Making Sense of Nonsense: the Concept of the Trinity at the End of the 20Th Century
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1+1+1=1: Making Sense of Nonsense: The Concept of the Trinity at the End of the 20th Century Jennifer Anne Herrick Introduction Bernard Lonergan has commented wryly of trinitarian theology that ‘The Trinity is a matter of five notions or properties, four relations, three persons, two processions, one substance or nature, and no understanding’.1 This quip is aimed at Thomas Aquinas, who in Part One of the Summa Theologica spoke of the One God in terms of two processions, three persons, four relations and five notions. Douglas Ottati has similarly commented: ‘More than a few people regard trinitarian doctrine as the quintessential statement of Christian nonsense: 1+1+1=1’.2 Elizabeth Johnson agrees, arguing that in the West the triune symbol has been neglected, literalised and treated as a curiosity. She observes that the doctrine has become unintelligible and religiously irrelevant on a wide scale.3 At the end of the twentieth century, the problem for trinitarianism was to overcome this general perception of unintelligibility and irrelevance. The problem has concerned philosophers of religion and theologians alike. The late Catherine Mowry LaCugna has noted that philosophers have long pursued the question of the intelligibility and coherence of the Trinity and that theologians stand to learn from the philosophical exploration. At the same time, philosophers might profit from hearing a theological perspective.4 Over the past decade or so, many academic theologians have come to find the traditional language used of the Christian trinitarian God to be problematic. This 1 Gerald O’Collins, ‘The Holy Trinity: The State of the Questions’ in Stephen T Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins (eds) The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford, 1999) 2. 2 Douglas Ottati, ‘Being Trinitarian: The Shape of Saving Faith’, The Christian Century 112:32, 1995, 1044. 3 Elizabeth Johnson, ‘Let the Symbol Sing Again’, Theology Today 54:3, 1997, 299. 4 Catherine Mowry LaCugna, ‘Philosophers and Theologians on the Trinity’, Modern Theology 2:3, 1986, 169. 269 On a Panegyrical Note paper highlights the issues that have arisen around this concept and the efforts that have been made in recent postmodern thought to present it in more intelligible terms. In late twentieth century thought, the problem of the intelligibility of trinitarianism has been raised particularly within the contemporary theological arena of postmodern Western Christianity, particularly in the Euro-American and Australian scene. But it is also a problem that relates to the spread of the Latin Western tradition of Christianity. This spread remains an aspect of the globalisation and westernisation of the world, which involves forms of cultural, religious and linguistic colonisation. Alister McGrath has pointed out that the spread of the Latin Western tradition of Christianity is a religious colonisation enabled by the fact that systematic theology has generally been developed in a Western context. This religious colonisation is reinforced by a linguistic one, English being the preferred language of the global Christian community, just as in the world of business and scholarship.5 Of the link between religion and language, McGrath comments that it is ‘of no small importance that the two leading English-speaking nations have shown a strong commitment to Christian mission and education’.6 Miroslav Volf observes a significant aspect of this process: ‘while established and “mainstream” denominations appear to be puzzled and foundering, the “free churches” on many continents are flourishing’.7 These difficulties on the part of established Western traditions have stemmed in part from a loss of intelligibility of the traditional language used to express that which is central to Christianity: that God is triune. The free churches are yet to show a concern for such problems. This loss of intelligibility has to do with the categories of thought used to conceptualise the Trinity, which include the legacy of Greek metaphysical, German idealist and modern individualist philosophies. These are no longer considered 5 Alister E McGrath, The Future of Christianity (Oxford, 2002) 27. 6 Ibid, 91. 