A Missional Perspective of Moltmann's Trinity for the Suffering World

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3

A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World

LEE Byung-Ohk, Ph.D. Lecturer, Missiology Hanil University & Presbyterian Theological Seminary, South Korea

I. Introduction II. The Legacies of Barth’s Trinity and Newbigin’s Trinitarian Missiology III. Moltmann’s Understandings of the Trinity and Suffering IV. Some General Theological Criticisms of Moltmann’s Trinity V. Conclusion: Missional Implications

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 (2014. 9), 221-247 222 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3

Abstract

The on-going missional church conversation in North America has been rooted in Newbigin’s trinitarian missiology under the strong influence of Barth’s Trinity. In particular, Barth’s Trinity, with its emphasis on God’s sovereignty, has brought a new understanding of mission in which God, rather than the Church, is regarded as the subject of mission. One the one hand, the missional church conversation has helped the Church participate in God’s mission in the world. One the other hand, it has paid little attention to the suffering in the world, despite its emphasis on the world. It has not focused on the fact that Newbigin partly addressed suffering in terms of trinitarian mission. In Moltmann’s view, the missional church conversation seemingly has little to do with suffering in relation to the Trinity. In contrast, Moltmann develops an open social Trinity focusing on mutual and reciprocal relationships of the three divine persons, which are open to humanity and the world. Moltmann is concerned with the suffering of both God and humanity in trinitarian terms. This article primarily explores Moltmann’s open socialT rinity in order to enrich the missional church conversation toward getting involved with the suffering of the world. The discussion starts by briefly by exploring the legacies of both Barth’s Trinity and Newbigin’s trinitarian missiology in relation to the missional church conversation. This is followed by Moltmann’s understandings of the Trinity and suffering, dealing with the following subtopics: an open social Trinity, perichoresis as the basis of Moltmann’s Trinity, an eschatological understanding of history, the triune God as a suffering God, and love and suffering. After critical engagement with Moltmann’s Trinity, this article proposes missional implications for the Korean Church and the North American Church. Moltmann’s Trinity may help the missional church conversation deal with suffering in the world in terms of the trinitarian mission.

Keywords

The Missional Church Conversation, Newbigin, Moltmann, Open Social Trinity, Suffering Ecumenical Dialogue A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 223

I. INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Korean protestant church (hereafter, the Korean church) has been increasingly interested in the ongoing missional church conversation in North America led by the Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN). On one hand, considering that the Korean church has faced stagnation and decline in recent decades, the missional church conversation has focused on articulating a new paradigm of church and mission in the face of the rapid decline of the North American church. On the other hand, the hostile atmosphere toward the Korean church in Korean society due to the church’s aggressive evangelism and mission has seemed to lead it to take seriously the missional church conversation in order to renew its ecclesiology and missiology. Therefore, the missional church conversation can help the Ko- rean church understand God as the primary subject of mission in terms of missio Dei, identify every local church as a sent (rather than sending) community for God’s mission, and overcome separation between the church and the world as a result of the church’s understanding a local context as God’s acting in the world. Ultimately, the missional church aims to participate in God’s mission in the world. Kosuke Koyama argues that suffering is a common factor in the Asian context due to various religion backgrounds, modernization, westernization, Marxism, technocracy, etc.1 Douglas J. Hall posits every context, including even the North American context, as the suffering world. Hall, accordingly, argues that Christian mission cannot but be engaged with suffering in the world. However, suffering has been disregarded as a critical issue in missional theology. Surprisingly enough, to the extent that missional theology takes seriously context in terms of missio Dei, it pays little attention to suffering in the world. Although we will not examine this in detail in this paper, it is worth noting some plausible reasons for it. Bevans asserts that the missional church conversation has dealt with its context from a primarily cultural perspective rather than socio-political perspective, understanding

1 Kosuke Koyama, Water Buffalo Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), 162. 224 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 context as a broader concept which includes culture.2 Moreover, as a contributor to the book Missional Church as the GOCN’s herald of the missional church conversation, Alan Roxburgh explicitly admits that that “we ended up spending most of time on church questions [rather than world or neighborhood] questions.”3 If we lean on Moltmann’s view of the Trinity, this also seems to be due essentially to Barth’s and Newbigin’s understandings of the Trinity, paving the way for the development of the missional church conversation. Moltmann claims that the Western Trinity emphasizing divine lordship and unity has justified earthly monarchism and, as such, socio-political oppression in the West. In contrast, Moltmann takes seriously suffering in the world through the lens of his open social Trinity because it prioritizes the mutual and reciprocal relationship of the three divine persons and enables God as a suffering God to embrace human suffering. In line with the missional church conversation, Moltmann also maintains that “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church, creating a church as it goes on its way.”4 However, Moltmann pays primary attention to suffering in terms of mission. This is because he places the cross at the center of his Trinity as a trinitarian event showing how his open social Trinity works and how God’s suffering embraces human suffering. Moltmann, thus, affirms that O“ nly the suffering God can help” human suffering in the world, citing Bonhoffer’s statement.5 Given that the doctrine of the Trinity has played a critical role in forming the missional church conversation, this article argues that Moltmann’s open, social Trinity may supply a theological lens to ad-

2 stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, rev. and exp. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), xvi-xvii, 127-38. 3 alan J. Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Bakers, 2011), 53. 4 Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Eccle- siology, trans. Margaret Kohl Moltmann (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 65. 5 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Chriticism of the Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and Herbert J. Bowden (Min- neapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), xi. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 225 dress human suffering. The discussion starts by briefly exploring the legacies of Barth’s Trinity and Newbigin’s trinitarian missiology in relation to the missional church conversation and proceeds to Moltmann’s understandings of the Trinity and suffering, primarily focusing on two of his books, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of The Christian Theology and The Trinity and the King- dom: The Doctrine of God. It then offers some critical views on his Trin- ity. The conclusion of this article provides plausible implications for the missional church conversation in dealing with suffering in the world.

