbypride.131 Purification,accordingtoAugustine,canbefoundonlythroughtheincarnateSon.Itis notuntilthefinalpartofBookIVthatthereaderdiscoversthepurposeofthisapparent digression:ThereyouhavewhattheSonofGodhasbeensentfor;indeedthereyou

129 130 131

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.6,157. Augustine,DeTrin.IV.19,166. Augustine,DeTrin.IV.20,167.HereAugustineoffersapolemicagainstaNeoplatonicascenttoGod.

196

 havewhatitisfortheSonofGodtohavebeensent.132Inotherwords,hisapparent digressioninthefirstpartofbookfourwasintendedtoexplicatethepurposeforwhich theSonwassentnamely,torestorefallenhumansintoarelationshipofcommunion withthetriuneGod. ThisdiscussionalsogivesusaglimpseintotheuniqueroleoftheSonofGodin theeconomyofsalvation.Oneofthestrikingfeaturesofhisextendeddiscussionofthe mediationoftheSoninBookIVisthatnowheredoesAugustinementiontheworkof HolySpirit.133Somemightarguethatthisphenomenonsimplyreflectsadeficiencyin Augustinespneumatology.Threefactors,however,suggeststhatsuchajudgmentmay beunwarranted.First,weneedtokeepinmindthatwhiletheSonaloneismediator, themediationoftheSonisjointworknotmerelyoftheSonandSpiritbutalsothe Father.Second,elsewhereAugustinediscussesthevitalroleoftheSpiritinChrists ministryfromthetimeofhisconceptionforward.134Finally,weneedtorememberthat thepurposeofAugustinesdiscussionistoexplicatethepropermissionoftheSon.This factoralonemayaccountforhisexclusiveemphasisupontheworkoftheSon.Forour

132 133

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.25,171.

AugustinesdiscussionofthemediatorialroleoftheincarnateWordbeginsinDeTrinIV.2andendsin DeTrin.IV.24.AsidefromasinglebiblicalcitationincludingareferencetotheSpiritinDeTrin.IV.5,allthe occurrencesofspiritusrefereithertothehumanspiritortodemonicspirits.

134

See,forexample,Augustine,DeTrin.XV.46,431.

197

 purposes,itisimportantsimplytonotethatAugustinesdiscussionunderscoresthe uniqueroleoftheSonintheeconomyofsalvation.
4.3.4.2 Sending of the Spirit

AugustinesclaimthattheSonappearedinacreatedbodilyformwhile,inhis uncreatedspiritualform,heremainedhidden,alsoenablesonetounderstandthe senseinwhichtheHolySpiritwassent.TheHolySpiritwasvisiblydisplayedina createdguisewhichwasmadeintime,eitherwhenhedescendedonourLordhimselfin bodilyguiseasadove(Mt3:16),orwhentendaysafterhisascensiontherecamesuddenly fromheavenonthedayofPentecostasoundasofaviolentgustbearingdown,andthere appearedtothemdividedtonguesasoffire,whichalsosettleduponeachoneofthem(Acts 2:2).135ThesendingoftheHolySpiritdiffersfromthesendingoftheSoninthatthe HolySpiritdidnotjoinacreatedrealitytohimselfandhispersontobeheldinan everlastingunion.136Forthisreason,wecannotsaythattheSpiritisGodanddove orGodandfireaswesayoftheSonthatheisGodandman.137Thisraisesan importantquestion:inasmuchasthedivinemanifestationsintheOldTestamentalso involvedthetemporaryappropriationofacreatedreality,howdoesthesendingofthe HolySpiritatPentecostsubstantivelydifferfromtheseearlierappearances?Augustine
135 136 137

Augustine,DeTrin.II.10,104. Augustine,DeTrin.II.11,104. Augustine,DeTrin.II.11,104.

198

 offerstworesponses.First,hepointsoutthatJohn7:39teachesthattherewasgoingto beakindofgivingorsendingoftheHolySpiritafterChristsglorificationsuchasthere hadneverbeenbefore.138Second,hesuggeststhatuniquenessoftheSpiritssending canbeseeninitsresults.NowherepriortoPentecostdowereadofpeoplespeaking languagestheydidnotpreviouslyknow.TheHolySpiritscomingneededtobe demonstratedbyperceptiblesigns,toshowthatthewholeworldandallnationswith theirvarietyoflanguagesweregoingtobelieveinChristbythegiftoftheHolySpirit,in ordertofulfillthepsalmistspropheticsong,Therearenolanguagesordialectswhosevoices arenotheard;theirsoundhasgoneouttoalltheearth,andtheirwordstotheendoftheworld (Ps19:3).139Augustineseesaspecialsignificanceintheperceptiblesignthrough whichthebestowaloftheSpiritismanifested(i.e.,bearingwitnesstoChristinmultiple languages):itnotonlyunderscorestheuniqueroleoftheHolySpiritintheeconomyof salvationbutitalsooffersprolepticfulfillmentoftheultimategoalofHolySpirits missionnamely,leadingpeopleineverynationtobelieveinJesusChristasSaviorand Lord.

138 139

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,174. Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,175.

199


4.3.4.3 Two SendingsOne Goal

HavingexaminedtherolesoftheSonandtheHolySpirit,wemustnowbring ourdiscussiontoclosebyconsideringhowthesetwomissionsrelatetooneanother. Firstandforemost,wemustrememberthatthesemissions(orbettersendings)140 haveoneultimategoalbringingmenandwomenintoeternalcontemplationofFather, SonandHolySpirit:Contemplationinfactistherewardoffaith,arewardforwhich heartsarecleansedthroughfaith,asitiswritten,cleansingtheirheartsthroughfaith(Acts 15:9).Proofthatitisthatcontemplationforwhichheartsarecleansedcomesfromthe keytext,Blessedarethecleanofheart,fortheyshallseeGod(Mt5:8).141Augustineis carefultopointoutthatitisnotmerelytheFatherwhoistheobjectofeternal contemplationbutalsotheSonandtheSpirit.142Thiscontemplationisthesourceof
ItisimportanttonotethatAugustinedoesnotactuallyspeakabouttwomissionsinthesensethatthe wordmissionisoftenusedincontemporaryEnglish.HeusestheLatinnounmissio,whichdenotes sending,alongwiththeLatinverbmitto,whichmeanstosend.AlthoughtheEnglishtermmissionis derivedfrommissio,thelatterandformerhaveslightlydifferentconnotations.Theemphasisofthelatteris upontheactofsending,whiletheemphasisoftheformerisoftenmoreonthepurposeforwhichoneis sent.PerhapsitmightbemorefaithfultoAugustine(and,forthatmatter,Scripture)tospeakoftwo sendings(withreferencetotheactofsending)andonemission(withregardtotheultimatepurposeofthe sendings).ThisdistinctionseemstobemissedbythosewhowanttotalkaboutaneconomyoftheSpirit whichisdistinct,separateordifferentfromthatoftheSon.
140

Augustine,DeTrin.I.17,77.RegardingthecentralityofMatthew5:8inAugustineseschatology,see MichelR.Barnes,TheVisibleChristandtheInvisibleTrinity:Mt.5:8inAugustinesTrinitarianTheology of400,ModernTheology19(2003):32955.

141 142WhetherwehearthenShowustheSon,orwhetherwehearShowustheFather,itcomestothesame thing,becauseneithercanbeshownwithouttheother.Theyareindeedone,ashetellsus,IandtheFatherare one(Jn10:30).Inaword,becauseofthisinseparability,itmakesnodifferencewhethersometimestheFather aloneorsometimestheSonaloneismentionedastheonewhoistofilluswithdelightathiscountenance. NoristheSpiritofeachseparablefromthisunity,theFathersSpirit,thatis,andtheSons,theHolySpirit

200

 eternaljoy:Forthefullnessofourhappiness,beyondwhichthereisnoneelse,isthis:to enjoyGodthethreeinwhoseimagewearemade.143InthesecondhalfofDeTrinitate, AugustineattemptstoleadhisreaderintocontemplationofthetriuneGodthrough considerationofthedivineimageinthemenswhichrepresentsamirrorthroughwhich onemayperceivealbeititdimlythetriunityofGod.

4.4 An Evaluation of Amos Yongs Trinitarian Pneumatology

InasmuchasYongspneumatologicaltheologyofreligionsisrootedadistinction betweentheeconomyoftheSonandtheeconomyoftheSpirit,hisproposalraises importantquestionsabouttherelationsamongthetrinitarianpersonsbothwithinthe divinelifeofthetriuneGod(adintra)andwithintheeconomyofsalvation(adextra). Yongsuggeststhattheadequacyofhispneumatologicaltheologyofreligionsshouldbe evaluatedwithrespecttothreecriteria:Thetrinitarianismtobedevelopedshould relatethemissionsoftheWordandSpiritwithoutidentifyingthem.Itshouldalsobe sensitivetotheclassicalChristianconcernsregardingthedoctrineoftheTrinityaswell

whichisgiventhepropernameoftheSpiritoftruth,whichthisworldcannotreceive(Jn14:17).Augustine,De Trin.I.1718,77. Augustine,DeTrin.I.18,77.AugustinesuggeststhatMarysittingatJesusfeetprefiguresthisjoy:Asort ofpictureofwhatthisjoywillbelikewassketchedbyMarysittingattheLordsfeetintentuponhiswords; atrestfromallactivityandintentuponthetruth,insuchmeasureasthislifeallowsof,butthereby foreshadowingthatjoywhichisgoingtolastforever.Augustine,DeTrin.I.20,80.

143

201

 asthecontemporarymethodologicalissuesthatconfronttranscendentaltheology.144In thediscussionthatfollows,IwillarguethatYongrelatestheSpirittotheFatherandSon inawaythatinadequatelyaddressesclassicalChristianconcernsregardingthe doctrineoftheTrinity.145 4.4.1 Insufficient Trinitarian Framework AlthoughYongacknowledgesthatthemissionoftheSpiritmustultimatelybe understoodinatrinitariancontext,146heoffersnocomprehensivetrinitarianframework attheoutsetwithinwhichtorelatetheworktheFather,SonandHolySpirit.147Atthe economiclevel,missionplaysakeyroleinhisproposal.Althoughhefrequently referstothemissionsoftheSonandSpirit,heoffersnosubstantivediscussionofthe
144 145

Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),95.

MycritiquewillfocusuponYongsproposalasoutlinedinDiscerningtheSpirit(s).Attheendofthis sectionIwillbrieflydiscussamorerecentbookentitledBeyondtheImpasse:TowardaPneumatological TheologyofReligions(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2003).AtthispointIwouldsimplynotethatYong doesnotofferanysubstantiverevisionstothesubstanceofhisproposalinthelatterbook.Onthecontrary, hecontinuestoaffirmadistincteconomyoftheSpiritaswellthelegitimacyofnonchristologicalcriteria fordiscerningtheSpiritspresence. Yongacknowledgestheneedforabroadertrinitarianframework:Butwhatifweweretobegin elsewhere,letssay,withthedoctrineoftheSpirit?Surely,thereisnodoubtthatthechristologicalquestion wouldbemerelypostponed,notentirelydismissed.Eventually,Christologyandpneumatologymustbe understoodwithinabroadertrinitarianframework...Yetitwouldbeintriguingtoexploreinthatlight howtheWordandSpirittogetheraccomplishandmediatethesalvificgiftoftheFather,bothseparately,if discernible,andintandem.Itiseventhecasethatsuchmaybeacluetowardbringingtogether particularityanduniversality.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),58.
146

IamnotsuggestingthatYongdoesnotofferarigoroustheologicalframeworkwithinwhichtounderstand theuniversalpresenceoftheSpirit.Onthecontrary,hedevelopsaverysophisticatedmetaphysic(his foundationalpneumatology)forunderstandingtheSpiritspresence.Theproblemisthatthis foundationalpneumatologyisbuiltuponthepremiseofadistincteconomyoftheSpiritforwhichhe hasnotofferedadequatetrinitarianjustification.

147

202

 contentofthesemissionsfromasalvationhistoricalperspective.148Echoingseveral contemporarytheologians,hesimplyassertsthattheSpiritoperatesinaneconomy distinct(i.e.,separate)fromthatoftheSon,bracketsthemissionoftheSonandthen focusesexclusivelyonthemissionoftheHolySpirit.149 AttheleveloftheimmanentTrinity,Yongoffersnoaccountoftherelations amongthetrinitarianpersonsadintraasgroundforhisunderstandingofthedivine missions.InasmuchashisdistinctionbetweentheeconomyoftheSonandthe economyoftheSpiritnecessarilydependsuponthehypostaticdistinctionbetween theSonandSpirit,somediscussionofintratrinitarianrelationsseemstoberequired.150 Yong,however,rejectsoutofhandanyattempttospeculateabouttheimmanent Trinity.151TheclosestYongcomestoadiscussionofintratrinitarianrelationsisabrief
Onthecontrary,followingKhodr,heattemptstoredefineoikonomiaincosmicratherthansalvation historicalterms.
148

Byspeakingofadistincteconomyofsalvation,Yongultimatelymeansasecondeconomyofsalvation.I willusetheadjectivesdistinctandseparateinterchangeablyinmycritiqueofYong.Ultimatelythe issueisnotwhethertheseeconomiesaredistinctorseparatebutwhetheritislegitimatetospeakof multipleeconomiesatall.IwillarguethatYongstrinitarianpneumatologyisinadequatebecauseitposits twoeconomiesofsalvation.

149

InaproposalsuchasYongs,reflectionontheimmanentTrinitysimplycannotbeavoidedbecauseevery conceptualizationoftheeconomicTrinitynecessarilypresumescertainassumptionsabouttheimmanent Trinity.SeeCoffey,DeusTrinitas,1526.

150 151IwouldthereforewanttoradicalizeKarlRahnersaxiomtheTrinityoftheeconomyofsalvationisthe immanentTrinityandviceversa(1970)inthedirectionofthedivineeconomywhileemphasizingthat thereisnothingfurtherthatcanbeknownaboutGodinGodselfapartfromwhathasbeenrevealedin creation.Indoingso,IwouldretainlanguageabouttheimmanentTrinityonlyifbythatwearetalking aboutthemysteryofcreation,redemptionandglorificationasmanifestingtheessentialnatureofthedivine reality,andnotaboutinternalorsocialcommunionamongthedivinepersonsabstractedfromrelations withtheworldorpushedbehindtheveilofaprimordialeternity.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),6869.Ina

203

 discussionoftheprocessionoftheSpirit.Yongrejectsthetraditionalwesternview (expressedinthefilioqueclause)thattheSpiritproceedsjointlyfromtheFatherandthe Son.WhatisatstakeforYonginproblematizingthefilioqueisnotanalternative understandingoftheimmanentTrinitybutrathermaintainingatheologicalbasisforan separateeconomyoftheHolySpirit(whichisthenusedtojustifythesearchfornon christologicalcriteriatodiscerntheSpiritspresence).152However,inasmuchas compellingreasonsexisttoaffirmtheprocessionoftheSpiritfromtheFatherandthe Son,153YongsrejectionoftheprocessionoftheSpiritfromtheFatherandtheSonis

footnote,Yongreferstothefollowingarticleinwhichheoutlineshisreasonsforrejectingreflectiononthe immanentTrinity:AmosYong,OnenessandtheTrinity:TheTheologicalandEcumenicalImplicationsof CreationExNihiloforanIntraPentecostalDispute,Pneuma:TheJournaloftheSocietyforPentecostalStudies 19(1997):81107.Inthisessay,YongassertsthatthekeytoanecumenicalrapprochementbetweenOneness PentecostalsandtraditionaltrinitarianPentecostalscanbefoundbybothgroupsrefusingtospeculateabout theimmanentTrinity:Throughout,Ispeakasatrinitarian,andyetIamproposingthatinsofarasthe doctrineoftheimmanentTrinityhasbeenthesourceofconfusionbetweenOnenessandtrinitarian Pentecostals,itshouldbediscarded,andthatthereareviabletheologicaland,moreimportantly,Pentecostal reasonsfordoingso.Yong,OnenessandtheTrinity,8283.Yongsrejectionofspeculationregardingthe immanentTrinityraisesanimportantquestion:HowdoesoneknowthattheworkoftheSpiritandthe workoftheSonarenotsimplymodesofeconomicactivityofoneundifferentiatedGod?IfSpiritis nothingmorethanamodeofeconomicactivity,thennowarrantexistsforaseparateeconomyofthe Spirit. Inshort,failuretodifferentiatebetweenthetwoeconomiesinevitablyrisksthesubordinationofthe missionoftheSpirittothatoftheSonandultimatelytoanecclesiologicaldefinitionofsoteriology.Yong, DiscerningtheSpirit(s),64.Rejectionofthefilioquehasbecomestandardfareamongmanywhoadvancea pneumatologicaltheologyofreligions.SeeClarkPinnock,FlameofLove:ATheologyoftheHolySpirit (DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,1996),185214
152

ThefilioqueclausewasinsertedintotheNiceneConstantinopolitanCreedattheThirdCouncilofToledo in589overonehundredandseventyyearsafterAugustinewroteDeTrinitate.Thus,thequestion regardingtheformallegitimacyoftheinsertionofthefilioqueclauseintothecreedmustbedistinguished fromsubstantivetheologicalquestionofwhethertheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon.One canaffirmthelatterandwhilesimultaneouslydenyingtheproprietyoftheformer.

153

204

 unwarranted.154Furthermore,evidenceagainstthetwofoldprocessionoftheSpiritad intradoesnotcountaspositiveevidenceforaseparateeconomyoftheSpiritadextra. YongseemstoassumethatbyproblematizingthetwofoldprocessionoftheSpirit,he gainspositivegroundfordualeconomies.Thelatterdoesnotfollowfromtheformer. Finally,itispossibletoaffirmthefullequalityoftheSpirittotheSon(aconcernthat drivesEasternrejectionoftheprocessionoftheSpiritfromtheFatherandtheSon) withoutpositingdualeconomies.155 4.4.2 Severing the Two Hands of the Father ThroughoutDiscerningtheSpirit(s),YongrepeatedlyappealstoIrenaeusimage oftheSonandSpiritasthetwohandsofGodasawayofconceptualizingthe Son/Spiritrelationship.156Hisuseofthisimage,however,standsintensionwithhis
Althoughitmaybearelativelyminorpoint,YongmisrepresentstheLatintraditionbyspeakingofthe twofoldorigins(plural)oftheSpirit:FilioqueappliedtothedoctrineoftheprocessionoftheHolySpirit referstoanunderstandingofthetwofoldoriginsoftheSpirit:fromtheFatherandtheSon.Yong, DiscerningtheSpirit(s),66(italicsmine).AccordingtoAugustine,theSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherand theSonasfromoneprinciple.Hence,itwouldbemuchmoreaccuratetospeakofthetwofoldoriginof theSpirit.
154

SeeKilianMcDonnell,TheOtherHandofGod:TheHolySpiritastheUniversalTouchandGoal(Collegeville, Minn.:LiturgicalPress,2003),8697,196201,22829.McDonnellarguesatlengthfortheequalityofthe missionoftheSpirittotheSon;however,heisquiteclearthatthisdoesnotrequiretwoeconomies.

155 156YongreferstotheSonandSpiritasthetwohandsofGodonatleastsixteendifferentoccasionsin DiscerningtheSpirit(s).ThisimageisreadnotonlyasillustratingtheequalityoftheSonandSpirit(in contrasttotheallegedsubordinationofSpirittotheSoninthewesternchurchasevidencedbythe filioque)butitisalsoseenasprovidingepistemicwarrantforaneconomyoftheSpiritseparatefromthatof theSon.YongfollowsKhodronthispoint.NoticehowKhodrreadstwohandsintermsofdual economies:TheSpiritispresenteverywhereandfillseverythingbyvirtueofaneconomydistinctfromthat oftheSon.IrenaeuscallstheWordandtheSpiritthetwohandsoftheFather.Thismeanswemustaffirm

205

 emphasisuponthedistincteconomyoftheSpirit.Fromaneconomicstandpoint,the twohandsimageryisnotaboutalefthanddoingoneactivityandtherighthand doinganother(whichseemstobeimpliedbyassociatingaseparateeconomywith eachofthehands).ItisfundamentallyabouttheFatheractingthroughtheSonand Spirittoaparticularend.157Theimageunderscoresunityofaction,158combining hypostaticdistinctionattheintratrinitarianlevel(i.e.,Father,SonandSpirit)withunity ofactionattheeconomiclevel.Asaheuristicdevice,Yongisfreetousethetwo handsimageryinanywayheseesfit;however,itmustbenotedthatthisimage,inthe broadercontextofIrenaeustrinitariantheology,offersnotheologicalwarrantfora

notonlytheirhypostaticindependencebutalsothattheadventoftheHolySpiritintheworldisnot subordinatedtotheSon,isnotsimplyafunctionoftheWord.Khodr,ChristianityandthePluralistic World,12526.YongappearstofollowKhodronthispoint:Khodrssuggestion,echoedbySamartha, DupuisandKnitter,isthataretrievalofIrenaeusstheologicalmetaphorallowsustorecognizethedifferent economiesoftheWordandtheSpirit.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),62. IntheoriginalcontextofIrenaeustrinitariantheology,thetwohandsimageryservedtohighlightthe directnatureofGodsinvolvementintheworldoverandagainstGnosticswhopositedachainof intermediariesbetweenGodandtheworld:ForGoddidnotstandinneedofthese[beings],inordertothe accomplishingofwhatHehadHimselfdeterminedwithHimselfbeforehandshouldbedone,asifHedid notpossessHisownhands.ForwithHimwerealwayspresenttheWordandWisdom,theSonandthe Spirit,bywhomandinwhom,freelyandspontaneously,Hemadeallthings,towhomalsoHespeaks, saying,LetUsmakemanafterOurimageandlikeness;HetakingfromHimselfthesubstanceofthe creatures[formed],andthepatternofthingsmade,andthetypeofalltheadornmentsintheworld. Irenaeus,AgainsttheHeresies,IV.20.1inTheAnteNiceneFathers,vol.I,ed.AlexanderRobertsandJames Donaldson(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979),48788.Foradiscussionofthetwohandsimage,seeEric Osborn,IrenaeusofLyons(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),8993.
157

Astrikingwayofexpressingthedivineunityanditsembraceisthroughthedescriptionofthewordand spiritasthehandsofGod.Osborn,IrenaeusofLyons,91.
158

206

 separateeconomyoftheSpirit.159Onthecontrary,Yongsuseofthisimagecausesone towonderifhisproposalimplicitlyseversthetwohands.160 AlthoughAugustinewouldlikelyhaveviewedthetwohandslanguageas subordinationist,161hetooemphasizestheunityofthedivinepersonsadextra.162 AccordingtoAugustine,Father,SonandSpiritworktogetherinasingleeconomyof salvation.163AlthoughthemissionesoftheSonandSpiritaredistinctinsuchaway thatonemustspeakoftwosendings(Gal.4:46),thesetwosendingshaveone ultimategoalbringingmenandwomenintocommunionwiththetriuneGod.Yongs

Moreover,asheuristicdevice,itisnotparticularlyhelpfulinexpressingadistincteconomyofthe Spirit.
159

InfairnesstoYong,itshouldbenotedthatinmostplaceswhereheemploysthetwohandsmetaphor, heexplicitlyacknowledgesthattheSonandSpiritworktogether.Forexample,Toreiterate,the foundationalpneumatologydevelopedherepositseveryexperienceas,atsomelevel,thatofthepresence andactivityoftheWordandSpirit.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),178.Similarly,Tonguesspeechisasign thatthetwohandsoftheFatherareatwork,albeitindifferentdimensions.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s), 174.Atensionthereforeexistsbetweenhisuseofthisimageandhisemphasisuponthedistincteconomyof theSpirit.

160

AlthoughthetwohandsimageneednotbeunderstoodinasubordinationistwayYongcertainly doesnotuseitthiswayIrenaeustrinitariantheologydoescontainselementsofsubordination.Consider, forexample,thewayIrenaeusdividestheeconomiclaboramongthedivinepersons:Bythis arrangement,therefore,andtheseharmonies,andasequenceofthisnature,man,acreatedandorganized being,isrenderedtheimageofGod,theFatherplanningeverythingwellandgivingHiscommands,the Soncarryingtheseintoexecutionandperformingtheworkofcreating,andtheSpiritnourishingand increasing[whatismade]...Irenaeus,AgainsttheHeresies,IV.38.3,523.Thiskindofmoderate subordinationcanbefoundinmuchpreNicenetrinitariantheology.ItshouldnotbeconfusedwithArian subordinationismwhichdeniestheconsubstantialityoftheSontotheFather.

161

InSermon52onthebaptismofJesus(Matt.3:14)AugustineexpressesthejointactionofFather,Sonand Spiritthroughmemory,understandingandwill.ThetwohandsaretoIrenaeuswhatmemory, understandingandwillaretoAugustine.BothofferawayofconceptualizingthejointactionofFather,Son andHolySpiritintheworld.

162

IncontrasttoAugustine,Irenaeusconceptofeconomyisrathercomplex.Oikonomiapossessesatleast fourdistinctmeaningsforIrenaeus.SeeOsborn,IrenaeusofLyons,7394.
163

207

 trinitarianpneumatologyisdeficientnotbecauseitaffirmsdifferingeconomicrolesfor theSonandtheSpirit(e.g.,thefactthattheSonalonebecameincarnate).Rather,itis deficientbecauseitaffirmstwodistincteconomiesoneassociatedwiththeSonand otherwiththeSpirit.Fromtwosendings(missiones)oneshouldnotinfertwoseparate economies.164AsKilianMcDonnellrightlynotes,Toinsistontheequalityofthe SpiritandtheSpiritsmission,itisneithernecessarynoradvisabletopostulatea distincteconomyoftheSpirit,asdoesVladimirLossky.Thereisoneeconomyfrom theFatherconstitutedbythemissionsoftheSonandtheSpirit,eachofthemissions beingpresentandactiveattheinterioroftheother.165Althoughwemustrecognizea realdistinctionbetweenthemissions(orsendings),tospeakoftwoeconomiesin suchawaythattheyrepresenttwofocicouldleadtoaformofeconomictritheism.166 ThemissionesissuefromtheFatherandleadbacktotheFather.167Bypositingtwo
Yongmakesthemistakeofequatingmissionandeconomy.Noticehowheusestheseterms interchangeablyinthefollowingstatement:Preliminarilythen,apneumatologicaltheologyofreligions thatvalidatesthedistinctionbetweentheeconomyoftheWordandSpiritholdsthechristologicalproblemin abeyance.Fornow,itissufficienttograntthatthereisarelationshipinautonomybetweenthetwodivine missions.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),70(italicsmine).
164 165 166

McDonnell,TheOtherHandofGod,198.

WhileinsistingontherealdistinctionbetweenthetwomissionsoftheWordandSpirit,thereisa dangerofconceivingofthemastwofociattheendsofanellipse...Suchaconception,althoughnot necessarilyheretical,wouldbedangerousandmightleadtoakindofeconomictritheism.McDonnell,The OtherHandofGod,199200.Perhapsitwouldbemoreaccuratetosaythatpositingtwoeconomiescould leadtoeconomicbitheism. ThishighlightsanotherproblemwithYongsproposal.Yongnotonlybracketsachristological perspectivebuthealsobracketswhatmightbecalledapatrologicalperspective.IftheSpiritrepresents divinepresenceinYongsproposal,onemightrightlysaywithMcDonnellthattheFathersymbolizesdivine

167

208

 economies,Yongimplicitlyseversthetwohandsandunderminestheunicityofthe economyofsalvation. FurtherevidencethatYongstrinitarianpneumatologyseversthetwohandsof theFathercanbeseeninthewayherelatestheworkoftheSpirittotheSon.Although YongemphasizestheempoweringroleoftheSpiritintheincarnationandearthly ministryofChrist,168hefailstotakeseriouslybiblicalteachingregardingtheSpirits uniqueroleinbearingwitnesstoandglorifyingtherisenChrist.169Ialreadynotedhow

purpose:TheFatheristheoriginofthedownward(outward)movementandthegoalofascending (returning)movement.Creationandthechurcharetheimmediategoaloftheoutwardmovement,achieved intheSpirit.TheFatheristhepointofdepartureandultimategoalofthetwomovements.TheSpiritis boththepointofcontactwiththeworldandthechurchonthedownwardmovementandtheturning aroundpointonthejourneybackfromtheworldandchurchtotheFather.Theprimaryearthlylocusof thismovementisbaptismandthechurch,inwhichbelieversaretouchedandtransformedbytheSpirit,and madebearersofthepropheticSpiritwholeadstotheSon,bringingthemtotheFather.McDonnell,The OtherHandofGod,9495.BybracketingtheFather,Yongeffectivelyobscuresthegoaloftheeconomyof salvation.
168AtseveralpointsYonghighlightsthebiblicalbasisforandbenefitsofSpiritChristologyfora pneumatologicaltheologyofreligions.SeeYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),118120.SpiritChristologyis attractivebecauseitemphasizesthedependenceofJesusupontheSpiritinhisearthlylifeandministryina waythatunderminessubordinationistunderstandingsoftheSpiritsministry.YongsappealtoSpirit Christology,however,raisesanimportantquestion:IfthereisnoChristwithoutSpirit(asadvocatesof SpiritChristologyinsist),thenhowcanoneaffirmSpiritwithoutChristasYongsproposalseemsto imply?InasmuchasSpiritChristologyemphasizestheintrinsiceconomicrelatednessoftheSonandSpirit,it standsintensionwithYongsdistincteconomyoftheSpirit. 169SeeJohn15:2627;16:715;Acts1:69;4:2431.InthePaulineepistlesweseefurtherevidencethatHoly Spiritbearswitnessto,andglorifiestheSon.TheSpiritglorifiesChristbywitnessingtothesonshipofthe redeemed(Rom.8:117),empoweringthepreachingofthegospel(1Cor.2:25;Rom.15:1421),enabling believerstoconfessthatJesusChristisLord(1Cor.12:23),removingtheveilsothatmenandwomencan seethegloryofChristwhoistheimageofGod(2Cor.3:74:6),enablingbelieverstobecomeconformedto theimageoftheSon(Rom.8:2630),producingthefruitofChristinthelivesofbelievers(Gal.5:1524)and enablingbelieverstoknowandexperiencetheloveofChrist(Eph.3:1419).AccordingtoAugustine,the HolySpiritglorifiestheSonbecausehereceivesfromtheSon.JustastheSondoesnotspeakofhisown butbecauseheisfromtheFather,sotheSpiritdoesnotspeakofhisownbecauseheisfromtheFatherand theSon.SeeAugustine,DeTrin.II.5,100.AugustinefleshesoutthislogicingreaterdetailinhisTractateson

209

 AugustineviewsthesignthroughwhichthebestowaloftheSpiritwasmanifestedat PentecostasaprolepticfulfillmentofthegoalofHolySpiritswork(namely,ofleading peopleineverynationtobelieveinJesusChrist).170Itispreciselyinthissensethatthe SpirituniversalizestheworkofJesusChrist.ThisuniversalworkoftheSpirit constitutesthebasisfortheevangelisticmissionofthechurch.171CommentingonJohn 16:14,AugustineexplainsthattheSpiritglorifiesChristbypouringoutloveinthe heartsofChristsfollowerssothattheywillproclaimhimandspreadhisfame throughouttheworld.172Thus,fromasalvationhistoricalperspective,theworkofthe Spirit(alongwiththeFatherandSon)amongadherentsofotherreligionsmustbe

theGospelofJohn.CommentingonJohn16:13,Augustinewrites,Therefore,weoughttotakewhathasbeen saidabouttheHolySpirit,Forhewillnotspeakofhimself;butwhatthingssoeverhewillspeak,insucha waythatweunderstandthatheisnotofhimself.FortheFatheraloneisnotofanother.TheSonisborn fromtheFather,andtheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFather,buttheFatherisneitherbornnorproceeds fromanother....Thereforehewillnotspeakofhimselfbecauseheisnotofhimself.Butwhatthings soeverhewillhear,hewillspeak;hewillhearofthatonefromwhomheproceeds.SaintAugustine, Tractate99.4inTheFathersoftheChurch:ANewTranslation,vol.90,TractatesontheGospelofJohn,55111, trans.JohnW.Rettig(WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1994),223.
170 171

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,175.

AsLesslieNewbiginrightlynotes,TheSpiritwhothusbearswitnessinthelifeoftheChurchtothe purposeoftheFatherisnotconfinedwithinthelimitstheChurch.ItistheclearteachingoftheActsofthe Apostles,asitistheexperienceofmissionaries,thattheSpiritgoes,sotospeak,aheadoftheChurch.Like Cornelius,menofeveryageandnationhavebeenmiraculouslypreparedbeforehandtoreceivethemessage ofChrist.ButbecausetheSpiritandtheFatherareonethisworkoftheSpiritisnotinanysensean alternativewaytoGodapartfromtheChurch;itisthepreparationforthecomingoftheChurch,which meansthattheChurchmustbeeverreadytofollowwheretheSpiritleads.LesslieNewbigin,Trinitarian ThemesforTodaysMission(London:Paternoster,1998),5354. Forhiswords,Hewillglorifyme,canbeunderstoodinthisway:bypouringoutloveintheheartsof believersandbymakingthemspiritual,herevealedtothemhowtheSon,whomtheyonlyknewbefore accordingtothefleshand,asmen,thoughthimaman,wasequaltotheFather.Oratleastinthisway: filledwithconfidencebyloveitself,andwithfeardrivenout,theyannouncedChristtomen,andthushis famewasspreadoutinalltheworld.Augustine,Tractate100.1,229.
172

210

 understoodintermsofpraeparatioevangelica.173Nogroundsexistforpositingadistinct salvationhistoricaleconomyoftheSpiritleadingtosomeotherend.Inasmuchas Yongsproposalattemptstomovebeyondapraeparatioevangelicaapproachtothe SpiritsworkinthelivesofnonChristians(includingadherentsofotherreligions),174it seversthetwohandsoftheFatherandobscuresthetruenatureofthemissioDei.175 AfinalwayYongstrinitarianpneumatologyseversthetwohandsoftheFather isbybracketingchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningGodswork:Thevalueofa pneumatologicaltheologyofreligionscannowbeseeninclearerlight.Ihaveargued thatinsofarasWordandSpiritarerelatedbutyetdistinctasthetwohandsofthe

Adoptingthisviewdoesnotrequireonetodenythepresenceoftruthandgoodnessinthelivesof adherentsofotherreligions.Onthecontrary,theseelementscanbeaccountedforintermsofaChristian anthropologyinformedbythedoctrineofcreation.Forexample,inhisInstitutesoftheChristianReligion JohnCalvinarguesthatinsideeachpersonthereresidesanawarenessofdivinity(sensusdivinitatis). Everyformofreligioncanbeviewedasaresponsetothisawarenessofdivinity.Forahelpfuldiscussionof theimplicationsofChristiananthropologyforaChristiantheologyofreligions,seeHaroldA.Netland, EncounteringReligiousPluralism:TheChallengetoChristianFaithandMission(DownersGrove:InterVarsity, 2001),30848.
173

AlthoughYongacknowledges,toacertainextent,thelegitimacyofapraeparatioevangelicaapproach,it appearsthathewantstomovebeyondthisapproach.Yongexplainsthatviewingreligionssolelyinterms ofpraeparatioevangelicaleadstothekindofrestrictivechristologicalqueststhatcontinuetodenigratethe HolySpiritashavinglessthanequalstatusasatrinitarianmember.Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),320.

174

ThetermmissioDeiemergedoutofamissionaryconferenceinWillingenin1952.Itemphasizes,firstand foremost,thatmissionisrootedinandreflectsGodsnatureandwill(basedontheassumptionthatthe economicTrinitycorrespondstoandcloselyreflectstheimmanentTrinity).Theultimatebasisofmissionis thetriuneGodtheFatherwhocreatedtheworldandsenthisSonbytheHolySpirittobeoursalvation. TheproximatebasisofmissionistheredemptionoftheSonbyhislife,deathandresurrection,andthe immediatepowerofmissiontheHolySpirit.Itis,intrinitarianterms,amissioDei.Thusmissionisbasedon thewill,movement,andactionofthegraceandloveofGodFather,SonandHolySpirit.Thompson, ModernTrinitarianPerspectives,72(italicsoriginal).AlthoughBarthstrinitariantheologymayhave influencedthehistoricaldevelopmentofthemissioDeiatWillingen,therootsofamissioDeicanbefoundin Augustine.SeeEdwardW.Poitras,St.AugustineandtheMissioDei:AReflectiononMissionattheClose oftheTwentiethCentury,MissionStudies32(1999):2846.
175

211

 Father,weshouldbeabletoidentifydimensionsoftheSpiritspresenceandactivity thatarenotconstrainedbythatoftheWord.176AccordingtoYong,earlier pneumatologicalapproachesfailedpreciselybecausetheywereunabletomovebeyond christologicalcriteria.Forexample,becauseofhiscommitmenttothefilioque,Karl RahnerwasultimatelyunabletodistinguishtheeconomyoftheSonandtheSpirit.This leftRahnerunabletoarticulatenonchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningGodspresence. Furthermore,evenClarkPinnock,whorejectsthefilioque,yieldstooquicklytothe theologicalpressureexertedbyChristology.177If,however,asAugustinerightly insists,theFather,SonandtheSpiritareworkingtogetherinasingleeconomywhich existstodrawmenandwomenintothelifeofthetriuneGod,thenanycriteriafor discerningtheSpiritsredemptiveworkmustincludeachristologicalelement.Thus,it shouldnotbesurprisingthatRahner,Pinnockandotherswhoaffirmtheuniversalwork oftheSpiritneverthelesswanttopreserveaChristologicalcriterionfordiscerningthe Spiritspresence. Beforewedrawourevaluationtoaclose,wemustbrieflyconsiderYongs discussionofhisproposalinamorerecentbookentitledBeyondtheImpasse:Towarda PneumatologicalTheologyofReligions.Inthelatterwork,Yongtempershisproposalin
176 177

Yong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),136. Ibid.,201.

212

 twoways.First,heacknowledges,toagreaterdegree,theinherenteconomic relatednessofthetwohandsoftheFather.178Althoughapneumatologicaltheologyof religionsinitiallyseemstobepromisinginemphasizingadistincteconomyofthe Spirit,heexplainsthatthisdistinctivenessmustbequalified:Becauseofthe relationalitybetweenSpiritandSon,anyChristiantheologyofreligionsthatbegins pneumatologicallymustultimatelyincludeandconfrontthechristologicalmoment.179 Second,Yongseemsmoreawareoftheproblemsassociatedwithasearchfornon christologicalcriteriafordiscerningtheSpiritspresence.Atthesametime,noneof theseacknowledgementsleadstoanyexplicitrevisionofhisearlierproposal.Onthe contrary,hecontinuestoaffirmadistincteconomyoftheSpiritandstillwantsto maintainthelegitimacyofnonchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningtheSpiritspresence andactivity.180Thus,attheendofthedayasignificanttensionremains.Inasmuchas
ThisshiftcanbeseeninhisreadingofKhodr.InDiscerningtheSpirit(s)YongreadsKhodralmostsolely asemphasizinganindependenteconomyoftheHolySpiriteffectivelybracketingKhodrsdiscussionof howthisdistincteconomyoftheSpiritinherentlypointstoChrist.SeeYong,DiscerningtheSpirit(s),6064. InBeyondtheImpasse,heacknowledgesthechristologicaldimensionofKhodrsproposal(whichhe neverthelessseemstoviewasproblematic):Khodrspresentationisneverthelessnotfreefromtension. TheologizingashedoesfromwithintheframeworkofOrthodoxtrinitarianism,heseesthemissionsofthe SonandSpiritasmuchmoreconnectedthannot.Whilethereligionsmaybetheworkingoftheeconomyof theSpirit,yettheyareatthesametimeinaveryrealsenseconnectedtotheeconomyoftheSon.Yong, BeyondtheImpasse,89.
178 179 180

Yong,BeyondtheImpasse,103.

PerhapsthebestwaytosummarizethedifferencebetweenDiscerningtheSpirit(s)andBeyondtheImpasse wouldbetosaythatthelatterbook,whilearticulatingthesameproposal,ismarkedbymuchgreater reserve.BeyondtheImpasse,forexample,containsnoboldassertionsregardingthesalvificworkoftheHoly SpiritamongtheUmbandainBrazil.

213

 YongemphasizesaseparateeconomyoftheSpiritinordertolegitimizeanon christologicalapproachtootherreligions,heimplicitlyseversthetwohandsofthe Father.However,inasmuchasheacknowledgestheintrinsicrelatednessofthetwo handsunderpressuresofclassicalChristianconcernsregardingthedoctrineofthe Trinity,heundermineshisquestfornonchristologicalcriteria.

4.5 An Evaluation of Dupuis Trinitarian Christology

Although,atfirstglance,DupuisappearstobefaithfultotheCatholictrinitarian tradition,181Iwilldemonstratethataclosereadingrevealsthathisproposalintroduces subordinationismintotheFather/Sonrelationship,underminestheunicityofthe economyofsalvationandseverstheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity.182

Forexample,incontrasttopluralistslikeJohnHick,DupuisdeniesthatTrinitymerelyrepresentsa penultimatefaceofGod;onthecontrary,heinsiststhatFather,SonandSpiritconstitutetheultimatedivine reality:FortheChristianfaith,then,theTriuneGodcannotbeviewedasamanifestationorappearance, amongothers,ofanUltimateRealitytowardwhichmenandwomenaretendinginandthroughthevarious religioustraditionsoftheworld(JohnHick).ItisnotapenultimatesignoftheRealansich;itistheUltimate Realityitself.Dupuis,ChristianTowardaTheologyofReligiousPluralism,263.Inaddition,heostensibly affirmsaChalcedonianChristologywhichrecognizesJesusChristasfullyhumanandfullydivine. Furthermore,hesuggeststhatSonandtheSpirit,thetwohandsofGod,actdistinctlyyetinseparablyin oneeconomyofsalvation.Finally,heclaimsthattheultimateendoftheeconomyofsalvationis communionwiththetriuneGod.
181

InadditiontoTowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,Iwillalsodrawuponamorerecentwork: ChristianityandtheReligions:FromConfrontationtoDialogue,trans.PhillipBerryman(Maryknoll,OrbisBooks, 2002).

182

214

 4.5.1 Subordinationism in the Father/Son Relationship Inordertomakespaceforothersaviorsandmediators,Dupuisappealstoa trinitarianChristologyinwhichChristisrecognizednotasabsolutesaviorbut merelyasconstitutivesavior.183OnlyGod(i.e.,theFather)istheabsolutesavior inthesenseofbeingtheprimaryandultimatesourceofsalvation.JesusChristissavior onlyinasecondaryandderivativesense:
IntheHebrewBible,thetitleSaviorhastodoprimarilywithGod;intheNew TestamentitisappliedtoGod,andonlysecondarilytoJesusChristwithout gainsayingthatGodremainstheultimatecauseandoriginalsourceofsalvation. Theobjectoffaith,accordingtoNewTestamenttheology,remainsprimordially GodtheFather;likely,accordingtothattheology,itisprimarilyGodwhosaves, andnotprimarilybutconjointly,JesusChrist:GodsavesthroughhisSon(cf.Jn 3:1617).184

PrimafaceitmaysoundasifDupuismerelywantstoaffirmthetraditionalnotionthat theFatheristhesource(principium)ofdivinity.Insuchacontextitiscertainly appropriatetospeakoftheFatherastheprimarysourceofsalvation;however,when DupuisspeaksofJesusChristasconstitutivesavior,hehassomethingmoreinmind. ThatJesusChristisconstitutivesaviormeans,amongotherthings,thatheisnotthe goalofsalvationbutmerelytheconstitutivemeansofsalvation:[Christocentrism]never placesJesusChristintheplaceofGod;itmerelyaffirmsthatGodhasplacedhimatthe centerofhissavingplanforhumankind,notastheendbutastheway,notasthegoalof

183 184

WhereasYongsproposalappealstoatrinitarianpneumatology,DupuisappealstoatrinitarianChristology. Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,167.

215

 everyhumanquestforGodbutastheuniversalmediator(cf.ITim2:5)ofGodssaving actiontowardpeople.185Whatistroublingabouttheprecedingstatementisnotthe suggestionthatJesusChrististhemeansofsalvation186butrathertheobviousattemptto distinguishthesalvificroleofincarnateSon(constitutivesavior)fromthatoftheFather (absolutesavior)bylimitingtheSontoaninstrumentalroleinsalvation.187InDupuis inclusivepluralismtheFatherisabsolutesaviorastheonewhowillssalvationwhile theSonisconstitutivesaviorastheonewhoeffectssalvation.Thelatterassumption seemstobeimplicitinhisclaimthatGodssavingwillisnotlimitedtotheChristevent: [W]hiletheChristeventistheuniversalsacramentofGodswilltosavehumankind andofhissavingaction,itneednotbetherebyandexclusivelytheonlypossible expressionofthatwill.Godssavingpowerisnotexclusivelyboundbytheuniversal
185 186

Ibid.,88.

LikeDupuis,mediationrepresentsthecentralcategorythroughwhichAugustinedescribestheworkof theincarnateSonofGod.
187What,then,wouldbetheimplicationsofaTrinitarianChristologyforatheologyofreligiouspluralism? Onthedivineside,itwillbenecessarytoshowclearlythatJesusChristmustneverbethoughttoreplacethe Father.AsJesushimselfasentirelyGodcentered,somustthefaithinterpretationproposedofhimthe ChristbytheChristiankerygmaremainatalltimes.TheGospelaccordingtoJohncallsJesus,theway, andthetruth,andthelife(Jn14:6)neverthegoalortheend;thesamegospelmakesitclearthatthegoalof humanexistenceandofhistoryistheunfathomablemysteryofGod,whomnohumanbeinghasever seenbuthasbeenmadeknowntousbyhisincarnateSon(Jn1:18).Theuniqueclosenessthatexists betweenGodandJesusbyvirtueofthemysteryoftheincarnationmayneverbeforgotten,butneithercan theunbridgeabledistancethatremainsbetweentheFatherandJesusinhishumanexistence....Whileitis truethatJesusthemanisuniquelytheSonofGod,itisequallytruethatGod(theFather)standsbeyond Jesus.WhenheissaidtobeatthecenteroftheChristianmystery,thisisnottobeunderstoodinan absolutesensebutintheorderoftheeconomyofGodsfreelyentertaineddealingswithhumankindin history.Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,92.AsimilarclaimcanbefoundinDupuis,Christian TheologyofReligiousPluralism,306.