7 John W Stewart, ‘The Shape of the Church: Congregational and Trinitarian’, Christian Century 115:16, 1998, 541. See Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church in the Image of the Trinity, ed Alan G Padgett (Grand Rapids, 1998) 11ff. 270 Jennifer Anne Herrick adequate to the task – in particular, the concept of person, understood in terms of substance, subject or individual, respectively. Postmodern philosophers have highlighted the dangers of both tritheistic or modalistic interpretation in trinitarian thought, which not only endanger the intelligibility of the concept, but endanger that which distinguishes Christianity theologically. In response, postmodernist theologians have begun to develop more personalist and relationist philosophical schema for its understanding. The Importance of the Problem of Intelligibility A significant number of Christian authors, writing in the last twenty years or so, have suggested that the language of Christian trinitarian doctrine is unintelligible in the contemporary world. Walter Kasper acknowledges that this situation ‘poses a powerful challenge to theologians’.8 But one might note, with Edward Oakes, a shift in the role of the theologian in this debate. In the early church most theologians were bishops, in the Middle Ages, monks, and in modern times, professors. This shift reflects a correlated shift from conciliar statement to prayer to specialisation and technicality. The effect of this is that today, theology ‘becomes accessible to non- professionals’.9 The importance of this, as Johnson notes, is that the Trinity ‘continues to be found in the appendix of the personal catechism of many minds and hearts’.10 Over the last decades, the aim of much trinitarian writing has been to shift this concept from the appendix to the central body of Christian teaching and belief. This strategy is a function of a perceived need to contextualise Christianity in a religiously pluralistic, postmodern age. Jürgen Moltmann is representative of the view that ‘dialogue with other religions is not 8 Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, trans Matthew J O’Connell (London, 1984) 263. 9 Edward Oakes, Review of Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P Gavin (eds) Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives and Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, America 167:12, 1992, 306. 10 Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York, 1993) 192. 271 On a Panegyrical Note helped if Christians relativize that which is distinctively Christian’.11 Joseph Bracken has spoken of the continued value of the doctrine of the Trinity ‘in an age of increasing scepticism about the possibility of objective truth not only in theology but in any other area of public life’.12 Indeed Bracken has highlighted that ‘the doctrine of the Trinity, with its dual emphasis on oneness and threeness as equally ultimate, contains unexpected and hitherto unexplored resources for dealing with the problems, and possibilities, of contemporary pluralism’.13 In a pluralist Western society, if the Christian faith is to assert that it is unique and relevant, both anthropologically and soteriologically, it must do so in clear, intelligible, language. It is arguable, then, that Christians need first to attend to their own intra-religious dialogue before engaging meaningfully in inter- religious dialogue. Thomas Marsh emphasises that ‘it cannot be a matter of indifference, then, how this understanding is in practice perceived and presented’.14 Theological inconsistencies and unintelligibilities need to be addressed so that Western Christians can better understand the central tenets of their religion and meaningful dialogue can occur with other religions. The importance of this is that the question of how God is viewed is related to that of how humanity views itself. It is a two-way street, as Johnson remarks: the way a community shapes its language about God implicitly represents what it takes to be the highest good, the profoundest truth. This language in turn shapes the identity and praxis of the community.15 The doctrine of the Trinity has both reflected and dictated how Christians view not merely God but also themselves and others. 11 Jürgen Moltmann, History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology, trans John Bowden (London, 1991) xi. Moltmann refers here to J Hick and P Knitter (eds) The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, 1987). 12 Joseph Bracken, Review of Kevin J Vanhoozer (ed) The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, Theology Today 54:3, 1997, 400. 13 Ibid. 14 Thomas Marsh, The Triune God: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Study (Mystic, 1994) 163. 15 Johnson, She Who Is, 3-4. 272 Jennifer Anne Herrick LaCugna emphasises that ‘the central theme of all trinitarian theology is relationship’.16 To the extent that Christians have taken seriously the ‘three in one’, their view of society, both secular and religious, has been communitarian. By contrast, to the extent that Christians have rested with pre-trinitarian or non-trinitarian monotheism, then hierarchical and patriarchal views of society and church have ensued. The question of the Trinity affects not only their view of themselves but their view of, and dialogue with,