II. The Legacies of Barth’s Trinity and Newbigin’s Trinitarian Missiology

Gary Simpson boldly asserts that we cannot speak of mission without first speaking of the Trinity because mission is essentially God’s work growing out of God’s trinitarian nature.6 Based on this, he posits that how one understands the Trinity is unavoidably related to how one understands mission. However, without Barth, Simpson’s argument might have been impossible. It was Karl Barth who revived the Trinity in the twentieth century and made a decisive contribution to the development of the idea of missio Dei. Barth affirms not the church, but the triune God as the subject of redemption of the world in light of God’s election, emphasizing that the triune God is at work (actio Dei) in God’s reconciliation to the world, which is Christ’s action by the Holy Spirit. In his paper at the Brandenburg Missionary Conference in 1932, Barth points out that the term missio was originally used for articulating the doctrine of the Trinity in the ancient Church, “namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the world.”7 This triune God then sends the church into the world. Therefore, Barth can be regarded as a theologian

6 gary Simpson, “No Trinity, No Mission: The Apostolic Difference of Revisioning Trinity,” Word & World 15-3 (1998), 264-71. 7 Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity (Maryk- noll, NY: Orbis Book, 1995), 106. 226 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 who brings the notions of God as a sending God and the church as a sent community to the fore. Barth’s Trinity has led to a new understanding of mission and the church. In the legacy of Barth, many theologians, such as Karl Rahner, Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Leonardo Boff, and John Zizioulas, have dealt with the Trinity as their primary topic to envision how a view of the Trinity could shape congregational leader- ship, our life, and society—to say nothing of mission and the church. It was Lesslie Newbigin who directly contributed to initiating the missional church conversation. Newbigin’s trinitarian perspective of mission enabled proponents of the missional church to positively accept contemporary developments of the Trinity to understand and develop mission and the church in trinitarian terms. Leaning on Barth, Newbigin constructed a trinitarian missiology in relation to evangelism, focusing on the relationship between the gospel and the culture of the West. In 1963, Newbigin had already written a booklet on the Trinity, Trinitarian Faith and Today’s Mission, in which he claimed mission is rooted in the trinitarian mission of God. This book was mainly concerned with the place of the doctrine of the Trinity in evangelism. It maintained that evangelism should begin with describing the triune God and that the triune nature of God is bound up with the substance of the gospel. This is because we cannot talk about Jesus without his relation to both God the Father and the Spirit. In 1978, Newbigin’s notion fully blossomed in The Open Secret: An Introduction to the The- ology of Mission, in which Newbigin put the kingdom of God at the center of the gospel, and as such, outlined the church’s mission from a trinitarian perspective. He articulated the threefold approach to mission: “proclaiming the Kingdom of the Father,” “sharing the life of the Son” as the presence of the reign of God, and “bearing the witness of the Spirit” as the prevenience of the reign of God.8 For Newbigin, “This threefold way of understanding the church’s mission is rooted in the

8 lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 25, 56, 91. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 227 triune nature of God himself.”9 Furthermore, Newbigin holds that understanding the Trinity is closely related to understanding the world and dealing with human life. Similar to Moltmann’s argument, Newbigin takes the position that a general understanding of God as “a supreme monad” is linked to understanding Christendom as separated from the non-Christian world and human beings as “isolated spiritual monads” in the West.10 How- ever, Newbigin regards the very being of God as “interpersonal relatedness” and, as such, human beings as those who have “the image of that being-in-relatedness.”11 In line with this, Newbigin also highlights that “the being of God himself is involved in the suffering of history.”12 He, then, takes it for granted that the church should “share in and [bear] the pain of those who suffer” by acts of compassion, bewaring that these can easily be reduced to particular political causes or actions.13 However, Newbigin has not developed his trinitarian notion in terms of suffering as much as Moltmann has. Despite the strong influence of Newbigin, missional theologians in general, and the coauthors of Missional Church in particular, have not made good progress in developing a trinitarian understanding of mission and the church.14 Strictly speaking, suffering still seems to be a topic which apparently has not been addressed in the missional conversation, whereas New- bigin was concerned with in spite of developing fully his trinitarian missiology related to it.

9 ibid., 65. 10 ibid., 27-28, 69-70. 11 ibid., 70. 12 ibid., 26. 13 ibid., 108-10. 14 Craig Van Gelder and Dwight Zscheile, The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 102-103. 228 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3

III. MOLTMANN’S UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE TRINITY AND SUFFERING

1. Open Social Trinity

M. Douglas Meeks highlights that Moltmann’s Trinity “serves as the primary criticism of all sub-Christian conceptions of God but is simultaneously the theory of practice of the church’s life and mission to the world.”15 For Moltmann, the doctrine of the Trinity in Western teaching has been regarded as a pure, theological doctrine, apart from the church’s practice and mission. It has emphasized God’s lordship and unity over the distinctiveness of the three persons, taking for granted that the economic Trinity cannot be identical with the immanent Trin- ity. However, Moltmann points out that this trinitarian understanding of God has affected the church’s practice and mission in its relation to the world. Moltmann also accepts Rahner’s rule that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa, because we can know the immanent Trinity only through the economic Trinity. By doing so, Moltmann emphasizes the distinctiveness of the three persons over God’s unity and lordship in understanding the Trinity. With this in mind, Moltmann seeks to establish a social doctrine of the Trinity by criticizing the existing Western doctrine of the Trinity as monotheism. For Moltmann, the Western church’s notion of the Trinity has confined the three persons to one supreme substance or one absolute subject in order to emphasize the sovereignty of God.16 This monotheistic understanding of the Trinity has unavoidably strengthened a Christian monotheism dominant in the West. Moltmann accuses the Western Trinity of “monarchial monotheism,” which has justified familial, clerical, and political monarchisms and, as such, oppressed