216

 signGodhasdesignedforhissavingaction.188TosuggestthatthesalvificroleofJesus Christismerelyinstrumentalsoundssuspiciouslysubordinationist.Oneofthe fundamentalaxiomsofAugustinestheologyanassumptionhesharesincommon withtheCappadociansisthattheFather,SonandHolySpiritactwithonewillinthe economyofsalvation.OfparticularrelevanceisAugustinesdiscussionofthePassion. IncontrasttoDupuis,AugustinearguesthatthedecisionleadingtothePassion involvednotonlytheFatherbutalsotheSon.189InasmuchasJesusChristisSavior preciselyasGodincarnate(homoousioswiththeFather),onemustaffirm(onthebasisof theunityofoperaadextra)thattheSonalsowilledsalvationalongwiththeFather.If,on thecontrary,oneinsiststhatJesusChristismerelyaconstitutivemeansofsalvationand didnotalsowillit(alongwiththeFatherandtheSpirit),thenitwouldseemthatsome fromofsubordinationismisunavoidable. SubordinationismcanalsobeseeninDupuisclaimthatJesusChrist,asthe incarnateSon,isnotthegoalofsalvation.ContraDupuis,Augustineinsiststhatthe objectofcontemplationintheeschatonwillnotmerelybetheFatherbutallthedivine persons:ForweshallcontemplateGodtheFatherandSonandHolySpiritwhenthe
Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,176.Commentingon1Timothy2:5,Dupuisnotes,Theuniversal savingwilltowardallhumankindisattributednottotherisenChristbuttoGod.Thatuniversaldivine willistheabsoluteelementthatconstitutesthesalvationoftheworld;itisthefocalpointforacorrect understandingoftheaffirmationoffaithinhumansalvation.Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,41.
188

AugustinenotesthatwhileRomans8:32attributesthegivingoftheSontotheFather,Galatians2:20 attributestheSonsdeathtohisowndecision.
189

217

 workofthemediatoriscomplete.190Similarly,whenJesusChristbringsthebelievers tothecontemplationofGodandtheFather,hewillassuredlybringthemtothe contemplationofhimself,havingsaid,Iwillshowmyselftohim(Jn14:21).191Thus,

WhetherwehearthenShowustheSon,orwhetherwehearShowusthe Father,itcomestothesamething,becauseneithercanbeshownwithoutthe other.Theyareindeedone,ashetellsus,IandtheFatherareone(Jn10:30).Ina word,becauseofthisinseparability,itmakesnodifferencewhethersometimes theFatheraloneorsometimestheSonaloneismentionedastheonewhoistofill uswithdelightathiscountenance.192

TodenythattheSonisalsothegoalofsalvationnecessarilyleadstosubordinationism intheFatherSonrelationship. Dupuisisnotunawareoftheproblemoutlinedabove.Inordertoavoidpositing subordinationismintheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGod,heappealstothedistinction betweenhumananddivinenaturesofJesusChristasthebasisforhisclaimthatJesus Christismerelyconstitutivesavior:TheuniqueclosenessthatexistsbetweenGod andJesusbyvirtueofthemysteryoftheincarnationmayneverbeforgotten,butneither cantheunbridgeabledistancethatremainsbetweentheFatherandJesusinhishuman existence....WhileitistruethatJesusthemanisuniquelytheSonofGod,itisequally

190Augustine,DeTrin.I.20,80.Also,Forthefullnessofourhappiness,beyondwhichthereisnoneelse,is this:toenjoyGodthethreeinwhoseimageweweremade.Augustine,DeTrin.I.18,77. 191 192

Augustine,DeTrin.I.18,79. Augustine,DeTrin.I.17,77.

218

 truethatGod(theFather)standsbeyondJesus.193Inotherwords,whenpressedwith thesubordinationisminherentinhisnotionofJesusChristasconstitutivesavior,Dupuis canrespondbyinsistingthatheisonlyspeakingaboutJesusChristinhishumannature. Althoughthismovemaysolvetheproblemofsubordinationism,itdoessoonlyby underminingtheunityofthetwonaturesinoneperson.Itwasnotanaturethatthe Fathersenttosavetheworldbutaperson.Itwasnotanaturethatdiedonthecrossbuta person.ThatpersonwastheSonofGod,whobecameincarnatebytakingonhuman nature.TospeakofJesusChristasconstitutiveSavioristospeakofthepersonofthe SonasconstitutiveSavioranditispreciselyatthispointthatsubordinationarises. TheonlywayDupuiscanavoidsubordinationismisbysharplydistinguishingthetwo naturesofJesusChristinawaythatunderminestheirunity.Initiallyitmightappear thatthedistinctionDupuismakesbetweenthetwonaturesissimplyidenticaltothe distinctionAugustinemakesbetweentheSonintheformofGodandtheSoninthe formofservant.194ClearlyadistinctionbetweenthetwonaturesofChristprovidesa hermeneuticalkeytoAugustinesreadingofScripture.Moreover,Augustineisquite clearthatdivinenatureoftheSonwasnotchangedwhenhetookonahumannature.195
193 194 195

Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,92(italicsmine). SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.22,82.

Ifyougoontoaskmehowtheincarnationitselfwasdone,IsaythattheveryWordofGodwasmade flesh,thatis,wasmademan,withouthoweverbeingturnedorchangedintothatwhichhewasmade;that hewasofcoursesomadethatyouwouldhavetherenotonlytheWordofGodandthefleshofmanbutalso

219

 Atthesametime,subtlebutimportantdifferencesexistbetweenAugustineandDupuis. ItwillbehelpfultoquoteAugustineatlength:
However,ifitwerenotoneandthesamepersonwhoisSonofGodinvirtueof theforminwhichheis,andSonofmaninvirtueoftheformofaservantwhich hetook,theapostlePaulwouldnothavesaid,Iftheyhadknown,theywouldnever havecrucifiedtheLordofglory(1Cor2:8).Itwasintheformofaservantthathe wascrucified,andyetitwastheLordofglorywhowascrucified.Forthattake overwassuchastomakeGodamanandamanGod.Yetthecarefuland seriousanddevoutreaderwillunderstandwhatissaidofhimforthesakeof which,andwhatinvirtueofwhich.Forexample,wesaidabovethatitisin virtueofhisbeingGodthatheglorifieshisfollowersinvirtue,obviously,ofhis beingtheLordofglory;andyettheLordofglorywascrucified,becauseitis quitecorrecttotalkevenofGodbeingcrucifiedowingtotheweaknessofflesh, though,nottothestrengthofgodhead.196

Althoughonecanrightlyspeakoftwoforms,Augustinemakesitquiteclearthat thesetwoformsexistinonepersontheSonofGod.Althoughwecansaythatthat theSonwascrucifiedintheformofaservant,wemustneverforgetthatitwasthe Lordofglory(i.e.,theSon)whowascrucified.Thus,whenAugustinespeaksofthe subjectoftheincarnation,healwaysspeaksoftheSon.Incontrast,whenDupuisspeaks ofhisconstitutiveSavior,healwaysreferstothehumanpersonJesusChrist.By doingthis,Dupuissubtlyobscuresthefactthatthesubjectoftheincarnationisthe eternalSon.ItisimportanttonoticethatAugustinedescribestheunityoftwonatures inawaythatanticipateslatercreedaldevelopmentsatChalcedon.Theunityofthetwo

therationalsoulofmanaswell;andthatthiswholecanbecalledGodbecauseitisGodandmanbecauseit isman.Augustine,DeTrin.IV.31,176.
196

Augustine,DeTrin.I.28,86.

220

 naturescanbeseenmostclearlyinhisclaimthatitisappropriatetospeakofGod beingcrucified.ItispreciselythelatterkindofspeechthatisunderminedbyDupuis absolute/constitutivedistinction.AlthoughDupuisacknowledgesthehypostatic unityofthenatures,inrealityheconsistentlyemphasizestheirdistinctioninawaythat cannotbereconciledwithafullChalcedonianChristology. AttheendofthedayDupuisfacesaseriousdilemma.Hecannotcontinueto affirmthatJesusChristismerelyconstitutivesaviorandupholdanorthodox trinitarianChristology.If,ontheonehand,hesuggeststhatJesusChristismerelythe constitutivemeansofsalvationanddidnotwillitalongwiththeFather,henecessarily introducessubordinationismintotheFather/Sonrelationship.If,ontheotherhand,he attemptstoovercomethisproblembyemphasizingtheunbridgeabledistance betweenGodtheFatherandJesusChristinhishumannature,heunderminestheunity ofthetwonatures. 4.5.2 Undermining the Unicity of the Economy of Salvation OnemightassumethatDupuiswouldappealtotheindependentactionofthe HolySpiritasthebasisforthesalvificworkofthetriuneGodamongnonChristian religions.AlthoughheclearlyaffirmstheuniversalpresenceandworkoftheSpirit, DupuisproposalisprimarilyChristologicalinitsorientation.Hedrawsanimportant distinctionbetweentheworkoftheLogosensarkos(theincarnateLogos)andtheworkof theLogosasarkos(thenonincarnateLogos).Hisdistinctionbetweentheworkofthe 221

 LogosensarkosandLogosasarkosfollowingtheincarnationisgrounded,toasignificant degree,inthedistinctionbetweenthetwonaturesofChrist:Admittedly,inthemystery ofJesustheChrist,theWordcannotbeseparatedfromthefleshithasassumed.But, inseparableasthedivineWordandJesushumanexistencemaybe,theynevertheless remaindistinct.While,then,thehumanactionoftheLogosensarkosistheuniversal sacramentofGodssavingaction,itdoesnotexhausttheactionoftheLogos.197Onthe basisofthisdistinction,DupuisclaimsthatanenduringworkoftheLogosasarkos (distinctfromtheLogosensarkos)continuesfollowingtheincarnation:[T]hereisa salvificworkingoftheWordassuch,distinctfromthatoftheWordoperatingthrough hishumanbeinginJesusChrist,risenandglorified,thoughinunionwithit.198He insiststhatactivityoftheLogosensarkosdoesnotexhaustGodssavingactionfollowing theincarnation.199

Dupuis,ChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,299.InsupportofadistinctactionoftheLogosasarkos followingtheincarnation,DupuisalsoappealstoCatholicinterpretationofJohn1:9,conciliarteachingon thedistinctionbetweenthetwonaturesofJesusChristandtheteachingoftheearlychurchFathers includingJustinMartyr,IrenaeusandClementofAlexandria.Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,138 62.Dupuisclaimsnotwithstanding,itshouldbenotedthatofficialteachingfromtheRomanCongregation fortheDoctrineoftheFaithexplicitlydeniesanydistinctionbetweenthesalvificactionoftheLogosasarkos andLogosensarkosfollowingtheincarnation.SeeDeclarationDominusIesus:OntheUnicityandSalvific UniversalityofJesusChristandtheChurch(VaticanCity:CongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith, August6,2000).

197 198 199

Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,139.

Thus,whilethehumanactionoftheincarnateWordistheuniversalsacramentofGodssavingaction,it doesnotexhausttheactionoftheWordofGod.Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,177.

222

 ThedistinctionDupuisdrawsbetweentheeconomicactivityofLogosensarkos andeconomicactivityoftheLogosasarkospromptsacrucialquestionfroman Augustinianstandpoint:doestheworkoftheLogosasarkosconstituteasecondeconomy ofsalvationexistinginparallelwiththefirst?Acursoryreadingmightsuggesta negativeanswer:Dupuisrepeatedlyaffirmsthereisonlyoneeconomyofsalvation. Moreover,hecriticizesthosewho,throughanappealtotheworkoftheLogosasarkosor totheuniversalactionoftheHolySpirit,positasecondeconomyofsalvationdistinct fromtheeconomyoftheincarnateWord(Logosensarkos).200Although,atfirstglance, Dupuisappearstoaffirmtheunicityoftheeconomyofsalvation,thewayheemploys theLogosensarkos/Logosasarkosdistinctionultimatelyseemstoimply(andeven require)twoparalleleconomiesofsalvation.201Thisrealitybecomesclearwhenone comparestheeconomicactivityoftheLogosasarkoswiththatoftheLogosensarkos. ThroughtheworkoftheLogosensarkos(andtheSpirit),202theChristianScriptures

200 201

SeeDupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,8283.

IamnotsuggestingthatanykindofdistinctionbetweentheLogosensarkosandLogosasarkosnecessarily impliestwoeconomiesofsalvation;rather,IamarguingthatthespecificwayDupuisemploysthis distinctionimpliesthis. AlthoughIamfocusingontheworkoftheLogos,DupuisiscarefulnottosevertheactionoftheLogos fromtheactionoftheSpirit.ItwillbecomeclearthatDupuisdoesnotsevertheunicityoftheeconomyof salvationbyseveringtheWordfromtheSpiritbutratherbyseveringtheworkoftheLogosensarkosfrom theworkoftheLogosasarkos.

202

223

 containtheWordofGod.ThroughtheworkoftheLogosasarkos(andtheSpirit),203the QuranandothernonChristianscripturescontaintheWordofGod.204Throughthe workoftheLogosensarkos,thereisonemediatorbetweenhumansandGod.Through theworkoftheLogosasarkos,othermediatorsexistbetweenhumansandGod(although thesemediatorssomehowparticipateinthemediationofChrist).Throughtheworkof theLogosensarkos,theChurchmediatessalvificgrace.ThroughtheworkoftheLogos asarkos,theworshipofHinduimagesmediatessalvificgrace.205Throughtheworkofthe Logosensarkos,menandwomenarereconciledtoGodandincorporatedintoChrists Church.ThroughtheworkoftheworkoftheLogosasarkos,menandwomenarenot incorporatedintotheChurchbutbecomemembersofthekingdomofGod.206The lattercontrastisparticularlyrevealing.MovingbeyondKarlRahner,Dupuisnolonger wantstotalkaboutanonymousChristians.207However,followingChrists resurrection,howcanonebesavinglyrelatedtothetriuneGodwithoutconcomitantly beingincludedinChristsChurch?Thelattercontrastinparticularseemstosuggesta
Intherestofthisparagraph,itshouldbeunderstoodthattheSpiritisincludedwhenIspeakofthework oftheLogosensarkosortheLogosasarkos.
203 204SeeDupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,11537.DupuissuggeststhatwhileJesusChristrepresentsthe qualitativefullnessofrevelation,hedoesnotrepresentthequantitativefullnessofrevelation.Itis preciselyinthissensethattherevelationoftheincarnateChristisnotabsolute.Onthisbasis,Dupuis claimsthatonemayrecognizethatotherreligiousscripturescontainthewordofGod. 205 206 207

Dupuis,ChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,303. SeeDupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,195217.

KarlRahnercoinedthephrasetheanonymousChristiantodescribeindividualswhoexperienced Christiansalvationwithoutknowingit.

224

 secondparalleleconomy.Theresultistwoparalleleconomiesthatconvergeonly eschatologically;inthepresentstageinsalvationhistory,theyexistmoreorlessin parallel.FromanAugustinianperspective,noepistemicwarrantexistsforpositinga secondeconomyofsalvationinparallelwiththatoftheincarnateWord.Augustineis quiteclearthatthesendingoftheSonandthesendingoftheSpirithaveonegoal: bringingmenandwomenintofellowshipwiththetriuneGodbyleadingpeoplein everynationtoconfessJesusasSaviorandLord.208InasmuchasDupuisimplicitly positstwoeconomies,heunderminestheunicityoftheeconomyofsalvation. IfitistruethatDupuisdistinguishestheworkoftheLogosasarkosandLogos ensarkosinawaythatunderminestheunicityoftheeconomyofsalvation,thisalso suggestsafurtherdeficiencyinhisChristology(inasmuchasthedistinctionbetweenthe workoftheLogosasarkosandLogosensarkosisgroundedthedistinctionofthedivine andhumannatures).Initsrejectionofadistinctionbetweenthesalvificworkingofthe LogosasarkosandLogosensarkosfollowingtheincarnation,theCongregationforthe DoctrineofFaithrightlylinksitsrejectionofthelattertotheunicityofChriststwo natures:

AccordingtoAugustine,theSpiritglorifies(anduniversalizes)theSonbypouringoutloveinheartsof menandwomensothat,filledwiththeconfidenceoflove,theymayspreadChristsfameineverynation. TheevangelisticmissionofthechurchthereforerepresentsanextensionofthetemporalmissionsoftheSon andtheSpirit.

208

225


ItislikewisecontrarytotheCatholicfaithtointroduceaseparationbetweenthe salvificactionoftheWordassuchandthatoftheWordmademan.Withthe incarnation,allthesalvificactionsoftheWordofGodarealwaysdoneinunity withthehumannaturethathehasassumedforthesalvationofallpeople.The onesubjectwhichoperatesinthetwonatures,humananddivine,isthesingle personoftheWord.209

WhenonecombinesDupuisemphasisontheunbridgeablegapbetweenGodand JesusinhishumannatureasthebasisforhisconstitutiveChristologyalongwithhis insistenceuponthedistinctionbetweenthedivineandhumannaturesasthebasisfora distinctandcontinuingactionoftheLogosasarkos,itappearsthathisTrinitarian ChristologyimplicitlyunderminestheunityofthedivineandhumannaturesofJesus ChristinaNestorianfashion. 4.5.3 Severing the Unity of the Economic and the Immanent Trinity Onefinaltrinitarianproblemshouldbenoted.Ontheonehand,Dupuisclaims thatthemysteryoftheTriuneGodFather,Son,Spiritcorrespondsobjectivelytothe innerrealityofGod,eventhoughonlyanalogically.210Ontheotherhand,Dupuis insiststhatauthenticeconomicmanifestationsofthetriuneGodcanbefoundinother religiouscommunities.211Obviouslyanumberoftheseeconomicmanifestationsofthe
Thedeclarationcontinues,Therefore,thetheorywhichwouldattribute,aftertheincarnationaswell,a salvificactivitytotheLogosassuchinhisdivinity,exercisedinadditiontoorbeyondthehumanityof Christ,isnotcompatiblewiththeCatholicfaith.DominusIesus.
209 210 211

Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,259.

ThereligionsoftheworldconveydifferentinsightsintothemysteryofUltimateReality.Incompleteas thesemaybe,theyneverthelesswitnesstoamanifoldselfmanifestationofGodtohumanbeingsindiverse

226

 triuneGodareconflicting,andinsomecases,evencontradictory.Buddhists,for example,envisionthetriuneGodasemptinesswhileMuslims,accordingtoDupuis, conceiveofthetriuneGodasapersonalabsolute.Thisleadstoaproblem.Inasmuchas theseconflictingeconomicmanifestationsofthetriuneGodaretobeviewedas authentic,oneseemstoencounterasituationinwhichakindofGodaboveGodmust bepositedwiththeresultthattheidentityoftheeconomicTrinitywiththeimmanent Trinityisimplicitlyundermined.212OnereasonChristiantheologianshaveinsistedthat theeconomicTrinityistheimmanentTrinity(thefirsthalfofRahnersaxiom)is preciselytoavoidanypossibilityofaGodaboveGod.Dupuisanswertothisdilemma isfoundinhisanalysisofreligiousexperience.Althoughadherentsofotherreligions haveauthenticexperiencesofthetriuneGod,213theydonotpossessadequate conceptualizations.214Theeconomicfacestheypositareobjectivelyspeakingfalse. Althoughthismaysolvetheproblemofconflictingeconomicmanifestations,itseemsto
faithcommunities.TheyareincompletefacesoftheDivineMysteryexperiencedinvariousways,tobe fulfilledinhimwhoisthehumanfaceofGod.Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism, 279. Or,attheveryleast,onewouldencounterasituationinwhichtheepistemicpriorityoftheChristian economicmanifestationofthetriuneGodiseffectivelymarginalized.
212

[W]hereverthereisgenuinereligiousexperience,itissurelytheGodrevealedinJesusChristwhoenters intothelivesofmenandwomen...Dupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,122.
213

Dupuismakesacriticaldistinctionbetweenreligiousexperienceandonesformulationor interpretationofreligiousexperience.Anyauthenticreligiousexperiencerepresentsanexperienceofthe GodrevealedinJesusChristDupuis,FromConfrontationtoDialogue,122.Christiansinterprettheir religiousexperiencesasexperiencesoftheFatherofJesusChrist.NonChristiansexperiencetheFatherof JesusChristbutinterpretthisGodinotherterms.

214

227

 undercuttheirauthenticity.TotheextentDupuisemphasizesthattheseeconomicfaces arefalse(ostensiblytoprotecthistrinitariangrammar),heundercutstheirauthenticity. TotheextentDupuisemphasizestheauthenticityofthesealternativeeconomic manifestations,heimplicitlyseverstheunityoftheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity. Attheendoftheday,hisproposalrestsuponadeficienttrinitarianism.Thisreality castsadarkshadowoverhisclaimthatthetriuneGodconstitutesakeytoaChristian theologyofreligiouspluralism.

4.6 Implications for the Christian Theology of Religions

Perhapsoneofthemostpressingquestionsraisedbycurrentappealtodivine relationsintheChristiantheologyofreligionsconcernstherelationshipoftheSpiritto theSon.AssumptionsabouttheSon/Spiritrelationshipconstitutethetrinitariankeyto Yongsproposal.HerejectsallsubordinationoftheSpirittotheSonattheontological levelinordertoclearspaceontheeconomiclevelforaneconomyoftheSpirit distinct(i.e.,separate)fromthattheSon.Onthebasisofthisdistinction,Yong justifiestheuseofnonchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningtheSpiritspresenceinorder toaffirmtheworkoftheSpiritamongadherentsofotherreligions.Yongisnotalonein appealingtoaseparateeconomyoftheSpiritasthebasisforaChristiantheologyof religions.OneencountersthisclaimwithincreasingfrequencyintheChristiantheology

228

 ofreligions.215Forexample,inhismonographexploringtheimplicationsofPaul TillichstrinitariantheologyforaChristiantheologyofreligions,PanChiuLaiargues thatanexclusivisttheologyofreligionsisrootedinawrongfulsubordinationofthe SpirittotheSon(asexpressedinthefilioque)andthatonecanmovebeyond exclusivism,ChristocentismandtheocentrismbyrecognizingthattheSpirit operatesinaneconomydistinctfromthatoftheSon.216AccordingtoLai,a trinitariantheologyofreligionsisabletointegratethecentralityofChristandthe freedomoftheHolySpiritwithintheframeworkofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.217By stressingtheeconomyandsovereigntyoftheHolySpirit,atrinitariantheologyof religionsisabletoaffirmboththeuniversalityofsalvationandthevalueofopenness towardotherreligions.218

SeePaulF.Knitter,ANewPentecost?APneumatologicalTheologyofReligions,CurrentDialogue19 (1991):3241;StanleyJ.Samartha,TheHolySpiritandPeopleofOtherFaiths,EcumenicalReview,42 (1990):250263;MichaelE.Lodahl,Shekhinah/Spirit:DivinePresenceinJewishandChristianReligion(New York:PaulistPress,1992);andPeterC.Hodgson,TheSpiritandReligiousPluralism,inTheMythof ReligiousSuperiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 2005),13550.

215

SeeLai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,3744.Laisproposalwasdiscussedatlengthinchapter one.
216

Laicontinues,Ontheonehand,itgivesmoreemphasistothecentralityofChristthana(Unitarian) theocentricapproachwill.Ontheotherhand,itwillstressthedistinctiveeconomyandsovereigntyofthe HolySpiritmorethantheChristocentric,particularlythechristomonistic,approachwillstress.Lai,Towards aTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,43.

217

Ibid.,43.LaiofferslittlecriticalevaluationofTillichsdoctrineoftheTrinity.OnthebasisofLais expositionofTillich,thereaderisleftwonderingwhetherTillichhasarticulatedanaccountoftheTrinity thatcouldbedescribedasorthodoxinanyreasonablesense.OneofthemosttroublingaspectsofTillichs trinitariandoctrine(asexplicatedbyLai)istherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanent

218

229

 OurinvestigationholdsatleastfiveimplicationsforreflectionontheSon/Spirit relationshipintheChristiantheologyofreligions.First,becausetheSon/Spirit relationshipcanonlybeunderstoodwithinabroadertrinitariancontext,greater attentionmustbebeenpaidtothetrinitarianframeworkinwhichclaimsabouta distincteconomyoftheSpiritarebeingarticulated.Oneofthestrikingfeaturesabout DeTrinitateistherigorous(andcoherent)trinitarianframeworkthatAugustine developsinhisanalysisofthedivinerelations.Thisframeworkispreciselywhatis lackinginmanytrinitarianproposalsintheChristiantheologyofreligions. Noticeablyabsent,forexample,inamanyproposalsregardingaseparateeconomyof theSpiritisanysubstantivediscussionoftheroleoftheFatherinrelationtotheSpirit (andtheSon).OnecannotofferjudgmentsaboutworkoftheSonandtheSpiritadextra withoutexplicitlyreflectingontherelationshipoftheSonandtheSpirittotheFatherad intra. Second,inlightoftheinseparableactionofthedivinepersons,noepistemic warrantexistsforinferringtwoeconomiesofsalvationonthebasisofthehypostatic distinctionthatexistsbetweentheSonandtheSpiritintheimmanentTrinity.219One
Trinity.OnLaisreadingofTillich,theChristiandoctrineoftheTrinityseemstobelittlemorethana symbolicexpressionoftheTrinitarianprinciple.SeeLai,TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions,15254. Furthermore,IrenaeusfrequentlycitedimageoftheSonandSpiritasthetwohandsoftheFather providesnoepistemicwarrantfortwodistincteconomiesofsalvation.Fromaneconomicstandpoint,the twohandsimageryisnotaboutalefthanddoingoneactivityandtherighthanddoinganother(which
219

230

 mightsimplychoosetorejectAugustinespositionregardingtheunityofactionadextra; however,onecannotrejectAugustinesteachingontheunityofactionwithoutalso rejectingthetrinitariantheologyoftheCappadocians.Forexample,theinseparable actionofthedivinepersonsisoneofthefundamentalthemesinGregoryofNyssas trinitariantheology.InhisAnswertoAblabius,Gregoryoffersthefollowing explanationoftheinseparableactionoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit:Wedonot learnthattheFatherdoessomethingonhisown,inwhichtheSondoesnotcooperate. Oragain,thattheSonactsonhisownwithouttheSpirit.Ratherdoeseveryoperation whichextendsfromGodtocreationandisdesignatedaccordingtoourdiffering conceptionsofithaveitsoriginintheFather,proceedthroughtheSon,andreachits completionbytheHolySpirit.220Gregoryfurtherexplainsthattheworkofthedivine personsisnotbyseparateactionaccordingtothenumberofthepersons;butthereis

seemstobeimpliedbyassociatingadistincteconomywitheachofthehands).Itisfundamentallyabout theFatheractingthroughtheSonandSpirittoaparticularend.Theimageunderscoresunityofactionin thecontextofhypostaticdistinction. Gregorycontinues,Itisforthisreasonthatthewordfortheoperationisnotdividedamongthepersons involved.Fortheactionofeachinanymatterisnotseparateandindividualized.Butwhateveroccurs, whetherinreferencetoGodsprovidenceforusorthegovernmentandconstitutionoftheuniverse,occurs throughthethreePersons,anditnotthreeseparatethings.GregoryofNyssa,AnAnswertoAblabius,261 62.OneofGregoryofNyssaspurposesistorefutetheclaimthathistrinitariantheologyisopentothe chargeoftritheism.Hearguesthatonenessofactionimpliesonenessofnature.Thus,heisnottalking aboutthreegods.Foranexpositionofthistext,seeAyres,TheFundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssas TrinitarianTheology,445474.
220

231

 onemotionanddispositionofthegoodwill...221Thus,onecannotsimplyabandon AugustinefortheEast.Onemustabandontheentiretrinitariantradition. Third,wemustrememberthatevidenceagainstthetwofoldprocessionofthe SpiritadintradoesnotconstitutepositiveevidenceforaseparateeconomyoftheSpirit adextra.YongandothersfrequentlyturntotheEastinordertogarnersupportfora separateeconomyoftheSpirit.TheCappadocians,however,providenosupportforthe kindofseparateeconomyoftheSpiritaboutwhichYongspeaks.Furthermore, althoughhespeaksoftwoeconomies,GeorgesKhodrdescribestheroleoftheSpirit intermsofrevealingChristinnonChristianreligionsandinsiststhatChristrepresents thekeytounderstandingandinterpretingnonChristianscripturesandreligious experience.222Moreover,althoughVladimirLosskyspeaksinTheMysticalTheologyofthe ChurchofadiscreteeconomyoftheSpiritandwantstoavoidanyeconomic subordinationtotheSon,223heisnottalkingaboutaseparate(inthesenseof
ThustheholyTrinitybringstoeffecteveryoperationinasimilarway.Itisnotbyseparateaction accordingtothenumberofthepersons;butthereisonemotionanddispositionofthegoodwillwhich proceedsfromtheFather,throughtheSon,totheSpirit.Forwedonotcallthosewhoproduceasinglelife threelifegivers;nordowesaytheyarethreegoodbeingswhoareseentoshareinthesamegoodness;nor dowespeakoftheminthepluralinreferencetotheirattributes.GregoryofNyssa,AnAnswerto Ablabius,262.
221

SeeKhodr,ChristianityandthePluralisticWorld,127.YongdownplaysKhodrsemphasisupon ChristinDiscerningtheSpirit(s).
222

Intimatelylinkedastheyareinthecommonworkuponearth,theSonandtheHolySpiritremain neverthelessinthissameworktwopersonsindependenttheoneoftheotherastotheirhypostaticbeing.It isforthisreasonthatthepersonaladventoftheHolySpiritdoesnothavethecharacterofaworkwhichis subordinate,andinsomesortfunctional,inrelationtothatoftheSon.Pentecostisnotacontinuationof

223

232

 independent)economyofsalvationinthewayYongsproposalrequiresbutsimplythe roleoftheSpiritdistinctfromthatoftheSonwhichheunderstandstoinvolvebearing witnesstotheSon:[TheSpirit]comesnotinHisownnamebutinthenameoftheSon, tobearwitnesstotheSonastheSoncameinthenameoftheFather,tomakeknown theFather.224 Fourth,fromtwosendings(missiones)comenoepistemicwarrantforinferring twoseparateeconomiesofsalvation.Onthecontrary,theSonandtheSpiritwork togetherinasingleeconomyofsalvationwhichhasasitsgoaldrawingmenandwomen intothelifeofthetriuneGod.Ironically,JacquesDupuisrecognizesthatonecannot groundaChristiantheologyofreligionsinanappealtoaneconomyoftheSpiritseparate fromthatoftheSon.Thisiswhyhedoesnotattempttogroundthesalvificvalidityof nonChristianreligionsintheSon/Spiritdistinction.

theIncarnation.Itisitssequel,itsresult.ThecreaturehasbecomefittoreceivetheHolySpiritandhe descendsintotheworldandfillswithHispresencetheChurchwhichhasbeenredeemed,washedand purifiedbythebloodofChrist.VladimirLossky,TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch,trans.The FellowshipofSt.AlbanandSt.Sergius(CambridgeandLondon:JamesClarke&Co.,1957),159.The secondandthirdsentencesarefrequentlyquotedbytheologianslikeYong[DiscerningtheSpirit(s),65] wantingtoargueforanindependenteconomyoftheSpirit.ItisimportanttonotethatLosskysstatement doesnotsupportthekindofreadingitfrequentlyreceives.First,LosskylocatestheequalityoftheSpiritto theSonnotinaseparateeconomybuttheSpiritshypostaticindependencefromtheSon.Second,the reasonPentecostisnotacontinuationoftheIncarnationisnotbecausetheSpiritactsinaseparateeconomy butbecausetheSpiritishypostaticallydistinctfromtheSon.Finally,Losskyunderstandstheworkofthe SpirittobeanapplicationoftheworkofChrist.
224

Lossky,TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch,159.

233

 Finally,ourexplorationofAugustinestrinitariantheologyservestoremindus thatthemissionarynatureofthechurchisrootednotinanoutdatedformofcultural imperialismbutintheverylifeoftriuneGod.225Themissioofthechurchisrootedinthe dualmissionesoftheSonandtheSpirit(Gal.4:46).JustastheFathersenttheSoninto theworld,sotheSonsendshisfollowersintotheworld(John20:21).TheSpirit,whois sentintotheworldbytheFatherandtheSon,bearswitnesstotheSonbypreparingthe

ThesendingofthechurchtotheworldisacontinuationoftheFatherssendingoftheSonandtheSpirit. Itistheaimofthesesendingoperationstoawakenfaith,tobaptize,andtostartnewcommunitiesof discipleship.TheHolySpiritleadsthechurchtoopennewfieldsofmission,continuingtheapostolic historythatbeganatPentecostinJerusalem....Shouldthechurchtodaycontinuetoevangelizethenations inthenameofthetriuneGod?Thatisbasicallythesamequestionas:Shouldthechurchcontinuetobethe church?ThechurchisconstitutedbythestructureofthetrinitarianmissionofGodinthehistoryof salvation.ThechurchistheeschatologicalcreationofGodsWordservingtouniteallhumankind.CarlE. Braaten,TheTriuneGod:theSourceandModelofChristianUnityandMission,Missiology18(1990):425. SeealsoStephenR.Holmes,TrinitarianMissiology:TowardsaTheologyofGodasMissionary, InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology8(2006):7290.InconversationwithAugustine,Holmesargues thatitisimportantnotmerelytoaffirmthatGodhasamissionbutthatGodisamissionaryinGods immanentlife.AlthoughheisgenerallysympathetictoAugustine,Holmessuggestsoneofthe inadequaciesAugustinestrinitariantheologyisthatonhisaccountGodhasamission,butGodisnot properlydescribedasmissionary(Holmes,78).AccordingtoHolmes,[T]hefundamentaldifference betweenassertingthatGodhasamissionandassertingthatGodismissionaryisthatintheformercasethe missionmaybeincidental,disconnectedfromwhoGodis;inthelattercase,missionisoneoftheperfections ofGod,asadequateadescriptionofwhoheisaslove,omnipotenceoreternity(Holmes,89).Inasmuchas themissionesoftheSonandSpiritrepresentatemporalextensionoftheireternalprocessiones,Holmesclaim thatAugustinemakesmissionincidentaltothelifeofGodseemsunwarranted.Onthecontrary, AugustineclaimsthatthemissionesoftheSonandSpiritclearlyrevealtheimmanentlifeofGodinthe economyofsalvation(cf.BooksIIIV).IfbypositingmissionaryasanattributeofGod,onesimplymeans GodsselfsacrificingloveforthosewhodeservethewrathofGod,thenAugustinewouldunderstandthe missionaryattributeintermsoftheperfectionofGodslove(thedominantemphasisoftheNew Testament).Moreover,thekindofimmanentgroundingHolmesissearchingforcanbefoundin AugustinesnotionoftheSpiritasGift.Gift,forAugustineisbothaneconomicandintratrinitarian descriptionoftheSpirit.TheSpiritisgiftintimebecauseheisgiftfrometernity.If,however,by positingmissionaryasanattributeofGod,onemeansthatGodsinvolvementintheword(including redemption)becomesnecessary,Augustinewouldrightlyrejectit.Itseemstomethatonecanrightlycall GodamissionaryGodwithoutmakingsendingconstitutiveofthelifeofthetriuneGod.AsAugustine rightlyunderstood,thereisahugedifferencebetweensayingtheeconomyofsalvationrevealsthedivinelife andthattheeconomyconstitutesthedivinelife.
225

234

 wayforandempoweringthewitnessofChristsdisciples(John15:2627;Acts1:8).As LesslieNewbiginrightlynotes,
TheSpiritistheSpiritofChrist.Thedecisivemarkofhispresenceisthe confessionthatJesusChristisLord(1Cor.12:13;1Jn.4:13).Hiscomingin poweristhefruitofhearingandbelievingtheGospelofJesusChristcrucified andrisen.HetakesthethingsofChristandshowsthemtous.Heleadsmento Christ,inwhomwearebaptizedintoonebody,thebodyofChrist.Heisno willothewisp,leadingmentoallsortsofindividualvagaries,buttheonewho bindsmentoJesusChristinthefellowshipofhisonebody.Itistruethatheis freeandsovereign;hegoesaheadoftheChurch,aseverymissionaryknowsbut itis(ifonemayputitso)theChurchthathegoesaheadof.226

ItseemsironicthatattheverytimeadvocatesofSpiritChristologyarearguingthat weshouldnotthinkaboutChristapartfromtheSpirit,someoftheseverysame theologianswantustobelievethatitisappropriatetothinkabouttheSpiritapartfrom ChristinawaythatultimatelyseversthetwohandsoftheFather.SurelyYves Congarismuchclosertothemarkwhenheinsists,IfIweretodrawbutoneconclusion fromthewholeofmyworkontheHolySpirit,Iwouldexpressitinthesewords:no ChristologywithoutpneumatologyandnopneumatologywithoutChristology.227

226 227

LesslieNewbigin,TrinitarianDoctrineforTodaysMission(Carlisle:Paternoster,1998),7980.

YvesM.J.Congar,WordandSpirit,trans.DavidSmith(SanFrancisco:HarperandRow,1986),1.Congar repeatedlyemphasizesthejointworkoftheWordandSpiritworkintheeconomyofsalvation:The glorifiedLordandtheSpiritdothesamework.TheunityoftheglorifiedChristandtheSpiritisfunctional, thatistosay,itisanoperativeunity.Theworktobedoneinbelieversiscommontobothofthemandthe twohandsproceedingfromtheFatherdoconjointlywhatevertheFather,whoisLove,wishestodo (ibid.,25).

235

 Congar,therefore,rightlyrecognizesthatitisnotpossibletodevelopapneumatology separatelyfromtheWord.228

Congar,WordandSpirit,131.Inanotherwork,Congarexplainsthatinhisearlyeffortstocallattentionto themissionoftheSpirit,hemadetoosharpadistinctionbetweenworkoftheSpiritandtheworkofChrist. Uponlaterreflectionherealizedthathewasnotsufficientlyconsciousoftheunitythatexistsbetweenthe activityoftheSpiritandthatoftheglorifiedChrist,sincetheLordistheSpiritandwheretheSpiritofthe Lordis,thereisfreedom(2Cor.3:17).AccordingtoPaul,theglorifiedLordandtheSpiritmaybedifferent inGod,buttheyaresofunctionallyunitedthatweexperiencethemtogetherandareabletoacceptonefor theother:Christinus,theSpiritinourhearts,(we)inChrist,intheSpiritalloftheseare interchangeable.YvesM.J.Congar,IBelieveintheHolySpirit,volII,trans.DavidSmith(NewYork: Seabury,1983),12.

228

236

5. The Vestigia Trinitatis in the Theology of Religions

ReasoningfromtheassumptionthatcreationmustsomehowreflectitsCreator, variousChristiantheologianshave,throughoutthehistoryofthechurch,searchedfor tracesofthetriuneGod(vestigiaTrinitatis)inthestructuresincreation.Avibrant expressionofthistraditioncanbefoundinBonaventuresItinerariumMentisDei,written inthemiddleofthethirteenthcentury.Bonaventureoutlinesasixstepprocessthrough whichthesoulascendstounionwithGodbycontemplatingtheTrinitythroughthe vestigesincreation,throughthedivineimageandthroughGodsessentialandpersonal attributes.AlthoughtheymaysearchforreflectionsofthetriuneGodindifferingfacets ofcreation,theologiansincludingAugustine,BernardofClairvaux,RichardofSt.Victor, Bonaventure,andothersshareaconvictionthatcertaincreatedrealitiespossessa discernibletrinitarianstructure. Severalcontemporarytheologianshavesuggestedthattrinitarianstructurescan bediscernedinnonChristianreligiousexperienceandthatthisrealitybearswitnessto thevalidityofthesereligions.NoticehowJacquesDupuisexplicitlyappealstothe vestigetraditioninthecontextofhisChristiantheologyofreligiouspluralism:
AsthetraditionhaspersistentlysoughtandfoundtracesoftheTrinity(vestigia Trinitatis)increationand,moreespecially,inthespiritualactivityofthehuman being,somustwesearchforanddiscoversimilartraces,outsidetheBiblical

237


tradition,inthereligiouslifeofindividualpersonsandthereligioustraditionsto whichtheybelong.TheytooinsomewayechoinhistorytheFatherseternal utteringoftheWordandissuingoftheSpirit.1

Reasoningfromtheassumptionthatallhumanreligiousexperiencepossessesa trinitarianstructure,2Dupuisclaimsthatextrabiblicaltraditionsbearanimprintof theeconomicTrinity.3Similarly,WilliamCenknerarguesthattriadicstructurescanbe discernedinChinesereligions(e.g.,TaoismandBuddhism)whichbearwitnessalbeit itdimlytotheTrinity.4Alongsimilarlines,BedeGriffithssuggeststhatatriadic patterncanbediscernedinthemajorreligioustraditions:(1)thesupremePrinciple beyondanynameorform,(2)themanifestationofthehiddenrealityand(3)the Spirit.5Finally,MarkHeimsargumentforthevalidityofotherreligionsexplicitly

1 2

Dupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism,22728.

IthasbeensuggestedabovethataTrinitarianChristologicalmodelmayserveasausefulhermeneutical keyforanopenChristiantheologyofreligions.AnefforthasalsobeenmadetouncoveraTrinitarian structure,nomatterhowinchoateandimperfect,inallhumanexperienceoftheDivine.Followingthiscue, itmaybesaidthatthedivineTrinityisexperienced,thoughhiddenlyandanonymously,whereverhuman beingsallowtheDivineRealitythatimpingesuponthemtoenterintotheirlife.Dupuis,TowardaChristian TheologyofReligiousPluralism,27677(italicsmine).

3 4

Ibid.,227.SeealsoDupuis,ChristianityandtheReligions,2.

SeeWilliamCenkner,InterreligiousExplorationofTriadicReality:thePanikkarProject,Dialogue& Alliance4(1990):8081. Wecanthusdiscernabasicpatterninallthegreatreligioustraditions.Thereisfirstallthesupreme Principle,theultimateTruth,beyondnameandform,theNirgunaBrahmanofHinduism,theNirvanaand SunyataofBuddhism,theTaowithoutanameofChinesetradition,theTruthofSikhism,theRealityall HaqqofSufism,theInfiniteEnSofoftheKabbala,theGodhead(asdistinguishedfromGod)in Christianity.ThereisthenthemanifestationofthehiddenReality,theSagunaBrahmanofHinduism,the BuddhaorTathagataofBuddhism,theChineseSage,theSikhGuru,thepersonalGod,YahwehorAllah,of JudaismandIslam,andtheChristofChristianity.FinallythereistheSpirit,theatmanofHinduism,the

5

238

 appealstothetrinitarianstructureofreality:Trinitarianconvictionrulesouttheview thatamongallthepossibleclaimedmanifestationsofGod,onenarrowstrandaloneis authentic....Thereisanirreduciblevarietyinwhatisultimatelytrueorofgreatest significance.Christiansfindvalidityinotherreligionsbecauseoftheconvictionthatthe TrinityrepresentsauniversaltruthaboutthewaytheworldandGodactuallyare.6 Oneofthemostsubstantiveappealstothetrinitarianstructureofnon ChristianreligiousexperiencecanbefoundinRaimundoPanikkarsTheTrinityandthe ReligiousExperienceofMan.7Panikkarbelievesthatrecognitionofthetrinitarian structureofreligiousexperiencecouldleadtogreaterhumanunity:Thedeepening intothetrinitarianstructureofreligiousexperienceandofhumanbeliefsmayhereagain offerapossibilityoffecundation,agreementandcollaborationnotonlyamongreligions
CompassionoftheBuddha,theGrace(Nadar)ofSikhism,theBreathoftheMercifulinIslam,theRuah, theSpirit,inJudaismandthePneumainChristianity.BedeGriffiths,UniversalWisdom:AJourneythroughthe SacredWisdomoftheWorld(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1994),4142.
6 7

Heim,TheDepthoftheRiches,127.

RaimundoPanikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan:PersonIconMystery(NewYork.Orbis, 1973).OtherimportantworksbyPanikkarinclude:TheUnknownChristofHinduism,rev.ed.(London: Darton,Longman&Todd,1964,1984);TheIntraReligiousDialogue(NewYork:Paulist,1978);Blessed Simplicity:TheMonkasUniversalArchetype(NewYork:SeaburyPress,1982);TheSilenceofGod:TheAnswerof theBuddha(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1989);andTheCosmotheandricExperience:EmergingReligious Consciousness(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1993).Panikkarhaswrittenoverthirtybooksandseveralhundred articles.AhelpfulintroductiontoPanikkarslifeandthoughtcanbefoundintheintroductiontoRaimon Panikkar,InvisibleHarmony:EssaysonContemplationandResponsibility,ed.HarryJ.Cargas(Minneapolis: AugsburgFortressPress,1995),viixiv.Cargas,whodescribesPanikkarasaCatholicpriestwhoisalsoa Hindu,aBuddhistandasecularist(Cargas,vii),claimsthatatrinitarianperspectivepervadesPanikkars writings.Similarly,WilliamCenknerclaimsthatFewscholarshavemadetheTrinityascentraltotheir intellectualprojectashasRaimundoPanikkar.EvenasrecentastheGiffordLecturesof1989,Panikkar exploresthetriadicstructureofGodand,indeed,realityitself.Cenkner,InterreligiousExplorationof TriadicReality,71.

239

 themselves,butalsowithmodernmanatlarge,sooftentornapartbyreligious subtletieswhichhedoesnotunderstand.8AccordingtoPanikkar,threeirreducible formsofspiritualityreflecttheFather,SonandHolySpirit. ThepurposeofthischapteristoofferanAugustinianevaluationofPanikkars trinitarianproposal.Afteroutlininghisproposal,wewillconsiderhowEwertCousins, aninterpreterofPanikkar,relatesPanikkarsproposaltothevestigetradition.Next,we willexploreAugustinessearchforreflectionsoftheTrinityinthefunctioningofthe humansoulinBooksVIIIXVofDeTrinitate.Finally,onthebasisofAugustines teaching,wewillevaluatethetrinitariangrammarthatgroundsPanikkarstheologyof religiousexperience.

