MATER DEI INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION A College of Dublin City University School of Theology SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY AND TRINITY IN THE THEOLOGY OF DAVID COFFEY Declan J. O’Byrne (STL) Supervisor: Dr Dermot A. Lane Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy September, 2009 I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. Signed: ID No.: Date: Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Ray Moloney SJ at the Milltown Insti­ tute of Philosophy and Theology for first encouraging me to work on the theology of David Coffey. This work would not have been possible without the encouragement, guidance and generous patience of my supervisor Dermot A. Lane. His insights were invalu­ able in finding a helpful focus for the current work. I owe him great gratitude. I thank all the staff of the Mater Dei Institute of Education for their en­ couragement, and to Annabella Stover at Registry for all her practical assistance. Thanks too to the library staff of the Institute for their all their help in tracking down materials. I particularly acknowledge the kind assistance of the Institute in fa­ cilitating a trip to the United States to meet with and interview David Coffey. To David Coffey himself I express my gratitude for his encouragement, and for taking time to work through some important issues with me, both in person and by email. I thank him too for providing such an interesting subject matter for study, and look forward to continuing to explore his important contributions. In the latter stages of this work I was fortunate to have some very qualified people cast their eyes over all or part of this humble offering: Professor Breandân Leahy in Maynooth, Dr Callan Slipper in England and my mother Maire O’Byme MA. All of their suggestions were gratefully received. I owe my deepest gratitude to my parents and family, to all of Piero’s group and to the “popi” for everything. Table of Contents Introduction p. 1 1. Beyond the Revival in Trinitarian Theology p. 1 (a) Introducing David Coffey p. 4 (b) Coffey and Trinitarian Theology p. 6 2. General Themes p. 10 (a) The Plausibility of Trinitarian Theology p. 10 (b) The Status of the “Immanent Trinity” p. 16 (c) Some Applications p. 21 3. The Structure of the Work p-21 1. The Anointing of Jesus as “Starting Point” p. 24 1. Introduction p. 24 2. Preliminary Clarifications p. 26 3. Spirit and Logos Christology p. 30 (a) Spirit and Logos Christology in Historical Context p. 32 (b) Spirit and/or Logos Christology p. 41 4. The Grace of Christ p. 52 (a) Grace and Christ in the Western Tradition p. 52 (b) Coffey’s Proposal: the Priority of Sanctification p. 56 5. Conclusion 2. The “Returning” Love of Jesus p. 60 1. Introduction p. 60 2. Divine Son “in Humanity” and “Incarnation” of the Holy Spirit p. 64 3. The Problem of the “Wedge” p. 75 (a) Diagnosing the Problem p. 76 (b) Addressing the Problem p. 78 (c) Patristic Precedents? p. 84 4. Concerns about Coffey’s Christology p. 90 5. Conclusion: Different Questions, Different Answers p. 98 3. Towards an Ascending Mutual Love Pneumatology p. 102 1. Introduction p. 102 2. The Emergence of a “Common Love” Emphasis p. 105 3. Ascending and Descending Theologies p. 109 4. Descending Theology and the “Common Love” Approach p. 114 5. Descending Theology Addresses the Distinction of Persons p. 118 6. The Holy Spirit as Love After Augustine p. 121 7. The Filioque between “Essentialism” and “Personalism” p. 126 8. Conclusion: Mutual Love Pneumatology Rooted in the Economy p. 133 4. From Spirit Christology to Trinitarian Theology p. 137 1. Introduction p. 137 2. Some Features of the “Classical” Approach p. 138 3. “New” Approaches p. 147 (a) Rahner’s Axiom P- 148 (b) Coffey’s Reformulation of Rahner’s Axiom p. 152 4. Relativising the Psychological Analogy p. 162 5. Conclusion p- 166 5. The Two-Model Approach to the Trinity p. 168 1. Introduction p. 168 2. Areas of Tension p. 171 (a) The Taxis p. 171 (b) The Filioque p. 177 (c) The Question p. 178 3. Coffey’s Solution: Two Models of the Trinity p. 180 (a) Two Schemas of the Biblical Trinity p. 180 (b) Two Models of the “Immanent” Trinity p. 183 (c) Applying the Two-Model Approach p. 184 (d) From Self-Love to Mutual Love p. 186 4. The Articulation of the Two Models p. 191 5. Towards a Trinitarian Soteriology p. 194 Conclusions p. 201 1. Coffey’s Spirit Christology p. 201 2. From Spirit Christology to Trinity p. 212 3. Upwards and Onwards p. 221 Bibliography p. 224 Spirit Christology and Trinity in the Theology of David Coffey Declan O’Byrne ABSTRACT Spirit Christology has emerged as an important focus in recent theology. It of­ fers new perspectives on christology and pneumatology. Can these new perspect­ ives lead to advances in trinitarian theology itself? The classical theologies of both East and West tended to express great reserve about moving too easily from the economy of salvation to ideas about God in se. In the 20th century, Karl Rahner’s axiom that the “economic” Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity and vice versa helped lead to a significant erosion of this reserve, though not without controversy. Coffey (bom 1934) contributes significantly to reflection on this nexus of questions. He explores the relation of Spirit Christology to Logos Christology, ar­ guing that the former need not supplant the latter. He reformulates Rahner’s axiom, suggesting ways of overcoming some of its ambiguities. He shows that Spirit Chris­ tology offers an “ascending” basis for a “mutual love” pneumatology, in the service of a renewed trinitarian theology. This dissertation presents an analysis of Coffey’s achievement in its various contexts, historical and contemporary. It highlights his methodological balance. It argues that his theology represents an important development within the tradition, casting new light on issues of pressing contemporary interest. Introduction David Coffey argues that a properly formulated Spirit Christology demands a reformulation of trinitarian theology itself. The current work examines this argu­ ment. The purpose of this introduction is threefold: to offer a brief biographical sketch of David Coffey with a comment on how his work in trinitarian theology fits in with his other theological interests; to alert the reader to some themes and ques­ tions that can help situate the current study in a wider context; and, finally, to identify the specific focus of the study, its thematic delimitation and some of its features. 1. Beyond the Revival in Trinitarian Theology Reports of a “revival” of interest in trinitarian theology in recent decades are widespread.1 Such reports are in striking contrast to the reports of an earlier genera­ tion telling of a perceived paucity and stagnation in this field of theological re­ search.2 Such reports of “revival” in trinitarian theology do not imply that prior to ' These reports are often backed up with a listing of important recent publications. Works that open with this observation include: Michael Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” Theological Studies 49, (1988): 461—476; Anne Hunt, The Trinity and the Paschal Mystery: A Development in Recent Catholic Theology, New Theology Series, vol. (Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), vii; Anne Hunt, “Psychological Analogy and Paschal Mystery in Trinitarian Theology,” Theological Studies 59, (1998), 197; Gerald O’Collins, “The Holy Trinity: The State of the Questions,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O ’Collins, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 1; Declan Marmion, “Trinity and Salvation: A Dialogue With Catherine Lacugna,” Irish Theological Quarterly 74, (2009), 115. 2' It is Karl Rahner who is most directly associated with the pessimistic assessment of the state of trinitarian theology. Rahner famously refers to most Christians as “mere monotheists,” by which he means that the understanding of God of most Christians in insufficiently “trinitarian.” See Karl Rahner, The Trinity, (New York: Bums & Oates, 1970), 10. Authors who appear to show sympathy with this observation include Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, (New York: Crossroad 1 this “revival” there was simply no interest in trinitarian theology. What they do im­ ply is that the trinitarian theology preceding the “revival” was somehow lacking, that somehow “pre-revival” trinitarian theology was somehow not “trinitarian” enough. A particular target of criticism was the Roman Catholic neo-scholastic trinit­ arian theology, often regarded as “arid,” “ahistorical,” “unscriptural,” “speculat­ ive,” “deductive,” and “abstract.”3 Further, it was often claimed that theology in the “pre-revival” period suffered fragmentation, and that trinitarian theology, nominally the heart of the theological endeavour, remained effectively isolated from questions relating to grace, to Christ, to pneumatology, to redemption, to ecclesiology etc.4 The theology of the Trinity struck many as a series of increasingly subtle defini­ tions and distinctions, apparently unconnected with the rest of the faith or the rest of theology.5 Publishing Company, 1986), 234; Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), 6; Catherine Mowry LaCugna, “The Trinitarian Mystery of God,” in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schiissler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992), 152; O’ColIins, “The Holy Trinity: The State of the Questions,” 1-3.