15 M. Douglas Meeks, “The Social Trinity and Property,” in God’s Life and Trinity, eds. Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), 14. 16 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, trans. Mar- garet Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), viii-20. In response to the Cartesian emphasis on human subjectivity, modern theologians have stressed the subjectivity of God. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 229 human freedom.17 In addition, Moltmann worries about the modern culture of subjectivity because it tends to be so individualistic as to suppress human relations and fellowship. Here, a monotheistic understanding of the Trinity makes this situation worse. Moltmann rejects the monotheistic understanding of the Trinity because it leads to God’s one-sided relationship with the world, which means that God affects the world but cannot be affected by the world. From the perspective of the open Trinity, Moltmann argues that this cannot address suffering in the world. Moltmann attempts to develop an open social Trinity to promote human freedom and fellowship. Moltmann emphasizes the threeness of God in order to take seriously the importance of community and fellowship. Moltmann’s theology began from the backdrop of the socio- political context of the 1960s and ’70s. In this sense, he is interested in freedom, ecumenical fellowship, and a free community based on free consent.18 Moltmann clearly expresses the central purpose of his open social Trinity as follows:

When we want to emphasize the oneness of the divine mystery we usu- ally use the term “trinity;” when we want to emphasize their difference, we use “triunity.” […] Remember, the triune God is a social God, rich in internal and external relationships. […] The trinitarian unity of the Son and the Father through the Spirit is a model for the relationships of men and women in the Spirit of Christ. The unity of the Church resides neither in the monarchy of God, nor in God as a supreme, divine essence, but in the trinitarian communion of God. However, this trinitarian community is so wide and so open that the Church and the whole world can “live” within it.19

Moltmann begins with the three persons instead of God’s unity,

17 ibid., 129-50; 191-202. 18 ibid., xiii. 19 Jürgen Moltmann, “The Triune God: Rich in Relationships,” Living Pulpit 8-2 (1999), 4-5. 230 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 as seen above.20 He regards God as a community of three persons, “whose unity is constituted by mutual indwelling and reciprocal interpenetration.”21 He also understands scripture as “the testimony to the history of the Trinity’s relations of fellowship, which are open to men and women, and open to the world.” 22 This is Moltmann’s open Trinity, which emphasizes historical and social aspects of the Trinity.

2. Perichoresis as the Basis of Moltmann’s Open Social Trinity

Perichoresis constitutes the key hermeneutical axis in Moltmann’s open Trinity.23 The term perichoresis was used to understand the communion of the three divine persons by the Cappadocian Fathers. It can be translated into two Latin terms, circumincessio (passing into one another) and circuminsessio (dwelling in one another). Moltmann takes the former to emphasize the distinctiveness of three persons, while Barth understands perichoresis as latter as protecting the unity of the Trinity.24 Moltmann focuses primarily on the trinitarian relationality found- ed in perichoresis in establishing his open social Trinity. According to Moltmann, the concept of person has been historically understood in relational terms. Here, person and relation must be reciprocally understood. This is because “[there] are no persons without relations; but there are no relations without persons either.”25 In light of the Cappado- cian Fathers, Moltmann accepts wholly John the Damascene’s development of the eternal perichoreis (or circumincessio) of the three persons, centering on “the circulatory character of the eternal divine life.”26 In

20 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 19. 21 ibid., viii. 22 ibid., 19. Emphasis added. 23 shin Ok-Su, “Malteumanui sahoejeok samwiilcheron-bipanjeok daehwareul jungsimeuro” [A Study on the Social Trinity in J. Moltmann - focused on its Critical Dialogue], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 30 (2007), 205-06, 211-18 (in Korean). 24 see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 368-75. 25 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 172. 26 ibid., 174. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 231 their perichoresis, the three different persons dwell in one another and communicate eternal life to one another. Moltmann continues to emphasize the personal difference of the Trinity in terms of reciprocal relationship between person and relation or community. By so doing, he intends to avoid God’s unity, based on the one lordship of God. For Moltmann, “the very difference of the three persons lies in their relational, perichoretically consummated life process.”27 In terms of the eschatological glorification of God’s kingdom, moreover, the circulatory movement of God’s relationality seeks the inclusion of the whole of creation into the trinitarian life of God. In light of perichoresis, Moltmann also continually tries to defend the equality of three persons. He makes three main arguments for this. First, “the three persons are equal” in terms of the eternal circulation of the divine life.28 Second, from the perspective of the trinitarian kingdom in history, the dynamic patterns of giving and receiving among the three persons indicate the equal rank and mutual interdependence of all three persons.29 Third, in the sense that imago Dei mirrors the trinitarian life of the three persons, Moltmann uses anthropomorphic analogies for the equality of the three persons. In particular, Moltmann shows through the exegesis of Genesis 1:26-28 that imago Dei refers to all human beings as equal in the community of humanity.30 Moltmann argues that “Sexual difference and community belongs to the very image of God itself,”31 and, as such, that imago Dei designates “the community of sexes and the community of generation.”32 We need to take a close look at Moltmann’s understanding of imago Dei. This is important because Moltmann relates imago Dei to perichoresis. He interprets imago Dei as “imago[T]rinitatis.”33 First, imago Dei essentially refers to human relationships with God as God’s gift