5.1 Panikkars Theandric Spirituality

5.1.1 Three Forms of Spirituality InthefirstsectionofTheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofManPanikkar identifiesthreeirreducibleformsofspirituality9whichheidentifiesasiconolatry,

8 9

Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,xiv.

UnderlyingPanikkarsproposalisakeydistinctionbetweenspiritualityandreligion(orbetween essenceandform).Spiritualitydenotesthemassofrites,structures,etc.,thatareindispensabletoall religionswhilethereligionrepresentsanattitudeofmindindependentofanyparticulartradition. Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,9.Onereligion,therefore,maypossessseveral spiritualities.

240

 personalismandmysticism.10ThesethreespiritualitiesparalleltheHinduwaysof action(karmamrga),devotion(bhaktimrga)andknowledge(jnanamarga).11Panikkar claimsthathisdescriptionofthesespiritualitiesdoesnotproceedfromanapriori constructionbutemergesfromanempiricalassessmentofthesituation.12Iconolatry involvesthetheprojectionofGodundersomeform,hisobjectivation,his personificationinanobjectwhichmaybementalormaterial,visibleorinvisible,but alwaysreducibletoourhumanrepresentation.13Onemightthinkoficonolatryasa legitimateformofidolatrywhichstandsincontrasttoillegitimateorfalseformsof idolatry.FalseidolatrydenotesworshipwhichfailstorisetoGodbecauseit terminatesinacreatedobject.14Bywayofcontrast,iconolatryinvolvesworshipwhich ascendsfromanobjectuponwhichdivinegloryreststoGod.Assuch,itrepresentsa legitimateformofhumanreligiousconsciousnesswhichcanbefoundnotonlyinthe JudeoChristiantradition(withitsemphasisuponthehumanpersonastheimageof Godandtheworldasvestigeofthedivine)butalsointhewayofsacredactionin
Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,10.Elsewherehedescribesthemasapophatism, personalismanddivineimmanence(ibid.,55).
10 11 12 13 14

Ibid.,10. Ibid.,9. Ibid.,15(italicsoriginal).

AccordingtoPanikkar,falseidolatryinvolvesthetransferencetoacreatureoftheadorationduetoGod alone,i.e.anadorationwhichstopsshortattheobjectwithoutgoingbeyonditinanongoingmovement towardtheCreator,theTranscendent,iswithoutdoubtthegravestofsins.Panikkar,TheTrinityandthe ReligiousExperienceofMan,16.Israelwaschastenedforfollowingfalseidols.Yahwehalonewastobe Israelsownspecialidol(ibid.,12).

241

 Hinduism:Thefundamentalattitude,however,ofaniconolatricspiritualityisthecultic actofadorationofanimageofGod,believedtorepresenteachtimethetrueGod.Itis thisactionwhichallowsustocallthisspiritualitykarmamrgaorthewayofactionin ordertoreachsalvation,i.e.,theendandfulfillmentofmaninwhateverwayitis interpreted.15 Whileiconolatryisrootedincosmoanthropomorphism,personalism denotesaformofreligiousconsciousnessfoundedontheconceptofperson.16Wecall Godapersonalbeingbecauseweourselvesarepersons.WeconsiderGodaBeing becauseweourselvesarebeings.17Inapersonalistcontext,loveisnolonger unconsciousecstasybutamutualgiving.18Similarly,worshipdoesnotinvolve negationoftheselfbutrepresentsavoluntaryresponsetothedivineperson.Panikkar pointsoutthatpersonalismshouldnotbeviewedastheessenceofreligion.Itsimply representsoneformofspiritualityamongseveralpossibleforms.Initself,itisunableto exhausttherichnessoftheAbsolute.PersonalismfoundnotonlyinChristianfaithbut alsoinHinduwayofdevotionandlove(bhaktimrga).

15 16 17 18

Ibid.,18(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,21(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,22(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,22.

242

 Athirdandfinalformofspiritualityisadvaita.19Panikkarexplainsthata personalistconceptoftheAbsolutefacesanumberofconceptualproblems.For example,ifGodisaperson,thenGodappearstobeindifferenttoevilandsuffering. Furthermore,inwhatseemslikesheercruelty,Godrequiresthebloodofhisson. Moreover,Godseemspowerlesstocreateabetterworld.AlthoughvariousChristian theologieshavesoughttoaddresstheseproblems,theselimitationssuggestthatan exclusivelypersonalconceptionoftheAbsolutecannotdoadequatejusticetoit.20 HinduismrightlyteachesthatthemysteryofGodcannotbeexhaustedinhis unveilingasPerson.21Atthecenterofthisthirdformofspiritualityisanexperienceof divineimmanence:AnimmanentGodcannotbeaGodperson,someonewithwhomI couldhavepersonalrelationship,aGodother.IcannotspeaktoanimmanentGod.22 HindusrefertothisimmanentgroundasBrahman.23Panikkarexplainsthatthe relationshipthatoneformswithBrahmanconsistsintheruptureandnegationofevery

19 20 21 22 23

Panikkaralsoreferstothisformofspiritualityasmysticism. Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,28. Ibid.,29(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,31(italicsoriginal).

RegardingthenatureofBrahman,Panikkaroffersthefollowingexplanation:Onecanprove,thatistosay, demonstrate,theexistenceofGodstartingfromcertainpremises:onecannot,however,provetheexistence ofbrahman.Brahmaninfactdoesnoteksist.ItisnottheCreator,theoriginoftheeksistentialtension betweenGodandcreature;brahmanhasnoeksistencebecauseitpossessesnoconsistence.If(tosupposethe impossible)onesucceededinprovingtheexistenceofbrahman,theresultofthisdemonstrationwould,by verydefinition,beneitherbrahmannorDivinity.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan, 35.

243

 allegedrelation.24Thus,Thesolewayofdiscoveringbrahmanisbyrevelationinthe senseofanunveilingofalltheveilsofexistence,includingthatoftheego,i.e.oftheone whoundertakestheascent,orratherthedescent,insearchofbrahman.25Itisthelatter experiencetowhichtheUpanishadsbearwitness.26Whereaspraise,prayerand dialoguearecentraltopersonalism,advaitainvolvessilence,abandonmentandnon attachment.27TheHinduwayofknowledge(jnanamarga)exemplifiesthisspirituality. 5.1.2 Panikkars Doctrine of the Trinity Afteridentifyingthesethreespiritualities,Panikkarpresentshisaccountofthe Trinity.HisprimaryobjectiveisnottoexpoundthedoctrineoftheTrinitybutrather toshowhowinthelightoftheTrinitythethreeformsofspiritualitydescribedabove canbereconciled.28AccordingtoPanikkar,onlyatrinitarianunderstandingof Realityallowsforasynthesisbetweenthesethreeapparentlyirreducibleconceptsof

24 25 26

Ibid.,34. Ibid.,35(italicsoriginal).

PanikkarexplainsthattheUpanishadsalsobearwitnesstothetranscendentaspectoftheAbsolute.He assertsthatthereisnosuchthingasapurelyimmanentspirituality. Foradvaitathedivinityisnotsomethinginmeoroutsideme;fortheadvaitinexperienceisnotsomething thatIhave.Itis,rather,likealightinwhichtheRealisilluminatedanddiscovered.Whattheadvaitin recognizesisnothisnothingnessthatisrevealedtohimbuttheFullnesswhichisunveiledinitself.Thereis thusnoplaceforanegointheadvaitinsexperience.Thereisnoegowhohas.Itis,andthatisall.Panikkar, TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,39(italicsoriginal).

27 28

Ibid.,41.

244

 theAbsolute.29Ontheonehand,Panikkarinsiststhataveryrealcontinuity[exists] betweenthetheoryoftheTrinityhepresentsandChristiandoctrine.30Moreover,he maintainsthathisproposalisauthenticallyorthodox.31Ontheotherhand,he acknowledgesthathisformulationoftheTrinitymovesbeyondthetraditionalChristian understanding.32Inaddition,heinsiststhatatrinitarianunderstandingoftheAbsolute isnotmerelyaChristianinsight.33Adherentsofotherreligionsexperiencethesame trinitarianmysterybutsimplydescribeitindifferentterms.

5.1.2.1 The Father

AllreligioustraditionsrecognizethattheAbsoluteisineffableandhasnoname. OnemaycalltheAbsoluteBrahmanorTaobutthesemerelyrepresenthuman
29Ibid.,41.Interestingly,PanikkarclaimsthatGodmustofnecessitybetrinitarian:AnontrinitarianGod cannotmingleandmuchlessunifyhimselfwithManwithoutdestroyinghimself.Hewouldhaveto remainaloof,isolated....Anontrinitarianmancannotjumpoutsidehislittleself,cannotbecomewhathe wantsandlongforwithoutdestroyinghimself.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,xii. 30 31

Ibid.,43.

IemphasizeonceandforallthatIbelievethisinterpretationtobeauthenticallyorthodoxi.e.,whichgives toGodatrulyright(orthos)honourandglory(doxa)andtobethusfullyecclesial.Panikkar,TheTrinity andtheReligiousExperienceofMan,6(italicsoriginal). Panikkarjustifiesthismovebypointingoutthatdogmaticformulationsaresimplyunabletoencompass thetotalityofthedivinerealitywhichoverflowstheirlimitsonallsidestoaninfinitedegree.Panikkar,The TrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,41.

32

ItissimplyanunwarrantedoverstatementtoaffirmthatthetrinitarianconceptionoftheUltimate,and withitofthewholereality,isanexclusiveChristianinsightorrevelation.Panikkar,TheTrinityandthe ReligiousExperienceofMan,viii.ElsewherePanikkarexplainsthathiskeyintuitionisthethreefold structureofreality,ofthetriadiconenessexistingonalllevelsofconsciousnessandofreality,oftheTrinity. WearenotsayingthattheideaoftheTrinitycanbereducedtothediscoveryofatripledimensionofBeing, northatthisaspectisamererationaldiscovery.WeareonlyaffirmingthattheTrinityistheacmeofatruth thatpermeatesallrealmsofbeingandconsciousnessandthatthisvisionlinksustogether.(ibid.,xi).

33

245

 designations.TheAbsoluteiscompletelytranscendent,beyondanyname.According toChristianteaching,theAbsolutehasadistinctivetitle:theFatherofourLordJesus Christ.34AlthoughChristiansrefertotheAbsoluteastheFatherofJesusChrist, neitherFathernorGodrepresentpropernamesfortheAbsolute.Thesearesimply humandesignations.TheFatheristheAbsolute,theonlyGod,thes.35Itisforthis reasonthatearlyChristianformulaedonotspeakoftheFather,theSonandtheSpirit, butoftheGod,theChristandtheSpirit.NeithertheSonnortheSpiritisGod,but, precisely,theSonofGodandtheSpiritofGod,equaltotheOneGod(thes)asGod (thes).36AccordingtoPanikkar,thereisnopluralityintheAbsolutenorshouldwe thinkoftheDivinityasafourththingalongsidetheFather,SonandHolySpirit.37 Rather,theFathermustberecognizedasthesubstratumoftheDivinity.38 AccordingtoPanikkar,thegenerationoftheSonbytheFatheriscomplete inasmuchastheFathergiveshimselfawayfully:EverythingthattheFatherishe transmitstotheSonwiththeresultthattheSonistheisoftheFather.39Thus,one
34 35 36

Ibid.,44. Ibid.,44. Ibid.,45(italicsoriginal).

37AccordingtoPanikkar,onemustbecarefulinspeakingabouttheSonandSpiritasequaltotheFather inasmuchasthislanguagesuggeststheDivinityasafourththing.

PanikkarexplainsthathisapproachtotheTrinitybuildsuponthemoredynamicthrustofgreekpatristic traditionaswellasthelatinbonaventurianscholastictradition.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligious ExperienceofMan,45.

38 39

Ibid.,46(italicsoriginal).

246

 cannotspeakoftheFatherquaFatherbecausetheFatherisnot.40Ifoneaskswhatthe Fatheris,theanswermustbetheSon.AstheAbsolute,theFather,isnot.41Hence, theFatherhasnoexsistence,noteventhatofBeing.InthegenerationoftheSonhehas, sotospeak,giveneverything.IntheFather,anapophatism(thekenosisoremptying)of Beingisrealandtotal.42TheBuddhistexperienceofemptinessisgroundedthereforein theFather.InBuddhistthought,Oneisledonwardstowardtheabsolutegoaland attheendonefindsnothing,becausethereisnothing,notevenBeing.43Formally speaking,thespiritualityoftheFatherisnotevenaspirituality.Itisliketheinvisible bedrock,thegentleinspirer,theunnoticedforcewhichsustains,drawsandpushesus. Godistrulytranscendent,infinite.44Thisultimategroundcanbegraspedonlythrough animageoricontheSon.Thisisthemeaningofthebiblicalstatementonecanonly cometotheFatherthroughtheSon.Thus,theonlyproperresponsetotheFatheris silence.45IconolatryisthereligionoftheFather.

40 41 42

Ibid.,46. Ibid.,46. Ibid.,46.

43Ibid.,47.Similarly,tospeakabouttheFatherisimpossible.EverystatementabouttheFathercanonly refertotheSon. 44 45

Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,50

PanikkarexplainsthatanumberofreligioustraditionsteachthatGodisSilence.Panikkar,TheTrinity andtheReligiousExperienceofMan,47.

247


5.1.2.2 The Son

WhereasonemightdescribetheFatherasGodfromorSourceofGod,the SonisbestdescribedofGod.ItistheSonwhois.ItistheSonwhoacts.ItistheSon whocreates.EverythingexistsintheSon.AccordingtoPanikkar,personisnota termthatcanbeappliedunivocallytoFather,SonandHolySpirit:Thus,strictly speaking,itisnottruethatGodisthreepersons.Personhereisanequivocalterm whichhasadifferentmeaningineachcase.46Tospeakofpersoninaunivocalsense wouldbetoimplyafourthelementthattheFather,SonandSpiritshareincommon; however,nosuchelementexists.GodisnotaquaternityconsistingofFather,Son,Holy SpiritplusaGoddivinenature.47TheFatherishisSonthroughhisSpirit.Thus, OnlytheSonisPerson,ifweusethewordinitseminentsenseandanalogicallyto humanpersons:neithertheFathernortheSpiritisaPerson.48Wecanspeakofthe FatherandSpiritaspersonsinaweakersenseifwebearinmindthatwearespeaking aboutrealrelativeoppositionsattheheartofthedivinemystery.49Asaresult,itis

46 47 48 49

Ibid.,5152(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,52. Ibid.,52.

Wemustbecareful,however,nottoattempttospeakaboutthepersonsinse.Apersonisneverin himself,butbytheveryfactthatheisapersonisalwaysaconstitutiverelationaprosti.Panikkar,The TrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,52.

248

 onlywiththeSonthanmancanhaveapersonalrelationship.TheGodoftheism,thus, istheSon.50 TheSonistheMysterytowhichtheScripturespointandwhichwasrevealed inChrist.Christ,inPanikkarsuse,referstothePrincipleorBeingwhichisgiven variousnamesinothertraditions.51ItisChrist,then,knownorunknownwhomakes religionpossible.52ThisChrististhemediator,thatistosay,thelinkbetweenthe finiteandtheinfinite.InspeakingofChristasmediator,Panikkarexplainsthatheis notpresupposingitsidentificationwithJesusofNazareth.53Christianshavenever affirmedsuchanunqualifiedidentification.TheyhavesimplyclaimedthatJesusof NazarethhasaspecialrelationshiptowhatJohncallstheLogos.54Insuchacontext, JesusofNazarethrepresentsonemanifestationofabroaderChristprinciple.55Panikkar explainsthathecontinuestousethetermChristsimplybecauseitbestembodiesthe

50 51

Ibid.,52.

ThenomenclaturethatIpersonallywouldliketosuggestinthisconnectionisasfollows:Iwould proposeusingtheLordforthatPrinciple,Being,LogosorChristthatotherreligioustraditionscallbya varietyofnamesandtowhichtheyattachawidevarietyofideas....EachtimethatIspeakofChristIam referring(unlessitisexplicitlystatedotherwise)totheLordofwhomchristianslaynomonopoly. Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,53.

52 53 54 55

Ibid.,53. Ibid.,53. Ibid.,53.

HealsoexplainsthattheChurchisnotthereligionforallhumanitybutsimplytheplacewhereChristis fullyrevealed.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,55.

249

 keycharacteristicsofthemediatorbetweendivineandhuman.56Personalismisthe spiritualityoftheSon.
5.1.2.3 The Spirit

WhereastherevelationoftheFatherisanunveilingofdivinetranscendence,the revelationoftheSpiritisanunveilingofdivineimmanence:Essentiallyitsignifiesthe ultimateinnernessofeverybeing,thefinalfoundation,theGroundofbeingaswellasof beings.57Formallyspeaking,theideaofrevelationcanbeappliedonlytotheSon. Neitherdivinetranscendencenordivineimmanencecanberevealed.Inthecaseof divinetranscendence,whatisrevealedistherevelationofit,i.e.,God,theSon,the Logos,theIcon.58Similarly,divineimmanenceisalsoincapableofrevealingitself,for thatwouldbeapurecontradictionofterms.59 OurexperienceofthetrinitarianmysteryteachesusthatinrealityGodis immanenttohimself.60AtthedeepestlevelofDivinity,thereistheSpirit.Speaking

Itisnotmytaskheretodiscusstheothernamesandtitlethathavebeenaccordedtothismanifestationof theMysteryinotherreligioustraditions.ThereasonIpersistincallingitChrististhatitseemstomethat phenomenologicallyChristpresentsthefundamentalcharacteristicsofthemediatorbetweendivineand cosmic,eternalandtemporal,etc.,whichotherreligionscallIsvara,TathgataorevenJahweh,Allahandso onatleastwhentheyarenotseekingtodistinguishbetweenasagunaandnirgunabrahman.Panikkar, TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,54.

56 57 58 59 60

Ibid.,5859(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,5859(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,59. Ibid.,59.

250

 metaphorically,onemightsaythatinspiteofeveryeffortoftheFathertoempty himselfinthegenerationoftheSon,topassentirelyintohisSon,togivehimeverything thathehas,everythingthatheis,eventhenthereremainsinthisfirstprocession,likean irreduciblefactor,theSpirit,thenonexhaustionofthesourceinthegenerationofthe Logos.61Asdivineimmanence,theSpiritisimmanentbothtotheFatherandtheSon. TheSpiritpasses,sotospeak,fromFathertoSonandfromSontoFather.Because trueunityistrinitarian,thereisnoSelfinthedivinelife.TheSonistheSelfofthe Father.TheFathersinhimselfistheSpirit.TheSonistheThouoftheFather.In thiscontext,onecannotspeakoftheSpiritinse:ThereisonlytheSpiritofGod,ofthe FatherandSon.62TheSpiritisneitheranInorThoubutawebetweenFather andSon.Advaitacanhelpusinexpressingthisinnertrinitariandynamic:theFatherand Sonareneithertwonorone.TheSpiritdistinguishesandunitesthem. ItisnotpossibletohaveapersonalrelationshipwiththeSpirit:Onecanonly haveanonrelationalunionwithhim.63Forthisreason,onedoesnotpraytothe SpiritbutratherintheSpirit.ThespiritualityoftheSpirit,therefore,doesnotconsist indiscoveringanddialogingwithsomeonebutinattainingaconsciousnessthatoneis

61 62 63

Ibid.,60(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,61. Ibid.,63.

251

 notoutsiderealitybutalreadyincludedinit.64Thisformofspiritualityismarkedby completepassivity:thereisnolongeranymetosave,foronehasgraspedthatthereis anIwhocallsonebyanewandcompletelyhiddenname.65Mysticismisthe spiritualityoftheSpirit. PanikkaroffersthefollowingsummaryofhisunderstandingoftheTrinity.The FatherisSource,theSonisBeing(Thou)andtheSpiritistheReturnofBeing (we).66AparallelcanbeseeninthetrinitarianstructureofEphesians4:6.TheFatheris overall(i.e.,SourceofBeing),theSonisthroughall(Beingasthebeinginwhichall beingsparticipate)andtheSpiritisinall(divineimmanence,theendorreturnof Being).67 5.1.3 Theandric Spirituality Ontheonehand,Panikkarclaimsthateachofthespiritualitiesoutlinedabove representlegitimateresponsestothetriuneGod.Ontheotherhand,hearguesthatno singlespiritualityissufficientinandofitself.Asanexclusivespiritualattitude,each possessesinherentlimitations.Iconolatry(thespiritualityoftheFather),ifpursued
64 65 66

Ibid.,64. Ibid.,64.

Ibid.,68.ElsewherePanikkaroffersasimilaranalogyintermsofwater.TheFatheristhesourceofthe river.TheSonistheriverthatflowsfromthesource.TheSpiritistheoceanintowhichtheriverflows. Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,63.

67

Ibid.,68.

252

 exclusively,candegenerateintonihilism.Nihilistsarepresentdaywitnessestoa spiritualitywhichwasdirectedtotheFatherbuttoaFatherseveredfromtheliving Trinity.68Personalism(thespiritualityoftheSon),ifpursuedexclusively,can degenerateintohumanism.Finally,advaita(thespiritualityoftheSpirit),ifpursued exclusively,candegenerateintopantheism.69Onlyatrinitarianunderstandingof religiousexperiencecanprovidethesynthesisandmutualfecundationofthedifferent spiritualattitudeswhichcomprisereligions,withoutforcingordoingviolencetothe fundamentalintuitionsofthedifferentspiritualpaths.70 Ratherthancallingtheresultingtriadofspiritualitiestrinitarian,Panikkar preferstousethetermtheandric.71Thelattertermwasoriginallyusedtodescribethe unionofthedivineandhumannaturesofChrist.Panikkarbelievesthistermishelpful inexpressingtwoconstitutiveelementsofspirituality:thehumanelementandthe

68 69

Ibid.,78.

IfthespiritualityoftheSpiritisnotanchoredbybeingintegratedintheTrinityitfallsintothedoctrinal errorofpantheism.Itbearswitness,certainly,toourlifeandourexistenceinGod(inhimweliveandmove andhaveourbeing)butithasnorighttoignorethefactthatourlifeisstillinthemaking,thatitisinfieri,be coming,thatthereiswithinusamovementtowardtheAbsoluteandthatwehavenotyetarrivedatBeing thoughBeinghasalreadycometous.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,82(italics original). Ibid.,43.Elsewhereheexplainsthathisgoalistoseekamoresatisfactoryequilibriumbetweenthese threeessentialdimensionsofeveryspiritualitythatwehavedescribedaboveandthatwemaysumupas apophatism,personalismanddivineimmanence(ibid.,55).

70

Notonlydoesthetermtrinitariansuggestasectarianperspective,butthistermdoesnotadequately capturethehumanelement.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,71.
71

253

 transhumanfactorwhichgivesitinnerlifeanditstranscendentresult.72Thecentral insightoftheandrisminvolvestherecognitionthathumanspossessaninfinite capacitywhichlinksuptotheasymptoticlimitcalledGod.73Theandrismhasbeen intuitivelygraspedbythinkersthroughtheages.74CentraltoPanikkarstheandric spiritualityisanassumptionthatrealityitselfistheandric:Therearenottworealities: Godandman(ortheworld);butneitheristhereone:Godorman(ortheworld),as outrightatheistsaredialecticallydriventomaintain.Realityisitselftheandric...75 Godandhumanscollaborateinbuildingthisreality. 5.1.4 Panikkar and the Vestige Tradition InabookentitledChristofthe21stCentury,EwertCousins,aCatholictheologian, commendsPanikkarsproposalandattemptstobuilduponitbyexplicitlylinkingitto thevestigetradition.76AccordingtoCousins,themeetingofreligionsconstitutesoneof
72 73

Ibid.,72.

Ibid.,74.ElsewherePanikkarexplainsthatthisrepresentsacentralinsightofthisbook:Oneinsightmay beconsideredcentralinthepagesthatfollow:acosmotheandricandthusnondualisticvisionofreality (ibid.,xiv).

74 75 76

Frequentlyonepole(humanordivine)hasbeenstressedtotheexclusionoftheother. Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,75.

EwertH.Cousins,Christofthe21stCentury(Rockport,Mass.:Element,1992).Cousinsdiscussionof PanikkarbuildsuponanearlieressayentitledTheTrinityandWorldReligions,JournalofEcumenical Studies7(1970):47698.SimilardiscussionscanalsobefoundinEwertH.Cousins,Bonaventureandthe CoincidenceofOpposites(Chicago:FranciscanHeraldPress,1978),28184;idem,PanikkarsAdvaitic Trinitarianism,inTheInterculturalChallengeofRaimonPanikkar,ed.JosephPrabhu(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis Books,1996),11930;andidem,RaimundoPanikkarandtheChristianSystematicTheologyoftheFuture, CrossCurrents29(141155).OthershavefollowedCousinsinaffirmingthewayherelatesPanikkars

254

 themostimportantchallengesfacingcontemporarytheologyinaglobalizedworld. Thischallengecallsforanewkindofsystematictheologythatwillencompasswithin itshorizonsthereligiousexperienceofhumankind.77Cousinslamentsthefactthat Christiantheologianshavefocusedalmostexclusivelyonthequestionofdivine providenceinsalvationhistoryand,forthemostpart,havenotattemptedtoenterinto theuniquereligiousexperiencesofothertraditionsandrelatethesetotheChristian faith.78Toremedythissituation,theprimarydoctrinesoftheChristiantheology(e.g., Trinity,Christ,redemption)mustbeexploredinsuchawaythattheywillbeopento, inrelationwith,andenrichedbythereligiousexperienceofhumankind.79Thiscannot bedoneinanobjectivistmode.Christiantheologiansmustenterintothe subjectivityofotherreligions.Thisprocesswillleadtoanewkindoftheologya theologythatpossessesaglobalconsciousness.InthepastwhenChristian theologiansattemptedtoencompassabroaderreligioushorizon,theyfrequently appealedtoChristology.JustinMartyrrelatedChristianitytoGreekphilosophyby appealingtoChristastheeternalLogos.Similarly,ClementofAlexandriaclaimedthat
proposaltothevestigetradition.SeeWilliamCenkner,InterreligiousExplorationofTriadicReality:the PanikkarProject,Dialogue&Alliance4(1990):7185.CenknernotonlyfollowsCousinsreadingof PanikkarbutalsosearchesfortriadicstructureswithinChinesereligions.SeealsoAnneHunt,Trinity: NexusoftheMysteriesofChristianFaith,TheologyinGlobalPerspectiveSeries(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005), 15057.
77 78 79

Cousins,Christofthe21stCentury,77. Ibid.,77. Ibid.,78.

255

 PlatowasinfluencedbytheeternalLogos.AlthoughalogosChristologymayprovidea usefulpointofcontactwithwesternculture,itisnotparticularlyhelpfulinbuilding bridgestotheEast.Onthecontrary,twoofthemostimportantdoctrinesoftheEast(the BuddhistdoctrineofnirvanaandHindudoctrineofnondualityoftheselfandthe Absolute)arefundamentallyincompatiblewithlogosdoctrine.How,then,are ChristianstoenterintodialoguewiththeEast?ItisherethatPanikkarsproposal representsamajorbreakthroughinboththetheologyoftheTrinityandinterreligious dialogue,80arisingbothfromrichengagementwiththeChristiantheologicaltradition aswellasBuddhismandHinduism.UnlikeChristologicalapproacheswhichtendtobe imperialistic(reducingeveryreligiousexpressiontoasingleform),Panikkars trinitarianapproachembracesdiversity:TheTrinitarianmodelofpluralismisnota classmodel,inwhichallindividualshavetobefittedtogetherunderaleastcommon denominator;noritisanatomisticmodel,inwhichallindividualsremaineternally aloof;norisitaunitarymodel,inwhichallindividualsareabsorbedintoasingleone. Ratheritisamodelofunityindiversity,ofprofoundinterpenetrationandyet individualidentity.81AlthoughtheTrinityisaChristianconcept,itpossessesa

80 81

Ibid.,82. Ibid.,83.

256

 twofolduniversality.82First,itreflectscoreelementsofreligiousexperienceinsucha waythatakindoftrinitarianpatterncanbefoundinotherreligions.Second,itprovides anoverarchingpatternfortheunityoftheindividualspiritualattitudes.Withthe Trinityasamodel,Christianscanseethegreatspiritualtraditionsasdimensionsofeach other.83 WhilePanikkarsapproachoffersapluralisticmodelfordialogue,Cousins acknowledgesthatitraisessomeimportantquestions.Isit,heasks,aradicallynew approachtotheTrinity,ordoeshisapplicationofthedoctrinetotheworldreligions haveatleastsomeantecedentsintheChristiantradition?84Onecandiscerntwo trajectoriesinthehistoryoftrinitarianthought:(1)arestrictivetrajectorythatlimitsthe workoftheTrinitytothesalvificactionoftheSonandSpiritand(2)auniversalizing trajectorythatconnectstheTrinitytheentireuniverseincreationandthroughout history.85IfPanikkarsproposalissituatedagainstthebackdropofthreeuniversalizing currentsinthehistoryofTrinitariantheology,namely,themedievalvestigedoctrine, thetrinitariandoctrineofcreationintheearlyGreekFathersandthescholasticdoctrine ofappropriations,itcanbeseentoharmonizewitheachofthemandatthesametime
82 83 84 85

Ibid.,83. Ibid.,83. Ibid.,85. Ibid.,85.

257

 todraweachintoanewlevel.86Inthediscussionthatfollows,IwillfocusonCousins attempttosituatePanikkarsproposalwithinthecontextofthevestigetradition. AlthoughvestigedoctrinehasrootsintheEast,Cousinsexplainsthatit flourishedprimarilyinwesternmedievalthought:Basingtheirpositiononthe metaphysicsofexemplarism,inheritedfromPlatonism,theologiansreasonedthatif,as Christianrevelationteaches,thefirstcauseofallthingsisTrinitarian,thenitsTrinitarian stampmusthavebeenleftonthephysicaluniverseandhumanbeings.87Thus,by contemplatingtheuniverse,ChristianscancometoknowmoredeeplythetriuneGod, eveninthesmallparticleofmatter.RobertGrosseteste,forexample,contemplatedthe Trinityinaspeckofdust.Aspeckofdustcomesintobeingbyagreatpower. Therefore,itreflectstheFather.88Second,becausethisspeckhasform,itreflectsthe SonwhoisthewisdomandimageoftheFather.89Finally,becausethespeckisuseful forcontemplation,itreflectstheSpirit.90Hence,thepower,wisdomandgoodness reflectedinaspeckofdustrepresentavestigeoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit.
86 87

Ibid.,84. Ibid.,86.

88PowerbecameassociatedwiththeFatherinmedievalthoughtinlightofthefacttheFatheristhesource andoriginofdivinity.

Theformofthespeckreflectsthewisdombywhichitwasmade.Thus,itreflectstheSonwhoisboththe wisdomoftheFatherandtheimageoftheFather.
89

Again,inanancienttheologicaltradition,goodnessisassociatedwiththeSpiritsinceheisthefullness andcompletionoftheTrinityandtheGiftinwhomallgiftsaregiven.Cousins,Christofthe21stCentury, 86.

90

258

 ContemplationofthevestigesplaysacentralkeyroleinBonaventuresSoulJourneyinto God.Inthefirststageofthejourney,Bonaventureviewsthematerialuniverseasavast mirrorthatreflectstheFather,SonandHolySpirit.91Bonaventureinviteshisreadersto contemplatethewholeofcreationfromsevenperspectives:origin,fullness,multitude, beauty,fullness,activityandorder.Fromeachangleofvision,heseestheuniverse manifestingthepower,wisdomandgoodnessoftheTriuneGod.92Thisreflects BonaventuresconvictionthattheworldislikeabookinwhichtheTrinityshinesforth. Inthethirdstageofthesoulsjourney,Bonaventurecontemplatesthedivineimagein thehumanpersonviewingthesoulasamirrorinwhichtheTrinityisreflected.93God shinesinsoulasthelightoftruth.Throughthemirrorofthesoul(specificallyinthe mentalactivitiesofmemory,understandingandlove)onecanglimpsethreecoeternal, coequalandconsubstantialpersons.94Onefinalexampleofthemedievalvestige traditioncanbeseeninthewritingsofRichardofSt.Victor.BuildinguponAugustine, RicharddiscernsareflectionoftheTrinityinhumaninterpersonalcommunity.95 Cousinssuggeststhatalogicalprogressioncanbeseeninthevestigetradition: movementfromcontemplationofaspeckofdustinGrossetestetocontemplationofthe
91 92 93 94 95

Ibid.,87. Ibid.,87. Ibid.,88. Ibid.,88. Ibid.,88.

259

 entireuniverseinBonaventureaswellasmovementfromthehumansoulasimageof theTrinity(Bonaventure)tointerpersonalcommunityasareflectionoftheTrinity (RichardofSt.Victor).Insuchacontext,

Itisnotamajorstep,then,torisetothelargerhumancommunityandtakeinto accountitshistoricaldevelopmenttothepointofitshighestspiritual achievement.Atthislevelitwouldnotbesurprising,then,todiscover,as Panikkardoes,areflectionoftheFather,SonandSpirit.Toextendthevestige traditionintothesphereofreligionandphilosophyisnotwithoutprecedentin Christiantheology.Fromtheearlycenturies,Christiantheologiansexplored whattheyconsideredtobetheforeshadowingoftheTrinityintheOld TestamentandthereflectionoftheTrinityinGreekphilosophy....Atthe presenttime,iftheChristiansaretoexpandtheirhorizonsbeyondthe MediterraneanworldandrelateChristianitytoalargerspectrumofhuman experiencethanisfoundinJudaismandGreekphilosophy,itwouldnotbe inappropriatetoencompasswithinthisvestigedoctrinehumankindsreligious experienceasthishasdevelopedinitshighestforms.96

InthiscontextCousinssuggeststhatoneshouldviewvariousPanikkarsthreeformsof spirituality(iconolatry,personalism,mysticism)asavestigiumtrinitatis.Byexplicitly connectingPanikkarsproposaltothevestigetradition,Cousinsprovidesanimportant cluetounderstandingPanikkar.FollowingCousinsclue,wewillexamineAugustines searchforreflectionsoftheTrinityincreationandthenusetheresultsofour investigationtoevaluatePanikkarsproposal.

Ibid.,88.Inthelastsentenceinthisquotation,Cousinsoffersaninterestingqualificationtohisproposed extensionofthevestigetradition.Hesuggeststhatthetraditionencompasshumankindsreligious experienceasthishasdevelopedinitshighestforms.Itisnotentirelyclearwhatformsofreligious expressionwouldbeexcluded.

96

260

5.2 Augustine on the Vestigia Trinitatis

InBooksVIIIXVofDeTrinitateAugustinesearchesforreflectionsoftheTrinity inthehighestfunctionsofthehumansoul.PerhapsnopartofDeTrinitatehasbeenthe subjectofgreatermisunderstandingthanthesebooks.97Itisimportanttorecognizethat threeelementsprovideacrucialbackdropforAugustinessearch:hisquesttoknow God,ScripturalteachingabouttheTrinity,andtheredemptiveworkofChrist.98 ThesecondhalfofDeTrinitateshouldnotbereadasanabstracttreatiseon theologicalanthropology.ItrepresentsavitalsearchtoknowandunderstandtheGod inwhomAugustinebelieves.99Psalm105:34[104:34,LXX]providestheimpetusfor AugustinessearchwithitsinvitationtoseekcontinuallythefaceofGod.Augustine explicitlycitesthistextatthebeginningofBookI,100thebeginningofBookIXwhenhe

97LewisAyressuggeststhatourdifficultyinunderstandingthesebooksisrootedinthefactthatthey involveaconflationofgenresaswellasthefactthattheypossessaconsciouslyexperimentalcharacter. SeeAyres,AugustinesTrinitarianTheology(forthcoming),chaptersix.

ThesebooksalsoserveapolemicalpurposeinasmuchasAugustinehasnotforgottenabouttheLatin HomoiantheologianswithwhomhewrestlesinBooksIVII.
98 99

SeeCooper,TheBasicPhilosophicalandTheologicalNotionsofSaintAugustine,94(italicsoriginal).

Accordingly,dearreader,wheneveryouareascertainaboutsomethingasIamgoforwardwithme; wheneveryoustickequallyfastwithme;wheneveryounoticethatyouhavegonewrongcomebacktome; orthatIhave,callmebacktoyou.InthiswayletussetoutalongCharityStreettogether,makingforhimof whomitissaid,Seekhisfacealways(Ps105:4).Thiscovenant,bothprudentandpious,Iwouldwishtoenter intointhesightoftheLordourGodwithallwhoreadwhatIwrite,andwithrespecttoallmywritings, especiallysuchasthesewhereweareseekingtheunityofthethree,ofFatherandSonandHolySpirit. Augustine,DeTrin.I.5,68.

100

261

 initiateshisquestfortheimageofGodinthemens101andattheendofhisinvestigation inBookXV.102Healsoalludestothistextatnumerousotherpoints.103Augustineinvites hisreaderstojoinhiminthisquesttoseekthefaceofGod.104Reflectingonhisobjective atthebeginningofBookXV,heexplainsthathisplanhasbeentotrainthereaderin thethingsthathavebeenmade(Rom1:20),forgettingtoknowhimbywhomtheywere made...105AugustinespecificallyinviteshisreaderstocontemplatethetriuneGod

Atrinityiscertainlywhatwearelookingfor,andnotanykindoftrinityeitherbuttheonethatGodis, thetrueandsupremeandonlyGod.Waitforitthen,whoeveryouarethatarelisteningtothis;wearestill looking,andnoonecanfairlyfindfaultwithsomeonewhoislookingforsuchthingsasthis,providedthat inlookingforsomethingsodifficulteithertoknowortoexpress,heremainsabsolutelyfirminfaith.... LookforGod,itsays,andyoursoulsshalllive;andincaseanyoneshouldbetooquicktocongratulatehimself thathehasgotthere,lookforhisface,itgoeson,always(Ps105:4).Augustine,DeTrin.IX.1,270.

101

TheGodhimselfwearelookingforwillhelpus,Iconfidentlyhope,togetsomefruitfromourlabors andtounderstandthemeaningofthetextintheholypsalm,LettheheartofthosewhoseektheLordrejoice;seek theLordandbestrengthened;seekhisfacealways(Ps105:3).Augustine,DeTrin.XV.2,395.

102

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.I.31;II.1;VIII.14;XV.3;XV.13andXV.51.Onestrikingexamplecanbefoundin hisclosingprayer:DirectingmyattentiontowardthisruleoffaithasbestIcould,asfarasyouenabledme to,IhavesoughtyouanddesiredtoseeintellectuallywhatIhavebelieved,andIhavearguedmuchand toiledmuch.OLordmyGod,myonehope,listentomelestoutofwearinessIshouldstopwantingtosee you,butletmeseekyourfacealways,andwithardor.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.51,436.

103

AyressuggeststhatinhismatureworkAugustineemploysthelanguageofascent(oftenwithreference toPsalmsofAscent)asawayofdescribingtheascentofaChristianshearttoGod.Inthecontextofascent, Augustineadaptstheelementsoftheliberalartstradition:AgainstthisbackgroundIsuggestweviewthe latterbooksoftheDetrinitate,first,asrepresentingastageorseriesofstagesinhisdevelopingconsideration ofhow(intellectuallytrained)Christiansmayadaptandrethinkthetechniquesoftheliberalartstradition withinthecontextofAugustinesmatureunderstandingofconfession,graceandtheroleoffaith.Ayres, AugustinesTrinitarianTheology(forthcoming),chaptersix.

104

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.1,395.IfPsalm105:34explainsthemotiveofAugustinessearch,Romans1:20 informsthemethodologyforhissearch.InadditiontoBookXV,AugustinecitesRomans1:20atseveralkey points:De.Trin.II.25;IV.21;VI.12andXIII.24.

105

262

 throughthedivineimageinthemenswhichhebelieveshasbeencreatedintheimageof theTrinity.106 ScripturalteachingabouttheTrinityalsoprovidesanimportantbackdropfor Augustinessearch.InBooksVIIIXVAugustineisnotattemptingtoofferarational prooffortheTrinityunaidedbyrevelation.Onthecontrary,hebelievesthatGodis triuneonthebasisofScripture(asreadthroughtheruleoffaith)andwantsto understandthisbelief,insofarasthisishumanlypossible.AsA.N.Williamsrightly notes,Thevestigia,then,areatoolforpenetratingbeliefandgraspingityetmorefully, notameansforestablishingthecontentoffaithindependentlyof,orpriorto, Scripture.107ThecentralityofScriptureinhissearchcanbeseeninthreeways.First,it ishisreadingofScripturethatpromptsAugustinetoseetheimageofGodinthe humansoulastrinitarian.Second,itisscripturalteachingabouttheTrinity,asnarrated inthefirsthalfofDeTrinitate,thatprovidestheblueprintforthetrinitarianimageinthe mens.108Finally,itisscripturalteachingabouttheTrinitythatprovidesthecriterionfor
Augustinemakesitclearthathumaneffortalonewillnotbeadequateforthistask:Letussearchinthis imageofGodforsomespecialtrinitythatissuigeneris,withthehelpofhimwhomadeustohisownimage. Withoutthathelpwecannotsafelyinvestigatethesemattersordiscoveranythingtodowiththewisdom thatcomesfromhim.Augustine,DeTrin.XIV.6,37475.
106

A.N.Williams,Contemplation:KnowledgeofGodinAugustinesDeTrinitate,inKnowingtheTriune God:TheWorkoftheSpiritinthePracticesoftheChurch,ed.JamesJ.BuckleyandDavidS.Yeago(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2001),123.

107

AsEdmundHillrightlynotes,Inthedogmaticsense,Augustinesdoctrineaboutthedivineprocessions hasalreadybeengiven;itisthedatumoforthodoxywhichheisinvestigatingthroughtheimageinorderto beabletounderstandorseeit.Hill,TheTrinity,65.Inlightofthis,Hillsuggeststhatitmightbebestto

108

263

 evaluatingtheviabilityofthevarioustrinitiesAugustinediscovers.Indescribing whyherejectstheideathatthetrinitarianimageofGodcanbefoundinthreepersons (specifically,theunionofamanandwomenandtheiroffspring),Augustineexplains, Thereasonthenwhywedislikethisopinionisnotthatweareafraidofthinkingabout inviolateandunchangingcharityasthewifeofGodtheFather,whocomesintobeing fromhim,thoughnotasoffspring,inordertobringtobirththeWordthroughwhomall thingsweremade(Jn1:3),butthatthedivinescriptureshowsquiteclearlythatitis false.109 TheredemptiveworkofChristconstitutesathirdbackdropforAugustines search.Heoffersadramaticaccountofthetrinitarianimageinthehumansoul.This becomesespeciallyclearinBooksXIIXIVwherehedescribestheeffacementofthe divineimagebysin(BookXII),therestorationoftheimagethroughtheworkofChrist (BookXIII)andthefutureperfectionofthedivineimage(BookXIV).110Thisrestoration
speakofAugustineconstructingthetrinitarianimageinthehumanperson(asopposedtomerely discoveringit)inasmuchhechoosespsychologicalactivitiestofitthelinguisticstandardshehasoutlined thefirsthalfofDeTrinitate(ibid.,54).
109

Augustine,DeTrin.XII.6,325.

ForahelpfuldiscussionoftheroleofChristologyinBookXIII,seeLewisAyres,TheChristological ContextofAugustinesDeTrinitateXIII:TowardRelocatingBooksVIIIXV,AugustinianStudies29(1998): 11139.AyresarguesthatAugustinesscientia/sapientiadistinctionmustbeunderstoodinthecontextofhis broaderChristologyparticularlythetwonaturesofChrist.Ayresalsoexplainsthatimportantlinksexist betweenBookXIIIandBookIV.InBookIVoftrin.Augustinelinkstogetherthefailureofpeopletograsp theunityanddistinctionofthetwonaturesinChristwithafailuretograspthatChristiansarenowbeing trainedbyandwithinthedramaofGodsredemptivedispensatiotomovebeyondtheirobsessionwiththe materialandthephysical.Intheearlybooksoftrin.moregenerally,onewhofailstounderstandthepro

110

264

 canonlybebroughtaboutbygrace.111AsAugustineexplainsinBookIV,Andinthe sixthageofthehumanracetheSonofGodcameandwasmadetheSonofmaninorder torefashionustotheimageofGod.112Conversionrepresentsthefirststepinthelife longprocessofrenewal.113WhenthesoulcomestotheperfectvisionofGod,itwill bearGodsperfectlikeness.114TheimageofGodisincreasinglyactualizedasthesoul remembers,understandsandlovesGod.Withthisbackgroundinmind,wewillexplore Augustinessearchingreaterdetail.

Nicenetheologyofthetwonaturesispresentedasalsofailingtograspthesortofreformationand redemptionwenowneedandasfailingtograspthestageofGodsdispensatioinwhichwenowfind ourselves.Theseargumentsaremadeagainstthebackgroundofanaccountoftheredemptivedramawhich clearlycharacterisesthepresentstageofhistoryas,first,markedbyChristsdrawingofChristianstothe Fatherthemembersofthe`bodybeingdrawntofollowtheir`headandsecond,ascharacterisedbythe exercitatiothatChristiansindividuallyandcorporatelymustundergoinChrist(ibid.,134). SeeAugustine,DeTrin.XIV,21,387.ForAugustine,thepossibilityofthequestforGodmustultimately failunlessitisinitiated,motivatedandenabledbyGodhimself.Thisisthereasonforhisemphasison grace.Commandwhatthouwilt,butgivewhatthoucommandest.Grace,forAugustine,isafreegift.It isentirelyunmeritedbyman,andcannotbewonfromGodbutonlyhumblyreceived....Thisgraceis chieflyseeninthecentraleventofallhistory,theIncarnationofJesusChrist.Bythismeans,ofGod becomingflesh,sufferinganddyingontheCross,andtriumphingoverdeathintheResurrection,every manthatGodcalls(i.e.towhomHegivesgrace)canbesaved,thatis,cancompletethequestandcometo restinGod.Cooper,TheBasicPhilosophicalandTheologicalNotionsofSaintAugustine,96.
111 112 113

Augustine,DeTrin.IV.7,158.

Tobesure,thisrenewaldoesnothappeninonemomentofconversion,asthebaptismalrenewalbythe forgivenessofallsinshappensinamoment,sothatnotevenonetinysinremainsunforgiven.Butitisone thingtothrowoffafever,anothertorecoverfromtheweaknesswhichthefeverleavesbehindit;itisone thingtoremovefromthebodyamissilestuckinit,anothertohealthewounditmadewithacompletecure. Thefirststageofthecureistoremovethecauseofdebility,andthisisdonebypardoningallsin;thesecond stageiscuringthedebilityitself,andthisisdonegraduallybymakingsteadyprogressintherenewalofthis image.Augustine,DeTrin.,XIV.23,389. Augustine,DeTrin.XIV.23,390.ThetwobiblicaltextsthatshapeAugustinesunderstandingofthis processare2Corinthians3:18and1John3:2.

114

265

 Fundamentally,itisAugustinesdoctrineofcreationthatpromptshimtosearch fortracesofthetriuneGodinthefunctioningofthesoul.Heclaimsthateverything increationbearsacertainlikenesstoitscreator:

Isthereanything,afterall,thatdoesnotbearalikenesstoGod(similitudinemDei) afteritsownkindandfashion,seeingthatGodmadeallthingsverygoodforno otherreasonthanthathehimselfissupremelygood?Insofarthenasanythingas isgood,tothatextent,itbearssomelikeness,eventhoughaveryremoteone,to thehighestgood,andifthisisanaturallikenessitisofcoursearightandwell orderedlikeness;itisfaulty,thenofcourseitisasordidandpervertedone....It istruethatnoteverythingincreationwhichislike(simile)Godinsomewayor anotherisalsotobecalledhisimage(imago),butonlythatwhichhealoneis higherthan.Thatalonereceiveshisdirectimprint(exprimitur)whichhasno othernatureinterposedbetweenhimanditself.115

Thereareseveralthingsweshouldobserveinthisextendedstatement.First,thescope ofthislikeness(similitudo)toGodisuniversal,reachingtoallofcreation.Second, goodnessconstitutesthepointofconnectionbetweenGodandcreation.Insofaras somethingisgood,itbearssomelikenesstoGod.Third,thislikenessobtainseven undertheconditionofsin.Finally,Augustineidentifiesvaryingdegreesoflikeness withincreation.Thiscanbeseenclearlyinhisdistinctionbetweenlikeness (similitudo)andimage(imago).Althougheverythingthatisgoodincreationbears somesimilitudetoGod,noteverythingthatisgoodbearsGodsimage.Thedivine image,whichalonereceiveshisdirectimprint,bearsauniquelikenesstotheTrinity.

115

Augustine,DeTrin.XI.8,310.

266

 AsthesecondhalfofDeTrinitateunfolds,itbecomesclearthatAugustines interestdoesnotliewiththevestigiaingeneral(i.e.,thesenseinwhichvariousfacetsof creationbearalikenesstothetriuneGod)butalmostexclusivelywiththedivine imageinthemensasitreflectsalbeitdimlythedivineprocessions.116That Augustinesinterestlieswiththedivineimagebecomesquiteclearwhenonecompares therelativefrequencyofvestigiumandimago.VestigiumoccursonlytentimesinDe Trinitatewhileimagooccursalmosttwohundredfiftytimes.117Furthermore,oftheten occurrencesofvestigium,onlytwooccurrencesareusedinreferencetothetriuneGod. TheclearestexampleofthelatterusewouldbethefollowingstatementinBookVI:So then,aswedirectourgazeatthecreatorbyunderstandingthethingsthatweremade(Rom 1:20),weshouldunderstandhimastriad,whosetraces(vestigium)118appearincreation inawaythatisfitting.119Thus,althoughAugustinebelievesthatallcreationinsome
AhelpfuldiscussionofthedivineimageinAugustinestheologycanbefoundinJohnE.Sullivan,The ImageofGod:theDoctrineofSt.AugustineanditsInfluence(Dubuque:PrioryPress,1963).
116

ThesenumbersweregeneratedusingthesearchengineintheLibraryofLatinTexts(CLCLT),(Turnhout: BrepolsPublishers,2005).www.brepolis.net;accessedon3/14/2006.
117

AlthoughtheLatintextusesthesingularformvestigium,Hilltranslatesvestigiumasapluralnouninhis Englishtranslation.
118 119Augustine,DeTrin.VI.12,213.TheotherexamplecanbefoundinBookXI:Noonewilldoubtthatjust astheinnermanisendowedwithunderstanding,soistheoutermanwithsensation.Letustrythenifwe cantopickoutsometraceoftrinity(vestigiumTrinitatis)inthisoutermantoo.Notthatheisalsotheimage ofGod(imagoDei)inthesamewayastheinnerman;theapostlesverdictisquiteclearwhichdeclaresthat itistheinnermanwhoisbeingrenewedfortherecognitionofGodaccordingtotheimageofhimwhocreatedhim (Col3:10);sinceelsewherehesays,Evenifouroutermanisdecaying,theinnermanisbeingrenewedfromdayto day(2Cor4:16).Asbestwecanthenletuslookforsomemodelofthetrinityinthismanwhoisdecaying; evenifitisnotamoreaccuratemodel,itmayperhapsbeeasiertodistinguish.Augustine,DeTrin.XI.1,

267

 wayreflectstheTrinity,herestrictshissearchforreflectionsoftheTrinitytothehighest pointincreationtheimageofGodinthehumanmind(mens).120 AugustinesbeliefthatareflectionofthetriunityofGodcanbefoundinthe divineimageinthemensisrootedinhisreadingofGenesis1:2627.Itwillbehelpfulto beginwithamisreadingofGenesis1:2627atleastamisreadingfromAugustines perspective.ItwascommonPatristicpracticetoreadthephraseGodcreatedmanin hisimage(1:27a)astheFathercreatedhumanbeingsintheimageoftheSon.121 Augustinerejectsthisreadingandstrikesoutinadifferentdirection.Noticehowhe readsthepronounourinGenesis1:27inatrinitarianfashion:

GodsaidLetusmakemantoourimageandlikeness(Gn1:26),andalittlelateronit adds,AndGodmademantotheimageofGod(Gn1:27).Our,beingpluralin number,couldnotberightinthisplaceifmanweremadetotheimageofone person,whetheroftheFatherortheSonortheHolySpirit;butbecauseinfacthe wasmadeintheimageofthetrinity,itsaidtoourimage.122

303.SullivanexplainsthatAugustinesassumptionthatcreationingeneralpossessesakindoftrinitarian stampisrootedinatrinitarianreadingofRomans11:36andWisdom11:20.SeeSullivan,ImageofGod,87 89.

120InotherwordsAugustineisnotreallyinterestedinfindingavestigiumtrinitatisbutratherimagotrinitatis. SeeAugustine,DeTrin.XII.5,324. 121 122

SeeSullivan,ImageofGod,165203. Augustine,DeTrin.XII.6,325.

268

 ForAugustine,thepronounourimpliesthathumanbeingshavebeencreatedinthe imageofthethreepersonsoftheTrinitynotjusttheimageoftheSonasanumberof earlierinterpretershadproposed.123 ReadingGenesis1:2627alongsideseveralNewTestamenttexts(includingEph. 4:23andCol.3:910),Augustineconcludesthatthedivineimagemustexistinthemind: Afterall,theauthorityoftheapostleaswellasplainreasonassuresusthatmanwas notmadetotheimageofGodasregardstheshapeofhisbody,butasregardshis rationalmind(rationalismens).124Whythemindaslocusoftheimage?Augustine believedthatsoul,ormorespecificallymind(mens),representsthehighestaspectof humannature.125Amongcreatedthings,itisthemostlikeGod.126Second,Augustine
Commentingontheworkofpastinterpreters,Augustineexplains,Whattheyareintendingtherebyisto vindicatetheclaimthattheSontooiscalledGodintheholyscriptures,asthoughtherewerenoother perfectlyplainandreliabletextsinwhichtheSonisnotmerelycalledGodbutalsotrueGod.Asforthis textwhichtheyproduceasevidence,whiletheysetaboutsolvingoneproblemwithit,theygetthemselves sotiedupinanotherthattheycannotextricatethemselves.IftheFather,asyousee,mademantotheimage oftheSoninsuchawaythatmanisnottheFathersimagebutonlytheSons,thentheSonisunlikethe Father.Butifdevoutfaithteaches,asitindeeddoes,thattheSonisliketheFathertothepointofbeinghis equalinbeing,thenwhateverismadetothelikenessoftheSonmustalsobemadetothelikenessofthe Father.Finally,iftheFatherdidnotmakemantohisownimagebuttotheSons,whydidhenotsayLetus makemantoyourimageandlikenessinsteadofsayingour?Thereasonmustbethatitwastheimageof thetrinitythatwasbeingmadeinman,andthisishowmanwouldbetheimageoftheonetrueGod,since thetrinityitselfistheonetrueGod.Augustine,DeTrin.XII.7,325.
123

Augustine,DeTrin.XII.12,32829.Withregardtotheauthorityoftheapostle,Augustinecites Ephesians4:23andColossians3:9andthenadds,Ifthenwearebeingrenewedinthespiritofourmind, andifitisthisnewmanwhoisbeingrenewedfortherecognitionofGodaccordingtheimageofhimwho createdhim,therecanbenodoubtthatmanwasnotmadetotheimageofhimwhocreatedhimasregards hisbodyoranyoldpartofhisconsciousness,butasregardstherationalmind,whichiscapableof recognizingGod.Augustine,DeTrin.XII.12,329.

124 125

Mensiscommonlytranslatedmind;however,ithasamuchbroadersemanticrangeinLatin.

269

 explainsthatsomethingthatismadeinGodsimagemustnotbeperishable:So whateveritisthatmustbecalledtheimageofGod,itmustbefoundinsomethingthat willalwaysbe,andnotintheretention,contemplation,andloveoffaith,whichwillnot alwaysbe.127Finally,theimageofGodinvolvesthecapacitytoknowGodacentral capacityofthemens.Itisimportant,however,tobearinmindthatbeingmadeinGods imagedoesnotimplyanykindofequalitywithGod.128 Armedwiththeconvictionthatthedivineimageexistsinthemindandmust reflectthethreepersons,Augustinecommenceshissearchforcreatedreflectionsofthe Trinity.Althoughheexploresanumberoftrinitiesintheinnermanandtheouter man,129themostimportanttrinityheidentifiesisthementaltriadofmemory
Foralthoughthehumanmind(menshumana)isnotofthesamenatureasGod(illiusnaturaecuiusest Deus),stilltheimage(imago)ofthatnaturethanwhichnonatureisbetteristobesoughtandfoundinthat partofusthanwhichournaturealsohasnothingbetter.Augustine,DeTrin.XIV.11,379.
126 127 128

Augustine,DeTrin.XIV.4,372.

AccordingtoAugustine,thephrasetotheimageofGod(adimaginemDei)inGenesis1:27impliesboth similarityanddissimilarityinrelationtoGod:ButthatimageofGodwasnotmadeinanysenseequal, beingcreatedbyhim,notbornofhim;sotomakethispointheisimageinsuchawayastobetothe image;thatis,heisnotequatedinperfectparitywithGod,butapproacheshiminacertainsimilarity.... ButasIsaid,manissaidtobetotheimage(adimaginem)becauseofthedisparityofhislikenesstoGod, andtoourimagetoshowthatmanistheimageofthetrinity;notequaltothetrinityastheSonisequalto theFather,butapproachingitashasbeensaidbyacertainlikeness,asonecantalkofacertainproximity betweenthingsdistantfromeachother,notproximityofplacebutofasortofimitation.Augustine,De Trin.VII.12,231. InBookVIIIAugustineintroducesthetriadoflover,belovedandlove.InBookIXhesuggeststhe possibilityofmind,selfknowledgeandselflove.InBookXheoutlineshismostimportanttriad:memory, understandingandwill.InBookXIheexploresatriadintheouterman,namely:memory,internalsight andwill.ClearlynoteverytrinityAugustinediscoversisanimageoftriuneGod.Forexample,allthe trinitieshediscoverswithinthelowerfunctionsofthehumanpsycheareexcludedfrombeingthe imageofGod.
129

270

 (memoria),understanding(intelligentia)andwill(voluntas).130Heintroducesthistriadin BookXandreturnstoitinBookIV.Whatdoesthistriadrevealifunderstoodasa reflectionofthetriuneGod?ItishelpfultorememberthatAugustineislookingfor trinitiesinthefunctionsofthemindthatwillrevealtheprocessionshehasoutlinedin partone.Noticehowhissummaryofthefunctionsofmemory,understandingandwill andparallelshisearlierdiscussionoftheprocessions:

Thesethreethen,memory(memoria),understanding(intellegentia),andwill (voluntas),arenotthreelivesbutonelife,northreemindsbutonemind(una mens).Soitfollowsofcoursethattheyarenotthreesubstancesbutone substance(unasubstantia).Whenmemoryiscalledlife,andmind,andsubstance, itiscalledsowithreferencetoitself;butwhenitiscalledmemoryitiscalledso withreferencetoanother.Icansaythesameaboutunderstandingandwill;both understandingandwillaresocalledwithreferencetoanother.Buteachofthem islifeandmindandbeingwithreferencetoitself.Forthisreasonthesethreeare oneinthattheyareonelife,onemind,onebeing;andwhateverelsetheyare calledtogetherwithreferencetoself,theyarecalleditinthesingular,notinthe plural.Buttheyarethreeinthattheyhavereferencetoeachother.Andifthey werenotequal,notonlyeachtotheotherbutalsoeachtothemalltogether,they wouldnotofcoursecontaineachother.131

InthislengthypassageweseethepotentialpayoffofAugustinesinvestigation.His investigationofthedivineimageinthemenspotentiallyshedslightonthewayinwhich thethreepersonsoftheTrinityaredistinctyetalsoone.Memory,understandingand

ForahelpfuldiscussionofthistriadinBookXanditsbackgroundinLatinthought,seeAyres, AugustinesTrinitarianTheology(forthcoming),chapterseven.AccordingtoAyres,Augustinecreatively adaptsCicerostriadofmemoria,intelligentiaandprovidentia.Augustineabandonsprovidentiabecause humanshavenoabilitytoforeseethefuture.ForAugustine,Thetriadofmemoria,intellegentiaandvoluntas identifiesboththehumancapacityforattentiontotheGodinwhoselightallgoodactionmustoccur,and alsotheconstantactivityofthemindasadesiringbeingmovingtowardsorawayfromtheCreator(ibid.).
130 131

Augustine,DeTrin.X.18,298.

271

 will(respectivelyrepresentingFather,SonandHolySpirit)areeachdistinct,yettheyare alsoonemind(correspondingtotheonenatureofthetriuneGod).JustastheFatheris calledGodwithrespecttothedivinenature,somemoryiscalledmindwithrespect tothewhole.JustastheFatheriscalledFatherwithrespecttotheSon,somemoryis calledmemorywithrespecttounderstanding.Thistriadalsoshedslightonthe processions.Onemightunderstandmemoryasthemindsselfpresence.132One remembersoneselfviathisselfpresence.Oncethemindisactivated,thisselfpresence generatesanactofunderstandingthroughamentalword.133AsEdmundHill explains,fromthesetwoconjoint,coextensive,conmentalactsofmindingme,andme sayingmetomyself,thereissuesthethirdcoextensive,conmentalact,asitwerejoining togetherquasiparent,andquasioffspring,ofmelikingme,mewillingme,self willing.134 AtthispointitmaysoundasifAugustineisquiteoptimisticregardingtheextent towhichthedivineimageinthemensreflectstheTrinitythatGodis.Wemustconclude ourdiscussionbyconsideringtwocrucialqualificationstotheprecedingdiscussion. First,inBookXIVAugustineexplainsthatthedivineimageisactualizedonlyinthe contextofredemption:ThistrinityofthemindisnotreallytheimageofGodbecause
132 133 134

HereIamfollowingEdmundHillssummary.SeeHill,TheTrinity,53. Ibid.,53. Ibid.,5354.

272

 themindremembersandunderstandsandlovesitself,butbecauseitisalsoableto rememberandunderstandandlovehimbywhomitwasmade.135Theabilitytosee Godisdirectlylinkedtotherenewingoftheimage.136Second,despitethenumerous similaritiesheidentifiesinearlierbooks,Augustineinsiststhatanenormous differenceexistsbetweenthetriadinthemensandtheTrinitywhichGodis.137Thus, aligningmemory,understandingandwillwithFather,SonandHolySpiritisultimately problematic.Humansremembernothingapartfromtheirmemory,understandnothing apartfromtheirunderstandingandlovenothingapartfromtheirwill.Butwhowould wanttosaythattheFatheronlyunderstandsthroughtheSonoronlylovesthroughthe HolySpirit?Furthermore,whowouldwanttosaythattheSononlyremembershimself throughtheFather?Moreover,whowouldwanttosaythattheHolySpiritremembers theFatherthroughtheFatherorunderstandstheFatheronlythroughtheSon?Ifthe SonaloneisthesourceofunderstandingthenwearebackattheabsurdityoftheFather

Augustinecontinues,Andwhenitdoesthisitbecomeswise.Ifitdoesnotdoit,theneventhoughit remembersandunderstandsandlovesitself,itisfoolish.LetitthenrememberitsGodtowhoseimageit wasmade,andunderstandandlovehim.Toputitinaword,letitworshiptheuncreatedGod,bywhomit wascreatedwithacapacityforhimandabletoshareinhim.Inthiswayitwillbewisenotwithitsown lightbutbysharinginthatsupremelight,anditwillreigninhappinesswhereitreignseternal.Augustine, DeTrin.XIV.15,383.

135

Sothen,whenthisimageisrenewedtoperfectionbythistransformation,wewillbelikeGodbecausewe shallseehim,notthroughamirrorbutasheis(1Jn3:2);whattheapostlePaulcallsfacetoface(1Cor13:12). Augustine,DeTrin.XV.21,411.

136 137

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.12,403.

273

 notbeingwisewithhimselfbutwiththeSonaproblemAugustinealreadydealtwith inBooksVVII.138 Attherootofthevastdissimilaritybetweenthedivineimageinthemensandthe TrinityistheCreator/creaturedistinctionwhichAugustinearticulatesthrougha grammarofdivinesimplicity(ordivineimmateriality).139Whilehumanshavememory, understandingandwill,thesefacultiesexistinthehumanbeingwithoutbeingthe humanbeing.ButcanwepossiblysaythatatrinityisinGodinsuchawaythatitis somethingofGods,andisnotitselfjustGod?140Thelogicofdivinesimplicity demandsthatweanswerthisquestioninthenegative.Whileahumanbeinghasthe imageofGod,thattrinityheistheimageofisnothingbutwhollyandsimplyGod, nothingbutwhollyandsimplytrinity.NoristhereanythingbelongingtoGodsnature whichdoesnotbelongtothattrinity;andtherearethreepersonsofonebeing,not,like anysingleman,justoneperson.141 Whatdoesthismeanfortheepistemicadequacyofthetriadofmemory, understandingandwillinrevealingthetriunityofGod?Ontheonehand,itmeansthat thetrinitywhichisGodcannotjustbereadofffromthosethreethingswhichwehave
138 139 140 141

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.12,403. SeeAyres,NicaeaanditsLegacy,36483. Augustine,DeTrin.XV.12,403. Augustine,DeTrin.XV.12,403.

274

 pointedoutinthetrinityofourminds.142Furthermore,becauseanyofthedivine perfectionsonecaninferthroughcreationareidenticalwiththedivineessence,itis impossibletodescrydirectlythetriunityofGodthroughcreationintermsofRomans 1:20.143Ontheotherhand,Augustinebelievesthatonecandimlyperceivethetriunity ofGodthroughthedivineimageinthemens.1441Corinthians13:12provideslanguage thatAugustineusestoexpressthisindirectapprehensionofthetriuneGodthroughthe image:Weseenowthroughamirror(speculum)inanenigma(aenigmate),butthenitwill befacetoface(1Cor13:12).145Augustinefocusesontwokeytermsinthistext:speculum andaenigma.Reading2Corinthians3:18alongside1Corinthians13:12,Augustine

142 143

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.28,419.

SeeAugustine,DeTrin.XV.613,399405.Afteracknowledgingthattheuniversalnatureofthingswhich surroundsus,towhichwetoobelong,proclaimsthatithasamostexcellentfounder,Augustineidentifies theprobleminapplyingthistoGodstriunity.AnyoftheattributesoftheTrinitywecaninfer,applytoall thepersons:ButallthisthatIhavesaid,andanythingelsethatinasimilarlyhumanwayofspeakingmay beregardedassuitabletosayaboutGod,fitsboththewholetrinitywhichtheoneGodisandeachofthe personsinthistrinity.WillanyonedaretosaythateithertheoneGod,whichiswhatthistriadis,orthe FatherortheSonortheHolySpiritdoesnotlive,ordoesnotsenseorunderstandanything,orthatanyof thosewhoareassertedtobeequalinthatnatureismortalorcorruptibleorchangeableorcorporeal?Will anyonedenythatanyofthemthereinthedivinesphereismostpowerful,justandbeautiful,superlatively goodandhappy?Ifthenallthesethingscanbesaidbothaboutthetrinityitselfandeachpersoninit,where orhowwilltrinitybedisclosed?Augustine,DeTrin.XV.7,399400. Asfaraswecould,wehavealsousedthecreationwhichGodmadetoremindthosewhoaskfor reasonsinsuchmattersthatasfarastheycantheyshoulddescryhisinvisiblethingsbyunderstanding themthroughthethingsthataremade,andespeciallythroughtherationalorintellectualcreaturewhichis madetotheimageofGod;sothatthroughthis,asakindofmirror,asfarastheycanandiftheycan,they mightperceiveinourmemory,understandingandwillthatGodisatrinity.Anyonewhohasalively intuitionofthesethree(asdivinelyestablishedinthenatureofhismind)andofhowgreatathingitisthat hismindhasthatbywhicheventheeternalandunchangingnaturecanberecalled,beheldanddesiredit isrecalledbymemory,beheldbyintelligence,embracedbylovehastherebyfoundtheimageofthat supremetrinity.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.39,426.
144 145

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.14,405.

275

 suggeststhatthemirrorin1Corinthians13:12maybestbeunderstandasareference totheimageofGod:Ifweaskwhatkindofmirror(speculum)thismightbe,thethought occurstousthattheonlythingeverseeninamirror(inspeculo)isanimage(imago).So whatwehavebeentryingtodoissomehowseehimbywhomweweremadebymeans ofhisimage(perimaginem)whichweourselvesare,asthroughamirror(tamquamper speculum).146Thetermaenigmaexpressestheopaquecharacterofthisimage.147Thus, thebestwecanhopeforinthislifeisakindoflimitedinferencefromthisenigmatic likeness.148Fullsightwillcomeonlywhentherestorationoftheimageiscomplete andChristiansseeGodfacetoface.149

146 147

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.14,405.

AsfarasIcanseethen,bythewordmirror(speculi)hewantedustounderstandanimage(imaginem), andbythewordenigma(aenigmatis)hewasindicatingthatalthoughitisalikeness(similitudinem),itisan obscureoneanddifficulttopenetrate(adperspiciendumdifficilem).Nowwecanindeedtakeitthatbytheuse ofthewordsmirrorandenigma(speculietaenigmatis)theapostlemeantanylikenesses(similitudines)that areusefulforunderstandingGodwith,asfarasthisispossible;butofsuchlikenessesnoneismoresuitable thantheonewhichisnotcalledGodsimage(imago)fornothing.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.16,407. Augustine,DeTrin.XV.40,427.AugustineseemstosuggestthatevidenceforthetriunityofGod, howeverlimited,isavailablebothtothosewhobelieveandtothosewhodonot.Some,whodonot believe,seethemirror(thedivineimageinthemens)butfailtoseebyamirrortheonewhonowcan onlybeseenbyamirror,[so]thattheydonotevenknowthemirrortheyseeisamirror,thatistosayan image.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.44,429.Iftheydidrecognizetheywereseeingamirror,theymight recognizetheonewhomthemirrorreflects:Faithunfeignedwouldbepurifyingtheirheartsinorderthat theonewhoisnowbeingseeninamirrormightonebedayseenfacetoface.Butbydespisingthisfaith thatpurifieshearts,whataretheydoinginunderstandingthenatureofthehumanmind,withtheirsubtle discussionsaboutit,butcondemningthemselvesontheveryevidenceoftheirownunderstanding? Augustine,DeTrin.XV.44,429.
148

Butwhenthesightcomesthatispromisedusfacetoface(1Cor13:12),weshallseethistrinitythatisnot onlyincorporealbutalsosupremelyinseparableandtrulyunchangeablemuchmoreclearlyanddefinitely thanwenowseeitsimagewhichweourselvesare.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.44,429.

149

276

5.3 An Evaluation of Panikkars Trinitarian Grammar

MyevaluationofPanikkarwillproceedfromtwoperspectives.First,following CousinssuggestionthatPanikkarsproposalbesituatedagainstthebackdropofvestige tradition,IwillofferanAugustinianevaluationofPanikkarsproposalthroughthelens ofthevestigetradition.Next,bracketingCousinsreading,IwillofferanAugustinian evaluationofPanikkarstrinitariandoctrinefocusingontherelationshipoftheeconomy andtheimmanentTrinity. 5.3.1 Flawed Appeal to the Vestige Tradition BysituatingPanikkarsproposalagainstthebackdropofthevestigetradition,150 CousinsprovidesanimportantclueforunderstandingPanikkarsproject;however, ratherthanstrengtheningthelatter,thismovehastheoppositeeffect.Insimplybrings theproblemswithPanikkarsprojectmoresharplyintofocus.
5.3.1.1 A Methodological Problem

AlthoughAugustineandPanikkarbothbelievethatthereflectionsoftheTrinity canbefoundintheworld,theirmethodologiesdiffersignificantly.Augustineinterprets createdreality(specificallythedivineimageinthemens)inlightofthedoctrineofthe

AtleasttwopointsofcontinuityexistbetweenPanikkarandthevestigetradition:(1)anassumptionthat theworldpossessesadiscernibletrinitarianstructureand(2)abeliefthataspecifichumanreality discerniblyreflectsthetrinitarianpersons.Atthesametime,severalimportantpointsofdiscontinuityexist whichmeritcarefulscrutiny.
150

277

 TrinityhehasgleanedfromScripture.Moreover,Augustinebelieveshepossesses scripturalwarrantforseeingaparticularcreatedreality(thedivineimageinthemens)as animageofthetriuneGod.Incontrast,PanikkarreinterpretsthedoctrineofTrinityin lightofnonChristianreligiousexperience.Onecanseethisquiteclearlyinthe structureofPanikkarsargument.First,heidentifiesthreespiritualitieswhicharesaid toarisepurelyfromanempiricalassessmentofreligiousexperience(independentof anyparticularreligioustradition).Thenheoffersanovelinterpretationofthedoctrine oftheTrinity,onthebasisofthesespiritualities,asconstitutivegroundforthem.By reinterpretingthedoctrineoftheTrinityonthebasisofnonChristianreligious experience,Panikkarviolatesthebasictheologicalgrammarofthevestigetraditionthat involvesreadingthebookoftheworldinlightofthebookofScripture.151 KarlBarthsdiscussionofthevestigiainChurchDogmaticsI/1helpsshedslighton theproblemwithPanikkarstrinitariangrammar.Barthinsiststhattherootofthe doctrineoftheTrinityisthethreefoldyetsinglelordshipofGodasFather,Sonand

IntheintroductiontoBonaventuresItinerariumMentisDei,StephenBrownexplainsthatthefirsttwo chaptersoftheItinerariumaredesignedtohelpthewayfarerrightlyunderstandsensiblethings(thatis,the vestiges)fromthehorizonofScripture:Beforethefallintosinmanhadaknowledgeofsensiblethingsand throughthemhewascarrieduptoGodtopraise,worshipandlovehim.Afterhefellmanlostthiskindof knowledge.Henolongercouldreadthebookoftheworld.ThebookofthesacredScripturestellsusagain thedivinemeaningofthesensiblethingsandisabletorestorethesymboliccharacteroftheworld,sothatit onceagainleadsustotheknowledge,praiseandloveofGod.StephenF.Brown,Bonaventure:TheJourneyof theMindtoGod,trans.PhilotheusBoehner(Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,1993),50.

151

278

 Spirit(i.e.,thebiblicalconceptofrevelation).152Whenwesaythatthedoctrineofthe Trinitygrowsfromthisrootwearesayingcriticallyandpolemicallythatitdoesnot stemfromanyotherroot.153Barthviewsthevestigetraditionaschallengingthissingle root.154Hiscritiqueofthevestigetraditionisdrivenbytheassumptionthatonceone positsasecondrootforthedoctrineoftheTrinity,thissecondrootwillinevitably swallowuptherealroot.InthelanguageofBarth,Panikkarimplicitlypositsa secondrootofthedoctrineoftheTrinity(nonChristianreligiousexperience)which swallowupstherealroot(GodsselfrevelationinScripture).Atthispoint,onemight raisethefollowingobjection.InasmuchasAugustineistheprogenitorofthevestige tradition,wouldnotBarthscriticismsapplyequallytohim?Barthscriticismswould applytoAugustinewerehetopositasecondrootforthedoctrineoftheTrinity; however,itisclearfromourpreviousdiscussionthatAugustinepositsasingleroot forthedoctrineoftheTrinityGodsselfrevelationinScripture.155Althoughimportant
152 153 154

Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,334. Ibid.,344.

Barthoffersthefollowinganalysisofthevestigetradition:Thisexpression(vestigiumtrinitatis)seemsto comefromAugustineanditmeansananalogueoftheTrinity,ofthetrinitarianGodofChristianrevelation, insomecreaturelyrealitydistinctfromHim,acreaturelyrealitywhichisnotsomeformassumedbyGodin Hisrevelation,butwhichquiteapartfromGodsrevelationmanifestsinitsownstructurebycreationa certainsimilaritytothestructureofthetrinitarianconceptofGod,sothatitmayberegardedasanimageof thetrinitarianGodHimself.Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,344. AsEarlMullerrightlynotes,WhatAugustinebelievesabouttheTrinitywillguidehisquest.Hedoes notarguefromthestructureofthemindtothestructureoftheTrinity;rather;thelightderivedfromfaith guideshisexplorationofthemind.Itisthis,forinstance,thatdetermineshisdescriptionofintellectual activityasasortofbegetting.EarlC.Muller,TrinityandMarriageinPaul:TheEstablishmentofa
155

279

 differencesexistbetweenBarthandAugustine,theproperrootoftrinitariandoctrineis notoneofthem.156Augustinemakesitclearthatthesearchfortrinitarianreflectionsin thecreatedworldmustbeguidedbytheruleoffaith.157

5.3.1.2 Disregarding the Creator/Creature Dissimilarity

NotonlydoesPanikkarsreinterpretationoftheTrinityonthebasisofnon Christianreligiousexperienceviolatethegrammarofthevestigetraditionbutitalso failstotakeintoaccounttheepistemicimplicationsofvastdissimilaritythatobtains betweencreatureandCreator.InBookXVAugustineinsiststhattheTrinitythatGodis

CommunitarianAnalogyoftheTrinityGroundedintheTheologicalShapeofPaulineThought,AmericanUniversity Studies,SeriesVII,TheologyandReligion,vol.60(NewYork:PeterLang,1990),219.Thus,whileIbelieve BarthiscorrecttobeconcernedaboutasecondrootforthedoctrineoftheTrinity,hiscriticismsdonot applytoAugustine.

156ForahelpfuldiscussionofwhyBarthscritiqueofthevestigetraditiondoesnotapplytoAugustine,see DavidS.Cunningham,Interpretation:TowardaRehabilitationoftheVestigiaTradition,inKnowingthe TriuneGod:TheWorkoftheSpiritinthePracticesoftheChurch,ed.JamesJ.BuckleyandDavidS.Yeago (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001),179202.CunninghamarguesthatBarthswholesalerejectionofthe vestigiamustbeunderstoodinthecontextofhisconcernforNazisympathizingtheologyamongGerman ChristianswhichappealedtocreatedorderinordertoundergirdthemythologyoftheThirdReich.Healso arguesthatBarthsrejectionofthevestigetraditionturnsonaninadequatedistinctionbetween interpretationandillustration.

Butasfarasconcernsthatsupreme,inexpressible,incorporealandunchangeablenatureandthe perceptionofitinsomemeasureorotherbytheunderstanding,thereisnothingonwhichthehumanmind couldbetterpracticeitsgaze(providedofcoursethatitisgovernedbytheruleoffaith[fideiregula])thanon thatwhichmanhasinhisnaturethatisbetterthanotheranimals,bettereventhantheotherpartsofhis ownsoul;andthisisthemindtowhichhasbeenallottedakindofpowertoseeinvisiblethings,andto whichthesensesofthebodyalsobringallthingsforjudgmentasitpresides,sotosay,intheinnermostand uppermostplaceofhonor,andwhichhasnothingaboveittowhosegovernmentitissubjectexceptGod. Augustine,DeTrin.XV.49,434.Similarly,inhisclosingprayer,Augustineexplains,Directingmyattention towardthisruleoffaith(regulamfidei)asbestIcould,asfarasyouenabledmeto,Ihavesoughtyouand desiredtoseeintellectuallywhatIhavebelieved,andIhavearguedmuchandtoiledmuch.Augustine,De Trin.XV.51,436.
157

280

 cannotsimplybereadoffthedivineimageinthecreaturebecausethevast dissimilaritythatexistsbetweenthetriuneGodandtheimageofGodinthemens.This fundamentaldifference(whichAugustineexplicatesthroughagrammarofdivine simplicity)meansthatnovestigiumcouldeveradequatelyreflecttheTrinitybecausethe dissimilaritythatobtainsultimatelyexceedsanysimilarity.158 CommentingonhissearchforanimageoftheTrinityinthehumanperson, Augustineexplainsthateverytimeheattemptedtobringoutsomecomparative illustrationofthispointinthatcreatedrealitywhichweare,hediscoveredthatno adequateexpressionfollowedwhateverunderstandingIcameto;andIwasonlytoo wellawarethatmyattempteventounderstandinvolvedmoreeffortthanresult.159 Althoughhebelieveshediddiscoveranimageofthatsupremetrinity,he acknowledges,nonetheless,thatthethreethingsofonepersonwerequiteunableto matchthosethreepersonsinthewayourhumanplanrequires,aswehavebeen demonstratinginthisfifteenthbook.160OneofthecentralthemesinBookXVisthe inadequacyofthedivineimageinrevealingtheTrinitythatGodis.161Wemustbearin
158Similarly,theFourthLateranCouncil(1215)affirmedthatthedissimilaritythatexistsbetweenCreator andcreaturealwaysexceedsanysimilaritythatobtains. 159 160 161

Augustine,DeTrin.XV.45,430. Augustine,DeTrin.XV.45,430.

EdmundHillstitleforBookXV,TheAbsoluteInadequacyofthePerfectedImage,appropriately expressesthisreality.RegardingtheinadequacyofthecreatedimagetomirrortheTrinity,Augustineoffers thefollowingwarning:Tothememory,sight,andloveofthissupremetrinity,inordertorecollectit,seeit,

281

 mindthatAugustinescommentsabouttheinadequacyofthisimagearenotdirectedat thelowertrinitiesheexploresintheouterman.Onthecontrary,theyaredirected atthemostadequatetrinityAugustinehasdiscovered. IftheaspectofhumannaturewhichismostlikeGod(thedivineimageinthe mens)issoinadequateforrevealingtheTrinity,thennoepistemicwarrantexistsfor reinterpretingthedoctrineoftheTrinityonthebasisofanypotentialvestigium.Sucha movefailstotakeintoaccounttheAugustineswarninginBookIX:Whatwehaveto avoidisthesacrilegiousmistakeofsayinganythingaboutthetrinitywhichdoesnot belongtothecreatorbuttothecreature,orwhichisfabricatedbyvainimaginings.162 Thus,evenif,forthesakeofargument,oneweretograntCousinsclaimthatnon Christianreligiousexperiencerepresentsavestigiumtrinitatis(aclaimwewillshortly evaluate),noepistemicwarrantexistsforreinterpretingthedoctrineoftheTrinityonthe basisofnonChristianreligiousexperienceinlightofthedissimilaritythatexists betweenCreatorandcreature.

andenjoyit,heshouldrefereveryounceandparticleofhislife.ButIhavesufficientlywarnedhim,soit seemstome,thatthisimage,madebythetrinityandalteredfortheworsebyitsownfault,isnotsotobe comparedtothattrinitythatitisreckonedsimilartoitineveryrespect.Rather,heshouldnotehowgreat thedissimilarityisinwhateversimilaritytheremaybe.Augustine,DeTrin.XV.39.426.

162

Augustine,DeTrin.IX.1,271.

282


5.3.1.3 Iconolatry, Personalism and Mysticism as a Vestigium

ApproachingPanikkarsproposalfromadifferentangle,wemustnowconsider Cousinssuggestionthatthevestigetraditionshouldbeextendedtoincludethehighest formsofhumanreligiousexperience(specificallyPanikkarsthreeformsof spiritualityiconolatry,personalism,mysticism)andthatthismoverepresentsa logicalextensionofthevestigetradition.Cousinsargumentcanbesummarizedin thefollowingway: P1. ThevestigetraditionhasrecognizedtracesoftheTrinitythroughoutthewhole ofcreation. P2. ThevestigetraditionshouldbeextendedtoencompassnonChristianreligious experience. P3. Whenthusextended,animportanttrinitarianvestigecanbefound,namely iconolatry,personalismandmysticism. P4. ThepresenceofthesetrinitarianvestigessupportstheclaimthatnonChristian religionsconstituteindependentlyvalidmeansofexperiencingandrelatingto thetriuneGod. BuildinguponPlatonicnotionsofexemplarityandparticipation,itistruethatcertain strandsoftheChristiantheologicaltraditionhaverecognizedtracesoftheTrinity throughoutcreation(P1).163InordertoevaluateP2,P3andP4itwillbehelpfulconsider thecriteriathatimplicitlyguideAugustinessearchforareflectionoftheTrinityinthe

Forahelpfuloverviewofthevestigetradition,seeHermanBavinck,ReformedDogmatics,vol.2,Godand Creation,trans.JohnVriend(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2004),32227.
163

283

 functioningofthehumansoul.AtleastfivecriteriaguideAugustinessearch.164First, createdrealityrepresentsthelocusoftrinitarianreflections.Second,theclearest reflectionoftheTrinityistobefoundinthatwhichbearsthegreatestlikenesstoGod.165 Third,Scriptureshouldplayakeyroleinthediscernmentandevaluationoftrinitarian reflections.Fourth,thepresenceofthreenessdoesnotconstituteasufficientcondition foranauthenticreflectionoftheTrinity.Trinitarianreflectionsshouldalsomirrorkey elementsofCatholicteachingontheTrinityincludingtheonenessofthedivine substance,theconsubstantialityandequalityofthedivinepersons,166the commensurabilityofthepersons,167exhaustingthedivinesubstanceinthreepersons,168 inseparabilityofthepersons,169perichoresis,170relativedifference171andmutualrelation

164EarlMulleridentifiestwentydifferentcriteriathatguideAugustinessearchforanimageoftheTrinity. SeeMuller,TrinityandMarriageinPaul,20943.Ihavegreatlyreducedhislistbygroupinganumberof similarelements. 165BecauseGodisincorporeal,bodilyanalogiesfortheTrinity(e.g.,father,motherandchild)are inadequate. 166 167 168

Muller,TrinityandMarriageinPaul,233. Ibid.,234.

Thedivineessenceisexhaustedinthreepersons.Bycontrast,humanessenceisnotexhaustedinthree persons.Thus,communitariananalogyisinadequate.Muller,TrinityandMarriageinPaul,235.
169 170 171

Ibid.,235. Ibid.,236. Ibid.,236.

284

 (generationandprocession).172Finally,trinitarianreflectionsshouldaidourknowledge ofthetriuneGod.173 HowdoesCousinsproposalfareinlightofthesecriteria?Thefirstcriterion (createdrealityaslocusoftrinitarianreflection)raisesseriousquestionsaboutextending thevestigetraditiontoencompassnonChristianreligiousexperience.Bothimagoand vestigiumrefertoacreatedreality.TheexamplesCousinscitesfromthevestigetradition (speckofdust,createduniverse,humansoul,communityofpersons,etc.)clearlyreflect thisfact.Experience,however,namesarelation;experienceisalwaysexperienceof. Althoughitmakessensetospeakofexperienceofavestige,itdoesnotseemtomake sensetospeakofexperienceasavestige.174WhatrelationsdoPanikkarsthree experiencesname?Presumably,Cousins(andPanikkar)wouldultimatelywanttosay thatthesethreespiritualitiesnamearelationwiththetriuneGodnotmerelywitha createdreality.Thisresponse,however,raisesafurtherquestion:Howdoweknow theseexperiencesnamearelationtothetriuneGod?Atthispointoneiscaughtina viciouscirclebecauseitisthereadingofthesethreespiritualitiesasvestigiathatgrounds theclaimthattheseconstituteexperiencesofthetriuneGod(P4)butthereadingofthese

172 173

Ibid.,237.

ItisnotanaccidentthatAugustinessearchforareflectionoftheTrinitycentersonthepsychological apparatusbywhichweknowthetriuneGod.
174

ForBonaventurethevestigiaalwaysrefertosomethinginthesensibleworld.

285

 spiritualitiesasvestigiaarisesfromtheassumptionthattheyareexperiencesofthetriune God.Inadequatewarrant,therefore,exitsfortreatingnonChristianreligious experienceasavestigium. ThecombinationofAugustinesthirdandfourthcriteriapromptthefollowing question:Ificonolatry,personalismandmysticismarereadasamirrorreflectingthe divinepersons,whatdoesthisvestigiumrevealaboutthetriuneGodandhowdoesthe resultingpicturecomportwithChristianteachingregardingthegenerationoftheSon andprocessionoftheHolySpirit?Atfirstglance,theanswertothefirsthalfofthis questionmayappearquiteobvious.PanikkaroutlinesthedoctrineoftheTrinitythat mirrorshistriadofspiritualitiesinthesecondchapterofTheTrinityandtheReligious ExperienceofMan.TheBuddhistexperienceofemptinessreflectstheFatherwhoisthe emptyingofBeing.TheJewishexperienceofapersonalrelationshipwithGodreflects theSonwho,strictlyspeaking,istheonlyPersonintheTrinity.TheHindu experienceofidentity(nonrelationalunion)withBrahmanreflectstheSpiritwhois divineimmanence.Uponcloserinspection,however,theanswertothisquestionisa bitmorecomplicated.IfoneweretobracketthesecondchapterofTrinityandthe ReligiousExperienceofManandthensimplytoaskwhatthefirstchapterrevealsabout thetriuneGod,itisfarfromclearthattheresultswouldmatchthedoctrineoutlinedthe secondchapter.OnecouldprobablysumupPanikkarsspiritualitiesas(1)an experienceofdivinetranscendence(iconolatry),(2)anexperienceofdivine

286

 relationship(personalism)and(3)anexperienceofdivineimmanence(mysticism). IftheseexperiencesareinterpretedasrevealingGod,theyseemtorevealatriadof divinetranscendence,divinerelationalityanddivineimmanence.Thisbringsustothe secondhalfofmyearlierquestion:Howdoestheresultingpicturewhichthesevestigia providecomportwithChristianteachingregardingthegenerationoftheSonand processionoftheHolySpirit?Itisimportanttonotethattheresultingdescriptionsof Godrepresentsubstantivepredicationswhichdescribethenatureofthethreedivine personsinanundifferentiatedway.Asidefromthenumberthree(alimitationthat seemssomewhatarbitrary),theybearnowitnesstothedistinctionofdivinepersons, consubstantialityandequalityofthedivinepersons,thecommensurabilityofthe persons,exhaustingthedivinesubstanceinthreepersons,theinseparabilityofthe persons,theperichoresisofthepersons,relativedifferencenormutualrelation.Inshort, onecannotinfertheChristianTrinityfromthesethreespiritualexperiences.Thus, Cousinsreadingoficonolatry,personalismandmysticismasavestigiumfailstosatisfy ourthirdandfourthcriteria.175

InthefollowingsectionofthischapterIwillofferadetailedexaminationofPanikkarsdoctrineofthe Trinity.Inresponse,onemightpointoutthatifoneweretostartwithAugustinesdescriptionofmemory, understandingandwillandthenaskwhatitrevealsabouttheTrinity(apartfromhisdescriptioninBooksI VII),theresultwouldbesimilar.ThereasonthisproblemexistsforPanikkarandnotforAugustineisthat PanikkarwantstoreinterprettheTrinityonthebasisofreligiousexperiencewhereasAugustinewantsto interprettheimageoftheTrinitystrictlyinlightofChristianteachingontheTrinity.Thisbringsusbackto themethodologicalproblemIoutlinedabove.

175

287

 Thefifthcriterionremindsuswhatisatsakeauthenticknowledgeofthetriune God.Inlightofthiscriterion,wemustconsiderCousinsclaimthatthepresenceof vestigiainthereligiousexperienceofnonChristiansconstitutesthebasisforaffirming thatnonChristianreligionsrepresentvalidmeansofexperiencingandrelatingtothe triuneGod(P4).Herewemustask,Towhatdothevestigiabearwitness?From AugustinetoBonaventuretheansweristhesame:readbythefaithfulthroughthelens ofScripture,theybearwitness(albeitdimlyandindirectly)tothetriunityofGod.It difficulttoseehowthisrealitymight,inanyway,constitutethebasisforthekindof pluralistviewofrelationshipofChristianitytootherreligionsthatCousinsand Panikkarwanttoaffirm.Evenif,forthesakeofargument,oneweretograntP2,no warrantexistsformovingfromthediscerniblepresenceofavestigiuminsomeaspectof humanreligiousexperiencetothesoteriologicalefficacyofnonChristianreligions.176 Cousinseffectivelyseversthevestigiafromtheeconomyofsalvation;however,the vestigiacannotbeseparatedfromtheeconomyofsalvation.Image,forAugustine,is

Augustine,ofcourse,wouldnotdenythatallpeopleChristiansandnonChristiansalikehavebeen madeintheimageoftheTrinity.Inthefunctioningofthehumansoulquasoulthedivineimagealbeit defacedispresent:Forwehavesaidthatevenwhenithaslostitsparticipationinhimitstillremainsthe imageofGod,eventhoughwornoutanddistorted.Itishisimageinsofarasitiscapableofhimandcan participateinhim;indeeditcannotachievesogreatagoodexceptbybeinghisimage.Augustine,DeTrin. XIV.11,379.Nevertheless,fromthepresenceofthistrinitarianimageinaBuddhist,onecannotinferthe salvificefficacyofBuddhism.