27 ibid., 175. 28 ibid., 176. 29 ibid., 94-96. 30 Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 218-25, 239-43. 31 ibid., 222. 32 ibid., 241. 33 ibid., 216. 232 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 of fellowship, which indicates God’s initiation of his relationship with us. Second, imago Dei corresponds to trinitarian relationship. In this regard, imago Dei is a social and interpersonal reality. Thus, Moltmann holds that “person and community are two sides of one and the same life process.”34 Third, Moltmann maintains that trinitarian fellowship as open fellowship guides human relationships, admitting both difference from each other and mutual participation in each other.35 This open fellowship overcomes individualistic freedom from other individuals and directs towards communal freedom with others. Imago Dei also responds to the eschatological image of the coming God. In this sense, “the true likeness of God” will be found at the end of God’s history.36 Thus, we come to experience the reciprocal perichoresis of God and ourselves with the open Trinity in light of the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Given this, the social doctrine of the Trinity goes hand-in-hand with the “anthropology of the image of God that expresses solidarity, wholeness, and mutuality.”37

3. Eschatological Understanding of History

Moltmann points out that the Bible displays history as God’s trinitarian history. In the sense of reading history backwards from the eschaton rather than from the creation, Moltmann argues that the Trinity of the three persons precedes the unity.38 Moltmann repeatedly uses the term Tri-unity so as to highlight the difference of three persons and avoid the unity of the one divine substance or subject. Moltmann grasps God’s history as the “co-efficacy of the Father, the Son and the Spirit” and “the history of the reciprocal, changing, and hence living relationship” of the trinitarian fellowship by understanding perichoresis

34 ibid., 223. 35 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 54. 36 Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation, 225. 37 Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel and Jurgen Moltmann, Humanity in God (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1983), 96. 38 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 18-19, 95-96, 144-48, 174-78. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 233 as the nature of the Trinity.39 Furthermore, reflecting on God’s history with the world, Moltmann suggests this relationship is “open to the world,” including humanity.40 Moltmann emphasizes that God affects the world in the process and vice versa, that is, their relationship is reciprocal.41 Therefore, Moltmann holds that the unity of the Trinity will emerge from the eschatological future.42 Moltmann affirms that the New Testament itself is decisive evi- dence that God’s history is displayed in trinitarian forms. To demonstrate this, Moltmann shows the concrete narratives of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit by tracing their relationships and activities with one another.43 As a result, Moltmann proclaims New Testament history to be not only salvation history, but also the very life of the Trinity. He calls attention to the history of God’s kingdom in the Bible in terms of divine rule, and takes seriously the future kingdom of glory as the eschatological consummation. Based on the standard of who the primary actor is in the divine rule, Moltmann contrasts the traditional historical order with what he found in searching New Testament history. The traditional Trinity has only one single pattern: “Father–Son–Spirit.”44 By contrast, Moltmann emphasizes that there are two different orders along with this order, that is, “the order Father–Spirit–Son,” and “the order Spirit–Son–Father.”45 Thus, the history of God’s kingdom is “really the trinitarian history of kingdom,” which is “an eschatologically open history now.” 46

39 ibid., 64. 40 Ibid. 41 ibid., 98, 107. 42 ibid., 161. 43 ibid., 61-96. 44 ibid., 95. 45 ibid., 94. “In the sending, delivering up and resurrection of Christ we find this sequence: Father–Spirit–Son. In the lordship of Christ and the sending of the Spirit the sequence: Father–Son–Spirit. But when we are considering the eschatological consummation and glorification, the sequence has to be: Spirit–Son–Father.” 46 ibid., 95. Italics in original. 234 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3

4. The Triune God as a Suffering God

Moltmann addresses God’s passibility as the central topic of his Trinity. For Moltmann, God’s capacity for suffering is closely inter- woven with the paradigm of the social Trinity. Moltmann claims that God’s impassibility is the product of theologians’ speculation under the strong influence of Greek philosophies. However, as seen above, the biblical testimony of God’s history with human beings is the trinitarian history of God’s suffering.47 According to Moltmann, Jesus’ crucifixion is at the center of God’s passibility. The Father and the Son are most deeply separated in God’s forsakenness on the cross; in the surrender of the Son, they are most inwardly one. The Spirit is the link in their separation. In Moltmann’s view, this explicitly shows that the cross is the inner-trinitarian event and the three separate persons work to- gether perichoretically. The cross revealed the triune God as a suffering God, who cannot be abstracted. In addition, “[God] exists as love in the event of the cross.”48 For Moltmann, the theology of the cross is the hermeneutical key to exploring the mystery of the Trinity. Most western theologians have not deepened the meaning of the cross of Jesus, although the cross of Jesus is the central theme in the New Testament. They tend to think that the cross is only the suffering of Jesus and that Christ’s suffering is not related to God because God was impassible by nature. Namely, God is always considered beyond passion, emotion, and suffering. In this sense, the divine nature of Christ’s two natures is never related to human suffering. Moltmann points out that this notion came from the Greek philosophical understanding of God, not from the biblical understanding of God. For western theologians, the cross is an unavoidable step toward Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness on the cross in terms of atonement and salvation. According to Moltmann, Luther was the first theologian who set the cross of suffering at the heart of a personal theology. Luther was open to God’s passion. For him, “the communication occurs both from the human nature to the person and also in between natures

47 ibid., 4. 48 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 244. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 235 themselves.”49 He understood that “the suffering of Jesus and the suffering of God lie in the unity of the personal identity—Jesus, the God-man in toto,” and that “the solution to the human quest for salvation lies in the knowledge of God via the suffering of Christ.”50 In understanding the suffering of Jesus on the cross, he thus thought that God himself suffered on the cross. Historically, however, Luther’s theology of the cross has remained a minority voice throughout Christendom. In light of Luther’s legacy, Barth developed his theology of the cross. In the process, Barth also insisted on God’s passibility. Molt- mann points out that “[in] order to justify the absolute sovereignty of revelation and lordship as God’s self-revelations and his own lordship, Barth employs the doctrine of the Trinity.”51 Put differently, in favor of an absolute God, Barth refers to the Trinity only as the three modes of being in terms of revelation. In this regard, Barth places priority on God’s unity over the Trinity. From the perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity, Barth talks about one God with different modes of being in understanding the cross. Moltmann holds that Barth’s theology of the cross is not fully articulated in trinitarian forms because of Barth’s Christo-centric theology. Barth’s emphasis on revelation or God’s unity over the three persons cannot address historical reality because this makes God’s suffering on the cross abstract. In this sense, Moltmann criticizes that the Barthian notion of God’s suffering on the cross can be regarded as “the death of God”; Otherwise, Barth returns to God’s impassibility.52 Moltmann also denounces the Barthian one-absolute-God-oriented Trinity as a “trintarian monarchy.”53 As with his rejection of monotheism in political terms, Moltmann rejects such a monarchy because it leads to God’s one-sided relationship with the world. In other words, God affects the world but cannot be affected by the world. From the perspective of the open social Trinity, Moltmann argues that this cannot address suffering

49 Jhakmak Neeraj Ekka, “Luther’s Theology of the Cross and Its Relevance for Contextual Theology in South Asia” (Ph.D. diss., Luther Seminary, 2005), 40. 50 Ibid. 51 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 140. 52 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 79, 203. 53 ibid., 139-45. 236 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 in the world. Moltmann has interpreted the event of the cross in Trinitarian terms as an event concerned with a relationship between persons in which these persons constitute themselves in their relationship with each other. For Moltmann, the form of the crucified Christ is the Trinity. The cross stands at the heart of the trinitarian being of God. Moltmann also regards the knowledge of the crucified Christ as the knowledge of God in the crucified Christ or even the knowledge of the “crucified God.”54 God’s being is in suffering and the suffering is in God’s being itself.55 However, Jesus’ death cannot be understood as the death of God, but only as the death in God. Further, he insists that the death of the Son is not the death of God, but the beginning of the trinitarian God-event in which the life-giving spirit of love emerges from the death of the Son and the grief of the Father.56

5. Love and Suffering

The cross has revealed the eternal love of the Trinity, as seen above. However, for Moltmann, this love goes beyond “merely a divine reac- tion to man’s sin.”57 Moltmann sheds light on God’s love in terms of God’s eternal nature in light of the Anglican theology of suffering as follows:

God is love; love makes a person capable of suffering; and love’s capacity for suffering is fulfilled in the self-giving and the self-sacrifice of the lover. Self-sacrifice isG od’s very nature and essence. C. E. Rolt develops his doctrine of the Trinity from this axiom: God sacrifices himself in eternity, and his whole nature is embodied in this act. He is the lover, the beloved and the love itself. […] His whole being is the eternal sacrifice of self-love. But because God, as perfect love, is at the same time perfectly selfless, he loves himself in the most extreme and complete

54 ibid., 65. 55 ibid., 227. 56 ibid., 252-56. 57 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 32. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 237

self-forsakenness. God lays God open for his future.58

Moltmann’s understanding of God’s suffering is based on the tenet that “God is Love” (1 John 4: 16). Moltmann maintains that “love causes [God] to suffer.”59 Put differently, Moltmann emphasizes that “a God who cannot suffer cannot love.”60 Thus, suffering is an indispensable element of any true love. In this sense, since God is essentially love, God’s suffering cannot be separated from God’s love. Furthermore, in the sense that love is in the divine nature, Moltmann regards God’s passion (suffering) as God’s nature. For this reason, God can identify himself with human suffering. This suffering of love points to the divine inward passion in the Trinity and, at the same time, relates to the divine outward passion for one who suffers in the world. In terms of love, in this respect, “the extra- trinitarian suffering and the inner-trinitarian suffering correspond.”61 Moltmann concretely affirms that the statement thatGod is love indicates a reciprocal inward movement among divine relation as well as outward movement toward the world. These loving relationships correspond to “the eternal perichoresis of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their dispensation of salvation, which is to say in their opening of themselves for the reception and unification of the whole creation.”62 With emphasis on the dimension of openness of love, Moltmann repeatedly stresses that God as love makes Godself open to change, especially in terms of the eschaton, in which God takes suffering and creation upon Godself. In a word, the Trinity is open to the whole of creation because of love. Moltmann distinguishes between God’s love in the Trinity and God’s outward love towards the world in terms of action of love, the former being the “love of like for like,” whereas the latter is the love for “those who are unlike.”63 However, these loves are essentially no