176

288

 inextricablytiedtotheredemptiveworkofthetriuneGod(asisabundantlyclearin BooksXIIXIV).177 Insum,Cousinsappealtothevestigetraditionbringstolightthreeproblems withPanikkarstrinitariangrammar.First,Panikkarsproposalviolatesthebasic grammarofthevestigetraditionbyreinterpretingthedoctrineoftheTrinityonthebasis ofreligiousexperience.Second,inlightofthevastdissimilaritythatexistsbetween Creatorandcreature,noepistemicwarrantexistsforreinterpretingthedoctrineofthe TrinityonthebasisofnonChristianreligiousexperience.Panikkarsproposalfailsto takeintoaccounttheepistemicimplicationsofthisdissimilarity.Third,therearegood reasonstorejectCousinsclaimthaticonolatry,personalismandmysticismbeviewedas avestigiumtrinitatis. Inresponse,onemightcounterthatallIhavereallydemonstratedisthat CousinsreadingofPanikkarisinadequateandthatPanikkarisnotdoinganythingthat shouldbesubsumedunderthevestigetradition.AlthoughPanikkardoesnotexplicitly appealtothevestigetraditioninthesamewayCousinsdoes,heimplicitlyappealstothe basicgrammarofvestigetraditioninspeakingofthethreefoldstructureofreality,178
Itisonlyasthesoulremembers,understandsandlovesGodthatimageofGodcanbeprogressively restored.
177

Panikkar,TrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,xi.ElsewherePanikkarexplainsthatEverybitof realityhasthistrinitarianimprint.RaimundoPanikkar,BlessedSimplicity:TheMonkasUniversalArchetype (NewYork:SeaburyPress,1982),128.

178

289

 trinitarianstructureofreligiousexperience179andworldasadivinevestigeofthe triuneGod.180Hence,mycriticismsseemtobewarranted.Perhapsitmightbebestto acknowledgethatwhilePanikkarsproposalimplicitlydrawsonelementsofthevestige tradition,importantdiscontinuitiesexistbetweenthelatterandtheformerandthatsome ofthesediscontinuitiesreflectdeficienciesinPanikkarstrinitariangrammar.Although thevestigetraditiondoesexposeseveralproblemswithPanikkarsproposal,itis importantthatourassessmentnotbelimitedtothelensofthevestigetradition.The ultimateconfirmationoftheseproblemscanonlycomefromabroaderanalysisof PanikkarsdoctrineoftheTrinity.Thus,intheremainingsectionofthischapter,Iwill evaluatePanikkarsdoctrineoftheTrinitywithspecialattentiontotherelationshipof theeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity. 5.3.2 The Economic and the Immanent Trinity AccordingtoPanikkar,ThedoctrineoftheTrinity,inpointoffact,isnotthere forthesakeofsatisfyingourcuriosityabouttheimmanentTrinityasaninternalaffair oftheDivinity(adintra),alone.Itconnectstheimmanentmysterywiththeeconomic God(adextra),inwhichthedestinyoftheworldisatstake.Itisnotmerespeculation

179 180

Ibid.,xiv. Ibid.,18.

290

 aboutthedepthsofGod;itisequallyananalysisoftheheightsofman.181This statementprovidesanimportantclueregardingPanikkarsunderstandingofhisproject. HebelievesthatcontemporaryChristiantheologyhasmistakenlyfocuseduponthe immanentTrinitytotheneglectoftheeconomic.182OneofhiscentralgoalsinThe TrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofManistoreconnectthetrinitarianreality (immanentmystery)withtheworld.Followingthisclue,wewillevaluatehis proposalbyconsideringhowherelatestheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity.We willseethatinhisattempttoreconnectthetrinitarianrealitywiththeworld,Panikkar ultimatelyunderminestheverythinghewishestoaccomplish. Beforeproceedingfurther,itwillbehelpfultoreviewourearlierdiscussionof theeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity.Inchapterthreewedistinguishedthree sequentialstagesinourknowledgeofTrinity:thebiblicalTrinity,theimmanent TrinityandtheeconomicTrinity.Inthefirststep,weencountertheselfrevelationof thetriuneGodintheoikonomiarecordedinScripture(biblicalTrinity).Inthesecond step,wereflectuponwhatmustbetrueregardingbeingandnatureofthedivine personsinlightofGodsselfrevelationintheoikonomia.Theoutcomeofthisreflection
181 182

Ibid.,xii.

AccordingtoPanikkar,Christiantheologyhastoooftenrelegatedthetrinitarianmysterytothe exclusivesphereoftheDivinity,theologyinthegreekuseoftheword,i.e.,thestudyofGodinhimself totallyoralmostindependentoftheeconomyorstudyofGodinhistemporalmanifestation,i.e.,creation andincarnation.Panikkar,TrinityandReligiousExperienceofMan,71.

291

 representsadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinity(Godinse).Inthefinalstep,we articulateasystematicconceptualizationofthetriuneGodintheoikonomiaadoctrine oftheeconomicTrinity.

5.3.2.1 The Immanent Trinity in Panikkars Proposal

AttheheartofPanikkarsproposalisaparticularunderstandingofthe immanentTrinity.ThisaccountoftheimmanentTrinityconstitutesthegroundforhis trinityofspiritualities.ThedivineemptyingofBeingthatmarksthelifeofthe FatherconstitutesthebasisforaBuddhistexperienceofdivineemptiness(Nirvana). ThedivinepersonalitythatmarksthelifeoftheSonconstitutesthebasisfora ChristianexperienceofapersonalrelationshipwithGod.Thedivineimmanencethat markstheSpiritconstitutesthebasisfortheHinduexperienceofnonrelationalunion withBrahman.Intermsofhistrinitariangrammar,Panikkaremphasizestheimmanent Trinityasgroundfortheeconomic.AlthoughitistruetheimmanentTrinityconstitutes theontologicalbasisfortheeconomicTrinity,itmustalsoberecognizedthatthe oikonomiarecordedinScriptureconstitutesthesoleepistemicfoundationforour knowledgeoftheTrinity.Itisinrelationtothelatterpointthattheproblemsbeginto emergeinPanikkarstrinitariangrammar.WhenPanikkarclaimsthatthetrinitarian conceptionoftheUltimateisnotanexclusiveChristianinsightorrevelation,he

292

 implicitlyabandonsthisepistemicfoundation.183Asaresultofabandoningthis epistemicfoundation,heoffersahighlyspeculativeaccountoftheimmanentTrinity thatisinadequatelyrootedintheoikonomiarevealedinScripture. FromanAugustinianstandpointtherearenumerousproblemswithPanikkars accountoftheimmanentTrinity.184WewillbeginwithhisdescriptionoftheFather. HisdiscussionleavesonewiththedistinctimpressionthattheFatherofJesusChrist (andbyextension,theChristiantrinity)isnottheultimaterealitybutmerelya penultimatemanifestationofatranscendentAbsolutewhichisultimatelybeyondany nameordescription.Furthermore,Panikkarseemstoimplythatwhatuniquely constitutestheFatherasFatherisnotadistinctpropertysuchasunbegottennessbut ratheremptinessofbeing.TheFather,heinsists,hasnoexistencefromthe standpointofBeingbecausehisBeinghasbeenemptied,whollyandwithout remainder,inthegenerationoftheSon.Asaresult,onecannotevenspeakabout theFather.ItisdifficulttoseehowthisdescriptionoftheFatherasemptinessof BeingcanbereconciledwiththecreedalaffirmationthattheSonishomoousioswiththe

Panikkar,TrinityandReligiousExperienceofMan,viii.InanothercontextPanikkarexplains,TheTrinity, wehavetoclarifyattheoutset,isneitheramonopolyofChristianitynor,forourpurposesoftheDivinity. Panikkar,BlessedSimplicity,128.

183

AlthoughheappealstomanyelementsoftheAugustiniantradition,heinfusestheseelementswithnew meaning.
184

293

 Father.185Finally,althoughPanikkarappealstoanumberofelementsintheclassic trinitariantradition(particularlythenotionoftheFatherasthesubstratumof divinity),hisaccountoftheFatherasemptinessofBeingseemsuniquelytailoredto groundaBuddhistexperienceofemptiness.186ByreinterpretingtheFatherinlight oftheBuddhistteaching,PanikkarabandonstheepistemicfoundationoftheTrinity. AlthoughtheproblemswithhisunderstandingoftheSoncomemostsharply intofocusattheleveloftheeconomicTrinity,187atleastoneissuemeritsattentionin relationtotheimmanentTrinity.Panikkaroffersaverycomplexexplanationofwhy, amongtheFather,SonandSpirit,theSonaloneshouldbecalledaPerson.Thereare atleastthreeproblemswiththisassertion.First,itseemstobedrivennotbyreflection ontheoikonomiarevealedinScripturebutratherbytheneedtogroundarelational
Panikkarattemptstofendoffthisobjectionbypointingoutthatthedivinenatureisnotafourththing (i.e.,thereisnoGodthatexistsapartfromthepersons):Acertainpopulartheologicallanguagewhich speaksoftheequalityamongthethreepersonscancertainlybeacceptedprovidedwestopshortof acceptinganobjectifieddivinenature,trinitarianlydisincarnated,asitwere(thefamousrejected quaternitas).Panikkar,TrinityandReligiousExperienceofMan,45.SinceneitherAugustinenorany ecumenicalCouncilaffirmsthatthedivinenatureisafourththing,itisdifficulttoseehowthisresponse answersmyobjection.PanikkarseemstobesayingthatwhatdistinguishesFatherandSonisarespective absenceandpresenceofBeing.Thisunderminestheequalityofnature.
185

NoticetheinfluenceofBuddhismonPanikkarsdescriptionoftheFatherassilence:Anyattemptto speakabouttheFatherinvolvesalmostacontradictioninterms,foreverywordabouttheFathercanonly refertotheoneofwhomtheFatherisFather,thatis,totheWord,totheSon.Itisnecessarytobesilent. ThemostdiversereligioustraditionsteachusthatGodisSilence.Thisaffirmationmustbeacceptedinits unfathomableprofundity.GodisSilencetotalandabsolutethesilenceofBeingandnotonlythebeing ofsilence.Panikkar,TrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,4748.Silenceissimplyanotherwaytotalk aboutemptiness.InhisintroductiontoPanikkarsthought,HarryCargasnotesthatPanikkarsdoctrine ofGodisclosertothatoftheBuddhathatitistomosttheologians.Panikkar,InvisibleHarmony,ixx.

186 187

PanikkarsaccountoftheeconomicTrinitywillbediscussedinthefollowingsection.

294

 experienceofGodexclusivelyintheSon.Second,thisclaimseemstoimplythatwhat uniquelyconstitutestheSonasSon(distinguishinghimfromtheFatherandSpirit)is noteternalgenerationbutPersonhood(whichforPanikkarisroughlysynonymous withBeing).BydistinguishingFatherandSononthisbasis,Panikkaropensthedoor totheveryneoArianpositionAugustineworkssohardtodismantleinBooksVVII. Panikkarthereforefacesadilemma.Totheextenthegroundsdifferencesbetweenthe FatherandSoninwhatimplicitlyamounttodifferencesofsubstancebetweentheFather andSoninordertomustersupportforhistheologyofreligiousexperience,hefallsinto theHomoianerrorofmakingFatherandSontwosubstances.If,ontheotherhand,he followstheAugustiniantraditioninrecognizingthateverythingtheFatheris,theSonis, exceptthattheSonisnottheFather,Panikkarlosesthebasisforarelational experienceofGodexclusivelyintheSon.Finally,PanikkarsclaimthattheSonaloneis PersonseemstobeparasiticuponaviewofJesusChristthathecannotaccept.Itonly makessensetospeakoftheSonuniquelyasPerson(incontrasttotheFatherand Spirit)inthecontextofaChalcedonianChristology.Panikkar,however,rejectsastrict identificationbetweenJesusofNazarethandtheeternalSon.188Insodoinghe underminesthetheologicalbasisforcallingtheSonaPersonindistinctiontothe FatherandSpirit.
188

SeePanikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,5354.

295

 AswithhisdiscussionoftheFatherandSon,PanikkarsaccountoftheHoly Spiritseemstobetailoredtosuittheneedsofhistheologyofreligiousexperience.The centrallinkbetweenPanikkarsthirdformofspiritualityandhisdiscussionoftheSpirit istheHinduconceptofadvaita.189AccordingtoPanikkar,theconceptofadvaitahasbeen misunderstoodintheWest.ThemessageoftheUpanishadsisnotmonism,dualismor theismbutadvaita,i.e.thenondualcharacteroftheReal,theimpossibilityofadding Godtotheworldorviceversa,theimpossibilityofputtingindvanva,inapair,Godand theworld.190Godandtheworldareneitheronethingnortwo.Consciousnessof advaita(whichPanikkardescribesasanexperienceofdivineimmanence)isatthe centerofthethirdspirituality.Advaitaalsoplaysacentralroleinhisunderstandingof theSpirit.WhereastheFatheristherevelationofthedivinetranscendence,theSpirit istherevelationoftheGodimmanent.191PanikkarexplainsthattheSpiritisthe communionbetweentheFatherandtheSon.192Thus,theSpiritisimmanenttoFather andSonjointly.193AtthispointitmaysoundasifallPanikkarisdoingisofferingan AugustinianaccountoftheSpiritasthebondoflovebetweentheFatherandSon.
ForadiscussionoftheroleofadvaitauponPanikkarstrinitarianthought,seeEwertH.Cousins, PanikkarsAdvaiticTrinitarianism,inTheInterculturalChallengeofRaimonPanikkar,ed.JosephPrabhu (Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1996),11930.
189 190 191 192 193

Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,36. Ibid.,58. Ibid.,60. Ibid.,60.

296

 Panikkar,however,givesthisAugustinianconceptaHindutwist:Theadvaitawhich helpsusexpresssuitablytherelationGodWorldisagainapreciousaidinelucidating theintratrinitarianproblem.IftheFatherandtheSonarenottwo,theyarenotone either:theSpiritbothunitesanddistinguishesthem.Heisthebondofunity;thewein between,orratherwithin.194Thus,onecannothavepersonalrelationswiththe Spirit.Ratheronecanonlyhavenonrelationalunionwithhim.195Insum,intra trinitarianadvaita(whichistheSpirit)constitutesthegroundforanexperienceofadvaita (i.e.,nonrelationalunionwiththeAbsolute).Againonemustask,Whatepistemic warrantexistsintheoikonomiarevealedinScriptureforthisunderstandingofthe Spirit?Theprimaryfoundationforthisclaimultimatelyseemstobeaparticular readingoftheUpanishads:IndeedwhatistheSpiritbutthetmanoftheUpanishads, whichissaidtobeidenticalwithbrahman,althoughthisidentitycanonlybe existentiallyrecognizedandaffirmedoncerealisationhasbeenattained?196Turning toasecondproblem,PanikkarseemstoimplythatwhatuniquelyconstitutestheSpirit asSpiritisnotprocessionbutimmanenceorthefoundationofBeing.Whereas theFatheristheemptyingofBeingandtheSonisBeing,theSpiritisthe

194 195 196

Ibid.,62(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,63. Ibid.,6465.

297

 foundationofBeing.197AsIexplainedabove,thiswayofdistinguishingtheFather, SonandHolySpiritpotentiallyleadsPanikkarintotheHomoiantrapAugustine demolishesinBooksVVII.Summarizingourdiscussion,Panikkar(likeHeim)offersa highlyspeculativeaccountoftheimmanentTrinity(step2)thatisinadequatelyrooted intheoikonomiarevealedinScripture(step1).198

5.3.2.2 The Economic Trinity in Panikkars Proposal

AsecondproblemareainvolvesthewayinwhichPanikkarsproposalmoves fromtheimmanentTrinity(step2)totheeconomicTrinity(step3).Thefollowing representsasummaryofPanikkarsdoctrineoftheeconomicTrinity.ThetriuneGodis presentandactiveamongthereligionsoftheworld.199Thelocusoftheworkofthe triuneGodisnottheouterstructuresofreligionbutinnerspiritualexperience. JesusChristdoesnotrepresentthedefinitiverevelationoftriuneGod;ratherhe representsonemanifestationofabroaderChristprinciple.TheHolySpiritispushing thechristianforwardbeyondwhatwecallchristianity,beyond,Iamtemptedtoadd,

197 198

Ibid.,63.

InlightofthisitissomewhatironicthatPanikkarcriticizesthecontemporarytheologiansforexcessive speculationaboutGodinse. AdherentsofotherreligionsexperiencetheTrinitybutsimplydescribeitdifferently:[M]yaimat presentissimplysotoenlargeanddeepenthemysteryoftheTrinitythatitmayembracethissamemystery existentinotherreligioustraditionsbutdifferentlyexpressed.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligious ExperienceofMan,42.TheTrinityalsorepresentsthemeetingplaceofreligions.TheTrinity,then,may beconsideredasajunctionwheretheauthenticspiritualdimensionsofallreligionsmeet(ibid.,42).

199

298

 eventheinstitutionalandvisibleChurch.200TheSpiritisleadingChristianstoabandon aparticularisticperspectiveandtorecognizethetrueexperienceofChristinothers.201 AndtheSon,theLordunderwhatevername,isthesymbolforthisprocess.202The goalofthisprocessisthegreaterunityofhumankind.ConnectingPanikkarsdoctrine oftheeconomicTrinitytohisthreespiritualities,wemightsaythatPanikkarpositsthree economies:aneconomyoftheFather(iconolatry),aneconomyoftheSon (personalism)andaneconomyoftheSpirit(mysticism).Thesearesummarizedin Figure4.

Spirituality Economy Description

Iconolatry EconomyoftheFather Experienceofdivineemptinessortranscendence Personalism EconomyoftheSon Experienceofdivinerelation Mysticism EconomyoftheSpirit Experienceofdivineimmanence

Figure4:ThreeEconomiesinPanikkar

Ibid.,57.ThisclaimdependsuponanimportantdistinctionPanikkarmakesbetweenChristian experienceandtheinstitutionalformoftheChurch:Letusgofurther:christianstrippingshouldbe complete.Thefaithoftheenlightenedchristianmuststripitselfofthechristianreligionasitactuallyexists andfreeitselfforafecundationthatwillaffectallreligionsbothancientandmodern.Fromthesociological andexternalpointofviewchristianityisonlyonereligionamongothers....Christianfaith,however,lives withintimeandintheheartsofmen.Itrequires,thereforetobeincarnatedinahistoricalform;butwhat wecallchristianityisonlyoneformamongotherpossibleoneslivingandrealizingthechristianfaith (ibid.,34).

200

AccordingtoPanikkar,IfweremainattachedexclusivelytotheSaviour,tohishumanityand historicity,weblock,inamannerofspeaking,thecomingoftheSpiritandthusreverttoastageofexclusive iconolatry.Panikkar,TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan,58.

201 202

Ibid.,58.

299

 TherearenumerousproblemswithPanikkarsaccountoftheeconomicTrinity.First, PanikkarseverstheidentificationbetweenJesusofNazarethandtheeternalSon.203This moveisincompatiblewithaChalcedonianChristologyandunderminesthevery foundationofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Second,bypositingmultipleeconomiesthat bypasstheredemptiveworkofChrist,Panikkardivorcestheworkoftheeconomic TrinityintheworldfromtheredemptivemissionesoftheSonandSpiritrevealedin Scripture.204ForAugustine(justasintheNewTestament),alldivineactivityisfocused ontheonedivineeconomyfocusedonChrist.Nobiblicalwarrantexistsforpositing economiesofdivineactivitythatbypassthesalvificmissionoftheSonandtheSpiritto restoremenandwomentocommunionwiththetriuneGod.Panikkarsthree economiesultimatelyconstituteaformofeconomictritheism.Third,Panikkaroffersa deficientaccountofthemissiooftheSpirit.HeseemstoimplythattheSpiritis leadingpeopleawayfromJesusChrist.Thisisfundamentallyincompatiblewith scripturalteachingregardingtheSpiritsuniqueroleinbearingwitnesstoand

GavinDCostaoffersasimilarcriticism:OtherslikeRaimundoPanikkarhavesoughttorehabilitatea LogosChristology.However,PanikkarmakestheLogosauniversalrevelation,ofwhichJesusChristisone instantiation,andthenreadsotherrevelationsinalikemanner.Theprioritizingoftheeconomyofsalvation intheparticularityofAdamandEveandJesusandMaryshistoryisbypassed,andtheseriesofrevelations specifiedintheConciliardocumentsismadesubordinatetoahighercontrollingideaofLogos.DCosta, TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity,110.SeealsoDupuis,TowardaChristianTheologyofReligious Pluralism,15152.

203

ThisisparticularlystrikinginlightofPanikkarsstatedgoalofconnectingthemysteryoftheTrinityto humanreligiousexperience.
204

300

 glorifyingtherisenChrist(e.g,John15:2627;16:715;Acts1:69;4:2431,etc.).205Finally, thethreeeconomicmanifestationsoftheTrinityPanikkaridentifies(i.e.,experienceof theFatherasemptiness,experienceoftheSonaspersonandexperienceofthe Spiritasimmanence)donotfitwiththeChristianexperienceofthetriuneGod describedinScripture.AccordingtoPanikkar,experiencesoftheFatherandSpiritare fundamentallyimpersonalwhileonlyanexperienceoftheSonispersonal.Incontrast, theChristianexperienceofFather,SonandHolySpiritisfundamentallypersonal.On thebasisofaspeculativeunderstandingoftheimmanentTrinity(steptwo),Panikkar outlinesadeficientaccountoftheeconomicTrinity(stepthree)thatultimately underminesthedivineoikonomiarevealedinScripture(stepone).
5.3.2.3 An Alien God

Ourdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandtheimmanent TrinitysimplyreinforcestheimpressiongleanedfromourexaminationofPanikkars proposalthroughthelensofthevestigetradition.AlthoughBarthswholesalerejection ofthevestigetraditionisunwarranted,hisconcernsregardingthedangerofpositinga

AsInotedinthepreviouschapter,Augustinediscernsaspecialsignificanceinthesignthroughwhich thebestowaloftheSpiritwasmanifestedatPentecost(i.e.,bearingwitnesstoChristinmultiplelanguages). ItoffersaprolepticfulfillmentofthegoaloftheHolySpiritsworknamely,leadingpeopleineverynation tobelieveinJesusChrist.AccordingtoAugustine,theadventoftheHolySpiritneededtobe demonstratedbyperceptiblesigns,toshowthatthewholeworldandallnationswiththeirvarietyof languageweregoingtobelieveinChristbythegiftoftheHolySpirit...Augustine,DeTrin.IV.29,175.

205

301

 secondrootforthedoctrineoftheTrinityprovetobewellfounded.Accordingto Barth,
Themomentitistakenseriouslyitleadsplainlyandineluctablyintoan ambivalentsphereinwhichinatrice,evenwiththebestwilloftheworld,weare nolongerspeakingoftheGodofwhomwewanttospeakandwhosetraceswe meanttofindbutofsomeprincipleoftheworldorhumanity,ofsomealienGod. TheoriginalintentionwastospeakofGodsrevelation.Butwhathappenedwas thattalkabouttheworldandman,andthistalk,understoodastalkaboutGods revelation,necessarilywoundupbeingtalkagainstGodsrevelation.206

BarthoffersafittingdescriptionofPanikkarsproject.Panikkarpositsasecondroot forthedoctrineoftheTrinity(nonChristianreligiousexperience)thatultimately swallowsupthefirstroot(GodsselfrevelationinScripture)withtheresultthat PanikkarspeaksaboutanalienGod.Inordertogarnersupportforhistheologyof religiousexperience,PanikkarsubtlyreplacesaTrinityofdivinepersons(Father,Son andHolySpirit)withatrinityofdivinetranscendence(oremptiness),divine relationalityanddivineimmanence.207

5.4 Implications for the Christian Theology of Religions

AssumingthatonefollowsAugustineinaccepting(atleastinprinciple)the possibilityofreflectionsoftriuneGodintheworld,208atleasttwoimplicationsfollowfor
206 207

Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,344. StrikingsimilaritiescanbeseentoMarkHeimstheologyofmultiplereligiousendsonthispoint.

208ObviouslyifonefollowsBarthindismissingthevestigetradition,anyappealtodiscerniblereflectionsof theTrinitywillberejectedoutofhand.AlthoughBarthsconcernsaboutthedangersofpotentialmisuse thevestigetraditionareclearlywarranted,hiswholesalerejectionofthistraditionisnot.

302

 theChristiantheologyofreligions.First,noepistemicwarrantexistsforrevisingour understandingoftheTrinityonthebasisofdiscernibletriadicstructureswhetherin religiousexperienceorotherwise.Suchamovefailstotakeintoaccounttheepistemic ambiguityofthevestigiainlightoftheCreator/creaturedistinction.Second,no epistemicwarrantexistsforinferringthevalidityofnonChristianreligionsfromthe discerniblepresenceofvarioustriadicstructuresintheworld.MarkHeimseemsto drawthisunwarrantedinferencewhenheclaimsthatChristiansmustaffirmthevalidity ofreligionsbecausetheTrinityrepresentsauniversaltruthaboutthewaytheworld andGodactuallyare.209Evenifoneweretoacknowledge,forthesakeofargument, thatatrinitarianvestigecanbediscernedinBuddhistreligiousexperience,nowarrant existsforinferringthesalvificefficacyofBuddhism.Augustinewouldacknowledge thateveryhumanbeingquahumanbeingpossessesalbeitinadefacedforma reflectionofthetriuneGod;however,fromthepresenceofatriadicstructure(i.e.,the divineimage),onecannotinferthesalvificactivityofthetriuneGod.Totheextentthat trinitarianstructurescanbediscernedintheworldthroughtheeyesoffaith,theybear witness,dimlyandindirectly,tothetriuneGod.

209

Heim,TheDepthoftheRiches,127.

303

6. Rethinking the Relevancy of Trinitarian Doctrine

Thepurposeoftheforegoinginvestigationwastoexaminecriticallytheclaim thataproperunderstandingoftheTrinityprovidesthebasisforanewunderstanding ofreligiousdiversity.TothisendIhaveofferedanAugustinianassessmentofthe trinitariandoctrineinseveralrecentproposals.Asthisinvestigationdrawstoaclose,it willbehelpfultoretraceourstepsinordertoconsidertheimplicationsofthisstudy bothfortheChristiantheologyofreligionsandforcontemporarytrinitariantheology. InchapteroneIsurveyedtwocriticaldevelopmentsthatprovidethebackdrop forthisinvestigation:thecontemporarytrinitarianrenaissance(withitsconcernforre establishingtherelevancyoftrinitariantheology)andtheriseoftheChristian theologyofreligions.AftersurveyingthetrinitarianrevivalintheworkofBarthand Rahner,IbrieflytracedcontemporaryattemptstoemployadoctrineoftheTrinityas constitutivegroundforaChristiantheologyofreligionsbeginningwiththeworkof Panikkar. InchaptertwoIdefendedmyappealtotheAugustiniantraditionby demonstratingthatcontemporarycriticismsofAugustine,asexemplifiedintheworkof ColinGunton,areunjustified.InchaptersthreetofiveIofferedanAugustinian evaluationofthetrinitariandoctrineinseveralrecentproposalsintheChristian theologyofreligions.Myevaluationwasstructuredaroundthreeprincipalthemes:the economicandtheimmanentTrinity(chapterthree),divinerelations(chapterfour),and 304

 thevestigiatrinitatis(chapterfive).Althoughthisisasecondarytheme,itshouldbe notedthatthesechaptersalsoofferanindirectargumentforthecontinuingvalueand vitalityoftheAugustiniantrinitariantradition. InchapterthreeIexploredtherelationshipbetweentheeconomicandthe immanentTrinityinMarkHeimstrinitariantheologyofmultiplereligiousends.Atthe rootofHeimsproposalisanassumptionthattheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodis constitutedbythreedimensions:impersonal,personalandcommunion.These immanentdimensionsconstitutetheontologicalfoundationformultiplereligious ends.IarguedthatHeimsproposalgainstractiononlybyradicallyseveringthe economicandtheimmanentTrinity.First,Heimoffersaspeculativeaccountofthe immanentTrinityasconstitutedbythreedimensionsthatpossessesnobasisinthe oikonomiarevealedinScripture.Then,onthebasisofaspeculativeunderstandingofthe immanentTrinity,heoutlinesadeficientaccountoftheTrinityintheeconomyof salvationthatultimatelyunderminesthedivineoikonomiarevealedinScripture. Ultimately,HeimreplacestheTrinityofdivinepersonswithaTrinityofdimensionsthat bearslittleresemblancetothedoctrineoftheTrinityconfessedintheclassiccreeds. InchapterfourIexploredtherelationsofthedivinepersonsintwoproposals: AmosYongspneumatologicaltheologyofreligionsandJacquesDupuisChristian theologyofreligiouspluralism.AmosYongsfoundationalpneumatologyis predicateduponadistinctionbetweenaneconomyoftheSonandaneconomyof

305

 theSpirit.YongrejectsallsubordinationoftheSpirittotheSonattheontological levelinordertocreatespaceontheeconomiclevelforaneconomyoftheSpirit separateanddistinctfromthatoftheSon.Onthebasisofasecondeconomyofthe Spirit,YongaffirmsthepresenceandactivityoftheSpiritamongnonChristianreligions andjustifiestheuseofnonchristologicalcriteriafordiscerningtheSpiritspresence.I arguedthatYongsaccountofadistincteconomyoftheSpiritultimatelyseversthe twohandsoftheFather.Ontrinitariangrounds,JacquesDupuisarguesthatnon ChristianreligionsmediateGodssavinggraceinsuchawaythattheymaylegitimately becalledchannelsofsalvation.Inordertocreatetheologicalspaceforothersaviors andmediators,DupuisoutlinesatrinitarianChristologyinwhichJesusChristis recognizednotasabsolutesaviorbutmerelyasconstitutivesavior.Inthecontextof thisdistinction,heinsiststhatGodssavingactionisnotlimitedtotheChristevent;on thecontrary,anenduringworkoftheLogosasarkos(distinctfromtheLogosensarkos) continuesfollowingtheincarnation.IdemonstratedthatDupuisproposalintroduces subordinationismintotheFather/Sonrelationship,underminestheunicityofthe economyofsalvationandseverstheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinity. InchapterfiveIexploredtheappealtothevestigiatrinitatisinRaimundo Panikkarstrinitarianaccountofreligiousexperience.Panikkarclaimsthatthedoctrine oftheTrinityaninsightnotlimitedtoChristiansprovidesthekeytoreconciling threeirreducibleformsofreligiousexperience:iconolatry,personalismand

306

 mysticism.Theseirreducibleformsofspiritualitycorrespondtoandreflectthedivine personsoftheTrinity:iconolatrycorrespondstotheFather,personalism correspondstotheSon,andmysticismcorrespondstotheSpirit.EwertCousins attemptstobuilduponPanikkarsproposalbyexplicitlylinkingittothevestige tradition.HesuggeststhatPanikkarsthreeformsofspirituality(iconolatry, personalism,mysticism)representavestigiumtrinitatis.Viewedfromthestandpointof thevestigetradition,IarguedthatPanikkarsprojectviolatesthebasictheological grammarofthevestigia:ratherthaninterpretingacreatedrealityinlightoftheTrinity, PanikkarreinterpretsthedoctrineoftheTrinityonthebasisofanempiricalanalysisof religiousexperience.InlightofthevastdissimilaritythatexistsbetweenCreatorand creature,Icontendedthatnoepistemicwarrantexistsforreinterpretingthedoctrineof theTrinityonthebasisofnonChristianreligiousexperience.Moreover,Idemonstrated thatgoodreasonexiststorejectCousinsclaimthaticonolatry,personalismand mysticismshouldbeviewedasavestigiumtrinitatis.Finally,IarguedthatPanikkar severstheeconomicandtheimmanentTrinitybyseveringtheidentificationbetween JesusofNazarethandtheeternalSon,affirmingmultipleeconomiesthatbypassthe redemptiveworkofChristandpositingeconomicmanifestationsofthetriuneGod whichareincompatiblewithChristianexperienceofthetriuneGoddescribedin Scripture.Inordertomustersupportforhistheologyofreligiousexperience,Panikkar

307

 subtlyreplacesaTrinityofdivinepersons(Father,SonandHolySpirit)withatrinityof divinetranscendence(oremptiness),divinerelationalityanddivineimmanence.

6.1 Implications for the Christian Theology of Religions

Thisbringsustoacrucialquestion:WhataretheimplicationsofmyAugustinian assessmentfortheclaimthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityconstitutesthekeytoa Christiantheologyofreligions?InasmuchastheproposalsofHeim,Yong,Dupuisand PanikkararerepresentativeofcurrentappealtotrinitariandoctrineintheChristian theologyofreligions,1thereseemstobegoodreasontoquestionseriouslytheclaimthat theTrinityoffersthekeytoanewunderstandingofreligiousdiversity.Although thesetheologiansmayagreethattheTrinityoffersthekeytounderstandingreligious diversity,noconsensuscurrentlyexistsamongthesetheologiansastowhosedoctrineof theTrinityholdsthekey.Eachofthesetheologiansoffersadifferentaccountofthis doctrineasconstitutivegroundforaparticularunderstandingofreligiousdiversity.For thisreason,itisproblematictospeakaboutthedoctrineoftheTrinityasofferingthe keytounderstandingreligiousdiversity.StephenWilliamsnotesthatoneof fundamentalproblemswithcurrentappealtotheTrinityintheChristiantheologyof

InchapteroneIarguedthattheproposalsofHeim,Yong,DupuisandPanikkardoindeedprovidea representativecrosssectionofcurrentappealtothetrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyof religions.

1

308

 religionsistheabsenceofanysubstantivediscussionofcriteriaforwhatconstitutesa legitimate(i.e.,orthodox)understandingoftheTrinity.2 Furthermore,fromanAugustinianperspective,currentuseoftrinitarian theologyintheChristiantheologyofreligionsappearstobehavingadeleteriouseffect uponthedoctrineitself.Underpressuretoaccommodatereligiouspluralism,Heim, Dupuis,YongandPanikkarreinterprettrinitariandoctrineinordertosupporttheir constructiveaccountsofreligiousdiversity.Toargueforthevalidityofotherreligious ends,HeimsubstitutesatrinityofdimensionsfortheTrinityofpersons.Toarguethat nonChristianreligionsarechannelsofsalvation,Dupuispositssubordinationinthe immanentlifeofthetriuneGod.ToargueforadistincteconomyoftheSpirit,Yong seversthetwohandsofGod.Toargueforthevalidityofthreeirreducibleformsof religiousexperience,PanikkarreplacestheTrinityofdivinepersonswithatrinityof divineemptiness,divinerelationalityanddivineimmanence.Aninverserelationship existsbetweentheorthodoxyofthetrinitariandoctrineemployedintheseproposalsand thedegreetowhichtrinitariandoctrinecanbeusedtosupporttheindependentvalidity ofotherreligions.AmoreblatantformofthisproblemcanbeseenintheworkofJohn Hick.Inanessayentitled,RethinkingChristianDoctrineinLightofReligious Pluralism,HicksuggeststhatinorderforChristianstoaddressthechallengeof
2

SeeWilliams,TheTrinityandOtherReligions,2730.

309

 religiousdiversity,theydonothavetoabandonanyofthegreatteachingsofthe Christianfaith.3Rather,thesethemessimplyneedtobereinterpretedinwaysthat areconsistentwiththeaffirmationthatotherreligionsrepresentindependentwaysof experiencingsalvation/liberation.Christians,forexample,neednotrejectSonof Godlanguage;theysimplymustunderstandthislanguageasdescribingaspecial servantofGodratherthandenotingtheontologicalincarnation.Similarly,Wedonot needtorejecttheideaoftheTrinity,buttounderstanditinitsmodalisticratherthan ontologicalsense.4WhenwethinkoftheTrinityasdescribingthreewaysinwhich theoneGodishumanlythoughtandexperienced,noproblemexistswithaffirming theideaoftheTrinityalongsidethevalidityofnonChristianreligions.5Iamnot suggestingthatthetheologiansIhaveexaminedholdaviewoftheTrinitysimilarto thatofHick.UnlikeHick,eachofthesetheologianswouldwanttounderstand themselvesasoperatingwithinthenormsofChristianorthodoxyasrepresentedinthe classiccreeds.Rather,Iampointingoutthatasimilarmethodologicalprocessseemsto
InordertocontinuetobeChristiansinareligiouslypluralworld,wedonothavetorejectanyofthegreat traditionalthemesofChristianthought;butwedoneedtousetheminwaysthatareappropriatetoourown situationinaworldwhichhasbecomeconsciouslyone.JohnHick,RethinkingChristianDoctrineinthe LightofReligiousPluralism,inChristianityandtheWiderEcumenism.,ed.PeterC.Phan(NewYork: ParagonHouse,1990),101.AlthoughHickreferstothemasdoctrinesinthetitleofthisessay,inthe abovequotation,hesimplyreferstothemmerelyasthemes.
3 4 5

Hick,RethinkingChristianDoctrineintheLightofReligiousPluralism,101.

Theotherkindoftrinitarianism,andtheonethatcoheresbetterwithanonabsolutistChristologyseesthe personsoftheTrinity,notasontologicallythreebutasthreefoldfromourhumanpointofviewasthree waysinwhichtheoneGodishumanlythoughtandexperienced.Hick,RethinkingChristianDoctrine, 98.

310

 beatworknamely,revisingtrinitariandoctrineinordertogroundatheologyof religiousdiversity.ThetrinitarianproblemsIhavedocumentedinthisinvestigationare notlimitedtotheChristiantheologyofreligions.Brieflyreflectingonthisrealitywill servetocontextualizetheproblemsIhavealreadyidentifiedandpavethewayfor rethinkingtherelevancyoftheTrinity.

6.2 Similar Problems in Contemporary Theology

InthediscussionthatfollowsIwillbrieflyexploretwoimportantparallelsthat existbetweenuseoftrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligionsand broadertrinitariantheology:(1)similarclaimsregardingthedoctrineoftheTrinityas providingthekeytosomeaspectofChristiandoctrineorpracticeand(2)similar methodologicalproblemsthatarisefromemployingtrinitariandoctrinetotheseends. 6.2.1 Similar Trinitarian Claims JustasanumberofChristiantheologiansinsistthatthedoctrineoftheTrinity holdsthekeytoaChristiantheologyofreligions,othertheologiansassertthatthe Trinityprovidesthekeytoaproperunderstandinghumanpersonhood,marriage, churchgovernment,societalrelations,ecology,etc.6Forexample,buildinguponthe
Ontheonehand,thisassumptioncanbetracedbacktoBarthwhenhesaysthatthedoctrineoftheTrinity mustshapeallofdogmatics:Ingivingthisdoctrineaplaceofprominenceourconcerncannotbemerely thatithavethisplaceexternallybutratherthatitscontentbedecisiveandcontrollingforthewholeof
6

311

 workofJohnZizioulas,ColinGuntonarguesthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityprovides thekeytoaproperunderstandingofwhatitmeanstobeaperson.Twocompeting accountsofpersonhoodvieforallegianceinthemodernworld.Thefirstcanbetraced toDescarteswhoidentifiedthepersonwiththemind.7Analternative(andclearly preferable)understandingofpersonhoodcanbefoundintheworkofJohnMacmurray. InhisGiffordLecturesentitledPersonsinRelation,Macmurraysuggeststhatpersons areconstitutedbytheirrelations:tobeapersonistobeinrelationwithothers. AlthoughMacmurraymakesnoreferencetoGodastriune,Guntonsuggeststhat MacmurraysaccountofpersonasconstitutedbyrelationhasdeeprootsinScripture (particularlytheGospelofJohn).8Moreover,antecedentstoMacmurraysworkcanalso beseeninthetrinitariantheologyofRichardofSt.VictorwhounderstandsFather,Son andHolySpiritaspersonsinrelation.9AccordingtoGunton,thesecompeting understandingsofpersonhood(personasindividualandpersonasconstitutedby relation)arerootedintwocompetingaccountsoftheTrinity.10Theformerismodeled ona(deficient)AugustinianunderstandingoftheTrinitywhilethelatterismodeled
dogmatics.Barth,ChurchDogmaticsI/1,303.Ontheotherhand,itseemsdifficulttobelievethatthe examplesthatfollowrepresentthekindofdecisiveinfluenceBarthhadinmind.
7Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,91.AccordingtoGunton,Descartesdualisticunderstandingof personhoodsupportsanindividualistunderstandingofwhatitmeanstobehuman. 8 9

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,91. Ibid.,92. Ibid.,92.

10

312

 onaCappadocianunderstandingoftheTrinity:TheCappadociantraditionissaying aboutthepersonsinGodwhatJohnMacmurraysaidabout(human)personsin community:theotherremainsessentiallyother.Eachrealizeshimselfinandthrough theother.Theuniquenessofeachpersonisthuspreserved,butwithoutthedestructive lapseintoindividualism.11 GuntonalsoassertsthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityprovidesthekeytoaproper understandingoftheChurch:[T]hemanifestinadequacyofthetheologyofthechurch derivesfromthefactthatithasneverseriouslyandconsistentlybeenrootedina conceptionofthebeingofGodastriune.12AccordingtoGunton,ecclesiologyhas largelybeendominatedbymonisticandhierarchicalconceptionsofthechurchthatare rootedinaNeoplatonicontology.Amoresatisfactoryontologyisneededinorderto arriveataproperunderstandingofthechurch.Thelattercanbefoundinthedoctrine oftheTrinity:thesoleproperontologicalbasisforthechurchisthebeingofGod,who iswhatheisasthecommunionofFather,SonandHolySpirit.13Thebeingofchurch analogicallymirrorstheimmanentbeingofthetriuneGod:[T]hechurchiswhatitisby

11Guntoncontinues,Thelogicallyirreducibleconceptofpersonasonewhoseuniquenessandparticularity derivefromrelationstootherswasdevelopedbytheEasternFathersintheheatoftheirconcernforthe loyaltyoftheChristianChurchtothebiblicalunderstandingofGod.Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarian Theology,9798. 12 13

Ibid.,58. Ibid.,72.

313

 virtueofbeingcalledtobeatemporalechooftheeternalcommunitythatGodis.14The churchechoestheperichoreticinterrelationofthedivinepersons.15Asaresult,no subordinationshouldmarkrelationshipsintheChristiancommunity.Onthecontrary, structuresofequalityshouldexistthatreflectthefreepersonalrelationswhich constitutethedeity.16SimilarclaimsregardingtheTrinityasmodelforthechurchcan alsobefoundinthewritingsofDanielMigliore,17CatherineLaCugna,18JohnZizioulas19 andMiroslavVolf.20

Ibid.,79(italicsmine).Similarly,Intheprevioussectiontherehasbeenattemptedanontologyofthe church,inwhichitwassuggestedthatamovement,carefullycontrolledbyanapophaticdoctrineofthe immanentTrinity,canbemadebetweenadoctrineofGodandadoctrineofthechurch.Therelation betweenthelatterandtheformerhasalreadybeendescribedasanechoing:thebeingofthechurchshould echothedynamicoftherelationsbetweenthethreepersonswhotogetherconstitutethedeity.Thechurch iscalledtobethekindofrealityatafinitelevelthatGodisineternity.Canfurtheraccountbegivenofthis analogy?Mostobviously,itcanbesaidthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityisbeingusedtosuggestwaysof allowingtheeternalbecomingofGodtheeternallyinteranimatingenergiesofthethreetoprovidethe basisforthepersonaldynamicsofthecommunity(ibid.,81).

14 15 16 17

Ibid.,82. Ibid.,80.

AccordingtoMigliore,Thethesisisthattrinitariandoctrineprovidesthekeytoapropertheologyof community.GenuinehumancommunityhasitsultimatebasisinthecommunionofthetriuneGod. DanielL.Migliore,TheCommunionoftheTriuneGod:TowardsaTrinitarianEcclesiologyinReformed Perspective,inReformedTheology:IdentityandEcumenicity.EditedbyWallaceM.Alston,Jr.andMichael Welker(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2003),140. Althoughtrinitariandoctrinemaynotspecifytheexactformsofstructureandcommunityappropriateto thechurch,itdoesprovideacriticalprincipletoevaluatethem:theyshouldbestructuredaccordingtothe modelofperichoresisamongpersons.CatherineM.LaCugna,GodForUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife(San Francisco:HarperCollins,1991),402.

18 19[T]heChurchmustreflectinherverybeingthewayGodexists,i.e.,thewayofpersonalcommunion.... ThefactthatGodrevealstousHisexistenceasoneofpersonalcommunionisdecisiveinourunderstanding ofthenatureoftheChurch.ItimpliesthatwhenwesaytheChurchiskoinonia,wemeannootherkindof communionbuttheverypersonalcommunionbetweentheFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.Italso impliesthattheChurchisbydefinitionincompatiblewithindividualism;herfabriciscommunionisand

314

 InSexualityandtheChristianBody:TheirWayintotheTriuneGod,EugeneRogers arguesthatChristianmarriagegayandstraightshouldmirrortheloveoftheFather fortheSontowhichtheSpiritbearswitness.21Withincreation,Godenablesdistantbut appropriatecorrelatestothetrinitarianloveinfreedomalsoforhumanlove,structured byspaceandtime.22Marriage,therefore,bearsananalogytothetrinitarianlife withintheconfinesoftimeandspace.23Becausetheultimateanalogueformarriageis thelifeofthetriuneGod,straightandgaymarriagesshouldberecognizedaslegitimate:

Thefamilyresemblancebywhichsamesexmarriagesdeservetobecalled marriagesisnotprimarilytheirresemblancetooppositesexunions,althoughthe familyresemblanceiscloseenough,withchildrenorwithout.Thefamily resemblancebywhichsamesexunionsdeservetobecalledmarriagesisthe sameresemblancebywhichChristiansjustifycallingoppositesexunions marriages:theirresemblancetothemarriageofChristandtheChurch.24

Similarly,inanessayentitledTheTrinitarianVocationoftheGayCommunity,Daneil HelminiakarguestheintratrinitarianlifeofGodconstitutesthemodelforgayand lesbianChristians.25Helminiaksuggeststhatfourparallelsexistbetweentheintra

personalrelatedness.JohnD.Zizioulas,TheChurchasCommunion,StVladimirsTheologicalQuarterly38 (1994):78(italicsoriginal). MiroslavVolf.AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1998), 191220.