58 ibid., 32-33. 59 ibid., 23. 60 ibid., 38. 61 ibid., 24-25. 62 ibid., 154. Emphasis added. 63 ibid., 45-47, 58-59, 68-69. For Moltmann, the three persons of the Trinity are alike divine beings but not identical; the whole of creation is essentially different from God. 238 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 different. Moltmann also distinguishes human suffering and divine suffering. The former results from “deficiency of human beings,” while the latter is due to God’s love, which is superabundant and overflowing in God himself.64 Nevertheless, he also highlights that there is a profound fellowship between God and man in suffering. With the basis on the relationship between suffering and love, Moltmann turns to the relationship between these two and God’s freedom. Because God is love, God needs “man [sic] and the world” as a proper object for his love and, as such, God expects him/her and the world to love him.65 However, that God loves them is wholly up to God’s freedom. To demonstrate this, Moltmann gives us an example of God’s covenant relationship with Israel in the Old Testament. With pa- thos or love, God freely participated in this. This love of freedom, then, inescapably results in God’s self-differentiation and self-humiliation. This is the same in cases of creation or incarnation. Therefore, God’s suffering is at the center of the process only because God as love wants to share his freedom with his beloved.66 In this sense, Moltmann calls God’s suffering active, voluntary or creative suffering. Moltmann also considers God as a community whose freedom is found in self-giving love. God’s freedom has been traditionally understood as either absolute freedom from human intervention or power and lordship over possessions. In contrast, Moltmann interprets God’s freedom in light of love in fellowship of the three persons in the Trin- ity. In the triniatarian fellowship, God invites human beings to share in this dynamic communion of love by offering to them his very essence. Moltmann regards God’s freedom as “friendship which [God] offers men and women, and through which he makes them his friends.”67 In light of the open Trinity, this friendship is an open and reciprocal fellowship between God and human beings. Therefore, God’s eternal freedom is demonstrated through his suffering in self-giving love. Through such suffering, God brings the world into his inner-trinitarian

64 ibid., 23. 65 ibid., 58, 99. 66 ibid., 42-43. 67 ibid., 56. Italics in original. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 239 life. In this respect, the love of God is the central content of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

IV. SOME GENERAL THEOLOGICAL CRITICISMS OF MOLTMANN’S TRINITY

To this point, we have explored Moltmann’s open social Trinity and his understanding of the triune God as a suffering God. On the one hand, his legacy is rich in addressing the issue of suffering in terms of trinitarian mission. On the other hand, we need to take into consid- eration some weaknesses within Moltmann’s approach to the Trinity and suffering prior to making conclusion. This process may help us more appropriately use Moltmann’s Trinity as a theological lens to see suffering in the world. What we first need to consider is Moltmann’s primary argument that the Western Trinity as monarchism of God the Father has justified earthly monarchies in all forms in the West. This argument is based on his pure assumption rather than scientific research into whether there is a significant relationship between Christian divine monarch and socio-political monarchism. This assumption needs to be proven for such reasoning to be valid. In this respect, Moltmann’s assumption is not seemingly warranted. Moreover, there are opposite views against this notion. For instance, historically there has been monarchism based on pluralistic theism, such as in Egypt before Islam or in India. Also, in multi-religious societies, such as India and Korea, Moltmann’s emphasis on the threeness of the Trinity over God’s unity may not be helpful for highlighting the Trinity’s communal or social sense. Moltmann seeks to maintain the priority of the threeness of God over God’s unity because the emphasis on God’s unity is closely related to the notion of monotheism. Moltmann’s emphasis on God’s tri-unity over God’s lordship and the three persons as the three subjects is likely to make us suspicious of his Trinity of tri-theism. As we know, subject presupposes object. This subject-object relation inescapably maintains an eternal rift between the two. Moreover, Moltmann tends to relate 240 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 divine person to human person too easily. However, by thoroughly exploring the history of the use of the term person, Barth demonstrates that it has never been adequately clarified since its first use for the doctrine of the Trinity.68 For this reason, most Church Fathers, including Protestant Fathers, have not focused on analyzing “the concept of person” to conceive the threeness of God.69 Furthermore, Moltmann’s priority of the threeness of God over God’s unity seems to be at odds with the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity has been developed to protect the unity of the Trinity from heresies. On the basis of perichoresis, Moltmann emphasizes God’s relationality and openness in the Trinity. When the Cappadocian Fathers and John the Damascene developed the term perichoresis, they used it to explain “how the three persons relate to each other,” based on God’s unity.70 Put differently, they needed the concept of perichoresis to highlight the unity in the Trinity, rather than three different persons in the Trinity. In addition, something must exist in order to stand in relation within the Trinity. However, as noted above, Moltmann does not take seriously the ontological basis of the Trinity. Instead, focusing on the trinitarian relation in light of perichoresis, Moltmann tends to regard the threeness or difference of the Trinity as the premise of perichoresis. In this respect, we do not know why the three persons move towards their unity because Moltmann negates the precedence of God’s unity over the three persons. In some sense, the reason Moltmann pays little attention to the ontological basis for God’s relation is that he understands the present as provisional in eschatological terms. This is because, for

68 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 350-66. 69 ibid., 359. 70 John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 136. Also see Paul M. Collins, West and East: Karl Barth, the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas (New York: Ox- ford, 2001), 209-15. According to Collins, the primary purpose of the Church Fathers’ use of perichoresis is to “reinforce of the unity of the Godhead.” He also continues to take a critical position against Moltmann’s interpretation of perichoresis; Randall E. Otto, “The Abuse of the Perichoresis in Recent Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2001), 366-84; Joy Ann McDougall, “The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trin- ity and the Christian Life,” JR 83-2 (2003), 177-203. Both Otto and McDougall point out Moltmann’s misappropriating of perichoresis. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 241