20

EugeneF.Rogers,Jr.,SexualityandtheChristianBody:TheirWayintotheTriuneGod(Oxford:Blackwell, 1999).
21 22 23 24 25

Ibid.,202203. Ibid.,201. Ibid.,211. DanielA.Helminiak,TheTrinitarianVocationoftheGayCommunity,PastoralPsychology36(1987):100.

315

 trinitarianrelationsoftheFather,SonandSpiritandgay/lesbianrelations:(1)relations inwhichgenderisnotanissue,(2)relationswhichconstitutepersonsaspersons,(3) relationsinwhichpersonsareequal,and(4)relationsinwhichpersonalidentityisnot lost.26Gayandlesbianpersonsarecalledtocontributetothefulfillmentofacentral aspectofChristswork,toreproduceonearththeinnertrinitarianlifeofGodin heaven.27 InHolyTrinity,PerfectCommunity,LeonardoBoffpresentstheperfect communityofthedivinepersonsastheblueprintforsocietalrelations.28Boffwantsto seeanearthlysocietydevelopedthatwillreflecttheperichoreticunityofthedivine persons:WeseekasocietythatwillbemoreanimageandlikenessoftheTrinity,that willbetterreflectontheearththetrinitariancommunionofheaven,andthatwillmakeit easierforustoknowthemysteryofcommunionofthedivinethree.29Hebelievesthat thelongingforegalitarianformsofsocietyfindsitsbasisinthecommunionofthedivine persons.30Similarly,ThomasScirghiassertsthattheTrinityprovidesamodelfor
26 27 28 29 30

Ibid.,105107. Ibid.,109. LeonardoBoff,HolyTrinity,PerfectCommunity(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2000),66. Ibid.,xiv.

Welikewiseobserveinsocialprocessestodayanimmensedesireforparticipation,democratization,and change,aimingatforgingamoreegalitarian,participatory,pluralistic,andfamilyspiritedsociety.This yearningisintunewithatrinitarianunderstandingofGod.Indeed,itfindsinChristianfaithinGodas communionofthreedivinepersonsthetranscendentutopiaofallhumanstrivingsforformsthataremore participatory,communal,andrespectingofdiversity.Boff,HolyTrinity,PerfectCommunity,xiii.Naturally,

316

 belongingtoacommunity,specificallythecommunitiesofthechurchaswellasfor societyasawhole.31Greaterawarenessoftrinitariandoctrinewillhelpexposethe inherentindividualismofthecurrentconsumerideology,andfosteragenuinemeansof belonging.32Reflectingontherelationshipsofmenandwomeninsociety,Margaret FarleyarguesthattheverylifeoftheTrinitarianGodshouldbetheultimate normativemodelformale/femalerelationships.33Inthelattercontext,equality, mutualityandreciprocityserveasanormagainstwhicheverypatternofrelationship maybemeasuredaswellasagoaltowardwhicheveryrelationshipmoves.34Similar themesregardingtheTrinityasmodelforsocietalrelationsareechoedinthewritingsof othercontemporarytheologians. InTrinityandtheKingdomJrgenMoltmannarguesthatthedoctrineofthe Trinityprovidesthemodelofandbasisforegalitarianpoliticalstructures.35According toMoltmann,earlyChristianswonovereducatedmembersoftheRomanEmpireby
BofflocatestheChurchwithinthisvisionaswell:If,however,wetakeasourstartingpointthattheBlessed Trinityistheperfectcommunity,andthatthecommunionofthedivineThreemakesthemoneGod,then wewillseeanothertypeofchurchemerge.Itisfundamentallycommunity....Eachone,insofarasheor shecreatescommunityandbecomespartofthatcommunion,representstheBlessedTrinity(ibid.,66). ThomasJ.Scirghi,TheTrinity:AModelforBelonginginContemporarySociety.EcumenicalReview54 (2002):333.
31 32

Ibid.,341.

33MargaretA.Farley,NewPatternsofRelationship:BeginningsofaMoralRevolution,TheologicalStudies 36(1975):645. 34 35

Ibid.,646. JrgenMoltmann,TheTrinityandtheKingdom(Minneapolis:FortressPress,1993).

317

 proclaimingaformofphilosophicalmonotheism.36TheologianslikeJustin,Tatian andTertullianspokeofGodsruleintermofmonarchia.Thismonotheistic monarchianismprovedtobeaseductivereligiouspoliticalideologywhenitwas usedtosupportthehegemonyoftheRomanEmpire:TheuniversalrulerinRomehad onlytobetheimageandcorrespondenceoftheuniversalrulerinheaven.37Arianism andSabellianismrepresentthemostsignificantexamplesofmonotheistic monarchianism.Ratherthanstartingwithaphilosophicalaccountofdivineoneness, trinitarianreflectionmustbeginwiththethreedivinepersons.38Accordingto Moltmann,theunityofthethreedivinepersonsshouldnotbesoughtinthe homogeneityoftheonedivinesubstanceortheidentityoftheabsolutesubject.39 Rather,itmustbeperceivedintheperichoresisofthedivinePersons.40Bymeansof theireternallove,Father,SonandHolySpiritliveinoneanothertosuchadegreethat theyareone.41Perichoresisprovidesalinkbetweenthreenessandunitywithout reducingonedivinepersontoanother.42Properlyunderstood,perichoresisrulesout

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Ibid.,130. Ibid.,131. Ibid.,149. Ibid.,150. Ibid.,150(italicsoriginal). Ibid.,175. Ibid.,175.

318

 anyformofsubordinationismwithinthedivinelife.43Havingestablishedperichoresis asthatwhichconstitutestheunityofGod,Moltmannturnstotheimplicationsofthis doctrineforpoliticalandclericalstructures.ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisadoctrineof freedominasmuchasitcounterspoliticalandclericalmonotheism:Itisonlywhenthe doctrineoftheTrinityvanquishesthemonotheisticnotionofthegreatuniversal monarchinheaven,andhisdivinepatriarchsintheworld,thatearthlyrulers,dictators andtyrantsceasetofindanyjustifyingreligiousarchetypesanymore.44Thus,a politicaltheologywhichisexplicitlyChristianwillsupportpoliticalstructuresthat reflecttheperichoreticunityoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit.45Similarly,aclerical theologythatreflectstheperichoreticunityofthedivinepersonswillnotallowtheunity andauthorityofthechurchtobeconcentratedinasingleperson(e.g.,aPope).46In contrast,thedoctrineoftheTrinityconstitutesthechurchasacommunityfreeof

43Finally,throughtheconceptofperichoresis,allsubordinationisminthedoctrineoftheTrinityis avoided.ItistruethattheTrinityisconstitutedwiththeFatherasthestartingpoint,inasmuchasheis understoodastheoriginoftheGodhead.ButthismonarchyoftheFatheronlyappliestotheconstitution oftheTrinity.Ithasnovaliditywithintheeternalcirculationofthedivinelife,andnoneintheperichoretic unityoftheTrinity.HerethethreePersonsareequal;theyliveandaremanifestedinoneanotherand throughoneanother.Moltmann,TheTrinityandtheKingdom,17576. 44 45 46

Ibid,197. Ibid.,198200.

Moltmannarguesthatthetheologicaljustificationofpapalauthorityandunityofthechurchit guaranteesisvisiblydominatedbythemonotheisticwayofthinking.Moltmann,TheTrinityandthe Kingdom,201

319

 dominion.47TheformsofchurchgovernmentthatbestreflectthesocialTrinityinclude thepresbyterialandsynodalchurchorderbasedonbrotherlyadvice.48 WantingtoconnectTrinityandpoliticalthought,MichaelHimesandKenneth HimesarguethatthedoctrineoftheTrinityconstitutesthebasisforhumanrights.49 WhentheTrinityispresentedasadescriptionoftheinnerlifeofGod,thecentral Christiansymbolisrobbedofitsdepthandtransformativepower.50Thecentralinsight oftheTrinityisthattobeistobeinrelationship.Insuchacontext,lovingand beingareidentical.51Withinthedivinelife,existencedoesnotprecederelationship: ThusthedoctrineoftheTrinityisanessentiallyandradicallypoliticalstatement:it maintainsthatnotonlyishumanexistencesocialbutthatthegroundofallbeingis relationship.52Apublictheologywhichisgroundedinthisdoctrineprovidesthe deepestfoundationpossiblewithintheChristiantraditionfortherejectionofthe individualisticbiaswhichcandistorttheethicofhumanrightsasitiscommonly

47 48 49

Ibid.,202. Ibid.,202.

MichaelJ.HimesandKennethR.Himes,FullnessofFaith:ThePublicSignificanceofTheology(NewYork: PaulistPress,1993),5573.
50 51 52

Ibid.,56. Ibid.,59. Ibid.,59.

320

 understood.53Humanrightsaregroundedinthetrinitarianlifewhichis characterizedbyselfgiving.54 Fromadifferentangle,NeilPembrokepresentstheTrinityasamodelforthe therapeuticrelationofacounselortoaclient.55Morespecifically,hearguesthatthree formsoflove(agape,erosandphilia)thatareexpressedtowardaclientthrougha techniquecalledpastoralmirroringanalogicallyreflectthedivinepersonsofthe Trinity.56Inarguingthatagape,erosandphiliaimagethetriuneGod,Pembrokeclaims thatheisbuildingupontheworkofAugustineandAquinas. WantingtorelateTrinityandmission,DavidBjorkexplorestheimplicationsof thedoctrineoftheTrinityforChristianmissioninpostChristianlands(specifically

53 54 55 56

Ibid.,59. Ibid.,73. NeilF.Pembroke,Trinity,Love,andPastoralMirroring,PastoralPsychology53(2004):163173.

TheunityinthemeaningofthedivineloveisfoundinGodsgiftofGodsselffortheworld.Thisloving selfcommunicationis,however,expressedinthreeways:theFatheristheOriginatingLover;theSonthe incarnationofthatLove;andtheSpiritisthelivingpowerofthatLoveavailableintheworld.Inmaking theanalogicalmove,Iwillsuggestthathumanloveisalsooneandthree.Ourloveisalwaysacommunion betweenloverandbelovedinwhicheachonewantsthebestfortheother.Whilethereisthisunityinthe meaningofhumanlove,italsohasthreedistinctforms:agape,eros,andphilia.Withthisismind,Iwantto arguethethesisthatpositivemirroringisanactofloveinwhichagapic,erotic,andphilialelementsareall expressed.ThefullnessofdivineloveisexpressedinandthroughtheparticipationofFather,Son,andHoly Spirit.Thereisnodivisionorseparationindivineloving,butthereisparticularity.Eachpersonmanifests thedivineloveinaparticularway.Intheagapic,erotic,andphilialloveexpressedbythepastoralcounselor inandthroughhermirroring,weseeanimageoftheloveofthetriuneGod.Pembroke,Trinity,Love,and PastoralMirroring,164.

321

 France).57Mythesisisthataproperunderstandingofhowtheone,livingandtrueGod hasmanifestedhimselfasatrinityofpersonswithinafundamentalandabsoluteunity (asdescribedbytheGreekwordperichoresis)furnishesuswithaparadigmwhichmight informmissionaryendeavorsinpostChristendomlands.58Bjorksuggeststhatthe perichoreticunityofthedivinepersonsprovidesamodelforhowProtestant missionaries(suchashimself)shouldrelatetoCatholicsinpostChristianFrance.59To thisend,Bjorkidentifiesfivemissionalimplicationsthatfollowfromaproper understandingoftheunityofthedivinepersons.First,unitybetweenevangelicalsand CatholicsinFrancemustbeinterpersonal,notorganizational.60Second,unity betweenevangelicalsandCatholicsshouldbemarkedbyconstantlyinteracting cooperation.61JustasFather,SonandSpiritworktogetherintheeconomyofsalvation, soalsoCatholicsandevangelicalsshouldworktogether.Third,theformofunitythat existsmustpreserveintacttheidentityandpropertiesofeachother.62Asaresult,two distinctformsofwitnessinFrance(Catholicandevangelical)arebothlegitimate.
DavidBjork,TowardaTrinitarianUnderstandingofMissioninPostChristendomLands,Missiology27 (1999):231244.
57 58 59

Ibid.,232.

IsubmitthattheperichoreticunityoftheTrinityisanexample,pattern,ormodelthatprovidesan unmistakablesourceofcontextuality,comprehensiveness,andcoherencetomissionalendeavorsinpost Christendomlands.Bjork,TowardaTrinitarianUnderstandingofMission,242,note3.

60 61 62

Ibid.,237. Ibid.,238. Ibid.,239.

322

 Fourth,unitybetweenevangelicalsandCatholicsmustbuildinterdependencewhereby themembersaredefinedbasedontheirrelationshipswiththeothers.63Onegroup (e.g.,evangelicals)shouldnottrytodefineitselfapartfromanother(e.g.,Catholics). Finally,unityreflectingdivineperichoresisshouldinvolvepouringourselvesintothe other.64 Inanessayentitled,TrinitarianEcology,DavidWilliamsexploresthe implicationsoftrinitarianbeliefforaChristianunderstandingofenvironment.65 AccordingtoWilliams,GodsverybeingasimmanentTrinityalsohasecological implications.66Reasoningfromtheassumptionthecreationshouldreflectitstriune Creator,heexplainsthattrinitariandoctrineprovidesamodelfortheproperfunctioning oftheenvironment.Althoughitmaybetoomuchtoexpecttoseeeveryfacetof Trinitarianbeliefasreflectedinecology,theessentialnatureoftheTrinityistobe found,andisindeedvaluableinunderstandinghowtheworldshouldinterrelate.67 TheinsightofthedoctrineoftheTrinityisthatbothunityanddistinctivenessmust
63 64 65 66

Ibid.,239. Ibid.,240. DavidT.Williams,TrinitarianEcology,ScottishBulletinofEvangelicalTheology18(2000):14259.

ThedoctrineoftheTrinityhoweverprovidesfarmorethanevidenceofGodscarefortheworld,anda motivationforhumancareforit,howevermuchthiswouldotherwisebelittlemorethanemptyhope.Ifthe worldisacreationofthetriuneGod,whatmaybeexpectedisthatthistriunitywouldbereflectedinthe waythingsare.NotonlydoesGodsactionastheeconomicTrinityprovideanexampleforhumanaction, butGodsverybeingasimmanentTrinityalsohasecologicalimplications.Williams,TrinitarianEcology, 148.

67

Ibid.,149.

323

 coexistinthedivinelife.68Justasdistinctivenessandonenessareequallyessential intheTrinitysuchthatneithermaybeaffirmedattheexpenseoftheother,sothe heartofacorrectecologyisfoundinaproperbalancebetweenunity(inter relationship)anddiversity.Justasinterrelatednessexistsamongthedivinepersons,so interrelatednessmustobtainamonglivingthings.Furthermore,justasintertrinitarian relationshipsarestableandeternal,soalsotheworldshouldhaveastable ecosystem.69Williamssuggeststhatimportantparallelsexistbetweenthetwogreat trinitarianheresies(ArianismandSabellianism)andimproperecologicalattitudes.Just asArianismimproperlysubordinatedtheSontotheFather,EcologicalArianism improperlysubordinatesthecreationtohumanbeings.70EcologicalArianismfailsto recognizethathumanbeingsandtherestofcreationshareanequalityofessence inasmuchasallthingssharelife.71JustasSabellianismviewsFather,SonandHoly Spiritasasingleentityactingindifferentwaysaccordingtoparticularcircumstances,so EcologicalSabellianismpossessesadeficientunderstandingofchange(e.g.,viewing

68 69 70

Ibid.,149. Ibid.,153.

Ecologically,theAriansubordinationoftheSontotheFatherisparalleledinthedominionofhuman overtherestofthecreatedorder.Williams,TrinitarianEcology,154.
71

Ibid.,154.

324

 changingcircumstancesasjustificationforexploitationoftheenvironment).72 EcologicalSabellianismalsoassumeswronglythatchangemustinvolveloss.73A correctviewoftheTrinitycanleadtoaproperperspectiveontheenvironmentthatwill benefitthelatterratherthanharmingit.74 Finally,K.HelmetReicharguesthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityprovidesamodel forrelatingtheologyandscience.75Therelationshipbetweentheologyandscience, notesReich,isparticularlydifficult.Someunderstandtherelationofthesetwo disciplinesintermsofperpetualconflictwhileothersviewthesedisciplinesas completelyindependentofoneanother;manyseeaneedforsomeformofintegration. OnepromisingapproachtotheintegrationoftheologyandscienceinvolveswhatReich callsmultilevel/multilogicalanalysisbasedontherecognitionthatscienceand theologyoffercomplementaryexplanations.76Reichsuggeststhatananalogyexists betweenthecomplexmultilevelthoughtprocessrequiredtoexplainthedoctrineofthe

Ibid.,157.Fromadifferentperspective,EcologicalSabellianismmayassumethatoutsidethe ecosystemthereisthennootherreality.Williams,TrinitarianEcology,158.ThisformofEcological SabellianismfailstorealizethatGodintervenesintheworld.

72 73

Williams,TrinitarianEcology,159.

74AcorrectviewoftheTrinitygivesacorrectperspectiveoneachandsowhenparalleledinthe environmentwouldbenefitratherthanharmit.Indeed,aTrinitarianattitude,respectingthevalueofevery partoftheenvironment,itsdiversityandinterdependence,willbenefiteachpart,andsoultimately humanity.Williams,TrinitarianEcology,159.

K.HelmutReich,TheDoctrineoftheTrinityasaModelforStructuringtheRelationsBetweenScience andTheology,Zygon30(1995):383405.
75 76

Ibid.,396.

325

 Trinityandthecomplexformsofanalysisrequiredtorelatetheologyandscience.In addition,significantparallelsexistbetweenconceptsemployedinexplainingthe doctrineofthedivinepersonsandconceptsemployedinexplainingscientific phenomenaincludingdiversityinunity,multiplicityofrelationships,nonseparability andnonclassiclogic.77Finally,hepointsoutthatparallelsmayexistbetweentheunity anddiversityoftheTrinityandtheunityanddiversityoftheologicalandscientific explanations.78AlsowantingtorelateTrinityandscience,ColinGuntonassertsthata parallelexistsbetweenconceptsgeneratedbytheology,andparticularlytrinitarian theologyandtheformsofconceptualityinsomeofthediscoveriesofmodern science.79Forexample,animportantparallelexistsbetweenMichaelFaradaysaccount ofthemutualinterrelationofatoms(whichrepresentedanimportantshiftawayfrom simplyviewingatomsasdiscretesubstances),andtheclassicChristianunderstandingof theTrinity:WhatwehaveinFaradayisakindofdoctrineofperichoresis,the interpenetration,ofmatter.AsthethreepersonsoftheTrinityinterpenetratethebeings

77 78

Ibid.,383.

Forinstance,theunityofthethreepersonaeinspiteoftheirdiversityisapermanentreminderthatunity doesnotmeanuniformity(e.g.,Welker,1992,3334).IfTrinitarianthinkingispresent,asearchforabalance betweendiversityandunityshouldbeacontinuingundertaking(cf.MacFague,1993,9197).Furthermore, theTrinityisamodelforrelationshipswhichdifferwidelyfromoneanother...Reich,TheDoctrineof theTrinityasaModelforStructuringtheRelationsBetweenScienceandTheology,39798.

79

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,145.

326

 ofothers,soitiswiththematterofwhichtheworldhasbeenmade.80Guntonsuggests thatthreeelementsoftrinitariandoctrinefindechoesincontemporaryscientific thought:theconceptofrelation,theconceptoffreedomandtheconceptofenergy (whichparallelsadynamicratherthanstaticunderstandingofthebeingofGod).81 Relativitytheoryappliestothephysicaluniverseaconceptofrelationsthatparallels trinitarianrelations.82Inaddition,theuniversepossessesadynamicstructurethat reflectstheenergiesofthedivinepersons.Asaresult,thewholeuniversebecomes conceivableasadynamicstructureoffieldsofforceinmutuallyconstitutiverelations.83 6.2.2 Similar Methodological Problems Notonlydoesoneencountersimilartrinitarianclaims,butsimilar methodologicalproblemsalsoarisefromattemptstorelatetrinitariandoctrinetoa varietyofcontemporaryconcerns.Iwillexploretheseproblemsunderthreeheadings: TrinityandScripture,appealstotheimmanentTrinity,andthenotionoftheTrinityasa methodologicalprinciple.

80 81 82 83

Ibid.,145. Ibid.,14850. Ibid.,15657. Ibid.,157.

327


6.2.2.1 Trinity and Scripture: Severed Moorings

AsAlisterMcGrathrightlynotes,problemsinevitablyariseanytimetrinitarian speculationlos[es]itsmooringsinthelanguageofScripture.84Thisproblemcanbe seeninmanyoftheproposalsoutlinedabove.MooringstoScripturearesevered,for example,whentheologiansbuildanentiresocialprojectuponaspeculativeaccountof theunityofthedivinepersons(e.g.,perichoresis).Anotherexampleofsevered mooringscanbeseenintheattempttousetrinitariandoctrinetogroundthelegitimacy ofsamesexunions.Sincebothsamesexandoppositesexunionscanmirror perichoreticloveoftheFather,SonandSprit(whothemselvesarebeyondgender),both typesofunionsaresaidtobelegitimate.Withinthetheologyofreligions,theproblem ofseveredmooringscanbeseenmostclearlyintheworkofPanikkarandHeim.Both groundatheologyofreligionsinahighlyspeculativeaccountoftheTrinitythatis inadequatelyrootedintheScripturalrevelationofthetriuneGod.Moreover,Panikkar andHeimuseaspeculativeconceptionoftheTrinitytosubverttheteachingof Scripture. Sometimestheseseveredmooringsarefarmoresubtle.Withincontemporary discoursethetermsTrinityandtrinitariansometimesdonotrefertoanything

AlisterMcGrath,TheDoctrineoftheTrinity:AnEvangelicalReflection,inGodtheHolyTrinity: ReflectionsonChristianFaithandPractice,ed.,TimothyGeorge(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2006),30.
84

328

 christologicalorpneumatological.85Thisproblematicstateofaffairsstandsinsharp contrasttoAugustinewho(alongwithallearlyChristiantheologians)makesno methodologicaldistinctionbetweentrinitariantheologyandchristology.86When trinitariandoctrineisusedtounderminekeyChristologicalorpneumatological claimsweareencounteringseveredmoorings.Anotherexampleofseveredmoorings canbeseeninadevelopmentthattookplacewithintheecumenicalmovementinthe latesixties.TherewasaconsciousshiftawayfromaChristocentricunderstandingof missiontowardatrinitarianunderstandingofmission.InresponsetoKonrad Raiserssendorsementofthelattershift,LesslieNewbiginexpressesthefollowing concern:Whatgivesgroundforanxietyhereisthepositingofatrinitarianmodel againstthemodelofChristocentricuniversalism.87Newbiginpointsoutthatthe doctrineoftheTrinitywasnotdevelopedtoprovideamodelforparticipatory democracybutrathertoaccountforthefactsthatconstitutethesubstanceofthe gospel.88Hence,TosetatrinitarianparadigmoveragainstaChristologicalone,and
85Whentrinitarianoccursintitlesthesedays,itisalmostneverasignalthatanythingaboutdivine triunityisinview,orevenanythingchristologicalorpneumatological.FredSanders,TrinityTalk,Again. Dialog44(2005):264. 86Forahelpfuldiscussionofthisrealityalongwithitsimplicationsforhowoneshouldreadpatristic theology,seeJohnBehr,TheFormationofChristianTheology,vol.2,TheNiceneFaith(Crestwood,N.Y.:St. VladimirsSeminaryPress,2004),117and47581.

LesslieNewbigin,TheTrinityasPublicTruth,inTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997),7(italicsoriginal).
87 88

Ibid.,7.

329

 tocommenditascorrespondingtoanegalitarianclimateofopinion,wouldsurelybea disastrousmistake.89ItwasonlythroughitsrecognitionthatJesusisLordthatthe churcheventuallycametorecognizethatGodisTrinity.90Similarproblemscanbeseen intheworkofDupuisandYong.Dupuisusestrinitarianclaimstoundermine ChristianteachingregardingthepersonandworkofChristwhileYongusestrinitarian claimstoundermineChristianteachingabouttheunityofthetwohandsoftheFather intheeconomyofsalvation.91 Tothecontrary,onlywhentheologicalreflectionisboundbytheactualdetails ofGodsselfrevelationineconomywillthekindofproblemsoutlinedabovebe avoided.92Toframethisproblemintermsoftherelationshipbetweentheeconomicand theimmanentTrinity,wemustrecognizethatwhiletheimmanentTrinityconstitutes
89 90

Ibid.,7.

TheChurchlearnedtoworshipGodasTrinityonlybecausethroughtheatoningworkofChristmenand womenhavebeenbroughttoknowJesusasSaviorandLordandhavebeenenabledbythegiftoftheHoly SpirittobeincorporatedintotheeternalofferingofloveandobedienceoftheSonoftheFather.A trinitarianunderstandingofGodcannotbecomepartofpublictruthexceptthroughtheacknowledgement oftheuniversallordshipandsaviorhoodofJesusChrist.Topositatrinitarianmodelasanalternativetothe modelofChristocentricuniversalismwouldsurelybeagravemistake.Newbigin,TheTrinityasPublic Truth,8. PerhapsthemostblatantattempttousetrinitariandoctrinetounderminekeyChristologicalclaims canbeseeninJohnHickscallforaCopernicanrevolutioninwhichChristianstomovefrombeing Christocentrictotheocentric.SeeJohnHick,GodandtheUniverseofFaiths:EssaysinthePhilosophyof Religion(London:Macmillan,1973),12032.
91

LaCugna,GodforUs,365.LaCugnapointsoutthatTheologyderivesitsfreedomandlimitsfromits characterasdoxology.InonesensethetheologicalmodeofspeakingofGodisfarmoreproscribedthan anyotherwayofspeakingaboutGod,forexample,philosophically,becausethetheologianisboundbythe actualdetailsofGodsselfrevelationintheeconomy.Theeconomyplaceslimitsuponthekindsof conclusionsthetheologianmaydraw.LaCugna,GodforUs,365.

92

330

 theontologicalbasisfortheeconomic,wemustneverforgetthattheeconomicrevelation ofthetriuneGodconstitutesthesoleepistemologicalfoundationforourknowledgeofthe immanentTrinity.

6.2.2.2 Problematic Appeal to the Immanent Trinity

ForGunton,theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelfortheecclesialstructureofthe church.ForBoff,theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelforegalitariansocietalrelations. ForMoltmann,theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelforegalitarianpoliticalstructures. ForPembroke,theimmanentTrinityisamodelforcounselorclientrelations.ForBjork theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelforrelationsbetweenProtestantmissionariesand CatholicleadersinFrance.ForWilliams,theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelforthe properbalancebetweenunityanddiversityintheenvironment.ForReich,the immanentTrinityoffersamodelforrelationshipoftheologyandscience.ForPanikkar, theimmanentTrinityoffersamodelforthethreetypesofreligiousexperience.The examplescouldbemultiplied.ThistendencytotreattheimmanentTrinityasmodel isubiquitousincontemporarytheology.Althoughthevastmajorityoftheseproposals whichtreattheTrinityasmodelmakenoexplicitreferencetothevestigetradition, theyimplicitlyappealtothebasiclogicofthevestigetraditionnamelythatassumption thatsomecreatedreality(church,person,etc.)substantivelyreflectsthetriunityofGod. Wewillseeshortlythatthisstateofaffairsprovidesanimportantclueforevaluating

331

 them.Thereareatleastfourproblemswithemployingadoctrineoftheimmanent Trinityasmodelintheexamplescitiedabove. First,theappealtothedoctrineofimmanentTrinityintheseproposalsishighly selective.Itisnottheentiredoctrinewhichconstitutesamodelbutrathersome specificaspectofthedoctrinesuchastheequalityofthedivinepersonsortheir perichoreticunity.OtheraspectsofthedoctrinesuchasthethreenessofGodor theprocessionsaresimplyignored.93Theselectivenatureofcontemporaryappealto theimmanentTrinitycanbeseenmostclearlyinrelationtomedievalvestigetradition. Whencontemporarythinkerslookbackonthemedievalsearchforvestigesofthetriune Godincreation,theysometimesfinditoddthatmedievalthinkersthoughttheycould findinstancesofthethreenesseverywhere.Thatmanymodernsfindthisoddsimply reflectstheselectivenatureofcontemporaryappealtotheimmanentTrinity.What justifiessuchaselectiveappeal?Whodetermineswhichaspectsofthedoctrinearetobe

93Forexample,howmanyproposalswhichtreattheimmanentTrinityasmodelforecclesialstructures everappealinanysubstantivewaytothethreenessofGod?Contemporarytheologiansfrequentlyargue thatthereshouldbenoecclesialhierarchyinthechurchbecauseoftheequalitythatexistsamongthe divinepersons.ButwhynotarguethatthethreenessofGodconstitutesthemodelforachurchwiththree equalyetdistinctbranchesofgoverningauthority:anexecutivebranch(correspondingtotheFather),a legislativebranch(correspondingtotheWord)andajudicialbranch(correspondingtotheSpiritwhois describedinJohnsgospelasCounselor)?Inresponse,acriticmightpointoutthatmynotionof threenessistooabstract:thedoctrineoftheTrinityisnotaboutnumericalthreenessbutaboutthe Father,SonandSpirit.Theproblemwiththiscriticismisthatitcutsbothways:thenotionofequality employedinmanyappealstoperichoresisisequallyabstract.Thus,inresponse,onecouldsimilarly arguethatthedoctrineoftheTrinityisnotaboutequalitybutaboutrelationsoforiginthatobtain betweentheFather,SonandSpirit.

332

 ignored?OnestrikingfeatureaboutAugustinessearchforreflectionsofthetriuneGod increationisthewayinwhichtheentiredoctrineprovidestheblueprintforhissearchfor areflectionofthetriuneGodinthedivineimageinthemens.Oneexampleofhighly selectiveappealtotheimmanentTrinityintheChristiantheologyofreligionswouldbe Heimsappealtopreciselythreedimensionsofthetriunelifewhichgroundhis theologyofmultiplereligiousends.TheprimarycontinuitybetweenHeims dimensionsandorthodoxtrinitarianteachingisessentiallythenumberthree. Second,thesetheologianswronglyassumethattheimmanentTrinityoffersa readymadeblueprintformarital,societal,ecclesial,politicalecologicalandeveninter religiousstructures.ToconstrueadoctrineoftheimmanentTrinityasprovidingsucha blueprintrestsonadistortedunderstandingofwhatitmeansforadoctrineofthe Trinitytoberelevant.Inanessayentitled,IstheTrinityaPracticalDoctrine?Ola Sigurdsonarguesthatthedoctrineisnotpracticalinthesensethatonecanconstrue amoreorlesscompletesocialprogramfromit.94EvenCatherineLaCugnawho championedthepracticalnatureoftrinitariandoctrineacknowledges,Thepractical natureofthedoctrineoftheTrinitydoesnotmeanitisapragmaticprinciplethat furnishesaneasysolutiontowarorviolence,oryieldsablueprintforacatechetical

OlaSigurdson,IstheTrinityapracticaldoctrine?inTheConceptofGodinGlobalDialogue,ed.WernerG. JeanrondandAasulvLande(Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,2005),121.
94

333

 program,orsettlesvexingdisagreementsoverthechurchspublicprayer.95Itis importanttorecognizethatScripturedoesnotexhortChristianstoimitatetheimmanent lifeofthetriuneGodapartfromtheeconomyofsalvation.Rather,imitationtakesplace ontheeconomiclevel:itisaredemptiverelationwiththetriuneGodpreciselyinthe economyofsalvationthatconstitutesthemodelforChristianimitation.96Thus,Paul exhortsChristianstoimitatehimnotasheimitatestheintratrinitarianlifeofthetriune GodbutrathertoimitatehimasheimitatestheincarnateChrist(1Cor.4:1516;11:1;1 Thes.1:6;andPhil.3:17).Similarly,themodelforChristianloveintheNewTestament istheselfgivingoftheSononthecross:ThereforebeimitatorsofGod,asbeloved children.Andwalkinlove,asChristlovedusandgavehimselfupforus,afragrant offeringandsacrificetoGod(Eph.5:12,ESV).ThemodelforChristianmarriageisnot theimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodbuttheloveofChristforthechurchasexpressedin thecross(Eph.5:2133).ThemodelforChristianhumilityisnotsomeformofintra trinitariankenosis(lavonBalthasar)buttheeconomicselfemptyingoftheSonwho, thoughhewasintheformofGod,didnotcountequalitywithGodathingtobe grasped,butmadehimselfnothing,takingtheformofaservant,beingborninthe
95 96

LaCugna,GodforUs,379.

NoticehowAugustineemphasizesmodelingourlivesafterChrist:Thus,toconclude,itisnotsurprising thatscriptureshouldbespeakingabouttheSonwhenitspeaksaboutwisdom,onaccountofthemodel whichtheimagewhoisequaltotheFatherprovidesuswiththatwemayberefashionedtotheimageof God;forwefollowtheSonbylivingwisely.Augustine,DeTrin.,VII.5,223.

334

 likenessofmen.Andbeingfoundinhumanform,hehumbledhimselfbybecoming obedienttothepointofdeath,evendeathonacross(Phil.2:68,ESV).Similarly,the intratrinitarianrelationsofthedivinepersonsdonotprovideablueprintforChristian mission.Thus,tosuggestthatProtestantsandCatholicsshouldworktogetherwhile maintainingdistinctecclesialidentitiesbecausetheFather,SonandSpiritworktogether whilemaintainingdistincthypostaticidentitiesisunwarranted.Christianmissionis constitutedbyimitatingsomeaspectoftheintratrinitarianlifebutbyparticipatinginthe continuingmissionoftheSonandSpiritintheeconomyofsalvation:AstheFatherhas sentme,evensoIamsendingyou(John20:21b,ESV).Returningtothetheologyof religions,theimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodshouldnotbeseenasamodelfortheunity anddistinctionbetweenChristianityandotherreligions.97 Inresponsetothepreviouspoint,onemightarguethatseveralNewTestament textsdoappeartotreattheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodasamodelforhuman

ThefollowingstatementsexemplifytheassumptionthattheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGodshouldbe seenasablueprintforunityanddistinctionbetweenChristianityandotherreligions:Godhassomething todowiththefactthatadiversityofindependentwaysofsalvationappearsinthehistoryoftheworld. Thisdiversityreflectsthediversityorpluralitywithinthedivinelifeitself,ofwhichtheChristiandoctrineof theTrinityprovidesanaccount.ThemysteryoftheTrinityisforChristianstheultimatefoundationfor pluralism.PeterC.Hodgson,TheSpiritandReligiousPluralism,inTheMythofReligiousSuperiority: MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005),136.Similarly, ItisimpossibletobelieveintheTrinityinsteadofthedistinctiveclaimsofallotherreligions.IfTrinityis real,thenmanyofthesespecificreligiousclaimsandendsmustberealalso....TheTrinityisamapthat findsroomfor,indeedrequires,concretetruthinotherreligions.MarkHeim,TheDepthoftheRiches: TrinityandReligiousEnds,ModernTheology17(2001):22(italicsoriginal).
97

335

 relations.OnepossibleexamplemightbeJesushighpriestlyprayerinJohn17.98Three timesJesuspraysthathisfollowersbothpresentandfuturemaybeonejustas ()heandtheFatherareone:John17:11( );John17:21(

, , , );andJohn17:22(
).Inthisprayer,itappearsthatanintentionalparallelisbeingdrawn betweentheintratrinitarianunityoftheFather/Sonrelationshipandtheunityofthe church.Letusassume,forthesakeofargument,thatthedivineunitywhichChrist praysmightbereflectedthelivesofhisfollowersisnotmerelyeconomic(i.e.,aunityof willandpurposebetweentheFatherandSon)butalsointratrinitarian.Doessuchan acknowledgementmilitateagainstmyclaiminthepreviousparagraph?Threefactors suggestitdoesnot.First,noexhortationcanbefoundintheseversesforChrists followerstoimitatetheTrinityinse.Second,theunityforwhichChristpraysisnot constitutedassuchbybeingaplatonicreflectionoftheintratrinitarianunityofthe Father,SonandHolySpirit.Rather,thisunityisconstitutedbyarelationwithand participationinthesalvificworkofthetriuneGodthroughthemissionoftheSonand Spirit.99Participationnotimitationisthecentralfocus.Finally,theprecisenatureof
Anotherpossibilitymightbe1Corinthians11:3whichappearstodrawsomekindofparallelbetween God/Christandman/woman.
98

Ironically,treatingtheimmanentTrinityasmodelfortheChurchendsupseveringTrinityandChurch. JohnBehrarguesthatthisproblemcanbeseeninthetrinitarianecclesiologyofJohnZizioulaswhotreats thecommunionofthechurchasanimageofthecommunionofthedivinepersons.Behroutlinesan

99

336

 theparallelinJohn17isnotspelledout.Itisonethingtoaffirm,insomegeneralsense, thattheunityofthechurchsomehowanalogicallyreflectstheunitythedivinepersons. Itisquiteanothertospecifythepreciseontologicalcontentofthatdivineunityandthen drawastraightlinefromthisspeculativeconceptiontoaspecificecclesialstructure. ThisbringsustoathirdproblemwithtreatingtheimmanentTrinityas modelnamely,theproblemofprojection.KarenKilbysuggeststhatthisproblem canbeseenmostclearlyintheworkofcontemporarysocialtrinitarianswhotreatthe perichoreticunityofthedivinepersonsasaresourceforcombatingindividualism, patriarchyandoppressiveformsofpoliticalandecclesiasticalorganization.100Kilby suggeststhatappealstoperichoresisamongsocialtrinitariansfrequentlyinvolve threesteps.101First,perichoresisisidentifiedasthatwhichconstitutestheunityof Father,SonandHolySpirit.Next,perichoresisisdefinedbyprojectingsomespecific
alternativewayofrelatingTrinityandChurchwhichgroundstheChurchintheeconomicworkofthe triuneGod:ThethreeprimaryscripturalimagesfortheChurchthatis,theChurchasthepeopleofGod, thebodyofChristandthetempleoftheHolySpiritofferus,assuggestedbyBruceMarshall,awayof lookingatthetrinitarianbeingoftheChurchinawaythatintegratestheChurchdirectlyandintimatelyto therelationshipbetweentheFather,SonandHolySpirit.Moreover,eachoftheseimageslinkstheChurch inaparticularwaytoonememberoftheTrinitywithoutunderminingthebasicCappadocianpoint,thatthe actionsofGodaredifferentiatedbutnotdivided:itistheoneGod,theFather,whocallstheChurchinto beingasthebodyofChristindweltbytheHolySpirit;andinreturn,theChurchisconceivedintermsof communion,butcommunionwithGod,asthebodyofhisSon,anointedwithhisSpirit,andsocallingupon GodasAbba,Father.JohnBehr,TheTrinitarianBeingoftheChurch,St.VladimirsTheologicalQuarterly 48(2004):70. KarenKilby,PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesoftheTrinity,NewBlackfriars 81(2000):438.
100 101

Ibid.,442.

337

 aspectofhumanrelatednessintoGodsimmanentlife.Finally,perichoresisis commendedasanexcitingresourceChristianshavetoofferthebroaderworld. Projection,then,isparticularlyproblematicinatleastsomesocialtheoriesoftheTrinity becausewhatisprojectedontoGodisimmediatelyreflectedbackontotheworld,and thisreverseprojectionissaidtobewhatisinfactimportantaboutthedoctrine.102The problemofprojectioncanalsobeseeninthetheologyofreligions.Whereassocial trinitariansprojectaspectsofhumanrelatednessintotheimmanentlifeofthetriune God,Panikkarprojectshumanreligiousexperienceintotheimmanentlifeofthetriune GodandthenreinterpretstheTrinityonthisbasis.Theseexamplesrepresentatleast oneinstanceinwhichLudwigFeuerbachscritiquewasontarget:whenthiskindof projectiontakesplace,theologyisineluctablyreducedtoanthropology.103Weareno longerspeakingaboutGodbutmerelyaboutourselves.KarlBarthrightlyrecognized

Ibid.,442(italicsoriginal).Interestingly,CatherineLaCugnaoffersasimilaranalysis:Inthedesireto remedysomeofthegreatproblemsoftheday,thetemptationistousethedoctrineoftheTrinityasan autonomousdatumandevenpremisefortheologythatisappliedtoaparticularproblem,forexample, unequaldistributionofresources.ItisasifthegoalistofigureoutGodinsethenumberofpersons, relationsandprocessionsandhowtheyareconfiguredandthenprojectthisintradivinestructureonto humancommunity,orviceversa.Butaswehaveseen,thisstrategy,whetheritsupportsahierarchicalor egalitarianvision,inevitablyappearstobeatranscendentalprojectionofhumanpreferencesontoGod. LaCugna,GodForUs,37980.ReaderswillneedtodecideforthemselveswhetherLaCugnaadequately takesthisproblemintoaccountinherownconstructiveproposal.

102

SeeLudwigFeuerbach,TheEssenceofChristianity,trans.GeorgeEliot(NewYork:HarperandBrothers, 1957).
103

338

 thesignificanceofFeuerbachscritique.104Itrequiresverylittlecreativitytoimagine whatFeuerbachwoulddowithsomeofthetheologicalmaterialoutlinedabove. Finally,manyoftheproposalswhichtreattheimmanentTrinityasamodel alsofailtotakeintoaccounttheimplicationsofthecreator/creaturedistinction.InBook XVofDeTrinitate,AugustineconcludesthattheTrinitythatGodiscannotsimplybe readoffthedivineimageinthecreaturebecausethevastdissimilaritythatexists betweenthetriuneGodandthedivineimageinthemens.Thisfundamentaldifference (whichAugustineexplicatesthroughagrammarofdivinesimplicity)impliesthatno vestigecouldeveradequatelyreflecttheTrinitybecausethedissimilaritythatobtains willalwaysexceedanysimilaritythatexists.Thecreator/creaturedistinction,therefore, disallowsanydirectmovefromtheimmanentrelationstohumanrelations.Inprinciple, manycontemporarytheologiansacknowledgethis.MiroslavVolf,forexample,insists thattherecanbenostraightlinefromTrinitytochurchorTrinitytosociety.105Certain mediationsarerequiredbecausehumanbeings,ascreatures,cancorrespondtoGod onlyinacreaturelyfashion.106AccordingtoVolf,thiscreaturelycorrespondenceis dynamicinasmuchasitexistsbetweenbaptism(whichbringshumansinto
104SeeBarthsintroductoryessaytothe1957editionofFeuerbachsbook.Feuerbach,TheEssenceof Christianity,xxxxii.DiscussionsofFeuerbachscritiquecanalsobefoundinhisChurchDogmatics.SeeKarl Barth,ChurchDogmaticsII/1,TheDoctrineofGod,trans.T.H.L.Parker,W.B.Johnston,HaroldKnightand J.L.M.Haire(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1957),29293,44850,467. 105 106

Volf,AfterOurLikeness,194. Ibid.,199(italicsoriginal).

339

 communionwithGod)andfinalnewcreation(inwhichthiscommunionrealizesits fullestpotential).107Similarly,ColinGunton,acknowledgesthatitisnotappropriateto arguedirectlyfromtheimmanentTrinitytothechurch:Butcautionhasalsobeen advisedaboutarguingdirectlytothechurchfromtheimmanentTrinity.Thatis particularlyimportantwhenappropriationsareattemptedfromthesupposedpatterns ofrelationshipbetweenthepersonsoftheGodhead.108Anycorrespondencethatexists betweentheTrinityandtheChurchmust,therefore,beanalogical:Ifthereisone,it shouldbeofanindirectkind,inwhichthechurchisseenascalledtobea,sotospeak, finiteechoorbodyingforthofthedivinepersonaldynamics.109AlthoughGuntonand Volfbothacknowledgetheselimitationsinprinciple,theyappeartoabandonthemat crucialpointsinpractice.VolfscritiqueoftheecclesiologiesofJosephRatinzger (Catholic)andJohnZizioulas(Orthodox)appearstodrawastraightlinefromparticular conceptionsoftheimmanentTrinitytoparticularunderstandingsofthechurch.Note carefully:VolfdoesnotarguethatRatzingerandZizioulasarewrongtoarguefrom Trinitytochurch.110Onthecontrary,hearguesthatadirectparallelexistsbetween
107 108 109 110

Ibid.,199. Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,7374. Ibid.,74.

Ratzinger,inpointoffact,doesnotexplicitlygroundhisecclesiologyinthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Volf, however,arguesthattrinitarianassumptionsexertadeterminativeinfluenceonRatzingersunderstanding ofthechurch:RatzingerhaswrittenlittleabouttheTrinity,thoughkeypassagesinhisargumentation containbriefreferencestotherelationsbetweenthetriuneGodandhumanbeings.Thesereferences,

340

 inadequateconceptionsoftheTrinityandinadequateconceptionsofthechurch. AccordingtoVolf,Ratzingersaccountofthechurchpossessesthesameweaknessashis trinitariantheology:itprivilegesunityoverplurality.Zizioulasaccountofthechurchis deficientforadifferentreason.Zizioulas(problematic)accountofthepriorityofthe bishopoverthecongregationisrootedinadeficientunderstandingofthemonarchyof theFather.111IncontrasttoRatzingerandZizioulas,Volfassertsthatproperecclesial structuresshouldreflecttheperichoreticunityofthedivinepersons.Inhiscritique, Volfappearstodrawastraightlinefromapurportedlyinadequateaccountofthe Trinitytoaninadequateaccountofthechurch.112Similarly,inhisdiscussionofthe ecclesiology,ColinGuntondrawsastraightlinefromtwoconceptionsoftheimmanent Trinity(AugustinianandCappadocian)totwoformsofecclesiology (monistic/authoritarianandcommunal/egalitarian).113Furthermore,Guntonappeals directlytotheimmanentTrinitytogroundhisclaimthatrelationsofpermanent subordinationinthechurchshouldbereplacedbyapatternmorereflectiveofthefree

however,reflectwhatcloserexaminationconfirms,namely,thatallthecrucialelementsinhisecclesiology andentiretheologyarerootedinthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Theentirelifeofthechurch,includingits spiritualityandstructures,isshapedincorrespondencetoacertainunderstandingoftheTrinity.Volf, AfterOurLikeness,67.

111 112

Ibid.,73123.

Moreover,itisdifficult,toseehowVolfscritiqueofRatzingerandZizioulascangainanyforcewithouta directlinkbetweentheimmanentTrinityandthechurch.
113

Gunton,ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,7480.

341

 personalrelationswhichconstitutethedeity.114Moreover,inhisdiscussionofhuman personhood,GuntondrawsastraightlinefromtwoconceptionsoftheimmanentTrinity (AugustinianandCappadocian)totwoconceptionsofwhatitmeanstobehuman (individualismandpersoninrelation).115Thus,bothVolfandGuntonappearto abandoninpracticewhattheyaffirminprinciple.

6.2.2.3 Trinity as a Methodological Principle

ContemporarytheologyisshapedbyanassumptionthattheTrinityoffersa methodologicalkeytoavarietyofissues.Thisassumptionexplainstheinflatedclaims thatareoftenmaderegardingthesignificanceofthedoctrineoftheTrinity(including thosewehaveencounteredintheChristiantheologyofreligions).Ontheonehand, thereisnoquestionthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityisacentralChristiandoctrine inasmuchasitsecurestheidentityofGodandsummarizesthegospel.Ontheother hand,whileacknowledgingthecentralityofthisdoctrine,onemustquestiontheclaim thatthedoctrineoftheTrinityconstitutesamethodologicalkeytocontemporary theologyasifitholdstheanswerstoeverykindofquestion.116Againstthedirectionofa

114 115 116

Ibid.,80. Ibid.,92.

ThroughanengagementwithZizioulasandGunton,RichardFermerchallengestheassumptionthatthe doctrineoftheTrinityoffersasinglemethodologicalprinciple.SeeRichardM.Fermer,TheLimitsof TrinitarianTheologyasaMethodologicalParadigm,NeueZeitschriftfrSystematischeTheologieund Religionsphilosophie41(1999):15886.

342

 growingconsensus,IhavearguedthatnoroadexistsfromtheChristiandoctrineofthe Trinitytoatheologyofreligions;thus,adoctrineoftheTrinitydoesnotholdthekeyto anewunderstandingofreligiousdiversity.Issuessurroundingreligiousdiversityare betterinflectedthroughthedoctrinesofcreation,fallandredemption.117Asimilarpoint couldbemaderegardingmarriage.Arenotthedoctrinesofcreation(whichprovides thepatternformarriage)andfall(whichhighlightdistortionsofthispattern)more relevanttoquestionsregardingthelegitimacyofsamesexunionsthanthedoctrineof theTrinity?Inaddition,arenotthedoctrinesofcreationandfallmorerelevanttoa ChristianunderstandingofecologythantheimmanentlifeofthetriuneGod? Furthermore,whymusteveryethicalclaimbereducibletoorgroundedonsomeaspect oftrinitarianontology?Inmanyoftheseproposalstheassumptionseemstobethatif Christianscanonlyunderstandsomeaspectoftrinitariandoctrine(e.g.,thattheTrinity islovingcommunity)theywilllivedifferently(e.g.,bemorelovingtowardothers).This assumptionrestsonadeficientanthropology.AccordingtotheNewTestament,love arisesnotfromunderstandingsomeaspectofdivineontology(e.g.,perichoresis)but fromaredemptiverelationwiththetriuneGod.Whyisitnotadequatetoground humanrightsinadoctrineofcreation?AsRichardFermerrightlynotes,inmanycases

OnesometimessensesthatappealismadetothedoctrineoftheTrinitypreciselytoavoidinflectingthe discussionthroughthesedoctrines.
117

343

 thewordsandactionsofChristseemfarmoresuitableforpromotingmanyofthese virtuesratherthanadirectappealtotheimmanentTrinity.118

6.3 Rethinking the Relevancy of the Trinity: Augustinian Reflections

ContemporarytheologyisdrivenbyaquesttomaketheTrinityrelevant. Unfortunatelythisquestforrelevancyisrootedinaproblematicunderstandingofwhat itmeansfortrinitariandoctrinetoberelevant.Inthisfinalsection,Iwanttoconsider howAugustine(whosetrinitariantheologyhassomewhatironicallybeendismissed asirrelevant)challengesustorethinkwhatitmeansforadoctrineoftheTrinitytobe relevant.InconversationwithAugustine,Iwilloutlinesixpositivepurposesfor trinitariandoctrine. 6.3.1 Reconsidering Augustine Beforeoutliningthesesixpurposes,itisimportanttoofferafinalwordregarding theongoingvalueoftheAugustiniantrinitariantradition.Thereisnoquestionthat AugustinesteachingontheTrinityhasexertedatremendousinfluenceuponthechurch intheWest.WhatisdisputediswhetherAugustinesteachingontheTrinityandits subsequentinfluenceshouldbeviewedpositivelyornegatively.ColinGunton, CatherineLaCugnaandotherswouldhaveusbelievethatAugustinesteachingonthe
118

Fermer,TheLimitsofTrinitarianTheologyasaMethodologicalParadigm.186.

344

 Trinitypossessesadeficientcharacterandthatthesedeficienciesaccountforits (allegedly)problematicinfluenceuponthechurch.BuildingupontheworkofLewis AyresandMichelBarnes,IarguedinchaptertwothatGuntonscriticismsarerootedin multiplemisunderstandingsofAugustinestrinitarianteaching.Thereisnoneedto rehearsethosepointshere.Itisimportant,however,torecognizethatchaptersthreeto fivebuilduponchaptertwonotbyansweringadditionalcriticismsofAugustinebut ratherbysettingforthAugustinestrinitarianteachingandthendemonstratingthekind ofcriticalworkthelatterisabletodo.Hence,thisinvestigationoffersaninductive argumentforthecontinuingvalueoftheAugustiniantrinitariantradition.Aswritings ontheTrinitycontinuetomultiply,contemporarytheologiansneedtoreengagethe traditionthathasshapedthechurchforsixteencenturies.119Thetrinitarianteachingof AugustinehasvaluenotonlyinhelpingevaluatecurrentuseoftheTrinityinthe theologyofreligionsbutalsoinrethinkingwhatitmeansforadoctrineoftheTrinityto berelevant.Withthisinmindwewillconsidersixpositivepurposesoftrinitarian doctrine.

ItwasonlythroughanindepthengagementwiththetrinitarianteachingofAugustinethatIbegantosee theproblemswithcontemporaryuseofthetrinitariandoctrineintheChristiantheologyofreligions.
119

345

 6.3.2 Six Purposes of Trinitarian Doctrine

6.3.2.1 Theological Purpose

Firstandforemost,thedoctrineoftheTrinityisateachingaboutGod.Wemight describethisasthetheologicalpurposeofthedoctrine.Itsummarizesbiblicalteaching aboutGodasFather,SonandHolySpiritintheformofontologicalclaimsandthus providesaregulativegrammarthatguidesChristianspeechaddressedtoGod(e.g., worship,prayer)aswellasChristianspeechaboutGod(e.g.,theology,preaching, evangelism).120 Thetheologicalpurposeofthisdoctrineisfundamentallyobscuredwhenits truesignificanceislocatedinitsabilitytoprovideamodelforecclesial,societalor interreligiousstructures.Manyoftheproposalsexaminedearlierinthischaptersubtly

120Byinvokingtheimageofdoctrineasgrammar,IamnotsuggestingthatthedoctrineoftheTrinity shouldmerelybeseenasasecondorderdoctrinethatonlystructuresChristianbelief.Accordingto KarenKilby,weshouldrenouncetheveryideathatthepointofthedoctrineistogiveinsightintoGod. Kilby,PerichoresisandProjection,443.ThedoctrineoftheTrinitydoesnotneedtobeseenasa descriptive,firstorderteachingthereisnoneedtoassumethatitsmainfunctionmustbetoprovidea pictureofthedivine,adeepunderstandingofthewayGodreallyis(ibid.).ForKilbytheprimary significanceofthedoctrineisgrammatical.Itprovidesasyntaxthatdescribeshowvariousaspectsof theChristianfaithholdtogether(ibid.).IncontrasttoKilby,IamsuggestingthatdoctrineoftheTrinity shouldalsobeseenasafirstorderdoctrinethatmakesontologicalclaimsaboutthenatureofthetriune God.Thetheologicalpurposeofthisdoctrineisunderminedwhenitisreducedtoasecondorder grammar.ForacritiqueofKilby,seeMatthewLevering,ScriptureandMetaphysics:AquinasandtheRenewal ofTrinitarianTheology,ChallengesinContemporaryTheologySeries(Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,2004),236 41;andidem,FriendshipandTrinitarianTheology:ResponsetoKarenKilby,InternationalJournalof SystematicTheology9(2007):3954.ItisclearinDeTrinitatethatAugustineisnotmerelyinterestedin articulatingacoherenttrinitariangrammar;heviewshistrinitarianteachingasmakingfirstorderclaims aboutGod(withoutinanywayunderminingtheultimateincomprehensibilityofGod).Eveninthislife, humansareabletoknowthetriuneGodalbeitinalimitedway.Regardingthelimitednatureofthis knowledge,seemydiscussionofthedoxologicalpurposebelow.

346

 obscurethetheologicalpurposeoftrinitariandoctrine.Notice,forexample,how MichaelHimesandKennethHimesintroducetheirdiscussionofTrinityandhuman rightsbypointingreaderstowardtherealsignificanceofthisdoctrine:Whenthe Trinityispresentedinpreachingandcatechesisasinformationoddbutauthoritative abouttheinnerlifeofGod,thecentralChristiansymbolisrobbedofitsdepthand transformativepower.121Astheirexplanationunfolds,itappearstherealpowerof thisdoctrineistobefoundnotinwhatitteachesusaboutGodbutratheritsabilityto addresspressingcontemporaryproblemssuchashumanrights.

6.3.2.2 Doxological Purpose

Asecondpurposeoftrinitariandoctrineisdoxologicalinasmuchascareful attentiontotrinitariandoctrineenablesusrightlytoworshipGod.122Trinitarian teachingshapestheliturgicalpracticesofthechurchincludinggospelproclamation, baptism,prayer,worship,preaching,andcommunion(Eucharist).123

121 122

HimesandHimes,FullnessofFaith:ThePublicSignificanceofTheology,56.

AsClaudeWelchrightlynotes,thedoctrineoftheTrinityhasimportanceindeterminingthepatternof worshipsothatitshallbetrulydirectedtohimwhoisknowntousinChrist.ClaudeWelch,InThisName: TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinContemporaryTheology(NewYork:CharlesScribnersSons,1952),292. Fordiscussionoftrinitariannatureoftheliturgicalpracticesofthechurch,seeGeoffreyWainwright, WorshipwithOneAccord:WhereLiturgyandEcumenismEmbrace(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997), 23750;andidem,Doxology:ThePraiseofGodinWorship,DoctrineandLife(NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1980).Foradiscussionofthetrinitariannatureofbaptism,seeKathrynGreeneMcCreight,WhenI SayGod,IMeanFather,SonandHolySpirit:OntheEcumenicalBaptismalFormula,ProEcclesia6(1997): 289308.

123

347

 OneofthecentralpointsofdisputebetweenproNiceneandantiNicene elementsintheGreekspeakingchurchofthefourthcenturywasthepropernatureof worship.AlongsidethedoxologyPraisetotheFatherthrough()theSonin()the HolySpirit,BasilofCaesarea(andotherProNiceneChristians)alsousedthefollowing form:PraisetotheFatherwith()theSontogetherwith()theHolySpirit.124 AntiNicenesasserted,onavarietyofgrounds,thatthelatterdoxologywas inappropriateandshouldnotbeusedinpublicworship.Inresponse,Basilarguesthat bothdoxologiesarenecessaryinordertoexpresssuitablehonortotheFather,Sonand HolySpirit.Thefirstdoxology(usingtheprepositionsand)ishelpfulin expressingtheeconomicactivityofthedivinepersonswhiletheseconddoxology(using theprepositionsand)ishelpfulinexpressingtheirintratrinitarianrelations.125
124InhisintroductorycommentstoAmphilochios,Basilexplains,LatelywhileIpraywiththepeople,we sometimesfinishthedoxologytoGodtheFatherwiththeformGlorytotheFatherwiththeSon,together withtheHolySpirit,andatothertimesweuseGlorytotheFatherthroughtheSonintheHolySpirit.Some ofthosepresentaccusedusofusingstrangeandmutuallycontradictoryterms.Butyourwishcertainlyisto helpthesepeople,or,iftheyshouldprovecompletelyincurable,tosafeguardthosewhoassociatewith them;thatiswhyyouthinkthatclearteachingconcerningtheforceunderlyingtheseprepositionsis desirable.Iwillwriteasconciselyaspossible,hopingtopresentasuitablebeginningforthisdiscussion. St.BasiltheGreat,OntheHolySpiritI.3,trans.DavidAnderson(Crestwood,N.Y.:St.VladimirsSeminary Press,1980),1718. 125Noticeinthefollowingstatementshow,accordingtoBasil,theprepositionin()bestexpressesthe economicactivityoftheSpiritwhiletheprepositionwith()aptlyexpressestheintratrinitarian relationoftheSpirittotheFatherandtheSon:TheSpiritissaidtodwellincreatedthingsinmanyand variousways,butasfarasHisrelationshiptotheFatherandSonisconcerned,itismoreappropriatetosay thatHedwellswiththem,ratherthaninthem.ThosewhoareworthyreceiveHisgrace,andHeworks withinthem.However,wecannotcontemplateHispreeternalexistenceandpermanentpresencewiththe SonandtheFatherunlesswesearchforwordswhichsuitablyexpresssuchaneverlastingunion.Truly precisecoexistencecanonlybepredicatedofthingwhicharemutuallyinseparable....Therefore,whenwe

348

 Inanessayentitled,ThePointofTrinitarianTheology,RobertJensonexplains thatinitsdoxologicalmode,trinitariantheologydoesnothaveapoint;itisthe point.126NoticehowAugustine,inhisintroductiontoBookV,underscoresthenecessity ofpraisingGodwhile,atthesametime,acknowledgingthedifficultyofspeakingabout God:NowsinceweoughttothinkabouttheLordourGodalways,andcanneverthink abouthimashedeserves;sinceatalltimesweshouldbepraisinghimandblessinghim, andyetnowordsofoursarecapableofexpressinghim,Ibeginbyaskinghimtohelp meunderstandandexplainwhatIhaveinmindandtopardonanyblundersImay make.127Thattrinitariandoctrineultimatelyservesadoxologicalpurposecanbeseen quiteclearlyinDeTrinitate.ForAugustine,thetriuneGodistheultimateend.This realitycanbeseenquiteclearlyinAugustinesdistinctionbetweenfrui(enjoy)anduti (use).Godaloneistobeenjoyed:Forthefullnessofourhappiness,beyondwhich thereisnoneelse,isthis:toenjoyGodtheTrinity(fruiTrinitateDeo)inwhoseimagewe
considertheSpiritsrank,wethinkofhimaspresentwiththeFatherandtheSon,butwhenweconsiderthe workingofHisgraceonitrecipients,wesaythattheSpiritisinus(OntheHolySpirit,XXVI.63,9596). Also,TheprepositioninexpressestherelationshipbetweenourselvesandtheSpirit,whilewithproclaims thecommunionoftheSpiritwithGod.Thereforeweusebothwords:thelatterexpressestheSpirits dignity,whiletheformerdescribesthegracewehavebeengiven.WeglorifyGodbothintheSpiritand withtheSpirit(OntheHolySpirit,XXVII.68,102).ForananalysisofBasilstrinitariantheology,seeStephen M.Hildebrand,TheTrinitarianTheologyofBasilofCaesarea:ASynthesisofGreekThoughtandBiblicalTruth (Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2007). RobertW.Jenson,WhatisthePointofTrinitarianTheology?inTrinitarianTheologyToday:Essayson DivineBeingandAct,ed.ChristophSchwbel(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1995),31.Inthisessay,Jensondraws ahelpfuldistinctionbetweenthechurchinitsmodeofspeakingforGod(gospelproclamation)andinits modeofspeakingtoGod(doxology).
126 127

Augustine,DeTrin.V.1,189.

349

 weremade.128OtherthingsaretobeusedproperlyforthepurposeoflovingGod.129 Thedoxologicalpurposeofthisdoctrineisfundamentallyobscuredwhenitisused (notinthelegitimateAugustiniansenseofenjoyingGodastheultimategoodbutina problematicKantiansense)asameanstosomegreaterend(e.g.,combating individualism,bringinggreaterunityamongreligions,etc.).

6.3.2.3 Hermeneutical Purpose

Third,thedoctrineoftheTrinityservesahermeneuticalpurposeinasmuchasit helpsusrightlyreadthecanonicalScriptures.InBooksIIVAugustineishelpinghis communityrightlyreadScripture(especiallyinresponsetoLatinHomoianreadingsof thesame).Tothisend,heoutlinesaseriesofcanonicalrulesthatshouldshape ChristianreadingoftheScriptures.Oneofhismostimportantrulesisthatonemust distinguishbetweentheSonintheformofGodandtheSonintheformofa

Augustine,DeTrin.,I.18,77.AsimilarthemecanbefoundindeDoctrinaChristiana:Thethingswhich aretobeenjoyedaretheFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit,asingleTrinity,acertainsupremething commontoallwhoenjoyit,if,indeed,itisathingandnotratherthecauseofallthings,orbothathingand acause.SaintAugustine,OnChristianDoctrine,trans.D.W.Robertson(UpperRiverSaddle,N.J.:Prentice Hall,1997),10.

128

Augustinesdistinctionbetweenfruiandutihasbeenthesubjectofmuchmisunderstanding.Augustine isnotsuggestingthatthingsaretobeusedinmodernKantiansenseofexploitingthem.SeeHelmutD. Baer,TheFruitofCharity:UsingtheNeighborinDedoctrinachristiana,JournalofReligiousEthics24(1996): 4764.BaerarguesthatAugustinesnotionofusingonesneighborrepresentsawayofdescribingactsof charitythatimitateChristsloveforthesinner(ibid.,48).

129

350

 servant.130Problemsarisewhenpeopleconfusethesetwoforms:Thishasmisled peoplewhoarecarelessaboutexaminingorkeepinginviewthewholerangeofthe scriptures,andtheyhavetriedtotransferwhatissaidofChristJesusasmantothat substanceofhiswhichwaseverlastingbeforetheincarnationandiseverlastingstill.131 AccordingtoAugustine,NewTestamentreferencestoChristcangenerallybegrouped intothreecategories:(1)textsthatrefertoSonintheformofGodinwhichheisequal totheFather(e.g.,Phil2:6),(2)textsthatrefertotheSonintheformofaservantin whichheislessthantheFather(e.g.,John14:28)and(3)textswhichdescribetheSon asbeingfromtheFather(e.g.,John5:19,26).132Oneinterestingexampleofthe hermeneuticalfunctionoftrinitariandoctrinecanbeseeninAugustinesdiscussionof thetheophanies.ReadingtheOldTestamentinlightoftrinitariandoctrine,Augustine rejectstheclaimthatalltheophaniesmustbechristophanies.Hesuggestsinsteadthatin manycasesthematterremainsambiguous.
ProvidedthenthatweknowthisruleforunderstandingthescripturesaboutGodsSonandcanthus distinguishthetworesonancesinthem,onetunedtotheformofGodinwhichheis,andisequaltothe Father,theothertunedtotheformofaservantwhichhetookandislessthantheFather,wewillnotbe upsetbystatementsintheholybooksthatappeartobeinflatcontradictionwitheachother.Intheformof GodtheSonisequaltotheFather,andsoistheHolySpirit,sinceneitherofthemisacreature,aswehave alreadyshown.Intheformofaservant,however,heislessthantheFather,becausehehimselfsaidThe FatherisgreaterthanI(Jn14:28);heisalsolessthanhimself,becauseitissaidofhimthatheemptiedhimself (Phil2:7);andheislessthantheHolySpirit,becausehehimselfsaid,Whoeveruttersablasphemyagainstthe Sonofman,itwillbeforgivenhim;butwhoeveruttersoneagainsttheHolySpirit,itwillnotbeforgivenhim(Mt 12:32).Augustine,DeTrin.I.22,82.
130 131 132

Augustine,DeTrin.,I.14,74. SeeAugustine,DeTrin.,II.3,98.

351


6.3.2.4 Anthropological Purpose

Afourthpurposeoftrinitariandoctrinemightbedescribedasanthropological.A reciprocalrelationshipexistsforAugustinebetweentheknowledgeofoneselfandthe knowledgeofthetriuneGod.TheimagoDei(whichAugustineunderstandstobe trinitarian)constitutestheontologicalbasisforthisreciprocalrelationship.133By reflectingontheTrinity,humanscometoknowthemselvesbetterasthosewhoare madeinGodsimage.134Conversely,throughthedivineimageinthemens(whichhas beenfashionedintheimageofthetriuneGod)humanscometoknowthetriuneGod andshareinGodslife.135ThelatterrepresentsthecentralfocusofBooksVIIIXV.In chapterfiveIarguedthatAugustinessearchfortracesofthetriuneGodinthedivine imageinthemensmustbeseenfundamentallyasanexpressionofhisquesttoseek Godsface(cf.Psalm105:34)inthecontextofChristsredemptivework.InDeTrinitate, anthropologyisneverdivorcedfromsoteriologyapointtowhichIwillreturnshortly.

GodsaidLetusmakemantoourimageandlikeness(Gn1:26),andalittlelateronadds,AndGodmademan totheimageofGod(Gn1:27).Our,beingpluralinnumber,couldnotberightinthisplaceifmanwere madetotheimageofoneperson,whetheroftheFatherortheSonortheHolySpirit;butbecauseinfacthe wasmadeintheimageofthetrinity,itsaidtoourimage.Augustine,DeTrin.XII.6,325.

133 134 135

Inthelattercontext,theCreator/creaturedistinctionisparticularlyimportant.

ThistrinityofthemindisnotreallytheimageofGodbecausethemindremembersandunderstands andlovesitself,butbecauseitisalsoabletorememberandunderstandandlovehimbywhomitwasmade. Andwhenitdoesthis,itbecomeswise.Ifitdoesnotdoit,theneventhoughitremembersandunderstands andlovesitself,itremainsfoolish.LetitthenrememberitsGodtowhoseimageitwasmade,and understandandlovehim.Toputitinaword,letitworshiptheuncreatedGodbywhomitwascreatedfor acapacityforhimandabletoshareinhim.Augustine,DeTrin.,XIV.15,383.

352

 Itshouldbenotedthattheanthropologicalpurposeisdeeplyabusedin contemporarytheology.Numerouscontemporarytheologiansmakesimplisticappeals toimagedoctrinetogroundawidevarietyofclaims.Earlierinthechapter,I documentedproblemswithtreatingtheimmanentTrinityasmodelforchurch structure,societalrelations,mission,etc.136Perhapsthegreatestabuseofthe anthropologicalpurposeoftrinitariandoctrinecanbeseeninPanikkarsproposal. Contemporarytheologiansneedtopaygreaterattentiontothetheologicalgrammar whichshapesAugustinessearchforreflectionsofthetriuneGodinthehumansoul, especiallythequalificationsAugustineoutlinesinBookXVthataregroundedinthe Creator/creaturedistinction.137

TheseproposalsgoastraybecausetheyconceiveoftherelationshipbetweenTrinityandchurch,society, etc.intermsofreflectionratherthanparticipation.Tociteaspecificexample,manycontemporary theologianstreattheperichoreticunityoftheFather,SonandHolySpiritasamodelfortheunityofthe church;however,theunityofthechurchisnotconstitutedassuchbybeingaplatonicreflectionofthe perichoreticunityoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit.Ratherthekoinoniaofthechurcharisesfrom(andis groundedin)participationinthelifeoftheGod.

136

Similarly,inhisSummaTheologiae,ThomasAquinasinsiststhataproperunderstandingofthedivine personsisnecessaryforaproperunderstandingofthecreator/creaturedistinction:Therearetworeasons whytheknowledgeofthedivinepersonswasnecessary.Itwasnecessaryfortherightideaofcreation.The factofsayingthatGodmadeallthingsbyHisWordexcludestheerrorofthosewhosaythatGodproduced allthingsbynecessity.WhenwesaythatinHimthereisaprocessionoflove,weshowthatGodproduced creaturesnotbecauseHeneededthem,norbecauseofanyotherintrinsicreason,butonaccountofthelove ofHisowngoodness....Inanotherway,andchiefly,thatwemaythinkrightlyconcerningthesalvationof thehumanrace,accomplishedbytheIncarnateSon,andbythegiftoftheHolyGhost.ThomasAquinas, SummaTheologiaeI,Q.32,a.1,ad.3.

137

353


6.3.2.5 Soteriological Purpose

Afifthpurposeoftrinitariandoctrineissoteriological.138Oneofthecentral themesinDeTrinitateiscontemplation(contemplatio).Thecentralityofcontemplation canbeseeninatleasttwoways.First,contemplationofthetriuneGodrepresentsthe ultimategoaloftheeconomyofsalvation:Contemplation(contemplatio)infactisthe rewardoffaith,arewardforwhichheartsarecleansedthroughfaith,asitiswritten, cleansingtheirheartsthroughfaith(Acts15:9).Proofthatitisthatcontemplationforwhich heartsarecleansedcomesfromthekeytext,Blessedarethecleanofheart,fortheyshallsee God(Mt5:8).139AugustineinterpretsthepromiseofMatthew5:8eschatologically:the pureinheartwillbebroughtintoadirectcontemplationoftheFather,SonandHoly SpiritonlywhenChristhandsthekingdomovertotheFather(1Cor.15:24).Mary sittingatJesusfeetoffersaprolepticpictureofthefuturejoyofthisvisioDei.140Second, contemplationplaysacentralroleinChristiangrowth.InordertoshareinGodslife, wemustgrowincontemplationofGod;however,becauseofourlovefortemporal
OthershavenotedthesoteriologicalpurposeoftrinitariandoctrineinAugustine.SeeLewisAyres,The ChristologicalContextofAugustinesDeTrinitateXIII:TowardRelocatingBooksVIIIXV,Augustinian Studies29(1998):11139;idem,AugustineonGodasLoveandLoveasGod,ProEcclesia5(1996):47087; MaryT.Clark,AugustinianSpirituality,AugustinianStudies15(1984):8392;C.C.Pecknold,How AugustineUsedtheTrinity:FunctionalismandtheDevelopmentofDoctrine,AnglicanTheologicalReview 85(2003):127141;A.N.Williams,Contemplation:KnowledgeofGodinAugustinesDeTrinitate,in KnowingtheTriuneGod:TheWorkoftheSpiritinthePracticesoftheChurch,ed.JamesJ.BuckleyandDavidS. Yeago(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001),12146.
138 139 140

Augustine,DeTrin.I.17,77. Augustine,DeTrin.I.20,7980.

354

 thingsweareincapableofgraspingeternalthings,andweigheddownbythe accumulateddirtofoursins.141Toovercomethisproblemourmindsmustbe purified.142AccordingtoBarnes,Theologicallanguagehasnootherultimatepurpose thantostripfromthemindthematerialformandcontentofitsthinkingaboutGodand toshapetheheartinloveforGod;togethertheseactionsconstitutethepurificationof theheart.143AugustinesinvestigationofthedivineimageinthemensinBooksVIIIto XVmust,therefore,beseeninthiscontextofthenecessityofcontemplationforChristian growth.144Itisbymeansofthedivineimageinthemensthatweremember,understand andloveGod.Inordertoremember,understandandloveGod,thedivineimagemust berefashioned.145AnimportantsoteriologicalrelationshipexistsforAugustinebetween seeingandbecoming.Commentingon1Corinthians13:12,2Corinthians3:18and1 John3:2,Augustineexplains,FromthisitisclearthattheimageofGodwillachieveits

141

Augustine,DeTrin.,IV.24,169.

142SothenitisdifficulttocontemplateandhavefullknowledgeofGodssubstance,whichwithoutany changeinitselfmakesthingsthatchange,andwithoutanypassageoftimeinitselfcreatesthingsthatexist intime.Thatiswhyitisnecessaryforourmindstobepurifiedbeforethatinexpressiblerealitycanbe inexpressiblyseenbythem;andinordertomakeusfitandcapableofgraspingit,weareledalongmore endurableroutes,nurturedonfaithaslongaswehavenotyetbeenendowedwiththatnecessary purification.Augustine,DeTrin.,I.2,6667. 143 144

Barnes,TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology,12.

Thus,astrongcasecouldbemadethattheanthropologicalpurposeIdescribedaboveshouldbeseen asasubsetofthesoteriologicalpurpose. ForadiscussionofAugustinesunderstandingoftheosis,seeAllanD.Fitzgerald,ed.,Augustinethrough theAges:AnEncyclopedia(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999),s.v.Deification,Divinization,byGerald Bonner.

145

355

 fulllikenessofhimwhenitattainstothefullvisionofhimthoughthistextfromthe apostleJohnmightalsoappeartobereferringtotheimmortalityofthebody.146 Amongcontemporarytheologians,EllenCharryhasdrawnsignificantattentiontothis soteriologicalfunctionoftrinitariandoctrine.147CommentingonDeTrinitate,Charry explains,AcentralgoalofAugustinestreatiseistopersuadethereaderthatrevelation anddoctrineworktogethertoreshapeourmindsandaffectionsandtherebyour identity.148

6.3.2.6 Kergymatic Purpose

Finally,trinitariandoctrineservesakergymaticpurposeinthatitprovidesthekey toexplicatingthegospelmessage.149InTheDramaofDoctrine,KevinVanhoozernicely capturesthispurposeoftrinitariandoctrine:

Augustine,DeTrin.,XIV.24,390.Similarly,Sothen,whenthisimageisrenewedtoperfectionbythis transformation,wewillbelikeGodbecauseweshallseehim,notthroughamirrorbutasheis(1Jn3:2);what theapostlePaulcallsfacetoface(1Cor13:12).Augustine,DeTrin.,XV.21,411.Thus,itshouldnotbe surprisingthatinhisclosingprayerattheendofBookXV,Augustineprays,Letmerememberyou,letme understandyou,letmeloveyou.Increasethesethingsinmeuntilyourefashionmeentirely.Augustine, DeTrin.,XV.51,436.

146

SeeEllenT.Charry,BytheRenewingofyourMinds:ThePastoralFunctionofChristianDoctrine(NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1997),12152;eadem,TheSoteriologicalImportanceoftheDivinePerfections,in GodtheHolyTrinity:ReflectionsonChristianFaithandPractice,ed.TimothyGeorge(GrandRapids:Baker Academic,2006),12947.

147

Charrycontinues,Inthissense,themechanismsbywhichGodchoosestoconveyhimselftousare agentsofspiritualcleansingthatallowustoarriveatourtruedestiny:enjoymentofGodandourselves. Charry,BytheRenewingofYourMinds,133.

148

Thegospelcanneitherbetrulystated,northeWordtrulyproclaimed,writesClaudeWelch,without affirmingwhatismadeexplicitinthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Welch,InThisName,290.Thissixthpurpose
149

356


Insum,thegospelisultimatelyunintelligibleapartfromTrinitariantheology. OnlythedoctrineoftheTrinityadequatelyaccountsforhowthosewhoarenot GodcometoshareinthefellowshipoftheFatherandSonthroughtheSpirit. TheTrinityisboththeChristianspecificationofGodandasummarystatement ofthegospel,inthatthepossibilityoflifewithGoddependsupontheperson andworkoftheSonandtheSpirit.ThedoctrineoftheTrinitythusservesboth asanidentificationofthedramatispersonaeandasaprcisofthedramaitself. Heisrisenindeed!150

Vanhoozernotesthatbehindthechurchsidentificationandcondemnationofheresyisa recognitionthatthetruthoftheChristianmessagedependsuponaproperidentification ofthedramatispersonae.151OnlyiftheSonisGodcanherevealtheFatherandatonefor sin.Similarly,onlyiftheSpiritisGodcanheunitehumanstotheFatherandSon.152In short,thegospelrequiresatriuneGod.Distortedunderstandingsofdramatispersonae underminethegospel.Ariantheology,forexample,madeitimpossibletoaffirmthat JesusisGodwithusorGodforus,andthisrepresentedadirectchallengetothe gospelmessage.153Thiskergymaticpurposeoftrinitariandoctrineaccountsforthe polemicalconcernthatdrivesmuchofAugustinesdiscussioninDeTrinitate.InBooks

mightalsobecharacterizedastheevangelicalpurposeoftrinitariandoctrineasitrepresentsakey premiseoftheeuangelion.
150KevinJ.Vanhoozer,TheDramaofDoctrine:ACanonicalLinguistictoChristianTheology(Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnox,2005),4344. 151 152 153

Ibid.,82. Ibid.,43.

Ibid.,83.Failuretoidentifythedivinepersonscorrectlyleadstoamisconstrualofthedivineaction, whichinturnimpedesourabilitytoparticipateinit.Heresiesaredangerousbecausetheyareunableto proclaimthegospelGodinChrist;Christinuscoherentlyanddonotdrawusintothesavingactionof thetriuneGod.Heresieskeepusfromtheway,thetruthandthelife.Theearlychurchwasthereforeright todeemheresyharmfultoonesspiritualhealth.Vanhoozer,TheDramaofDoctrine,83.

357

 IIIV,hedevotesextensiveattentiontothemissiones(sendings)oftheSonandtheSpirit withinthedramaofsalvation.Itisclearthatareciprocalrelationshipexistsfor AugustinebetweenaproperunderstandingoftheidentityoftheSonandSpiritanda properunderstandingoftheirsalvificwork.154Thiskergymaticpurposealsoexplains whytheprecedingcritiqueofthetrinitariantheologiesofHeim,Dupuis,Yongand Panikkarisimportant.Onemightbetemptedtodismissthiscritique:Whydoesit reallydoesitmatterifthesetheologianspresentspeculativeaccountsoftheTrinitythat arenotcompletelyinaccordwithclassicaltheology?Suchaconclusionwouldbe disastrous.Augustinerightlyunderstoodthatdistortedaccountsofthedivinepersons necessarilyleadtodistortedunderstandingsofthegospel.ByreinterpretingtheTrinity, Heim,Dupuis,YongandPanikkar,invariouswaysandtovaryingdegrees,undermine thegospel.Finally,thiskergymaticpurposeshedsproperlightontheintegrative natureoftrinitariantheology.ThecentralityofthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldnotbe seeninitsfunctionasamethodologicalprinciplethatinforms(inageneralway)every aspectoftheology.Rather,thecentralityofthisdoctrineshouldbeseeninthe constitutiveroleitplaysinhelpingarticulatethegoodnewsofJesusChrist.Inas

Augustinemovesinbothdirections.Ontheonehand,hearguesthatthesendingoftheSonandSpirit doesnotimplyaninferiorityvisvistheFather.Ontheotherhand,heinterpretsthesesendingsonthe basisofhisunderstandingoftheidentityoftheSonandSpirit.

154

358

 muchasalltheologyisorientedtothegospel,alltheologypossessesatrinitarian character. FromanAugustinianperspective,thesesixoverlappingpurposescircumscribe therelevanceoftrinitariandoctrine.Therelevancyofthisdoctrine(ifonemustuse suchaterm),shouldbeseeninthewayitenablesusrightlytospeaktoandaboutGod, thewayithelpsusreadScripture,thewayithelpsusunderstandourselves,thewayit drawsusintothelifeofthetriuneGod,andfinallyinthewayithelpsexplicatethe gospel.ThedoctrineoftheTrinity,therefore,isamysteryofsalvationnotinthesense thatitprovidesareadymadeblueprintforecclesial,societal,politicalandeveninter religiousstructuresbutinthesensethatitenablesusrightlytoreflectandenjoythe gloryoftheonewhocalledusoutofdarknessintohismarvelouslight(1Peter2:9).

359

Bibliography
Adler,MortimerJ.TruthinReligion:ThePluralityofReligionsandtheUnityofTruth.New York:Macmillan,1990. Aleaz,K.P.PluralismCallsforPluralisticInclusivism.InTheMythofReligious Superiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,162 75.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. Anderson,GeraldH.ChristianMissionandReligiousPluralism:ASelected Bibliographyof175BooksinEnglish,19751990.InternationalBulletinof MissionaryResearch14(1990):17276. Ariarajah,S.Wesley.Power,Politics,andPlurality.InTheMythofReligiousSuperiority: MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,17693. Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. Arnold,Johannes.BegriffundheilskonomischeBedeutungdergttlichenSendungen inAugustinusDeTrinitate.RecherchesAugustiniennes25(1991):369. AugustineofHippo.CorpusChristianorumSeriesLatina.Vol.50.Turnholt:Brepols,1968. ________.TheWorksofSaintAugustine:ATranslationforthe21stCentury.Vol.III/3, SermonsIII(5194)ontheNewTestament.TranslatedbyEdmundHill,ed.JohnE. Rotelle(Brooklyn:NewCityPress,1991),50. ________.TractatesontheGospelofJohn,1127.FathersoftheChurchSeries,Vol.79, TranslatedbyJohnW.Rettig.WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmerica, 1988. ________.TractatesontheGospelofJohn,55111.FathersoftheChurchSeries,Vol.90. TranslatedbyJohnW.Rettig.WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmerica Press,1994. ________.TheTrinity.TranslatedbyEdmundHill.Brooklyn:NewCityPress,1991. Ayres,Lewis.AugustineonGodasLoveandLoveasGod.ProEcclesia5(1996):470 87. ________.AugustineontheRuleofFaith:Rhetoric,ChristologyandtheFoundationof ChristianThinking.AugustinianStudies36(2005):3349. 360

 ________.BetweenAthensandJerusalem:ProlegomenatoAnthropologyinDe Trinitate.ModernTheology8(1992):5373. ________.TheChristologicalContextofAugustinesDeTrinitateXIII:Toward RelocatingBooksVIIIXV.AugustinianStudies29(1998):11139. ________.TheFundamentalGrammarofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology.In AugustineandhisCritics:EssaysinHonourofGeraldBonner,ed.RobertDodaroand GeorgeLawless,5176.London;NewYork:Routledge,2000. ________.NicaeaanditsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourthCenturyTrinitarianTheology.New York:Oxford,2004. ________.OnNotThreePeople:theFundamentalThemesofGregoryofNyssas TrinitarianTheologyasseeninToAblabius:OnNotThreeGods.Modern Theology18(2002):445474. ________.RememberThatYouAreCatholic(Serm.52.2):AugustineontheUnityof theTriuneGod.JournalofEarlyChristianStudies8(2000):3982. Badock,Gary.KarlRahner,theTrinity,andReligiousPluralism.InTheTrinityina PluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,14354.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. Baer,HelmutD.TheFruitofCharity:UsingtheNeighborinDeDoctrinachristiana. JournalofReligiousEthics24(1996):4764. Balthasar,HansUrsvon.TheTheoDrama:TheologicalDramaticTheory.Vol.2,Dramatis Personae:ManinGod.TranslatedbyGrahamHarrison.SanFrancisco:Ignatius Press,1990. ________.TheTheoDrama:TheologicalDramaticTheory.Vol.3,DramatisPersonae:Persons inChrist.TranslatedbyGrahamHarrison.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1992. ________.TheTheoDrama:TheologicalDramaticTheory.Vol.4,TheAction.Translatedby GrahamHarrison.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1994. ________.TheTheoDrama:TheologicalDramaticTheory.Vol.5,TheLastAct.Translatedby GrahamHarrison.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998. Barbel,Joseph.GregorvonNazianz.DiefnftheologischenReden:Textundbersetzungmit EinleitungundKommentar.Dsseldorf:PatmosVerlag,1963.

361

 Barnes,Michael.ChristianIdentity&ReligiousPluralism:ReligionsinConversation. Nashville:AbingdonPress,1989. ________.TheologyandtheDialogueofReligions.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2002. Barnes,MichelR.TheAriansofBookV,andtheGenreofdeTrinitate.Journalof TheologicalStudies44(1993):18595. ________.AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology.TheologicalStudies56 (1995):237250. ________.DeRgnonReconsidered.AugustinianStudies26(1995):5179. ________.DivineUnityandtheDividedSelf:GregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology initsPsychologicalContext.ModernTheology18(2002):475496. ________.ExegesisandPolemicinAugustinesDeTrinitateI.AugustinianStudies30 (1999):4352. ________.TheFourthCenturyasTrinitarianCanon.InChristianOrigins:Theology, RhetoricandCommunity,ed.LewisAyresandGarethJones,4767.NewYork: Routledge,1998. ________.TheLogicofAugustinesTrinitarianTheology.Unpublishedpaper presentedattheAquinastheAugustinianConference,Naples,Florida, February4,2005. ________.ThePowerofGod:inGregoryofNyssasTrinitarianTheology. WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2001. ________.RereadingAugustinesTheologyoftheTrinity.InTheTrinity:An InterdisciplinarySymposiumontheTrinity,ed.StephenT.Davis,DanielKendall, GeraldOCollins,145176.NewYork:Oxford,1999. ________.TheVisibleChristandtheInvisibleTrinity:Mt.5:8inAugustinesTrinitarian Theologyof400.ModernTheology19(2003):32955. Barth,Karl.ChurchDogmaticsI/1,TheDoctrineoftheWordofGod,2ded.TranslatedbyG. W.Bromiley.Edinburgh:T&TClark,1975. ________.ChurchDogmaticsII/1,TheDoctrineofGod.TranslatedbyT.H.L.Parker,W.B. Johnston,HaroldKnightandJ.L.M.Haire.Edinburgh:T&TClark,1957. 362

 BasilofCaesarea.OntheHolySpirit.TranslatedbyDavidAnderson.Crestwood,N.Y.: St.VladimirsSeminaryPress,1980. Bauckham,Richard.JrgenMoltmannsTheTrinityandtheKingdomofGodandthe QuestionofPluralism.InTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer, 15564.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. Bavinck,Herman.ReformedDogmatics.Vol.2,GodandCreation.TranslatedbyJohn Vriend.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2004. Behr,John.TheFormationofChristianTheology.Vol.1,TheWaytoNicaea.Crestwood, N.Y.:St.VladimirsSeminaryPress,2001. ________.TheFormationofChristianTheology.Vol.2,TheNiceneFaith.Crestwood,N.Y.: St.VladimirsSeminaryPress,2004. ________.TheTrinitarianBeingoftheChurch.St.VladimirsTheologicalQuarterly48 (2004):6788. Benner,DraytonC.AugustineandKarlRahnerontheRelationshipbetweenthe ImmanentandtheEconomicTrinity.InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology9 (2007):2438. Bernhardt,Reinhold.TheRealandtheTrinitarianGod.InTheMythofReligious Superiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,194 210.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. ________.TrinittstheologiealsMatrixeinerTheologiederReligionen.kumenische Rundschau49(2000):287301. Berger,PeterL.AFarGlory:TheQuestForFaithInAnAgeOfCredulity.NewYork: AnchorBooks,1993. ________.TheHereticalImperative:ContemporaryPossibilitiesofReligiousAffirmation. GardenCity,N.Y.:AnchorPress,1979. Bjork,David.TowardaTrinitarianUnderstandingofMissioninPostChristendom Lands.Missiology27(1999):231244. Blocher,Henri.ImmanenceandTranscendenceinTrinitarianTheology.InTheTrinity inaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,104123.GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1997. 363

 Bobrinsky,Boris.TheMysteryoftheTrinity:TrinitarianExperienceintheBiblicaland PatristicExperience.TranslatedbyAnthonyP.Gythiel.Crestwood,N.Y.:St. VladimirsSeminaryPress:1999. Boff,Leonardo.HolyTrinity,PerfectCommunity.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2000. ________.TrinityandSociety.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,1988. Bourassa,Franois.ThologietrinitairechezSaintAugustin.Gregorianum58(1977): 675716. ________.SurleTraitdelaTrinit.Gregorianum47(1966):25485. Braaten,CarlE.ChristocentricTrinitarianismvs.UnitarianTheocentrism:AResponse toMarkHeim.JournalofEcumenicalStudies24(1987):1721. ________.TheTriuneGod:theSourceandModelofChristianUnityandMission. Missiology18(1990):415427. Brachtendorf,Johannes.priusessecogitarequamcredere:ANatural UnderstandingofTrinityinSt.Augustine?AugustinianStudies29(1998):3546. Bracken,JosephA.Trinity:EconomicandImmanent.Horizons25(1998):722. Brague,Rmi.OntheChristianModelofUnity:TheTrinity.Communio10(1983):149 166. Brom,LucoJ.vanden.God,GdelandTrinity:AContributiontotheTheologyof Religions.InChristianFaithandPhilosophicalTheology:EssaysinHonourof VincentBrmmerPresentedontheOccasionoftheTwentyFifthAnniversaryofhis ProfessorshipinthePhilosophyofReligionintheUniversityofUtrecht,ed.Gijsbert vandenBrink,LucoJ.vandenBromandMarcelSarot,5675.Kampen, Netherlands:KokPharos,1992. Brown,Peter.R.L.AugustineofHippo:ABiography.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,2000. Brown,StephenF.Bonaventure:TheJourneyoftheMindtoGod.TranslatedbyPhilotheus Boehner.Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,1993. Bryant,M.Darrol.InterfaithEncounterandDialogueinaTrinitarianPerspective.In ChristianityandtheWiderEcumenism,ed.PeterC.Phan,320.NewYork:Paragon House,1990. 364

 Brck,Michaelvon.AdvaitaandTrinity:ReflectionsontheVedanticandChristian ExperienceofGodwithReferencetoBuddhistNonDualism.IndianTheological Studies20(1983):3760. Burnaby,John.AmorDei:AStudyoftheReligionofSt.Augustine.London,Hodder& Stoughton,1938. Butin,PhilipW.TheTrinity.FoundationsofChristianFaithSeries.Louisville:Geneva Press,2001. Campbell,CynthiaM.TheTriuneGod:AModelforInclusion.AustinSeminary Bulletin:FacultyEdition97(1981):1320. Carson,D.A.TheGaggingofGod:ChristianityConfrontsPluralism.GrandRapids: Zondervan,1996. Cavadini,John.C.TheQuestforTruthinAugustinesDeTrinitate.TheologicalStudies 58(1997):429440. _________.TheStructureandIntentionofAugustinesDeTrinitate.AugustinianStudies 23(1992):10323. Cenkner,William.InterreligiousExplorationofTriadicReality:ThePanikkarProject. Dialogue&Alliance4(1990):7185. Charry,EllenT.BytheRenewingofyourMinds:ThePastoralFunctionofChristianDoctrine. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997. ________.SpiritualFormationbytheDoctrineoftheTrinity.TheologyToday54(1997): 367380. ________.TheSoteriologicalImportanceoftheDivinePerfections.InGodtheHoly Trinity:ReflectionsonChristianFaithandPractice,ed.TimothyGeorge,12947. GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2006. Clark,MaryT.AugustinesTheologyoftheTrinity:ItsRelevance.Dionysius13(1989): 7184. ________.AugustinianSpirituality.AugustinianStudies15(1984):8392. ________.DeTrinitate.InTheCambridgeCompaniontoAugustine,ed.EleonoreStump andNormanKretzmann,91102.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001. 365

 Clarke,AndrewD.,andBruceW.Winter,eds.OneGod,OneLord:ChristianityinaWorld ofReligiousPluralism.2ded.GrandRapids:Baker,1992. Clendenin,DanielB.ManyGods,ManyLords:ChristianityEncountersWorldReligions. GrandRapids:Baker,1995. Coakley,Sarah.PersonsintheSocialDoctrineoftheTrinity:ACritiqueofCurrent AnalyticDiscussion.InTheTrinity:AnInterdisciplinarySymposiumontheTrinity, ed.StephenT.Davis,DanielKendallandGeraldOCollins.123144.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1999. ________.,ed.ReThinkingGregoryofNyssa.DirectionsinModernTheologySeries. Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,2003. ________.RethinkingGregoryofNyssa:IntroductionGender,TrinitarianAnalogies, andthePedagogyofTheSong.ModernTheology18(2002):431443. Coffey,David.DeusTrinitas:TheDoctrineoftheTriuneGod.NewYork:Oxford,1999. ________.TheHolySpiritastheMutualLoveoftheFatherandtheSon.Theological Studies51(1990):193229. ________.AProperMissionoftheHolySpirit.TheologicalStudies47(1986):227250. Conger,M.J.Yves.IBelieveintheHolySpirit.TranslatedbyDavidSmith.NewYork: SeaburyPress,1983. ________.TheWordandtheSpirit.TranslatedbyDavidSmith.SanFrancisco:Harperand Row,1986. CongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith,DeclarationDominusIesusontheUnicity andSalvificUniversalityofJesusChristandtheChurch.August6,2000. Cooper,John.TheBasicPhilosophicalandTheologicalNotionsofSaintAugustine. AugustinianStudies15(1984):93113. Corless,Roger,andPaulF.Knitter,eds.BuddhistEmptinessandChristianTrinity:Essays andExplorations.NewYork:Paulist,1990. Cousins,EwertH.BonaventureandtheCoincidenceofOpposites.Chicago:Franciscan HeraldPress,1978. ________.Christofthe21stCentury.Rockport,Mass.:Element,1992. 366

 ________.TheConvergenceofCulturesandReligionsinLightoftheEvolutionof Consciousness.Zygon34(1999):209219. ________.Introduction:ThePanikkarSymposiumatSantaBarbara.CrossCurrents29 (1979):131140. ________.JudaismChristianityIslam:FacingModernityTogether.Journalof EcumenicalStudies30(1993):417425. ________.PanikkarsAdvaiticTrinitarianism.InTheInterculturalChallengeofRaimon Panikkar,ed.JosephPrabhu,11930.Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1996. ________.RaimundoPanikkarandtheChristianSystematicTheologyoftheFuture. CrossCurrents29(1979):141155. ________.TheTrinityandWorldReligions.JournalofEcumenicalStudies7(1970):476 98. Cox,HarveyG.,Jr.MakeWayfortheSpirit.InGodsLifeinTrinity,ed.MiroslavVolf andMichaelWelker,93100.Minneapolis:Fortress,2006. Cross,Richard.TwoModelsoftheTrinity?TheHeythropJournal43(2002):275294. Crouse,R.D.St.AugustinesDeTrinitate:PhilosophicalMethod.StudiaPatristica16 (1985):501510. Crowe,FrederickE.SonandSpirit:TensionintheDivineMissions?Lonergan Workshop5(1985):121. Cunningham,DavidS.TheseThreeareOne:ThePracticeofTrinitarianTheology. ChallengesinContemporaryTheologyseries.Malden,Mass.:Blackwell Publishers,1998. ________.Interpretation:TowardaRehabilitationoftheVestigiaTradition.InKnowing theTriuneGod:TheWorkoftheSpiritinthePracticesoftheChurch,ed.JamesJ. BuckleyandDavidS.Yeago,179202.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001. Davis,StephenT.,DanielKendallandGeraldOCollins,eds.TheTrinity:An InterdisciplinarySymposiumontheTrinity.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1999.