Moltmann, hope for the eschaton seems to have primacy over faith based on what God has done.71 Thus, Moltmann’s use of perichoresis may not refer to real relations, but conceptual relations. Furthermore, this may make him overlook the ontological basis of suffering. Moltmann also interprets perichoresis as openness. When Molt- mann uses the term in God’s relationality, Moltmann emphasizes co- equality among the three persons. This term is used among the equal divine persons. Given this, we cannot but question whether or not it is proper to apply the term asymmetrical relationship to God and humans. Is this relationship perichoretic? Given his understanding of imago Dei in relational terms, he uses imago Dei in order to address the real relation between God and human beings. It is not used as a metaphor. Moltmann regards that we can participate in God’s inner-trinitarian life. However, Moltmann does not give us information enough to clar- ify how we can participate in God’s inner-life and what he means by God’s inner-life. If these questions are not explained, the relationship between God and humans is always God’s gift and mysterious to us. In other words, this is not an open relationship. Furthermore, based on perichoresis, Moltmann’s emphasis on openness in the relationship between Christians and non-Christians is abstract because it is not obvious whether or not this relationship is based on the equality of the two. In political terms of relationship, this is an equal relationship. However, in ontological terms of participation in God’s inner-life, this is an asymmetrical relationship as far as God works through God’s relationship with those who are participating in his inner-life in order to form fellowship with those who do not participate in his life. As to creating a relationship, we next turn to the issue of God the Father as cause. TheE astern church’s Trinity traditionally regards God the Father as cause for God’s relationality. It maintains that there are asymmetrical aspects of all personal relations. It is no wonder that Molt- mann must criticize this as a monarchal understanding of the Trinity. However, considering when every relation begins, none can deny that it is generally caused by someone. In Moltmann’s open social Trinity,

71 Paul S. Chung, Public Theology in an Age of World Christianity: God’s Mission as Word-Event (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2010), 71. 242 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 too, God initiates God’s relation to humans and opens God’s inner-life to them. Moreover, God as lover expects the world to be God’s beloved. In the inner relation of the Trinity, Moltmann understands God the Father as lover. In this sense, compared to Moltmann, the Eastern church’s notion of God the Father as cause seems to be more valid for simultaneously holding God’s unity and relationality. When Moltmann explains God’s suffering in terms of God’s love, his use of love is ambiguous. Moltmann tends to restrict Godself to love, although Moltmann takes suffering seriously enough in terms of God’s love. Moltmann’s understanding of God as love is not likely to include the respect that God is more than love. Moltmann relates love to the following three concepts: essence, relation, and character. First, when he uses love in terms of essence, this conflicts with his premise of rejection of philosophical theism or rejection of the priority of God’s unity over threeness. Second, when he understands love in terms of relation, this makes his emphasis on the uniqueness of the three persons blurred. Finally, when Moltmann uses love in terms of character or action, he has to regard, as the lover, the Father as cause. In this light, when he mentions love for like or unlike, we do not exactly know what he means by the term like. There seems to exist one substance or nature among the three persons of the Godhead in order for them to be like. These ambiguous uses of love need more explanation.

V. CONCLUSION: MISSIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Moltmann’s open social Trinity has significantly influenced a development of the doctrine of the Trinity, opening up Christian engagement with the suffering world, although some critics have pointed out its theological risks, as seen above. Both the missional church conversation and Moltmann hold that the missional nature of the church lies in the triune God who is missional in God’s being and acting, as discussed earlier. Given this, Moltmann’s Trinity can provide some helpful implications for the missional church conversation in dealing with suffering. Considering that there has been continual socio-political suffering in A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 243

Korea as well as in North America, the church must cultivate a theological lens to deal with its neighbors’ suffering in the world in order to become more missional. The following implications are therefore very interrelated and inseparable. First, Moltmann holds that the social Trinity is the central key of his theology for overcoming all kinds of domination in the world. From Moltmann’s trinitarian perspective, the triune God is an equal, mutual, and reciprocal community, so the church has to seek such a community in the world by trying to overcoming its existing hierarchal systems. Likewise, the church has to help all human communities become more perichoretic. All one-way relationships and individualism have to be overcome because human beings are imago Trinitatis, an open social community of three equal different persons. Therefore, Moltmann’s emphasis on the concept of perichoresis may pave the way for culti- vating human interdependence and relational community within and outside the church. Second, Moltmann’s open Trinity encourages the church to become an open community to both its members and its neighbors in light of the missional church conversation. Relating his open social Trinity to ecclesiology, Moltmann also contends that the church is a free society of equals and an open fellowship of friends. For Moltmann, the church’s mission covers political, social, economic and cultural aspects of the world beyond its ecclesial boundaries. This open fellowship of the church includes solidarity with the oppressed and the poor in the world, open for God, “open for men [sic] and open for the future of both God and men [sic] .” 72 The sending of the Son and the Spirit by the Father can be understood as God’s openness to all humanity and the world. Since the church came into being in the process it always has to open itself to its local neighbors and context. In this regard, the church cannot be a closed community separated from the world. Rather, it exists as an open system which needs interaction with its neighborhood. Third, and foremost, the church’s mission also is related to paying attention to suffering in the world, following where the triune God has been actively working in history. In other words, the church needs to

72 ibid., 2. 244 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3 pay special attention to the way God has engaged with suffering in the world. For Moltmann, God’s decisive trinitarian event is the cross witnessing to the triune God’s self-giving love for the suffering of the world. The cross proves that God is not indifferent to the suffering of the others because of God’s love compelling Godself to move outward. The love ofG od realizing itself in history is the crucified Jesus Christ. Christ suffered because he was involved with others. The triune God who is love is a God who suffers with those who suffer in the world. In this regard, reaching to the world and engaging with the suffering of others are the inherent nature of the missional church. The cross, thus, makes the missional church participate in the suffering of the world and stand with the poor and the oppressed. Since the crucified God is concerned about those who have suffered in various forms of oppression, the missional church should participate in God’s mission in the world. However, this participation is not obligation, but the open fellowship with the God of love in the power of the Spirit. Moreover, for Moltmann, this participation cannot be possible without the church’s eschatological hope for the coming of God. In conclusion, the missio Dei is not about the church’s mission, but God’s trinitarian dealings with the world in history. Moltmann’s open social Trinity is powerful in terms of the church’s missional engagement with suffering in the world because Moltmann understands God as a suffering God in relational terms. God’s love expresses itself concretely and historically in the confusion of complexity. We, as relational beings, need others in our lives in light of Moltmann’s open social Trinity. As imago Trinitatis, we participate in God’s mission as open fellowship and friendship with others in the world. This fellowship is an ecstatic and passionate fellowship toward one another and mutual participation in one another. Thus, if others are suffering in the world, it is very natural for the church to get involved in their issues of suffering, as long as it is united with the triune God who has engaged with suffering in the world. In missional terms, this engagement with those who suffer is due not to a sense of duty, but to open friendship with a God who loves suffering people. Therefore, with an eschatological hope for the coming of God, the missional church has to participate where there is suffering in the world, leaning on the power of the Spirit. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 245