367

 DCosta,Gavin.Christ,theTrinityandReligiousPlurality.InChristianUniqueness Reconsidered:TheMythofaPluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.GavinDCosta,16 29.Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1990. ________.TheImpossibilityofaPluralistViewofReligions.ReligiousStudies32(1996): 223232. ________.TheMeetingofReligionsandtheTrinity.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2000. ________.TheologyandReligiousPluralism:TheChallengeofOtherReligions.Oxford: Blackwell,1986. ________.TheologyofReligions.InTheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristian TheologyintheTwentiethCentury,2ded.,ed.DavidF.Ford,62644.Cambridge, Mass.:Blackwell,1997. ________.TowardsaTrinitariantheologyofReligions.InAUniversalFaith?Peoples, Cultures,ReligionsandtheChrist:EssaysinHonorofProf.Dr.FrankDeGraeve,ed. CatherineCornilleandValeerNeckebrouck,139154.Louvain:Peeters,1992. GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1992. ________.WhoseObjectivity?WhichNeutrality?TheDoomedQuestforaNeutral VantagePointfromwhichtoJudgeReligionsReligiousStudies29(1993):7995. DelColle,Ralph.ChristandSpirit:SpiritChristologyinTrinitarianPerspective.NewYork: Oxford,1994. ________.CommunionandtheTrinity:theFreeChurchecclesiologyofMiroslavVolf ACatholicResponse.Pneuma22(2000):30327. Devdas,Nalini.TheTheandrismofRaimundoPanikkarandTrinitarianParallelsin ModernHinduthought.JournalofEcumenicalStudies17(1980):606620. Dhavamony,Mariasusai.ChristianTheologyofReligions:ASystematicReflectiononthe ChristianUnderstandingofWorldReligions.NewYork:PeterLang,1998. DiNoia,JosephA.TheDiversityofReligions:AChristianPerspective.Washington,D.C.: CatholicUniversityPress,1992. Dodaro,RobertandGeorgeLawless,eds.AugustineandhisCritics:EssaysinHonourof GeraldBonner.NewYork:Routledge,2000.

368

 Dupuis,Jacques.ChristianityandtheReligions:FromConfrontationtoDialogue.Translated byPhillipBerryman.Maryknoll,OrbisBooks,2002. ________.JesusChristattheEncounterofWorldReligions.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1991. ________.TowardaChristianTheologyofReligiousPluralism.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1997. ________.TrinitarianChristologyasaModelforaTheologyofReligiousPluralism.In TheMyriadChrist:PluralityandtheQuestforUnityinContemporaryChristology.ed. TerrenceMerriganandJacquesHaers,8397.Leuven:UniversityPress;Sterling, Va.:UitgeverijPeeters,2000. ________.TheTruthWillMakeYouFree:TheTheologyofReligiousPluralism Revisited,LouvainStudies24(1999):21163. Emery,Gilles.Trinity,ChurchandtheHumanPerson:ThomisticEssays.Naples,Fla.: SapientiaPress,2007. ________.TrinityinAquinas.Ypsilanti,Mich.:SapientiaPress,2003. Farley,MargaretA.NewPatternsofRelationship:BeginningsofaMoralRevolution. TheologicalStudies36(1975):627646. Fee,GordonD.GodsEmpoweringPresence:TheHolySpiritintheLettersofPaul.Peabody, Mass.:Hendrickson,1994. Fermer,RichardM.TheLimitsofTrinitarianTheologyasaMethodologicalParadigm. NeueZeitschriftfrSystematischeTheologieundReligionsphilosophie41(1999):158 86. Fernando,Ajith.TheChurch:TheMirroroftheTrinity.InGlobalMissiologyforthe21st Century:TheIguassuDialogue.ed.WilliamD.Taylor,239256.GrandRapids: BakerAcademic,2000. ________.TheSupremacyofChrist.Wheaton:Crossway,1995. Feuerbach,Ludwig.TheEssenceofChristianity.TranslatedbyGeorgeEliot.NewYork: HarperandBrothers,1957. Fitzgerald,AllanD.,ed.AugustinethroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1999.S.v.DeTrinitate,byRowanWilliams.

369

 ________.AugustinethroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1999. S.v.ImageDoctrinebyMaryT.Clark. Flannery,Austin,ed.VaticanII:TheConciliarandPostConciliarDocuments,Vol.1,Rev. ed.Northport,N.Y.:CostelloPublishing,1992. Fortman,EdmundJ.TheTriuneGod:AHistoricalStudyoftheDoctrineoftheTrinity. Philadelphia:Westminster,1972. Foust,ThomasF.,GeorgeHunsberger,J.AndrewKirkandWernerUstorf.,eds.A ScandalousProphet:TheWayofMissionAfterNewbigin.GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 2002. George,Timothy,ed.GodtheHolyTrinity:ReflectionsonChristianFaithandPractice. GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2006. Giles,Kevin.JesusandtheFather:ModernEvangelicalsReinventtheDoctrineoftheTrinity. GrandRapids:Zondervan,2006. ________.TheTrinityandSubordination:TheDoctrineoftheGodandtheContemporary GenderDebate.DownersGrove:InterVarsity,2002. Gilson,tienne.TheChristianPhilosophyofSaintAugustine.TranslatedbyL.E.M.Lynch. NewYork.RandomHouse,1960. GregoryofNazianzus.TheTheologicalOrations.InChristologyoftheLaterFathers, LibraryofChristianClassicsSeries.ed.EdwardR.Hardy,128214.Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1954. GregoryofNyssa.AgainstEunomius.InNiceneandPostNiceneFathersoftheChristian Church,SecondSeries,Vol.V.ed.PhilipSchaffandHenryWace,33248.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1979. ________.AnAnswertoAblabius:ThatWeShouldNotThinkofSayingThereAre ThreeGods.InChristologyoftheLaterFathers,LibraryofChristianClassics Series.ed.EdwardR.Hardy,25667.Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress, 1954. Grenz,StanleyJ.RediscoveringtheTriuneGod:theTrinityinContemporaryTheology. Minneapolis:FortressPress,2004.

370

 ________.TheSocialGodandtheRelationalSelf.ATrinitarianTheologyofthe ImagoDei.Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2001. ________.TowardanEvangelicalTheologyoftheReligions,Journalof EcumenicalStudies31(1994):4965. Griffiths,Bede.UniversalWisdom:AJourneythroughtheSacredWisdomoftheWorld. London:Fount;SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco,1994. Griffiths,PaulJ.ProblemsofReligiousDiversity.Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,2001. Groppe,ElizabethT.CatherineMowryLaCugnasContributiontoTrinitarian Theology.TheologicalStudies63(2002):73063. Gunton,ColinE.Augustine,theTrinityandtheTheologicalCrisisoftheWest.Scottish JournalofTheology43(1990):3358. ________.TheOne,theThree,andtheMany:God,Creation,andtheCultureofModernity. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993. ________.ThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology.Edinburgh:T&TClark,1991. ________.Trinity,OntologyandAnthropology:TowardsaRenewalofthe DoctrineoftheImagoDei.InPersons,Divine,andHuman:KingsCollegeEssaysin TheologicalAnthropology,ed.ChristophSchwbelandColinE.Gunton,4761. Edinburgh:T&TClark,1991. ________.TheTriuneCreator:AHistoricalandSystematicStudy.NewSeriesin ConstructiveTheology.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1998. Hanby,Michael.AugustineandDescartes:anOverlookedChapterintheStoryof ModernOrigins.ModernTheology19(2003):455482. Haight,Roger.TheCaseforSpiritChristology.TheologicalStudies53(1992):25787. ________.PluralistChristologyasOrthodox.InTheMythofReligiousSuperiority: MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,15162. Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. ________.ThePointofTrinitarianTheology.TorontoJournalofTheology4(1988):191 204.

371

 Hart,DavidB.TheMirroroftheInfinite:GregoryofNyssaontheVestigiaTrinitatis. ModernTheology18(2002):54161. Hart,Trevor.KarlBarth,theTrinityandPluralism.InTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge, ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,12442.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. Haudel,Matthias.TheRelationsbetweenTrinityandEcclesiologyasanEcumenical ChallengeanditsConsequencesfortheUnderstandingofMission.International ReviewofMission90(2001):401408. Heim,S.Mark.GodsDiversity:ATrinitarianViewofReligiousPluralism.Christian Century118(January242001):1418. ________.IsChristtheOnlyWay?ChristianFaithinaPluralisticWorld.Philadelphia: Judson,1989. ________.TheDepthoftheRiches:ATrinitarianTheologyofReligiousEnds,SacraDoctrina Series.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001. ________.TheDepthoftheRiches:TrinityandReligiousEnds.ModernTheology17 (2001):2155. ________.Salvations:AMorePluralisticHypothesis.ModernTheology10(1994):343 60. ________.Salvations:TruthandDifferenceinReligion.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1995. Helminiak,DanielA.TheTrinitarianVocationoftheGayCommunity.Pastoral Psychology36(1987):100111. Hick,John.AChristianTheologyofReligions:TheRainbowofFaiths.Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,1995. ________.DisputedQuestionsinTheologyandPhilosophyofReligion.NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress,1993. ________.GodandtheUniverseofFaiths:EssaysinthePhilosophyofReligion.London: Macmillan,1973. ________.GodHasManyNames.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress,1982. ________.AnInterpretationofReligion:HumanResponsestotheTranscendent.NewHaven: YaleUniversityPress,1989. 372

 ________.TheMetaphorofGodIncarnate:ChristologyinaPluralisticAge.Louisville,Ky.: WestminsterJohnKnox,1993. ________.RethinkingChristianDoctrineintheLightofReligiousPluralism.In ChristianityandtheWiderEcumenism.,ed.PeterC.Phan,89102.NewYork: ParagonHouse,1990. ________.TruthandDialogueinWorldReligions:ConflictingTruthClaims.Philadelphia: WestminsterPress,1974. Hildebrand,StephenM.TheTrinitarianTheologyofBasilofCaesarea:ASynthesisofGreek ThoughtandBiblicalTruth.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmerica Press,2007. Himes,MichaelJ.andKennethR.Himes.FullnessofFaith:ThePublicSignificanceof Theology.NewYork:PaulistPress,1993. Hick,JohnandPaulF.Knitter,eds.TheMythofChristianUniqueness:TowardaPluralistic TheologyofReligions.Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks,1987. Hill,Edmund.KarlRahnersRemarksontheDogmaticTreatiseDeTrinitateandSt. Augustine.AugustinianStudies2(1971):6780. ________.OurKnowledgeoftheTrinity.ScottishJournalofTheology27(1974):111. ________.TheMysteryoftheTrinity.IntroducingCatholicTheologySeries.London: GeoffreyChapman,1985. ________.St.AugustinesDeTrinitate:TheDoctrinalSignificanceofitsStructure. Revuedestudesaugustiniennes19(1978):27786. Hodgson,PeterC.TheSpiritandReligiousPluralism.InTheMythofReligious Superiority:MultifaithExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,135 50.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. Hoffmeyer,JohnF.TheMissionalTrinity.Dialogue40(2001):108111. Holmes,StephenR.TrinitarianMissiology:TowardsaTheologyofGodas Missionary.InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology8(2006):7290. Hunt,Anne.PsychologicalAnalogyandPaschalMysteryinTrinitarianTheology. TheologicalStudies59(1998):197218. 373

 ________.WhatAreTheySayingAbouttheTrinity?Mahway,N.J.:PaulistPress,1998. ________.Trinity:NexusoftheMysteriesofChristianFaith.TheologyinGlobalPerspective Series.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2005. Ipgrave,Michael.TrinityandInterFaithDialogue:PlenitudeandPlurality,Religionsand DiscourseSeries,Vol.14.NewYork:PeterLang,2003. IrenaeusofLyons,AgainsttheHeresies.InTheAnteNiceneFathers,Vol.1.ed. AlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson,309567.GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1979. Jenson,RobertW.KarlBarth.InTheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristian TheologyintheTwentiethCentury,2ded.,ed.DavidF.Ford,2136.Cambridge, Mass.:Blackwell,1997. ________.SystematicTheology,VolumeI:TheTriuneGod.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1997. ________.WhatisthePointofTrinitarianTheology?InTrinitarianTheologyToday: EssaysonDivineBeingandAct,ed.ChristophSchwbel,3143.Edinburgh:T&T Clark,1995. Johnson,KeithE.TheologyofReligions.InDictionaryoftheEcumenicalMovement,2d ed.,ed.NicholasLosskyetal.,11261128.Geneva:WCCPublications,2002. Jowers,DennisW.DivineUnityandtheEconomyofSalvationintheDeTrinitateof Augustine.ReformedTheologicalReview60(2001):6884. ________.KarlRahnersTrinitarianAxiom:TheEconomicTrinityistheImmanentTrinity andViceVersa.Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellenPress,2006. Jngel,Eberhard.GodsBeingIsinBecoming:TheTrinitarianBeingofGodintheTheologyof KarlBarth.TranslatedbyJohnWebster.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001. Kaiser,Christopher.TheOntologicalTrinityintheContextofHistoricalReligions. ScottishJournalofTheology29(1976):30110. Kant,Immanuel.TheConflictoftheFaculties.TranslatedbyMaryJ.Gregor.NewYork: AbarisBooks,1979. Krkkinen,VeliMatti.AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofReligions:Biblical,Historical,and ContemporaryPerspectives.DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,2003. 374

 ________.TowardaPneumatologicalTheologyofReligions:APentecostalCharismatic Inquiry.InternationalReviewofMission91(April2002):187198. ________.TrinityandReligiousPluralism:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinChristianTheologyof Religions.Burlington,Vt.:Ashgate,2004. Kasper,Walter.TheGodofJesusChrist.TranslatedbyMatthewJ.OConnell.NewYork: Crossroad,1984. Kendall,DanielandGeraldOCollins,ed.InManyandDiverseWays:InHonorofJacques Dupuis.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2003. Kelly,Anthony.TheTrinityofLove:ATheologyoftheChristianGod.NewTheologySeries. Wilmington,Del.:MichaelGlazier,1989. Khodr,Georges.ChristianityandthePluralisticWorldTheEconomyoftheHoly Spirit.EcumenicalReview23(1971):11828. Kim,HeungGyu.ProlegomenatoaChristianTheologyofReligions.Lanham:University PressofAmerica,2000. Kilby,Karen.Aquinas,theTrinityandtheLimitsofUnderstanding.International JournalofSystematicTheology7(2005):414427. ________.PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesoftheTrinity. NewBlackfriars81(2000):432445. ________.TheTrinity:ANewWave?ReviewsinReligionandTheology7(2000):378381. Klinck,DennisR.TowardsaTrinitarianPolitics.StudiesinReligion/SciencesReligieuses 8(1979):5766. Knitter,PaulF.IntroducingTheologiesofReligions.Maryknoll,OrbisBooks,2002. ________.ANewPentecost?APneumatologicalTheologyofReligions.Current Dialogue19(1991):3241. ________.NoOtherName?ACriticalSurveyofChristianAttitudesTowardtheWorld Religions,AmericanSocietyofMissiologySeries,No.7.Maryknoll,N.Y.:New York,1985. ________.OneEarth,ManyReligions:MultifaithDialogueandGlobalResponsibility. Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1995. 375

 ________.TowardaLiberationTheologyofReligions.InTheMythofChristian Uniqueness:TowardaPluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.JohnHickandPaulF. Knitter,178202.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1987. Kraemer,Hendrik.TheChristianMessageinaNonChristianWorld.NewYork:Harper& Row,1938. LaCugna,CatherineM.GodForUs:TheTrinityandChristianLife.SanFrancisco:Harper Collins,1991. ________.TheRelationalGod:AquinasandBeyond.TheologicalStudies46(1985):647 63. LaCugna,CatherineM.andKilianMcDonnell.ReturningfromTheFarCountry: ThesesforaContemporaryTrinitarianTheology.ScottishJournalofTheology41 (1988):191215. Lai,PanChiu.TowardsaTrinitarianTheologyofReligions:AStudyinPaulTillichsThought. StudiesinPhilosophicalTheologySeries,Vol.8.Kampen,Netherlands:Kok Pharos,1994. Lash,Nicholas.ConsideringtheTrinity.ModernTheology2(1986):183196. Leslie,Ben.DoesGodHaveaLife?BarthandLaCugnaontheImmanentTrinity. PerspectivesinReligiousStudies24(1997):37798. Letham,Robert.TheHolyTrinity:InScripture,History,TheologyandWorship.Phillipsburg, N.J.:PresbyterianandReformedPublishing,2004. Levering,Matthew.BeyondtheJamesianImpasseinTrinitarianTheology.TheThomist 66(2002):395420. ________.FriendshipandTrinitarianTheology:ResponsetoKarenKilby.International JournalofSystematicTheology9(2007):3954. ________.ScriptureandMetaphysics:AquinasandtheRenewalofTrinitarianTheology, ChallengesinContemporaryTheologySeries.Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,2004. Lindbeck,GeorgeA.TheNatureofDoctrine:ReligionandTheologyinaPostliberalAge. Philadelphia:WestminsterPress,1984. Lodahl,MichaelE.Shekhinah/Spirit:DivinePresenceinJewishandChristianReligion.New York:PaulistPress,1992. 376

 Lossky,Vladimir.TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch.Translatedbymembersof theFellowshipofSt.AlbanandSt.Sergius.London:JamesClarke&Co.,1957. MacKenzie,CharlesS.BiblicalInterlude:AugustinesTrinitarianism.InBuildinga ChristianWorldView,ed.W.AndrewHoffeckerandGaryScottSmith,8196. Phillipsburg,N.J.:PresbyterianandReformed,1986. Marshall,BruceD.WeShallBeartheImageoftheManofHeaven:Theologyandthe ConceptofTruth.ModernTheology11(1995):93117. _________.PuttingShadowstoFlight:TheTrinity,Reason,andFaith.InReasonandthe ReasonsofFaith,ed.PaulJ.GriffithsandReinhardHtter,5377.NewYork:T&T Clark,2005. Matthews,Charles.Pluralism,OthernessandAugustinianTradition.ModernTheology 14(1998):83112. McDermott,GeraldR.CanEvangelicalsLearnfromWorldReligions?Jesus,Revelation& ReligiousTraditions.DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,2000. McDonnell,Kilian.TheOtherHandofGod:TheHolySpiritastheUniversalTouchandGoal. Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,2003. _________.ATrinitarianTheologyoftheHolySpirit?TheologicalStudies46(1985):191 227. McFadyen,Alistair.TheTrinityandHumanIndividuality:TheConditionsfor Relevance.Theology95(1992):1018. McGrath,Alister.TheDoctrineoftheTrinity:AnEvangelicalReflection.InGodthe HolyTrinity:ReflectionsonChristianFaithandPractice,ed.TimothyGeorge,1735. GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2006. _________.AParticularistView:APostEnlightenmentApproach.InMoreThanOne Way?FourViewsofSalvationinaPluralisticWord,ed.DennisL.Okholmand TimothyR.Phillips,151209.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1995. Merriell,D.Juvenal.TotheImageoftheTrinity:AStudyintheDevelopmentofAquinas Teaching.Toronto:PontificalInstituteofMediaevalStudies,1990. Metzger,PaulL.,ed.TrinitarianSoundingsinSystematicTheology.NewYork:T&TClark International,2005. 377

 Milbank,John.SacredTriads:AugustineandtheIndoEuropeanSoul.Modern Theology13(1997):451474. Migliore,DanielL.TheCommunionoftheTriuneGod:TowardsaTrinitarian EcclesiologyinReformedPerspective.InReformedTheology:Identityand Ecumenicity,ed.WallaceM.Alston,Jr.andMichaelWelker,140154.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2003. ________.TheTrinityandtheTheologyofReligions.InGodsLifeinTrinity,ed. MiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker,101117.Minneapolis:Fortress,2006. Molnar,Paul.DivineFreedomandtheDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:InDialoguewithKarl BarthandContemporaryTheology.Edinburgh:T&TClark,2002. ________.TheFunctionoftheImmanentTrinityintheTheologyofKarlBarth: ImplicationsforToday.ScottishJournalofTheology42(1989): 367399. ________.TowardaContemporaryDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:KarlBarthand PresentDiscussion.ScottishJournalofTheology49(1996):31157. Moltmann,Jrgen.TheTrinityandtheKingdom.TranslatedbyMargaretKohl. Minneapolis:FortressPress,1993. Muller,EarlC.TrinityandMarriageinPaul:TheEstablishmentofaCommunitarianAnalogy oftheTrinityGroundedintheTheologicalShapeofPaulineThought,American UniversityStudies,SeriesVII,TheologyandReligion,Vol.60.NewYork:Peter Lang,1990. Murphree,JonT.TheTrinityandHumanPersonality:GodsModelforRelationships. Nappanee,Ind.:EvangelPublishingHouse,2001. Nash,Ronald.IsJesustheOnlySavior?GrandRapids:Zondervan,1994. Neely,Alan.TheParliamentsoftheWorldsReligions:1893and1993.International BulletinofMissionaryResearch18(1994):6064. Niebuhr,H.Richard.TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheUnityoftheChurch.Theology Today3(1946):37186. Neill,Stephen.ChristianFaithandOtherFaiths:TheChristianDialoguewithOtherReligions. London:OxfordUniversityPress,1961.

378

 Netland,HaroldA.DissonantVoices:ReligiousPluralismandtheQuestionofTruth.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1991. ________.EncounteringReligiousPluralism:TheChallengetoChristianFaithandMission. DownersGrove:InterVarsity,2001. Newbigin,Lesslie.FoolishnesstotheGreeks:TheGospelandWesternCulture.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1986. ________.TheGospelinaPluralistSociety.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1989;Geneva:WCC Publications,1989. ________.TheOpenSecret:AnIntroductiontotheTheologyofMission,Rev.ed.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1995. ________.ProperConfidence:Faith,DoubtandCertaintyinChristianDiscipleship.London: SPCK,1995. ________.TruthandAuthorityinModernity.ValleyForge,Penn.:TrinityPress International,1996. ________.TruthtoTell:TheGospelasPublicTruth.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1991. ________.TrinitarianThemesforTodaysMission.London:Paternoster,1998. ________.TheTrinityasPublicTruth.InTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ. Vanhoozer,18.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. OCollins,Gerald.TheTripersonalGod:UnderstandingandInterpretingtheTrinity.New York:PaulistPress,1999. Okholm,DennisL.,andTimothyR.Phillips,eds.MoreThanOneWay?FourViewsof SalvationinaPluralisticWorld.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1995. Olson,RogerE.andChristopherA.Hall,TheTrinity.GuidestoTheologySeries.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2002. Ormerod,Neil.AugustineandtheTrinity:WhoseCrisis?Pacifica(2003):1732. ________.AugustinesDeTrinitateandLonergansRealmsofMeaning.Theological Studies64(2003):77394.

379

 ________.ThePsychologicalAnalogyfortheTrinity:AtOddswithModernity.Pacifica 14(2001):281294. ________.TheTrinity:RetrievingtheWesternTradition.Milwaukee:MarquetteUniversity Press,2005. Osborn,Eric.IrenaeusofLyons.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001. Ouellet,Marc.DivineLikeness:TowardaTrinitarianAnthropologyoftheFamily.Translated byPhilipMilliganandLindaM.Cicone.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006. Panikkar,Raimundo.BlessedSimplicity:TheMonkasUniversalArchetype.NewYork: SeaburyPress,1982. ________.TheCosmotheandricExperience.EmergingReligiousConsciousness.Maryknoll, N.Y.:Orbis,1993. ________.InterReligiousDialogue:SomePrinciples.JournalofEcumenicalStudies12 (1975):407409. ________.InvisibleHarmony:EssaysonContemplationandResponsibility,ed.HarryJ. Cargas.Minneapolis:AugsburgFortressPress,1995. ________.TheJordan,theTiberandtheGanges:ThreeKairologicalMomentsof ChristicSelfAwareness.InTheMythofChristianUniqueness:TowardaPluralistic TheologyofReligions.ed.JohnHickandPaulF.Knitter,89116Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,1987. ________.TheSilenceofGod:TheAnsweroftheBuddha.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1989. ________.TheTrinityandtheReligiousExperienceofMan:PersonIconMystery.NewYork. Orbis,1973. ________.TheUnknownChristofHinduism.Rev.ed.London:Darton,Longman&Todd, 1964,1984. ________.TowardanEcumenicalTheandricSpirituality.JournalofEcumenicalStudies5 (1968):50734. Papanikolaou,Aristotle.DivineEnergiesorDivinePersonhood:VladimirLosskyand JohnZizioulasonConceivingtheTranscendentandImmanentGod.Modern Theology19(2003):357385. 380

 Pecknold,C.C.HowAugustineUsedtheTrinity:FunctionalismandtheDevelopment ofDoctrine.AnglicanTheologicalReview85(2003):127141. Pelikan,JaroslavJ.CanonicaRegula:TheTrinitarianHermeneuticsofAugustine.In CollectaneaAugustiniana:AugustineSecondFounderoftheFaith.ed.JosephC. SchnaubeltandFrederickVanFleteren,329343.NewYork:PeterLang,1990. Pembroke,NeilF.Trinity,Love,andPastoralMirroring.PastoralPsychology53(2004): 163173. Peters,Ted.GodasTrinity:RelationalityandTemporalityinDivineLife.Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnox,1993. Pinnock,ClarkH.FlameofLove:ATheologyoftheHolySpirit.DownersGrove: InterVarsityPress,1996. ________.AWidenessinGodsMercy:TheFinalityofJesusChristinaWorldofReligions. GrandRapids:Zondervan,1992. Placher,WilliamC.TheDomesticationofTranscendence:HowModernThinkingaboutGod WentWrong.Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996. Plantinga,Cornelius,Jr.SocialTrinityandTritheism.InTrinity,Incarnation,and Atonement:PhilosophicalandTheologicalEssays,ed.RonaldJ.Feenstraand CorneliusPlantinga,Jr.,2147.NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress, 1989 ________.TheThreeness/OnenessProblemoftheTrinity.CalvinTheologicalJournal23 (1988):3753. Poitras,EdwardW.St.AugustineandtheMissioDei:AReflectiononMissionatthe CloseoftheTwentiethCentury.MissionStudies32(1999):2846. Poupin,Roland.IsthereaTrinitarianExperienceinSufism?InTheTrinityina PluralisticAge,ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,7287.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. Race,Alan.ChristiansandReligiousPluralism:PatternsintheChristianTheologyofReligions. Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1982. Rahner,Karl.TheTrinity.TranslatedbyJoesphDonceel.NewYork:Crossroad,1997. Raiser,Konrad.TheHolySpiritinModernEcumenicalThought.EcumenicalReview41 (1989):375387. 381

 Ramm,BernardL.TheWitnessoftheSpirit.GrandRapids,1960. Rasmussen,Barry.St.Augustine:GodinseandGodpronobis.Consensus24(1998):71 91. Reich,K.Helmut.TheDoctrineoftheTrinityasaModelforStructuringtheRelations BetweenScienceandTheology.Zygon30(1995):383405. Reid,Duncan.TheDefeatofTrinitarianTheology:AnAlternativeView.Pacifica9 (1996):289300. Rist,JohnM.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1994. Rommen,Edward,andHaroldA.Netland,eds.ChristianityandtheReligions:ABiblical TheologyofWorldReligions.Pasadena,Calif.:WilliamCareyLibrary,1995. Rogers,EugeneF.,Jr.SexualityandtheChristianBody:TheirWayintotheTriuneGod. ChallengesinContemporaryTheologySeries.Malden,Mass.:Blackwell,1999. Rosato,PhilipJ.SpiritChristology:AmbiguityandPromise.TheologicalStudies38 (1977):423449. Rowe,C.Kavin.BiblicalPressureandTrinitarianHermeneutics.ProEcclesia11(2002): 295312. Roxburgh,AlanJ.RethinkingTrinitarianMissiology.InGlobalMissiologyforthe21st Century:TheIguassuDialogue,ed.WilliamD.Taylor,17988.GrandRapids:Baker Academic,2000. Ruokanen,Miika.TheCatholicDoctrineofNonChristianReligionsAccordingtotheSecond VaticanCouncil.NewYork:Brill,1992. Salmon,JamesF.andNicoleSchmitzMoormann.EvolutionasRevelationofaTriune God.Zygon37(2002):85371. Samartha,StanleyJ.TheHolySpiritandPeopleofOtherFaiths.EcumenicalReview42 (1990):250263. Sanders,Fred.EntangledintheTrinity:EconomicandImmanentTrinityinRecent Theology.Dialog40(2001):175182.

382

 ________.TheImageoftheImmanentTrinity:RahnersRuleandtheTheologicalInterpretation ofScripture.IssuesinSystematicTheologySeries,Vol.12.NewYork:PeterLang, 2005. ________.TrinityTalk,Again.Dialog44(2005):264272. Sanders,John.NoOtherName:AnInvestigationintotheDestinyoftheUnevangelized.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1992. ________.,ed.WhatAboutThoseWhoHaveNeverHeard?ThreeViewsontheDestinyofthe Unevangelized.DownersGrove:InterVarsity,1995. Scholl,Norbert.DasGeheimnisderDrei:KleineKulturgeschichtederTrinitt.Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,2006. Schoonenberg,PietJ.A.M.TrinityTheConsummatedCovenant:Thesesonthe DoctrineoftheTrinitarianGod.StudiesinReligion5(197576):11116. Schwbel,Christoph.ChristlicherGlaubeimPluralismus:StudienzueinerTheologieder Kultur.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck,2003. ________.Particularity,Universality,andtheReligions:TowardaChristianTheology ofReligions.InChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofaPluralistic TheologyofReligions,ed.GavinDCosta,3048.Maryknoll,N.Y.:OrbisBooks, 1990. ________.,ed.TrinitarianTheologyToday.Edinburgh:T&TClark,1995. SchmidtLeukel,Perry.Exclusivism,Inclusivism,Pluralism:TheTripoloarTypology ClarifiedandReaffirmed.InTheMythofReligiousSuperiority:Multifaith ExplorationsofReligiousPluralism,ed.PaulF.Knitter,1327.Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,2005. Scirghi,ThomasJ.TheTrinity:AModelforBelonginginContemporarySociety. EcumenicalReview54(2002):33342. Seamands,Stephen.MinistryintheImageofGod:TheTrinitarianShapeofChristianService. DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,2005. Sears,RobertT.TrinitarianLoveasGroundoftheChurch.TheologicalStudies37 (1976):652682.

383

 Sheridan,DanielP.GroundedintheTrinity:SuggestionsforaTheologyof RelationshiptoOtherReligions.Thomist50(1986):26078. Sherman,RobertJ.King,Priest,andProphet:ATrinitarianTheologyofAtonement.Theology fortheTwentyFirstCenturySeries.NewYork:T&TClarkInternational,2004. Sigurdson,Ola.IstheTrinityaPracticalDoctrine?InTheConceptofGodinGlobal Dialogue,ed.WernerG.JeanrondandAasulvLande,115125.Maryknoll,N.Y.: OrbisBooks,2005. Sigountos,James,ed.ThroughNoFaultofTheirOwn?TheFateofThoseWhoHaveNever Heard.GrandRapids:Baker,1991. Simpson,GaryM.NoTrinity,NoMission:TheApostolicDifferenceofRevisioningthe Trinity.Word&World18(1998):264271. Smail.ThomasA.LikeFather,LikeSon:TheTrinityImagedinOurHumanity.Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2006. Smart,NinianandStephenKonstantine.ChristianSystematicTheologyinWorldContext. Minneapolis:Fortress,1991. Smit,DirkJ.ChurchUnityinFreedom.InGodsLifeinTrinity,ed.MiroslavVolfand MichaelWelker,7392.Minneapolis:Fortress,2006. Smith,WilfredC.TheMeaningandEndofReligion.Minneapolis:Fortress,1991. Stackhouse,JohnG.,ed.NoOtherGodsBeforeMe?EvangelicalsandtheChallengeofWorld Religions.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2001. Strawn,BrentA.AndtheseThreeareOne:ATrinitarianCritiqueofChristological ApproachestotheOldTestament.PerspectivesinReligiousStudies31(2004):191 210. Studer,Basil.AugustinsDeTrinitate:eineEinfhrung.Paderborn,Germany:Schningh, 2005. __________.TheGraceofChristandtheGraceofGodinAugustineofHippo:Christocentrism orTheocentrism?Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1997. ________.HistoryandFaithinAugustinesDeTrinitate.AugustinianStudies28(1997): 750. 384

 Sullivan,JohnE.TheImageofGod:TheDoctrineofSt.AugustineanditsInfluence.Dubuque: PrioryPress,1963. Tan,SengKong.ATrinitarianOntologyofMissions.InternationalReviewofMission93 (2004):279296. Thiemann,RonaldF.BeyondExclusivismandAbsolutism:ATrinitarianTheologyof theCross.InGodsLifeinTrinity,ed.MiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker,11832. Minneapolis:Fortress,2006. Thompson,John.ModernTrinitarianPerspectives.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1994. Thompson,ThomasR.TrinitarianismToday:DoctrinalRenaissance,EthicalRelevance, SocialRedolence.CalvinTheologicalJournal32(1997):942. Turcescu,Lucian.PersonversusIndividual,andOtherModernMisreadingsof GregoryofNyssa.ModernTheology18(2002):527539. Vanderspoel,John.TheBackgroundtoAugustinesDenialofReligiousPlurality.In Grace,PoliticsandDesire:EssaysonAugustine,ed.HugoAnthonyMeynell,17993. Calgary,Canada:UniversityofCalgaryPress,1990. Vanhoozer,KevinJ.DoestheTrinityBelonginaTheologyofReligions?OnAnglingin theRubiconandtheIdentityofGod.InTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge,ed. KevinJ.Vanhoozer,4171.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. ________.TheDramaofDoctrine:ACanonicalLinguistictoChristianTheology.Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnox,2005. Volf,Miroslav.AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity.GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1998. ________.TheTrinityisourSocialProgram:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheShape ofSocialEngagement,ModernTheology13(1998):40323. ________.Trinity,Unity,Primacy:OntheTrinitarianNatureofUnityandits ImplicationsfortheQuestionofPrimacy.InPetrineMinistryandtheUnityofthe Church:TowardaPatientandFraternalDialogue:ASymposiumCelebratingthe 100thAnniversaryoftheFoundationoftheSocietyoftheAtonement,Rome,December 46,1997,ed.JamesF.Puglisi,17184.Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1999.

385

 Volf,MiroslavandMichaelWelker,eds.GodsLifeinTrinity.Minneapolis:Fortpress, 2006. Vroom,Hendrik.DoAllReligiousTraditionsWorshiptheSameGod?ReligiousStudies 26(1990):7390. Wainwright,Arthur.TheTrinityintheNewTestament.London:SPCK,1962. Wainwright,Geoffrey.TheDoctrineoftheTrinity:WheretheChurchStandsorFalls. Interpretation45(1991):11732. ________.Doxology:ThePraiseofGodinWorship,DoctrineandLife.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1980. ________.TheEcumenicalRediscoveryoftheTrinity.OneinChrist34(1998):95124. ________.MethodistsinDialogue.Nashville,Tenn.:KingswoodBooks,1995. ________.WorshipwithOneAccord:WhereLiturgyandEcumenismEmbrace.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1997. Wassmer,Thomas.TheTrinitarianTheologyofAugustineandHisDebttoPlotinus. ScottishJournalofTheology14(1961):24855. Weinandy,Thomas.TheImmanentandEconomicTrinity.TheThomist57(1993):655 66. Welch,Claude.InThisName:TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinContemporaryTheology.New York:CharlesScribnersSons,1952. Whitson,RobleyE.TheComingConvergenceofWorldReligions.NewYork:Newman Press,1971. Wilken,RobertL.IsPentecostaPeerofEaster?Scripture,Liturgy,andthePropriumof theHolySpirit.InTrinity,Time,andChurch:AResponsetotheTheologyofRobert W.Jenson,ed.ColinE.Gunton,158177.GrandRapids,Eerdmans,2000. Williams,A.N.Contemplation:KnowledgeofGodinAugustinesDeTrinitate.In KnowingtheTriuneGod:TheWorkoftheSpiritinthePracticesoftheChurch,ed. JamesJ.BuckleyandDavidS.Yeago,12146.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001. Williams,DavidT.TrinitarianEcology.ScottishBulletinofEvangelicalTheology18 (2000):14259. 386

 Williams,Rowan.SapientiaandtheTrinity:ReflectionsonDeTrinitate.InCollectanea Augustiniana,ed.BernardBruning,J.vanHoutemandMathijsLamberigts,317 332.Louvain:LeuvenUniversityPress,1990. ________.TrinityandPluralism.InChristianUniquenessReconsidered:TheMythofa PluralisticTheologyofReligions,ed.GavinDCosta,315.Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis Books,1990. Williams,Stephen.TheTrinityandOtherReligions.InTheTrinityinaPluralisticAge, ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,2640.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997. WilsonKastner,Patricia.Faith,Feminism,andtheChrist.Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1983. Wolfson,H.A.ThePhilosophyoftheChurchFathers.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1956. Wright,David.TheWatershedofVaticanII:CatholicApproachestoReligious Pluralism.InOneGod,OneLord:ChristianityinaWorldofReligiousPluralism,2d ed.,ed.,AndrewD.ClarkeandBruceW.Winter,20736.GrandRapids:Baker, 1992. Yeago,David.TheNewTestamentandtheNiceneDogma:AContributiontothe RecoveryofTheologicalExegesis.ProEcclesia3(1994):152164. Yong,Amos.BeyondtheImpasse:TowardaPneumatologicalTheologyofReligions.Grand Rapids:BakerAcademic,2003. ________.DiscerningtheSpirit(s):APentecostalCharismaticContributiontoaChristian TheologyofReligions.JournalofPentecostalTheology,SupplementSeries,Vol.20. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2000. ________.OnenessandtheTrinity:TheTheologicalandEcumenicalImplicationsof CreationExNihiloforanIntraPentecostalDispute.Pneuma:TheJournalofthe SocietyforPentecostalStudies19(1997):81107. ________.TheTurntoPneumatologyinChristianTheologyofReligions:Conduitor Detour?JournalofEcumenicalStudies35(1998):3965. Zizioulas,JohnD.BeingasCommunion:StudiesinPersonhoodandtheChurch.Crestwood, N.Y.:St.VladimirsSeminaryPress,1985.

387

 ________.TheChurchasCommunion.StVladimirsTheologicalQuarterly38(1994):3 16.

388

Biography
KeithE.JohnsonwasbornonFebruary16,1965inSpokaneWashingtontoBill andMarianJohnson.AlongwithhisbrotherSteve,hegrewupinTemperance, Michigan.In1987hegraduatedfromtheUniversityofMichiganwithaBachelorof ScienceinChemicalEngineering(cumlaude).In1994KeithgraduatedfromTrinity EvangelicalDivinitySchoolwithaMasterofArtsinChristianThought(summacum laude).HisM.A.thesiswasentitledProblemsofEpistemologyintheIntegrationof PsychologyandTheology.HewasmarriedtoRhondaOlsonin1996.In2002he graduatedfromDukeDivinitySchoolwithaMasterofTheology.HisTh.M.thesiswas entitledTowardaTheologyofReligionsviatheDoctrineoftheTrinity.Keithwas awardedaLillyFellowshipandcommenceddoctoralstudiesatDukeUniversityin2002. From2002to2007,healsoservedasateachingassistantatDukeDivinitySchool.In 2007hereceivedaDoctorofPhilosophy(ChristianTheologyandEthics)fromDuke University. Keithspublicationsincludethefollowing:WhyisReligiousPluralismFun andDangerous?(coauthoredwithHaroldA.Netland)inTellingtheTruth:Evangelizing Postmoderns,ed.D.A.Carson(GrandRapids:Zondervan,2000),4767;Theologyof Religions,inDictionaryoftheEcumenicalMovement,2ded.,ed.NicholasLosskyetal. (Geneva:WCCPublications,2002),11261128;ReviewofTheMeetingofReligionsandthe TrinitybyGavinDCosta,JournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety45(2002):748750; 389

 DoAllPathsLeadtotheSameDestination?inTakingSides:ClashingViewson ControversialIssuesinReligion,ed.DanielK.Judd(Guilford,C.T.:McGrawHill/Dushkin, 2002),7685;DivineTranscendence,ReligiousPluralismandBarthsDoctrineofGod, InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology5(2003):200224;ReviewEssay,Trinityin AquinasbyGillesEmery,ProEcclesia13(2004):101105;ReviewofAnIntroductiontothe TheologyofReligions:Biblical,HistoricalandTheologicalPerspectivesbyVeliMatti Krkkinen,JournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety48(2005):41922.Keithisa memberoftheEvangelicalTheologicalSocietyandreadthefollowingpaperatthe2006 meeting:DoesCreationRevealtheTriunityofGod?AugustineontheVestigia Trinitatis.

390