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics I/1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Rev. and exp. ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. Collins, Paul M. West and East: Karl Barth, the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas. New York: Oxford, 2001. Ekka, Jhakmak Neeraj. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross and Its Relevance for Contextual Theology in South Asia.” Ph.D. diss., Luther Seminary, 2005. Grenz, Stanley J. Rediscovering the Triune God: the Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Min- neapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. McDougall, Joy Ann. “The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life.” The Journal of Religion 83-2 (2003), 177-203. Meeks, M. Douglas. “The Social Trinity and Property.” In God’s Life and Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 13-21. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Trans- lated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985. . The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. . The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Eccle- siology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. . The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of The Christian Theology. Translated by R. A. Wilson and Herbert J. Bowden. Min- neapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. . The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Mar- garet Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. . “The Triune God: Rich in Relationships.” Living Pulpit 8-2 (1999), 4-5. Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, and Jurgen Moltmann. Humanity in God. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1983. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Edrdmans, 1995. Otto, Randall E. “The Abuse of the Perichoresis in Recent Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2001), 366-84. Roxburgh, Alan J. Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Bakers, 2011. Simpson, Gary. “No Trinity, No Mission: The Apostolic Difference of Revisioning Trinity.” Word & World 15-3 (1998), 264-71. Shin, Ok-Su. “Molteumanui sahoejeok samwiilcheron-bipanjeok daehwareul jungsimeuro” 246 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 46 No. 3

[A Study on the Social Trinity in J. Moltmann - focused on its Critical Dialogue]. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 30 (2007), 203-40 (in Korean). Thomas, Norman E., ed. Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995. Van Gelder, Craig, and Dwight J. Zscheile. The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. A Missional Perspective of Moltmann’s Trinity for the Suffering World 247

한글초록

고통 받는 세상을 위한 몰트만의 삼위일체에 관한 하나의 선교적(missional) 관점

이병옥 한일장신대학교 강사, 선교학

미국에서 진행중인 선교적 교회 담론은 바르트의 삼위일체의 이해에 대한 강력한 영향아래서 뉴비긴의 삼위일체적 선교론에 그 뿌리를 두고 있다. 특히, 하나님의 주권 을 강조하는 바르트의 삼위일체론은 교회가 아니라 하나님께서 선교의 주체가 되신다 는 새로운 선교에 대한 이해를 가져왔다. 이러한 배경 속에서, 선교적 교회 담론은 교 회가 세상 가운데서 하나님의 선교에 참여할 수 있도록 도움을 주어왔다. 반면에, 세상 에 대한 강조에도 불구하고, 이 담론은 사람들의 고통에 대해서는 관심을 갖지 않았다. 이 담론은 또한 뉴비긴이 부분적으로 세상 안에 있는 고통의 문제를 삼위일체적 선교 의 관점에서 다루었다는 사실을 보지 못했다. 몰트만의 관점에서 보면, 이것은 근본적 으로 선교적 교회 담론 안에 있는 삼위일체에 관한 논의들이 고통의 문제와는 관계없 기 때문이다. 반대로, 몰트만은 삼위간의 상호공통의 관계들의 초점을 맞춘 열린 사회 적 삼위일체론을 발전시킨다. 이 관계들은 인간과 세상에까지 열려있다. 이러한 가운 데, 몰트만은 하나님과 인류의 고통을 삼위일체적 측면에서 접근한다. 이 논문은 선교적 교회 담론이 세상의 고통에 관여하는데 풍부해질 수 있도록 하 기 위하여 주로 몰트만의 삼위일체론을 탐구한다. 이 논문은 먼저 선교적 교회 담론과 의 관계 속에서 바르트의 삼위일체론과 뉴비긴의 삼위일체적 선교학의 유산들을 간단 하게 살펴본다. 이어서, 논의는 몰트만의 삼위일체와 고통에 대한 이해로 넘어간다. 그 논의 가운데, 열린 사회적 삼위일체, 몰트만의 삼위일체론의 토대로서 페리코레시스 (perichoresis), 역사에 대한 종말론적 이해, 고통 받는 하나님으로서 삼위일체 하나님, 사랑과 고통의 관계를 하위주제들로 다룰 것이다. 몰트만의 삼위일체론에 대한 일반적 인 신학적 비판들을 검토한 후에, 결론에서 몰트만의 삼위일체론이 선교적 교회차원에 서 한국과 미국에 있는 교회들에게 줄 수 몇 가지 함의들을 제시한다. 결론적으로, 몰 트만의 삼위일체론은 삼위일체적 선교의 관점에서 선교적 교회 담론이 세상의 고통의 문제를 다룰 수 있도록 도울 수 있을 것이다.

주제어

선교적 교회 담론, 뉴비긴, 몰트만, 열린 사회적 삼위일체, 고통

Date submitted: June 30, 2014; date evaluated: August 1, 2014; date confirmed: August 5, 2014.